Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025/08/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Planning commission meeting  August 20, 2025   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 meeting 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 planning commission meeting in  person or watch the regular meeting by webstream at www.parktv.org and on local cable  (Comcast SD channel 14 and HD channel 798). Visit bit.ly/slppcagendas to view the agenda and  reports.  You can provide comment on agenda items in person at the meeting or by emailing your  comments to info@stlouispark.org by noon the day of the meeting. Comments must be related  to an item on the meeting agenda.   Agenda  PLANNING COMMISSION  1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – February 5, March 19, April 16, May 7, June 18 and July 16, 2025 3.Hearing 3.a.   Application name: Knollwood Chipotle comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permits  Location: 8528 Highway 7, 8530 Highway 7  Applicant: Lindsay Knollwood 2, LLC  Case No: 25‐03‐CP, 25‐04‐CUP  4.Other Business 4.a.   Election of officers 5.Communications 6.Adjournment STUDY SESSION  1.Zoning code update, phase 2 (30 minutes) Future scheduled meeting/event dates:   September 3, 2025 – planning commission study session  September 17, 2025 – planning commission regular meeting  October 8, 2025 – planning commission study session*  October 15, 2025 – planning commission regular meeting  *Meeting held on October 8, 2025 since Yom Kippur is October 1 and 2, 2025. 1 2 Planning commission February 5, 2025 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 Unofficial minutes February 5, 2025 Members present: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Jan Youngquist, Tom Weber, John Flanagan, Estella Hughes (youth member) Members absent: Mia Divecha Staff present: Laura Chamberlain Guests: Julia Spencer, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) Eden Spencer, Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation (GMHC) Scotte Wende, Lunning Wende Associates, Inc. Brenda Lano, Homes within Reach 1. Call to order – roll call. 2. Approval of minutes – Jan. 8 & 15, 2025. Chair pro tem Eckholm noted on page 7 should read, “…is there any greater risk to the process of the zoning amendment…” It was moved by Commissioner Weber, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist, to approve the Jan. 8 and 15, 2025, minutes with one amendment. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Hearings. 3a. Title: Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes plat and planned unit development Location: 5639, 5643, 5647, and 5707 Minnetonka Blvd. Applicant: Greater Metropolitan Housing Corporation Case No: 24-24-S, 24-25-PUD Ms. Chamberlain presented the report. Commissioner Beneke asked about parking and the driveway, with no parking allowed on Minnetonka Boulevard. Ms. Chamberlain stated the design provides for the garages to be accessed in the alley, with individual driveways for each unit. She stated there is enough space behind the garage for one car to park as well as full circulation. She added there is no additional parking proposed and no on-street parking on Minnetonka Boulevard, and requirements only require two parking spaces per unit. 3 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Feb 5, 2025 Commissioner Weber asked if there are 13 heritage trees on the site. Ms. Chamberlain stated the application came in prior to the heritage tree ordinance being in effect. She added the fee in lieu is based on 2024 requirements which look at significant trees, not heritage trees, it’s possible that 1 or 2 trees are considered heritage trees under today’s ordinance. Commissioner Weber asked if a tree is diseased, it will still be removed, and it does not depend on the size of the tree. Ms. Chamberlain stated yes, that is correct. She added the tree ordinance only considers healthy trees and if diseased or dead or not a species listed, then it is removed. Commissioner Hyman asked about the $6000 park and trail dedication and the fee in lieu. Ms. Chamberlain stated in general the subdivision ordinance says when any property is subdivided and developed, the city requires that parkland be set aside in the same way as right-of-way for internal streets. She stated because city parks are built out today, there is very little need for parkland on a subdivision, so the fee in lieu is for payment into the park fund, and to be only used for expansion or new equipment for parks and not maintenance of existing parks. Commissioner Hyman asked if a mixed-use development was considered as it is a noisy area. Ms. Chamberlain stated the history of this site was for individual lots that had single homes on them, that the city obtained and demolished and with the intention of doing homeowner redevelopment with that missing middle density. She added ground floor commercial was not considered for that site. Commissioner Hyman noted the map shows an area south of the site that is completely clear of trees. She stated there is a parking lot there and asked if that is heavily used. She asked if these homes could have been pushed back further, and the parking lot area used instead for these homes. Ms. Chamberlain stated it is hard to tell but there is a significant grade difference from Minnetonka Boulevard to the parking lot. She added the parking lot is owned by the Colonial Apartments which are to the east of the project site, and it is heavily used by the residents there. She stated in collaboration with the developer, the setbacks were looked at on Minnetonka Boulevard and they do far exceed the city’s requirements, with the intention of creating a buffer. Commissioner Weber noted the city has direction on lots the city owns, and stated these lots are used to meet the codes. He stated this seems to be the first example of living up to the updated zoning codes. Ms. Chamberlain stated when it became evident, staff saw this as a project to meet those requirements and the intention in acquiring these properties by the EDA was to find affordable home ownership priorities, the council prioritized that, and this project meets those priorities. Commissioner Weber asked if this is the first significant use of the land trust model. Ms. Chamberlain stated yes at least in St. Louis Park. Chair pro tem Eckholm opened the public hearing. 