HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023/12/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Planning commission study session
December 20, 2023
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
The St. Louis Park planning commission is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005
Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public can attend the meeting in person.
Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Agenda
1.Zoning code update – expanding housing options
2.Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2023 annual report
Future scheduled meeting/event dates:
January 3, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting
January 17, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting
February 7, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting
February 14, 2024 - planning commission regular meeting
1
2
Planning commission: Study session
Meeting date: December 20, 2023
Agenda item: 1
1 Discussion of zoning code update – Expanding housing updates
Recommended Action: At the December 20th meeting, the planning commission will continue
its discussion of establishing/updating new residential zoning districts. No action requested at
this time; provide feedback to staff and consultants on the Zoning Code Update Phase 1 findings
thus far which includes establishing/updating proposed residential zoning districts.
Background: At its September 20th and November 1st meetings, the planning commission
considered two approaches to updating the city’s current residential zoning districts:
•Three districts: commercial node approach
•Four districts: corridor approach
Based on these two discussions, the planning commission expressed preference for the four-
district corridor approach that shows low-rise housing (1-3 stories) along transit-priority streets,
multi-modal streets, and neighborhood commercial corridors.
At the November 13th city council study session, an update on proposed changes to the
residential zoning districts and zoning map was presented to the council. The update was based
on the planning commission’s preferred four-district approach. The consensus of the council
was to support the proposed changes to the residential districts moving forward through
additional engagement and to be further developed.
Housing types survey: A Housing Types Survey was available this fall for the public to indicate
their support and preferences on the proposed housing types for the new neighborhood zoning
districts. The survey was open from September 8th through November 20th.
At the December 20th study session, staff and HKGi will present and facilitate discussion on the
following:
•Summary of the Housing Types Survey;
•Preferred approach for four neighborhood districts and the zoning map;
•Progress on the updating of lot size standards for the neighborhood districts; and
•Updating of the site/building dimensional standards (e.g. building heights, setbacks, lot
coverage, FAR) and adding any other standards that support the mix of housing types
proposed in each district.
Summary of the Housing Types Survey
Attached is a summary of community input received, which attracted responses from 317
people. The intent of the survey was to get an indication of people’s support and preferences
for the proposed range of housing types for the new neighborhood zoning districts, from two-
unit dwellings (duplexes/twinhomes) up to high-rises apartments/condos. This input also
includes preferences for appropriate locations for different housing types and housing features
(e.g. yard, type of entry, parking).
3
Study session of December 20, 2023 (Item No. 1)
Title: Discussion of zoning code update – Expanding housing updates
Four neighborhood districts and zoning map
Based on the preferred four-district approach, staff and HKGi have continued to draft the key
components of the proposed new neighborhood zoning districts, which are:
•N-1 low-density neighborhood
•N-2 low-rise neighborhood
•N-3 mid-rise neighborhood
•N-4 high-rise neighborhood
The district components include district purpose statements, a uses table, lot size standards,
site/building standards, and potentially other standards that support the mix of housing types
proposed in each district. The districts’ standards will be organized differently than today’s
zoning code. While today each district is 8-10 pages in length in the zoning code, the new
districts will be streamlined using tables and use specific standards in one section.
We have previously reviewed the proposed district purpose statements, the uses table, and lot
size standards for the three-district approach. We have updated these components for the
four-district approach, which are attached. The proposed zoning map is also attached.
Updating lot size/density standards
The attached draft lot standards table shows the minimum lot width and area standards by
housing type within each district. Smaller minimum lot widths and lot areas are proposed for
blocks with alleys for most housing types, recognizing that garage/driveway access from an
alley enables narrower lot widths. Currently the city has two minimum lot size standards for
single-unit detached houses: 9,000 square feet in the R-1 district and 7,200 square feet in the R-
2 and R-2 districts. Two-family uses are required to be at least 8,000 square feet in area in the
R-3 district. Based on analysis of existing lot sizes in the city and the discussion at the April 19,
2023, planning commission meeting, we are proposing a minimum lot width of 40 feet and lot
area of 4,800 square feet for single-unit detached houses located on blocks with alleys. For
blocks without alleys, the minimums are lot width of 50 feet and lot area of 6,000 square feet.
The proposed lot widths and areas for the new housing types are based on HKGi’s experience
with other cities’ zoning codes and analysis of form-based/hybrid codes.
A discussion topic for the study session is the impact of updating lot standards on densities set
in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The draft lot standards table includes calculated
densities. Also attached is a table that pulls together all of the current zoning districts’
standards related to density and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan established densities for the
residential land use categories. The proposed lot size standards will result in densities that may
require amending the densities in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
4
Study session of December 20, 2023 (Item No. 1)
Title: Discussion of zoning code update – Expanding housing updates
Site and building standards
Attached is a Potential Site & Building Standards table. Potential neighborhood districts’ site
and building standards could include:
•Building height maximum
•Front yard setback minimum
•Side yard setback minimum
•Rear yard setback minimum
•Distance between buildings minimum
•Perimeter setback minimum
•Open lot area / DORA minimum
•Ground FAR / building coverage maximum
•Impervious surface coverage maximum
•FAR (multiple floors) maximum
The table is blank because we first want to have the planning commission discuss any concerns
with proposed mix of housing types in the four districts and what types of standards are
needed to ensure compatible development of different housing types. One of the goals of the
new neighborhood districts is to also simplify standards where possible. We will discuss any
issues and opportunities related to the current site and building standards that will help with
establishing simpler standards for the new neighborhood districts.
Additional site and building standards for buffering between different housing types will also be
discussed at the meeting, such as:
•Larger setbacks, typically side yard
•Upper floor stepbacks
•Screening
Next steps: The consultants and staff will continue to draft the standards for the new
neighborhood districts. Proposed site and building dimensional standards will be brought to the
planning commission and city council for feedback.