4 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Feb 5, 2025 Julia Spencer, Greater Minneapolis Housing Corporation, stated they hope to meet the missing middle with this project and hope it will be a valuable resource for people who want to live in the area. She stated it meets the constraints of the site and meets the city goals regarding the land trust model. Brenda Lano, Director of Homes within Reach, stated land trust is not new to St. Louis Park with 25 homes in the portfolio currently. She stated they have helped 31 families achieve ownership through resales and stated St. Louis Park has been a great partner with 2 homes per year through CDBG funds. She stated Ms. Olson in housing authority has reached out to homeowners about selling their homes to the Homes within Reach program. Commissioner Weber asked Ms. Lano for details on the workings of the land trust model. She explained that it is strictly a homeownership program and not rent-to-own. She stated home buyers must be income qualified at 45-85% AMI. She added land trust is a non-profit community-based organization, and they own the land to benefit the community and they hold it in perpetuity, and it is a shared-equity model. She stated there is an application process and a scoring model with priorities for St. Louis Park workforce for the first opportunity for home ownership. Commissioner Weber stated then that Homes within Reach owns the land and the people own the house. He added if a potential homeowner does not have to buy the land, which can make it more affordable. Ms. Lano stated yes. Chair pro tem Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Beneke stated he loves this project and is proud of the city for pursuing it, as it is a prototype of what can be done. He thanked Homes Within Reach and stated he likes the whole idea in general. Chair pro tem Eckholm added one of the nice things about the proposal is it is the first look at what the city envisions we could see more of in St. Louis Park. He added with density we typically think about the 5-floor apartment building but noted this is a 100% increase of homes on the original site, and that does not have to be scary or change the community. He stated it can be a neighborhood feel, and a home ownership opportunity and he likes this is a good preview of what people can expect. Chair pro tem Eckholm stated he supports this and stated also that Chair Divecha notified him that she too supports this project. Commissioner Hyman stated her only negative is the proximity of the project to Minnetonka Boulevard and she is concerned about the heaviness of traffic there. She stated she is excited about the reconstruction of Minnetonka Boulevard in 2028 and plans to be involved in that but still has concerns for the safety of families with children who live there. She loves this is happening but stated this project is so close to Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 100 makes her very nervous. 5 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Feb 5, 2025 Commissioner Youngquist stated new construction for missing middle and affordable homeownership are two difficult nuts to crack and this project does it and she wholeheartedly will support it. Commissioner Flanagan agreed and stated housing density can be increased with this project and with an opportunity to own and he is excited about this. It was moved by Commissioner Weber, seconded by Commissioner Flanagan, to approve the preliminary and final plan of Minnetonka Boulevard twin homes addition, subject to conditions; and the preliminary and final plat of planned unit development, subject to conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed 6-0 (Chair Divecha was absent and youth member does not vote). 4. Other Business – none. 5. Communications. The following future scheduled meetings were noted: • February 19, 2025 – Planning Commission study session • March 12, 2025 – Planning Commission regular meeting • March 19, 2025 – Planning Commission regular meeting • April 2, 2025 – Planning Commission regular meeting 6. Adjournment – 6:31 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 6 Planning commission March 19, 2025 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 Study Session Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Jan Youngquist, Tom Weber, John Flanagan, Estella Hughes (youth member) Members absent: none 1. Focused conversation reflecting on zoning code update phase 1 Mr. Walther asked the commissioners a series of questions related to phase 1. He noted the council approved the zoning code update phase 1 with one change in the second reading related to the attached garage setback standard. He added this will come back to the planning commission to work on this with more flexibility. Mr. Walther asked the commissioners what stood out to them the most in the process. Commissioner Eckholm stated in the process the initial idea of starting from scratch was the correct decision as there were so many things layered on top of things, and so many assumptions that could not be explained. He added now there is a fresh base of what was passed in 2025 with nothing hanging on because the planning commission reviewed everything in great detail, and he hopes to see this happen with the next phase also. Commissioner Beneke stated he was surprised about how many said they did not have a chance to give their input, adding with all the city did, he is not sure how much more could be offered by the city related to communications. Commissioner Hyman stated the study that was done was interesting to prove having more density does not damage property values. She stated she was glad to have this information, and it showed more housing does not hurt property values. Chair Divecha stated the importance of conversations like this stood out to her, especially when discussing zoning laws. She stated she appreciated the many discussions and the ability to challenge and hear from staff about how things were done historically. She stated she learned by pushing and she gained confidence on the plans and choices made. She thanked staff and said this was very important to her. Commissioner Youngquist added it was interesting there were so many residential categories to start with. She stated it shows how planning used to happen in the past and 7 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Mar. 19, 2025 the priorities on single-unit lots. She noted the great discussions that took place pointing out the change in paradigm through the process. Commissioner Beneke stated he felt torn, and noted the school board always encourages keeping and adding single-unit homes, but he also supports density and affordability. He stated he feels this tension and he sees merit in both sides of the conversation. Commissioner Flanagan stated he came into the process later but was excited to see the plans and was pleasantly surprised at the meetings with residents and the community’s support and how this all played out. Commissioner Hughes stated never having read the zoning code before she was shocked at how detailed it was. She noted after reading it and discussing it, it was great to be able to make the community just how the commission wanted it. She added her interest was in allowing mixed-use and more density and she learned that was already part of the zoning and she appreciated that. Commissioner Weber stated he appreciated being able to work on tool with a history of being used to exclude people and that had some nefarious beginnings, and for staff, the commission and council, and community working to make this more inclusive, and he appreciated that – and that this became the north star. Mr. Walther asked the commissioners how they felt and how the observed others' felt about the process. Commissioner Eckholm stated the mood seemed positive recognizing there was a group at the end that wanted to delay the ordinance, but as Council Member Rog pointed out, only about 50 of the 350 people who signed the petition actually lived in St. Louis Park. He stated the process worked and those who engaged got their say and influenced the outcome. He added this was a reflection of the community’s priorities and values. Chair Divecha stated she had a great time, enjoys the commission and the conversations they had throughout the process, and she learned a lot. She stated many she talked to in her neighborhood and at the open house said they felt this was inevitable and were not all positive about it, but she noted the learnings she had were that the broad policy direction was set at the comprehensive planning level and not something the planning commission is just doing. She stated she did not understand that before this process and possibly others did not as well, so that could be why some felt this was pushed on them. Commissioner Weber noted the training with the city attorney was very helpful also, and it properly explains the place of the city, commission, comprehensive plan and zoning code in the whole process. Commissioner Hyman added she joined late in the process but prior to that was already working at the state level on improving requirements for housing density state-wide. She stated it was frustrating to see those things not moving at the state level, but it was great to 8 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Mar. 19, 2025 join the planning commission and see all these things being implemented and seeing St. Louis Park be a leader in Minnesota for this and also set an example. Commissioner Youngquist stated she appreciated the conversations that the commission had during the process and even though the commissioners did not always agree, it was done respectfully and everyone learned from each other during the process. Commissioner Flanagan added he was impressed with comments made by commissioners and the community during the process related to development projects such as triplexes and property values. He stated these interactions helped him learn while stepping into the process late. Commissioner Weber stated as the commission moves to the next phase in zoning planning, he requests that staff look at not well-informed comments and share that information with commissioners in advance. Mr. Walther stated the discussions staff had with the commissioners and city council helped staff identify these issues and what others were hearing in the community and led staff to research these issues further and address them appropriately. Commissioner Eckholm noted whether parking is going to be discussed in the next phase, there will need to be data on parking and what can be learned from other cities about parking examples, and what this has done to the cost of building structured parking, such as reducing rent costs. Commissioner Hughes stated she was not aware of any petitions that circulated. Mr. Walther stated the petition effort started after the public hearing and planning commission's recommendation had been made and the petition was submitted directly to city council. Commissioner Hyman added that with the constituents she talks to, they get information from her rather than through the city's channels. She updates her social media with information as well, but also noted the city’s social media tends to cover “fluff” topics vs. zoning updates, road construction updates, and things that have a real impact on the community. Chair Divecha agreed to some degree and it would have been good to have this in the city newsletter. Mr. Walther stated there were three Park Perspective articles, email blasts, and articles in the Sun Sailor and Star Tribune a various points in the process. Commissioner Eckholm noted social media is typically run by folks who do not have the best interests of the city in mind, and the only way you can guarantee information gets out is to pay for it. He stated he does not fault the city for promoting events on social media because that is what folks want on these platforms. He noted creating engagement is most likely done on other platforms. 