Attachments:
•Housing Types Survey – Summary of Community Input
•Draft neighborhood districts’ names and purpose statements
•Draft uses table
•Draft lot size standards table
•Draft zoning map
•Summary of current density standards – zoning and 2040 Comprehensive Plan
•Potential site and building standards (table) for discussion
Prepared by: Jeff Miller, HKGi
Reviewed by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator
Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
5
Detached
Courtyard
Cottages/
Bungalows
Two-Unit
Dwellings
(Duplexes/
Twinhomes)
Townhouses/
Row Houses
Three and
Four Unit
Dwellings
Apartments/
Condos
(Low-Rise)
Apartments/
Condos
(Mid-Rise)
Apartments/
Condos
(High-Rise)
Average Support for Each Housing Type
HOUSING TYPES PREFERENCES
*NOTE: This data is tabulated directly from the survey participants’ responses. Since this survey is not based on a random sample, the sample size is
small, and not every participant answered every question, it is not a statistically significant survey. However, the information can be utilized as a basis
to inform decision makers of the general level of support and perspectives of the presented housing types as it pertains to St. Louis Park. Participants’
responses have been summarized for usability, and raw data is available upon request.
Housing Types Survey
Summary of Community Input
Survey was open from September 8th through November 20th,
with a total of 317 respondents.
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
(1 = Don’t Support and 5 = High Support)
Housing TypesLevel of Support3.58 3.51 3.33
2.96 2.79 2.50
2.14
Highlighted Comments:
•More affordable housing is
desperately needed in St. Louis
Park.
•We need to eliminate single
family zoning. While not a perfect
solution, it is an important step to
solving affordable housing
•Think of housing for elders.
•Keep single family home
neighborhoods.
•I support all of the above, we
need all sorts of housing in order
to meet the demand.
•Density is good. Keep up the good
work.
Housing Types Ranked and Average Score
(1 = Most Interested and 7 = Least Interested))Highlighted Comments:
•I would like options that
would give people a pathway
to home ownership.
•Please say no to NIMBYism!
We NEED housing, and lots!
•Need more decent
apartments that aren’t
“luxury”.
•We do not need more multi
unit large complexes
•We need a lot more housing
that isn’t single family
housing.
•We need more rental options
that have 2+ bedrooms!!!Average Score/RankingHousing Types
Two-Unit
Dwellings
(Duplexes/
Twinhomes)
Detached
Courtyard
Cottages/
Bungalows
Three and
Four Unit
Dwellings
Townhouses/
Row Houses
Apartments/
Condos
(Low-Rise)
Apartments/
Condos
(Mid-Rise)
Apartments/
Condos
(High-Rise)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2.50 2.70 3.29 3.42
4.49
5.29
6.30
Don’t
Support
High
Support
Low
Rank
High Rank
6
Appropriate Locations for Each Scale of Housing
(Numbers in each doughnut pie chart below indicate number of votes received on the survey)
Highlighted Comments:
• Townhomes/row houses: along main thoroughfares like Cedar Lake Road, Excelsior Blvd and Mtka Blvd. Mid/
high rise apartments: near enough to existing transit plans to allow for commuters to have an easier experience
in winter. Build in green spaces and first level commercial spaces for small groceries/marts, small pharmacies,
essentials etc.
• Anywhere it fits - we need it.
• Do not build. We need single family housing for safe neighborhoods and community. Stop with the rentals!
• YIMBY. Let them build it here and live here!
• No more apartment complexes in SLP please.
• Next to the highway 394.
• If and only if you can find any open land in SLP I may be in favor of multi family housing. Single family home
ownership preferred.
• Not backing up to single family areas. Are developers actually considering condos again - heard they are not
interested in building them and financing is scarce or non existent. Heard that over 50% of SLP housing is now
rentals.
• I don’t like any multi unit homes. We have enough. We need single family homes for generational wealth
development
Other
Near Employment Near Transit Near Shopping
Areas
Near Schools Near Community
Parks
Within Existing
Neighborhoods
House Low-Rise Mid-Rise High-Rise
Housing Features Liked (Data in # of Votes Recieved)
18
26
36
42
91.5
116.7
128
121
94.5
157
206
204
98
145.7
180
170
142
121.7
71
49
163
126.3
82
64
165.593.7
33
23
LOCATION PREFERENCES
7
Housing Features Liked (Data in # of Votes Recieved)
Highlighted Comments:
• Two Unit: Can blend in well with the
neighborhood.
• Three or Four Unit: These can be great
housing options, but can be challenging
to fit within existing neighborhoods.
• Cottages: Innovative! I could totally
see SLP with more of these! Great for
community.
• Townhouses: More opportunities
for families and affordable home
ownership - and energy efficiency.
• Apartments (Low-Rise): Good use
of the land, but we lack affordable
apartments.
• Apartments (Mid-Rise): Community
builds in dense living areas, especially if
walkable.
• Apartments (High Rise): Appreciate the
density! But they all look the same and
very industrial/factory produced.
HOUSING FEATURES PREFERENCES
Housing Features Disliked (Data in # of Votes Recieved)
Highlighted Comments:
• Two Unit: These types of homes are often turned
into rental and not cared for. Also, the increase the
house footprint often greatly decreases the green
space within a neighborhood/city.
• Three or Four Unit: The more rental units the less
cared for the house, yard and neighborhood are.
• Cottages: Has to be done right with rules. Hard to
live too close to people.
• Townhouses: Association fees, management
disputes, lack of pride of ownership (it’s basically
like renting because of limitations in what
owners can do, and lack of truly equal shared
responsibility/caring about the property)
• Apartments (Low-Rise): I prefer low rise to mid/
high rise structures. Concerns about parking/
traffic.
• Apartments (Mid-Rise): I dislike this type of
apartment in SLP - they seem to be geared toward
high income individuals and don’t seem to foster a
sense of community.
• Apartments (High Rise): Fine for downtown
Minneapolis, but too large for St. Louis Park.
Doesn’t fit into my idea of St. Louis Park’s “small”
town/cozy aesthetic.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
House Low-Rise Mid-Rise High-Rise
House Low-Rise Mid-Rise High-Rise
0 100 200 300 400 500
Yard
Type of
Entryway
Privacy
Parking
Other
Neighborhood
Housing Style
Height
Yard
Type of
Entryway
Size of
Housing Unit
Privacy
Parking
Other
Neighborhood
Housing Style
Height
Number of Votes
Number of Votes
141.5 57.3 16 14
106.5 75.3 46 32
152 101.3 54 41
100.5 39 22 18
79 52 39 28
21 19 20 17
132.5 81.7 51 33
160 106.3 70 50
94.5 78 44 32
41 80.7 117 130
30 46.7 86 96
41 76.3 150 176
77 102 135 138
86 97.3 135 153
23 19.742 34
45.5 66.7 112 139
53 84.7 134 166
24 49.7 144 180
Size of
Housing Unit
8
Highlighted Comments:
• Any housing type built in the city should be near community parks, transit and schools so that
it is useful for families. 2-4 unit homes and small apartment buildings should be encouraged
within existing single-family neighborhoods.
• Bring back neighborhoods with homes and trees and green space. The 4 unit complexes near
businesses and walkable areas. Bring back a sense of community PLEASE!
• Build single family homes. Stop building all these apartments along the metro train. There is
no green space left in the city. Very disappointing.
• Existing neighborhoods should have more options. My house could easily become a duplex
but it is prohibited which is ridiculous.
• LESS high rise and apartments - - I feel like they are taking over some areas/neighborhoods.
Current Residence Type of Survey Participants
HOUSING TYPES EXAMPLES
Detached Courtyard Cottage/
Bungalows
Two-Unit Dwellings High Rise ApartmentsMid Rise Apartments
House
High RiseMid Rise
Single-Unit Detached Home
Apartments/Condos
Townhouses/Row Houses
Other
Two-Unit Dwelling (Duplex/Twinhome)
Three and Four Unit Dwelling
83%
11%
2%2%1%1%
Three and Four Unit Dwellings Townhouses/Row Houses Low Rise Apartments
Low Rise
9
SURVEY PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS
Race or Ethnicity (272 Responses)Gender (284 Responses)
Age Range (290 Responses)
Housing Occupancy Status (301 Responses)Household Size (299 Responses)
White
African American
or Black
Count of Other
(Not Specific)
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native American
82%
6%
5%
3%2%2%
64%32%
Female (182)Male (90)
Nonbinary (10)Self-Describe (N/A) (2)3.5%0.7%
18-340 35-49 50-64 65 and Over Prefer not to answer
20
40
60
80
100
52
103
84
42 9
Own Rent Unhoused
0
50
100
150
200
250 89%
11%0.3%54%
18%25%
<1%
One
Individual
Two to Three
Individuals
Four to Six
Individuals
Six ++
10
DRAFT ST. LOUIS PARK DISTRICT PURPOSE STATEMENTS: NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
NR-1 Low Density Neighborhood
The NR-1 district is intended for lower intensity neighborhood areas dominated by
neighborhood streets and portions of multi-modal streets. This district allows a compatible mix
of housing types at the scale of a house, including individual houses on a mix of lot sizes, clusters
of smaller courtyard cottages/bungalows, and multi-unit houses with up to three units. This
district is appropriate for areas with a curvilinear street pattern or a street grid/traditional block
pattern, including blocks with and without alleys. This district is intended to enable upgrades to
existing housing as well as supporting new development or redevelopment that complements a
neighborhood’s existing street, block, lot, and housing patterns.
NR-2 Low Rise Neighborhood
The NR-2 district is intended for neighborhood areas primarily adjacent to transit-priority
streets, multi-modal streets, and neighborhood commercial nodes. This district allows a
compatible mix of house scale and low-rise housing types, including individual houses on a mix
of lot sizes, clusters of smaller courtyard cottages/bungalows, multi-unit houses, small
townhouse buildings, and low-rise apartment buildings. This district is appropriate for areas with
a street grid/traditional block pattern with alleys or larger blocks with internal street circulation.
This district is intended to enable upgrades to existing housing as well as supporting new
development or redevelopment that complements a neighborhood’s existing street, block, lot,
and housing patterns.
NR-3 Mid Rise Neighborhood
The NR-3 district is intended for neighborhood areas within or adjacent to employment areas,
commercial centers and corridors, large multi-use districts (e.g. Park Commons, West End,
Historic Walker Lake, Shelard Park), schools, LRT station areas, neighborhood commercial nodes,
community parks, and regional trails. This district allows a compatible mix of low- and mid-rise
housing types, including multi-unit houses, small and large townhouse buildings, and low- and
mid-rise apartment buildings. This district is appropriate for areas with a street grid/traditional
block pattern with alleys or larger blocks with internal street circulation. This district is intended
to enable upgrades to existing housing as well as supporting new development or
redevelopment that complements a neighborhood’s existing street, block, lot, and housing
patterns.
NR-4 High Rise Neighborhood
The NR-4 district is intended for neighborhood areas in high intensity districts, commercial
centers, LRT station areas, as well as adjacent to transit-priority streets, multi-modal streets,
community schools, and community parks. This district allows a mix of high-rise housing types,
including large townhouse buildings, mid- and high-rise apartment buildings, and mixed-use
apartment buildings. This district is appropriate for areas with larger blocks with internal street
circulation or a street grid/traditional block pattern, including blocks with and without alleys.
This district is intended to enable upgrades to existing housing as well as supporting new
development or redevelopment that complements a neighborhood’s existing street, block, lot,
and housing patterns.