9 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Mar. 19, 2025 Commissioner Divecha stated she shares that perspective, but stated she did not remember the articles in Park Perspective, while adding that she does read it. She stated this may be a fundamental problem that cannot be resolved. Commissioner Eckholm added the article headlines seemed to highlight more housing types in more locations and maybe should have included Zoning Code Update in the title. Commissioner Weber stated the Park Perspective article opened with stated there has been no zoning code update since 1992 and he appreciated that information, noting it is important information and can help frame the project and point out changes and the messaging. Commissioner Beneke added the city website could also be rearranged and the front page should maybe be redesigned. Commissioner Eckholm asked how the city gets people to go to the website to look at these articles, adding that is the real challenge. He noted that most people go to social media sites on their phones. Commissioner Hyman noted the Hennepin County Minnetonka Boulevard engagement meeting was poorly attended and communications about the meeting arrived late. She did note there was a good number of people there, but added those in charge of the meeting did admit it had not been publicized well. Chair Divecha stated the city can send multiple postcards, but people will not read them, adding the best communication comes within the community and discussion. She stated the facilitator training for Vision 4.0 is a great idea to get the word out through their own trusted networks. Mr. Walther asked what do these insights mean for the next phase of the zoning code. Commissioner Eckholm stated while there have been lessons learned on engagement through the first phase, there will most likely be less of an emotional reaction to development issues in commercial properties vs. residential. He added this will be a good time to test more ideas on outreach. Commissioner Youngquist agreed and added parking code changes will be the challenge. Commissioner Weber added changing the rules does not cause any immediate changes to the city and is simply presenting options for what happens in the future and the more that can be said by the planning commission the better. Chair Divecha stated the process is very appropriate, but at times it has felt like the scope is set for the commission. She stated at times she wanted to talk about other phases, but was told that is Phase 2, and she recognized that, but that was not entirely clear at the beginning. She stated she fears with commercial zoning, will there be new developments 10 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Mar. 19, 2025 created where residential is today and those types of conversations will not ever happen, and to her, this was the whole point of those conversations. Chair Divecha stated her neighborhood is completed residential today, but she would like to discuss small businesses moving into her area but that was never able to be discussed. She stated having conversations like this were missed. She stated she is excited to work on this next phase, but she would like opportunities to zoom out and look at the bigger picture also or ask wild questions and have an opportunity to discuss. Commissioner Weber agreed and added there are no coffee shops to meet at in his neighborhood, or public gathering spaces except for a park. He agreed that discussing these bigger picture items would be helpful. Commissioner Youngquist noted however these bigger discussions will come with the comprehensive plan discussions, such as residential and commercial zoning issues. Mr. Walther agreed and noted resources will be put toward these discussions related to the comprehensive plan. He noted the visioning process is the kickoff to these discussions, and helps inform strategic goals for the city. Commissioner Hyman added she will want to do a deep dive of the comprehensive plan to understand it better. Mr. Walther thanked the commissioners for sharing their reflections on the process. Mr. Walther shared additional updates regarding city council's approaches to boards and commissions, including an optional stipend and consecutive term limits. He noted this will begin on June 1, 2025, and more information will come from city administration staff. Mr. Walther added the planning commission and BOZA is scheduled to touch base with the council in November 2025, and council members will be attending some planning commission meetings as well. Mr. Walther noted the application process for board and commissions ends on March 31, and then reviews and interviews will be scheduled. He added commission members will be included in this process. Mr. Walther added the new planning commission chair and vice chair will be elected by commissioners in June per the bylaws. Future scheduled meeting/event dates: April 16, 2025 - planning commission regular meeting May 7, 2025 - planning commission regular meeting May 21, 2025 - planning commission regular meeting 2. Adjournment – 7:00 p.m. 11 Unofficial minutes Planning commission Mar. 19, 2025 ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 12 Planning commission April 16, 2025 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 Study Session Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Jan Youngquist, Tom Weber, John Flanagan Members absent: Estella Hughes (youth member) Staff present: Sean Walther and Katelyn Champoux Mr. Walther noted upcoming Visioning 4.0 training for those interested in hosting an engagement session with neighbors. He asked commissioners to host a session and invite others to participate in trainings to be held on May 1 and May 8. He added that there are both in-person and virtual options. Mr. Walther also shared a form to be filled out related to any proposed changes or additions to the planning commission work plan. A majority of the commission would need to recommend the change and staff can complete the paperwork on their behalf for council consideration. 