11
Use Type N-1 N-2 N-3 N-4
Residential
Household Living
Dwelling, single-unit detached X X
Dwelling, two-unit (duplex)X X
Dwelling, attached two-unit (twinhome)X X
Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows X X X
Dwelling, three-unit X X X
Dwelling, four-unit X X
Dwelling, townhouse (small)X X
Dwelling, apartment (low-rise)X X
Dwelling, townhouses (large)X X
Dwelling, apartment (mid-rise)X X X
Dwelling, mixed use apartment (mid-rise)X X X
Dwelling, apartment (high-rise)X X
Dwelling, mixed use apartment (high-rise)X X
Manufactured home park X X X X
Dwelling, existing single-unit detached X X X X
Group Living
State-licensed residential facility X X X X
Roominghouse X X X
Group home/nonstatutory X X X X
Nursing home X X X
Lodging
Bed and breakfast establishments X X
Hostel X X X
Public, Social, & Institutional
Community centers X X X X
Educational (academic) facilities with 20 or fewer students X X X X
Educational (academic) facilities with more than 20 students X X X X
Libraries X X X X
Parks and open spaces X X X X
Parks/recreation X X X X
Police/fire station X X X X
Religious institutions X X X X
Commercial Uses
Personal Services and Business
Adult day care X X X
Group day care/nursery school X X X X
Office less than 2,500 square feet X X X
Office in existence or having received preliminary office
development approval by March 1, 1999 X X
Recreation
Country clubs X
Golf courses X
Residential
12
Healthcare
Hospital X X
Transportation and Utilities
Communication towers that are 45 feet or less in height X X X X
Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not
to exceed 70 feet in height X X X X
Public service structures X X X X
Transit stations X X X
13
District Housing Type
Lot width min.
with alley (ft)
Lot width min.
w/o alley (ft)
Lot area min.
with alley (sq ft)
Lot area min.
w/o alley (sq ft)
Calculate
d lot
depth (ft.)
Calculated Density
Estimated units
per acre based on
lot size with alley
Calculated Density
Estimated units per
acre based on lot
size without alley
Dwelling, single-unit 40 50 4,800 6,000 120 9.1 7.3
Dwelling, two-unit (duplex)40 50 4,800 6,000 120 18.2 14.5
N-1 Dwelling, attached two-unit (twinhomes)35 [70]45 [90]4,400 [8,800]5,600 [11,200]130 19.8 15.6
Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows 100 110 13,000 14,300 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
Dwelling, three-unit 60 70 7,800 9,100 130 16.8 14.4
Dwelling, single-unit 40 50 4,800 6,000 120 9.1 7.3
Dwelling, two-unit (duplex)40 50 4,800 6,000 120 18.2 14.5
Dwelling, attached two-unit (twinhomes)35 [70]45 [90]4,400 [8,800]5,600 [11,200]130 19.8 15.6
N-2 Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalows 100 110 13,000 14,300 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
Dwelling, three-unit 60 70 7,800 9,100 130 16.8 14.4
Dwelling, four-unit 60 70 7,800 9,100 130 22.3 19.1
Dwelling, townhouse (small)20 20 2,600 2,600 130 16.8 16.8
Dwelling, apartment (low-rise)60 70 7,800 9,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
Dwelling, four-unit 60 70 7,800 9,100 130 22.3 19.1
Dwelling, townhouse (small)20 20 2,600 2,600 130 16.8 16.8
N-3 Dwelling, apartment (low-rise)60 70 7,800 9,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
Dwelling, townhouse (large)20 20 2,600 2,600 130 16.8 16.8
Dwelling, apartment (mid-rise)60 70 7,800 9,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
Dwelling, townhouse (large)20 20 2,600 2,600 130 16.8 16.8
N-4 Dwelling, apartment (mid-rise)60 70 7,800 9,100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
Dwelling, apartment (high-rise)60 70 7800 9100 130 varies by # of units varies by # of units
DRAFT LOT SIZE STANDARDS DECEMBER 2023
14
169
169
169
7
394
394
100
100
25
5
3
100
3
7
5
5
17LOUISIANA AVE SCEDAR L
A
K
E
R
D QUENTIN AVE SPARKDAL
E
D
R
C O U N T Y R O A D 2 5HIGHWAY 100 SMINNETONKA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BLVDNBH W Y 1 0 0 S T O EB I394
ALABAMA AVE SWAYZATA BLVD
LAKE ST
WDAKOTA AVE S36TH ST W TEXAS AVE S26TH ST W
28TH ST W
WA LKER ST FRANCEAVESHoly Family
Academy
Benilde-St.
Margaret's
Susan Lindgren
Elementary
School
St. Louis
Park High
School
Park Spanish
Immersion
Elementary School
Aquila
Elementary
School
Torah Academy
St Louis Park
Middle School
New Horizon
Academy
Yeshiva of
Minneapolis
Peter Hobart
Primary Center
Bais Yaakov
High School
Schools
Parks
Street Type
Multi-modal Street
Neighborhood Street
Transit-Priority Street
Vehicular Street
Proposed Zoning
N-1 Neighborhood District
N-2 Neighborhood District
N-3 Neighborhood District
N-4 Neighborhood District
Non-Residential Zoning Districts
2017 City of St. Louis Park
Community Development
Legend
Proposed Residential Zoning Districts Map
0 0.25 0.5 Miles
15
St. Louis Park Zoning Code Current Density Standards R‐1 R‐2 R‐3 R‐4 R‐C C‐1 C‐2 MX‐1 MX‐2 Lot area min 9,000 sq ft 7,200 sq ft 7,200 sq ft (for single‐family house) 8,000 sq ft (for two‐family house) 8,000 sq ft 15,000 sq ft Lot width min 75 ft 60 ft 60 ft (1‐family) 60 ft (2‐family) 60 ft 80 ft Dwelling units per acre max 11 30 50 30 (CUP) 50 (CUP) 50 30 (CUP) Dwelling units per lot max 8 (PC) 8 (PC) 8 (PC) FAR max 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.7 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.5 Ground FAR max0.35 0.25 Building height max 3 stories or 30 ft 3 stories or 30 ft 3 stories or 35 ft 4 stories or 45 ft 6 stories or 75 ft 3 stories or 35 ft 6 stories or 75 ft 6 stories or 75 ft 3 stories Dwelling units per building max 4 (cluster) 4 (cluster) 4 (cluster)Open lot area / DORA 400 sq ft; 12% (cluster) 400 sq ft; 12% (cluster) 400 sq ft; 12% (cluster) 12% 12% 2040 Comp Plan density (du/acre) RL Low Density Residential: 3‐10 RL Low Density Residential: 3‐10 RL Low Density Residential: 3‐10 RM Medium Density Residential: 6‐30 RH High Density Residential: 30‐75 COM: 20‐50 COM: 20‐50 COM: 20‐75 COM: 20‐75 16
District Housing TypeBuilding Height Maximum (feet or stories)Front Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Rear Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Side Interior Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Side Corner Yard Setback Minimum (feet)Distance Between Buildings Minimum (feet)Perimeter Setback Minimum (feet)Open Lot Area / DORA MinimumGround FAR / Building Coverage MaximumImpervious Surface Coverage MaximumFAR MaximumDwelling, single‐unitDwelling, two‐unit (duplex)N‐1Dwelling, attached two‐unit (twinhomes)Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalowsDwelling, three‐unitDwelling, single‐unitDwelling, two‐unit (duplex)Dwelling, attached two‐unit (twinhomes)N‐2Dwelling, detached courtyard cottages/bungalowsDwelling, three‐unitDwelling, four‐unitDwelling, townhouse (small)Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)Dwelling, four‐unitDwelling, townhouse (small)N‐3Dwelling, apartment (low‐rise)Dwelling, townhouse (large)Dwelling, apartment (mid‐rise)Dwelling, townhouse (large)N‐4Dwelling, apartment (mid‐rise)Dwelling, apartment (high‐rise)354075More than 75POTENTIAL SITE & BUILDING STANDARDS NEW NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS17
18
Planning commission: Study session
Meeting date: December 20, 2023
Agenda item: 2
2 Planning commission and board of zoning appeals 2023 annual report
Recommended action: Review draft 2023 annual report, discuss progress on the 2023 work
plan, and provide feedback to city staff.
Summary: The planning commission and board of zoning appeals activities are summarized in
an annual report shared on the city website and given to the city council. The commission also
drafts a work plan for the upcoming year. Staff would like the planning commission to review
the draft annual report and reflect on the progress of the 2023 work plan.
Next steps: Staff will incorporate commissioners’ comments into the annual report, prepare a
draft 2024 work plan, and schedule this for further discussion or approval discussion in January.
Supporting documents: 2023 annual report (draft), including the 2023 work plan for reference
Prepared by: Harrison Maxwell, community development intern
Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Laura Chamberlain, senior panner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
19
1
Sculpture by Lori Greene, Mosaic on a Stick. Installed in 2023
Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals
2023 Annual Report
20
Commissioner/board members
Jim Beneke, school district representative
Mia Divecha, vice chair
Matt Eckholm
Katie Merten
Michael Salzer
Tom Weber, chair
Jan Youngquist
youth representative (vacancy)
Staff
Karen Barton, community development director
Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy CD director, planning commission liaison
Gary Morrison, zoning administrator, board of zoning appeals liaison
Laura Chamberlain, senior planner
Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Harrison Maxwell, community development intern
21
Executive summary
The planning commission is an eight-member advisory group of citizen volunteers appointed by
the city council. The 2023 members included Jim Beneke (school district representative), Mia
Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Michael Salzer, Tom Weber, and Jan Youngquist.
Commissioners pride themselves in their thoughtful consideration of applications.
Commissioners review detailed staff reports, conduct fair and civil public hearings, discuss
complex issues in study sessions and provide sound recommendations in a timely fashion.
2023 accomplishments
Key duties:
•Review development projects, planning studies and zoning amendments.
•Hold public hearings and make recommendations to the city council.
2023 activities:
•The commission reviewed 15 applications in 2023, including requests for two school
district facilities, a small business expansion, four new restaurants, and new uses in
the Shops at West End.
•Through several study sessions commissioners reviewed the city’s residential zoning
regulations to allow more housing types and housing scales, restructure five
residential districts into four neighborhood zoning districts, and related zoning map
and lot sizes changes.
•The commission recommended approval of comprehensive plan and zoning map
amendments related to Webster Park and a former highway wayside rest (Rock
Island).
•Commissioner reviewed and recommended several code revisions related to
floodplain, temporary uses, food service setbacks, architectural standards, electric
vehicle charging requirements, and uses allowed in mixed use zoning districts.
•Commissioners provided input on the city’s boards and commissions program.
Summary of 2024 work plan
Review development applications. Hold study sessions and hearings to make informed
recommendations to the city council.
Long range planning activities. Review community input and make recommendations on the
Arrive + Thrive planning study and its implementation.
Zoning code studies:
•Implement residential district reforms to allow more housing types in more places.
Racial equity and inclusion:
•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 childcare may be warranted.
•Participate in racial equity training.
•Hold a planning commission meeting at an off-site location to foster community
relationships.
22
Planning applications
Below is an overview of all the applications that were reviewed this year.
Application types and volume history
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
1
7
1 1 2 2 3 5 3 3
7
6
7
9 7
15
3
5
4
4 6
10
1
5
8
6
5
3
2
11
5 2
4 2 2
1
2
1
2
1
5
1
6
4
3
1
2
4
7
7
1
3
6
5
6
2
6
9
5
10
1
3
Comprehensive Plan Amendments Conditional Use Permits Planned Unit Developments
Rezoning Subdivisions/Plats Variances
Zoning Code Amendments
23
Conditional use permits (CUP)
St. Louis Park High School remodeling and site improvements
Description: St. Louis Park Public Schools has applied for a major amendment to a CUP to
undertake site and building improvements at St. Louis Park High School. The project includes a
new cafeteria and district-wide kitchen, the creation of a new link and indoor common space
from an existing outdoor courtyard, and upgrades to the media center. Site improvements
include adding bus drop off areas in the existing parking lot, reconfiguring and expanding the
north parking lot, installing synthetic turf track and field, and new landscaping.
St. Louis Park High School Data Center
Description: St. Louis Park Public Schools received approval for a CUP to construct a new data
center building at 6400 Walker St. The new building will be constructed southeast of the
football field and next to an existing maintenance building.
Family Orthodontics
Description: Foundation Architecture received approval for a CUP for a building expansion at
Family Orthodontics, located at 5804 Excelsior Blvd. The project will add a 1000-square-foot
addition and includes interior renovations to the existing building. Landscaping will also be
upgraded as part of the project.
Corsa (floodplain)
Description: Eric Ryan received a CUP for the Corsa apartment building at 3440 Beltline
Boulevard, on behalf of OPUS Development Company. The CUP allows for parking structures in
floodplains not elevated on fill.
Riser (floodplain)
Description: The Risor was granted by CUP alternative construction in the floodplain.
Park Place East subdivision and restaurants
Description: GW Properties submitted planning applications proposing to construct two new
buildings in the southeast corner of the parking lot at 5775 Wayzata Boulevard (Park Place
East). Four fast-casual restaurants would occupy the new buildings. No changes are proposed to
the existing office building.
Variances
Side yard variance at 7710 West 24th Street
Description: The city approved a variance to allow a 3.6-foot side yard instead of the required
5-foot side yard for a garage addition.
Amendment to rear yard variance at 8901 Stanlen Road
Description: The board approved an amendment to a rear yard variance to allow a basement
addition to be built under the first-floor addition approved by variance in 1981.
24
Plan unit developments (PUD)
PUD amendment – AC Marriott
Description: Christopher Flagg, on behalf of TPI Hospitality, was granted an amendment to the
PUD at the AC Marriott Hotel, located at 5075 Wayzata Boulevard. The amendment allowed a
reduction to the required parking from 1.5 spaces per hotel room to 1.02 spaces per hotel
room, or from 189 stalls to 129 stalls.
PUD amendment – Shops at West End
Description: The commission recommended approval of a PUD amendment that would allow
limited animal handling services in the Shops at West End PUD development.
Zoning code amendments
Miscellaneous zoning ordinance amendments
A collection of amendments to the zoning ordinance proposed by staff to make the code
consistent with current policy, to correct errors and to make clarifications. The updates
included:
•Revisions to the maximum number of vehicles parked on single-unit and two-unit
residential properties
•Updates to driveway standards for residential districts
•Extension of the temporary structure time limit
•Updates to exterior materials standards to allow painted surfaces to not change the
materials class
•Remove food service setback from residential properties condition
•Revise electric vehicle charging station requirements
•Allow open covered patios on non-residential properties to fill the windows with
transparent non-glass materials for up to 180 days a year
•Allow office uses as a permitted use in MX-1 without limitations
Floodplain ordinance amendment
Amendments to the previous floodplain regulations to clarify that all service utilities, including
mechanical and heating equipment must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection
elevation (RFPE), which is defined as two feet above the flood elevation. These amendments
were recommended for the city’s continued participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program Community Rating System (CRS).
Comprehensive plan amendments (CPA) and rezonings for park-related properties
In collaboration with the parks and recreation department, planning staff identified three areas
in the city where comprehensive plan amendments and rezoning would be appropriate for
publicly owned property:
•1639 Utah Drive – CPA from park and open space to low density residential. This small
parcel was the site of a decommissioned water well that had become city property
through tax forfeiture; the city has agreed to sell the property to the adjacent
homeowner, and the amendment was needed for use by the new owners.
25
•1608 Utah Avenue – rezoning from R-1 to POS
•2840 Toledo Avenue – CPA from right-of-way to park and open space and rezoning from
R-2 to POS. The property was sold to the city by MnDOT, which no longer needed the
right-of-way. A condition of the sale was that the property remain as open space.
•3301 Webster Avenue - CPA from right-of-way to park and open space and rezoning
from R-2 to POS. A portion of the property has been leased by the city as Webster Park,
and the remainder has been used as open space since the completion of the Highway
100 improvements.
Planning and zoning studies
Expanding neighborhood housing options: zoning updates
The effort to expand neighborhood housing options within the city focuses on a comprehensive
and in-depth update to the residential districts within the zoning ordinance, which haven’t been
substantially updated since 1992. This update includes a review of all housing types, where they
could be located within the city and dimensional standards (setbacks, height, etc.). This project
will have updates for all residential districts within the city.
Expanding neighborhood housing options is the result of the 2040 comprehensive plan which
promotes expanding the diversity and affordability of housing options in the community's
neighborhoods. It is also the result of the zoning code audit completed in 2022 which evaluates
how the current zoning ordinance compares to the goals of the 2040 comprehensive plan.
The expanding neighborhood housing options projects kicked-off in 2023 and will be considered
for adoption in 2024.
The planning commission has been the primary point of policy feedback for staff and the
planning consultant on this effort. They have given this considerable time and attention. Their
preliminary work was shared with the city council at a study session in November and the
approaches were well received. All council members were comfortable continuing with the next
steps of drafting regulations and sharing the proposed changes with the community input for
additional input.
Arrive + Thrive: St. Louis Park gateway planning
The city is undergoing a community-led process to create four small area plans for gateway
areas within the community to guide decisions about development, investment, and how the
areas are used. The Arrive + Thrive project will include updates to the existing plans for the
three METRO Green Line light rail stations: Beltline Boulevard, Wooddale Avenue and Louisiana
Avenue, and the creation of a new plan to guide investments along West Excelsior Boulevard.
The resulting gateway plans will provide guidance and implementation actions to support
development that aligns with the community’s interests, the city’s strategic priorities, and the
2040 Comprehensive Plan.
26
Since the project’s start in the spring of 2023, there have been two rounds of community
engagement. The first, held in May 2023, was to understand community members’ experiences
in the gateway areas. The second round of engagement, held in October and November 2023,
focused on testing “big ideas” for each gateway area. The planning commission received
updates throughout the project, and many members participated in engagement events and
online engagement.
In 2024, the big ideas from phase 2 will be refined and analyzed for impact. Once finalized, the
plans will have a series of recommendations, implementation actions, and measures of success
for the city to move forward with.
Development highlights of 2023
Major developments in St. Louis Park January 2023
There were two school district applications, small business expansions and a few new
restaurants proposed in the city and reviewed by planning commission. There were no new
major residential development applications submitted to the commission this year. However,
there are several previously approved developments under construction or that opened in
2023. A tally of those residential developments is provided in the tables below.
Major developments in St. Louis Park November 2023
For additional information please see Development Projects on the city’s web site and the brief
descriptions that follow.
Multifamily housing development
summary
Total Market rate Affordable
Units under construction 1,460 952 508
Recently completed units (last 2 years) 499 439 60
Multifamily housing development
summary
Total Market rate Affordable
Units under construction 878 366 512
Recently completed units (last 2 years) 1,068 952 116
27
Previously approved developments
Beltline Station
Location: 4601 and 4725 Hwy. 7 and 3130
Monterey Ave. S.
Description: Sherman Associates is set to
replace the existing structures at the southeast
corner of CSAH 25 and Beltline Boulevard with a
multi-phase mixed-use development. The
development will consist of three buildings and
a parking ramp
Construction is expected to begin in 2024,
subject to market conditions.
Developer: Sherman Associates
Arbor Court (Wooddale Avenue Apartments)
Location: 3755 Wooddale Avenue South
Description: Real Estate Equities, LLC received
city approval to construct a four-story, 114-unit
multifamily building at 3801 Wooddale Ave. S.
on the southeast corner of the Wooddale
Avenue cul-de-sac and the Highway 100 on-
ramp, site of the former Aldersgate Methodist
Church. The apartment building includes
amenity spaces, underground parking, and
surface parking on-site. The proposal includes a
mix of all-affordable one-, two-, and three-
bedroom units, including five units available at
30% area median income (AMI), five units
available at 50% AMI, and 104 units available at
60% AMI for 26 years, exceeding the city’s
Inclusionary Housing Policy requirements.
Construction is expected to be substantially
complete by March 2024,
Developer: Real Estate Equities, LLC
28
Parkway Plaza
Location: 4051 Highway 7
Description: Parkway Plaza replaces the existing
strip center at the southeast corner of
Inglewood Avenue and Highway 25 with an 11-
story, 73-unit apartment building. The building
will include parking and lobby space on the first
two floors, eight floors of residential, an amenity
space on the top floor and one level of
underground parking. Construction is
anticipated in 2024, subject to market
conditions.
Developer: Sela Investments
Mera
Location: 9920 Wayzata and Platia Place
Description: ESG Architecture, Stoddard
Companies, and Bigos Management have
received approvals for redevelopment of 9920
and 9808 Wayzata Boulevard. The development
team proposes a six story, 233-unit housing
development of approximately 371,000 square
feet. The project will provide 20% of the units at
50% area median income.
Construction began in spring 2022.
Developer: Stoddard Companies, Bigos
Management
29
Union Park Flats
Location: 3700 Alabama Avenue
Description: Project for Pride in Living (PPL) has
approval to construct a three story, 60-unit
affordable apartment building on a portion of
3700 Alabama Avenue, the site currently owned
and operated by Union Congregational Church.
The site is three blocks from the Wooddale Light
Rail Transit Station, which is currently under
construction and will be completed in 2023.
Union Church will sell a portion of their property
to an affiliate of PPL; PPL will own and manage
this new housing for the long term. The church
will use the proceeds from the land sale to
renovate the existing sanctuary and narthex to
preserve the 1940s church building.
Construction began Fall 2023.
Developer: Project for Pride in Living
Completed projects
Caraway
Location: 5235 Wayzata Blvd.
Description: Greystar has received city approval
for a planned unit development (PUD) for a new
six-story apartment building in the West End, at
the current Olive Garden site. The project will
include 207 units ranging in size from studio to
three-bedrooms and two levels of underground
parking. The site will also include a new pocket
park along 16th Street and pedestrian
improvements connecting the apartment to the
rest of the West End.
The building opened in December 2023.
Developer: Greystar
30
Volo at Texa-Tonka
Location: 7916 Minnetonka Blvd. and 2939-2901
Texas Ave.
Description: Volo at Texa-Tonka includes a 101-
unit, four to five-story multifamily building on the
corner of Texas Avenue and Minnetonka
Boulevard, and an 11-unit, two-story town home
building on the northern half of the site. The
apartment building includes amenity spaces,
underground parking, and enclosed parking on the
first floor and surface parking on-site with other
site amenities. Both buildings provide walk up
units for future residents. The development also
helps connect the neighborhood to the Texa-
Tonka shopping center and surrounding amenities
like Rainbow Park and Cedar Lake Trail with a
public trail connection through the site. The
development includes 20 percent of the units as
affordable at 50 percent AMI.
The building opened in January 2023.
Bremer Bank
Location: 7924 State Hwy. 7 and the northeast
corner of Texas Avenue South and 37th Street
West.
Description: The property, now home to Bremer
Bank, is in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
zoning district. The bank, which relocated to this
site, required a conditional use permit (CUP) for its
operation. The bank includes two 24-hour drive-
up ATMs, in line with the requirements of the
CUP. Additionally, the bank features a drive-up
teller window that operates during normal
business hours.
The bank opened in October 2023.
Developer: Frauenshuh
31
Risor
Location: 3510 Beltline Blvd., at the intersection of
Beltline Boulevard and 35th Street West.
Description: Roers Companies received approval
to develop a six-story, mixed-use rental
development located at 3510 Beltline Blvd. The
development features 170 residential units, 247
stalls of structured parking, ground floor
residential lobby and amenities, live-work dwelling
units, and 4,000 square feet of commercial space.
Risor is an age-restricted 55+ community with 10%
of the units affordable at 50% area median
income. The building boasts a large south-facing
rooftop amenity deck, as well as a sky lounge with
views of Bass Lake.
The Construction was completed in December
2023.
Developer: Roers Companies
Corsa
Location: 3440 Beltline Boulevard
Description: The development, now known as
Corsa, is a five-story, 250-unit, mixed-use building
with 7,714 square feet of commercial space and
six live/work units on the ground floor fronting
Beltline Boulevard. Due to high groundwater and
floodplain, parking is provided in a three-story,
above-ground ramp and in a 28-stall surface
parking lot. The development is mixed-income
with 10% of the units affordable at 50% area
median income (AMI), meeting the city’s
inclusionary housing policy requirements.
Corsa opened in October 2023.
Developer: OPUS
32
Rise on 7
Location: 8115 Highway 7
Description: The city approved the
redevelopment of the former Prince of Peace
Lutheran Church site at 8115 Hwy. 7 to build a
five-story, mixed-use building. The building houses
120 dwelling units and a 6,600-square-foot
daycare center. All dwelling units are affordable,
catering to an income range of 30% – 80% of the
area median income (AMI). The development is
designed to meet or exceed the city’s minimum
inclusionary housing and green building policies.
Site improvements include outdoor play areas for
both the apartments and the daycare, a rooftop
solar array, a rain garden, and an underground
stormwater management system.
The apartments started leasing in November 2023.
The daycare opened at the end of the year.
Developer: CommonBond Communities
Parkway Commons
Location: 4141 31st Street West
Description:
Southwest campus (Parkway Commons)—
replaces three single-family homes at the corner
of Inglewood Avenue and West 31st Street with a
four-story, 37-unit apartment building with one
level of underground parking. This is proposed to
be a later phase of the project. The building
opened in March 2023
33
Appendix A: Full List of 2023 Applications
Conditional use permit amendment – St. Louis Park High School
Applicant: St. Louis Park School District
Case No.: 22-28-CUP
Miscellaneous code amendments to zoning ordinance
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 22-29-ZA
Variance – 7710 W 24th Street
Applicant: Josh Fitzpatrick
Case No.: 23-01-VAR
Conditional use permit – Family Orthodontics
Applicant: Bob Shaffer
Case No.: 23-02-CUP
PUD amendment – AC Marriott
Applicant: Christopher Flagg on behalf of TPI Hospitality
Case No.: 23-03-PUD
Conditional use permit – Corsa (Floodplain)
Applicant: Eric Ryan, on behalf of OPUS Development Company
Case No.: 23-04-CUP
Conditional use permit – Risor (Floodplain)
Applicant: Chelsey Janso, on behalf of Roers Companies
Case No.: 23-05-CUP
Variance – 8901 Stanlen Rd.
Applicant: Barry Novak
Case No.: 23-06-VAR
Zoning ordinance amendment – floodplain
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park – community development department
Case No.: 23-07-ZA
Conditional use permit – SLP School District Data Center
Applicant: Cuningham group
Case No.: 23-12-CUP
34
Comprehensive plan amendment, Zoning code amendment – Utah pond properties
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 23-09-CP, 23-10-ZA
Comprehensive plan amendment, Zoning code amendment – 2840 Toledo Ave S
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 23-13-CP, 23-14-ZA
Comprehensive plan amendment, Zoning code amendment – Webster Park
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 23-15-CP, 23-16-ZA
Preliminary plat, special permit amendment, conditional use permit – 5775 Wayzata
Boulevard
Applicant: GW Properties
Case No.: 23-17-S, 23-18-SP, 23-19-CUP
PUD amendment – Shops at West End
Applicant: David Lima
Case No.: 23-20-PUD
Study Session Reports and Discussions
•Zoning updates: expanding neighborhood housing options
•Arrive + Thrive gateway planning to guide development and investment
•Zoning Code amendments: addressing parking, driveways, materials, and EV charging
standards
•Floodplain ordinance adjusted for utility elevation to meet insurance standards
•Rezoning and future land use map amendments for three park properties
35
Appendix B: 2024 Work Plan (2023 work plan included as a placeholder)
Time
Frame
Initiative Strategic
Priorities
Purpose
(see last page for definitions)
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)
Ongoing Identify strategies to broaden
participation and reduce barriers to
public participation.
☐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 2023
–Q4
2023
Update light rail station area plans ☐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 2022
–Q3
2023
Review residential districts,
including two-family dwelling units
(twin homes and duplexes) on
appropriately sized lots in low
density residential areas.
☒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)
36
Time
Frame
Initiative Strategic
Priorities
Purpose
(see last page for definitions)
Q4 2022
–Q1
2023
Review temporary use regulations ☐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 2023
-Q2 2024
Transit oriented development
zoning regulations
☒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
2024
Hold a planning commission
meeting at an off-site location to
foster community relationships.
☒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
2024
Racial equity and inclusion training.
Possibly joint training with other
boards and commissions like ESC
and police advisory commission.
Alternatively, staff will share
information or resources regarding
the latest city policies and activities
that intersect with the planning
commission’s work plan.
☒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)
37
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.
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 promote homeownership opportunities as well as inclusionary housing goals.
Transitional industrial
zoning district
This item was identified in the comprehensive plan. Several amendments have been made to the
existing industrial districts that reflect elements of this idea through applicant-driven requests in the
past two years. For this reason, it is a lower priority.
38
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
39