1. Zoning Code Update phase 2 consensus workshop The city council adopted the zoning code updates related to expanded housing options on March 3, 2025, and the ordinance went into effect on March 28, 2025. The zoning code audit, preparation, and review of the new code were two-year efforts. On March 19, 2025, staff facilitated a focused conversation to reflect on this process and learn from commissioners’ experiences as the city moves forward with phase two of the zoning code update. On April 16, Mr. Walther facilitated a consensus workshop regarding the second phase of the zoning code update. Planning commissioners discussed how the city can better reflect and address the strategic priorities in the remaining zoning code updates and the process. Prior to this discussion, planning commissioners reviewed the city’s current strategic priorities and the proposed work plan for phase two. Mr. Walther posed this question to the planning commission for the workshop discussion: “How can the zoning standards better align with the city’s strategic priorities.” Mr. Walther facilitated a consensus workshop with the planning commission and conducted a brainstorming exercise with the commissioners. He asked them to capture their ideas in 3- 5 words per card related to the question posed to the commissioners. 13 Unofficial minutes Planning commission April 16, 2025 Commissioners’ ideas were shared with the group in successive rounds, and had discussion after each set of ideas was shared. Ideas were organized into categories, and eventually each category was named. Commissioner Hyman asked for clarification about guiding big-box commercial to structured parking. Commissioner Eckholm stated he was referring to guiding big box commercial developments to create two stories vs. one story and putting parking under the store, similar to Ikea at Mall of America, while specifically encouraging parking to remain in a smaller area. Chair Divecha asked if bike lanes are part of zoning standards. Mr. Walther stated bike lanes can be part of zoning standards but are more often addressed in subdivision standards. Commissioner Flanagan added that biking could be part of signage. Commissioner Eckholm noted sites that are so large that they are a PUD, such as at the Terasa development, may also include biking within the zoning. Commissioner Eckholm asked what slow streets are. Chair Divecha stated she did not know how to describe them exactly, however, pointed to streets in San Francisco that are designed to be slow streets either during special events or permanently, and added that she was not sure if slow streets represent a zoning code within an area. She noted this concept would be similar to Open Streets events in Minneapolis for pedestrians. Commissioner Eckholm asked where slow streets would be appropriate in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Weber stated possibly near Dakota Park, where bollards could be set up for a more pedestrian-friendly area. Commissioner Hyman stated she would like to see slow streets on Excelsior, near the Trader Joe’s area. Chair Divecha noted she sees many of the planning commission’s comments pointing to the strategic priorities vs. the zoning standards. Commissioner Weber noted that prioritizing small commercial businesses should be a priority. Chair Divecha agreed and added that community gathering hubs would be another priority to consider, especially with walkability as the goal. Commissioner Hyman stated there should also be a priority on publicly accessible green space. Commissioner Eckholm agreed and added that de-emphasis on the color green and more emphasis on native plants and pollinators should be the goal. 14 Unofficial minutes Planning commission April 16, 2025 During the discussion, 8 categories emerged, and Mr. Walther and the commissioners placed the comments and ideas under each heading noted below: Parking reform • Eliminate parking mandates • Reduce land used for parking lots • Eliminate parking minimums • Reduce impervious surfaces • Charge $$ for city parking • Guide big box commercial to structured parking Prioritize small commercial • Neighborhood commercial nodes • Small business zones • Increase small commercial corners • Caps on corporate chains • Promote neighborhood commercial • Survey residents whether small corner businesses in neighborhoods might be acceptable • Allow grocery anywhere it does not already exist within ¼ mile of housing • Less is more • Can zoning affect personal ownership rate • Is there a way to effect corporate vs. personal ownership of property Prioritize pedestrian-oriented development • No buildings with backs to the street – no focus on parking lot • Eliminate/ban drive-thrus in smaller/medium commercial areas • Limit construction of drive-thrus and Big Box Stores • Drive-thru moratorium • Require walkable facades for businesses • Development that calms traffic Green space to eco-space • Encouragement of native plant landscaping • Get rid of turf • Landscaping • Limit construction of fences/walls (use useful things instead) • Sustainability standards • Incorporate accessibility requirements in green space requirements Complete streets • Sidewalk enhancement/study • Encourage bike lanes • Park Place Blvd – Calming – more walkable west of West End 15 Unofficial minutes Planning commission April 16, 2025 • Study requirements for bicycle and pedestrian-friendly development • Make safe routes to connect people to businesses on foot or by bike • Bikeway-specific signage • Bike facilities beyond bike parking • Make it safer to bike in SLP • Identify high-risk pedestrian crossings – learn and change • Connect residents to commercial without needing a car Adaptive reuse • Rethink districts to match how people work and live in 2025 • Promote office conversions • Small business space in mixed-use buildings • Allow residential in commercial • Utilize business districts more for housing • Revisit what would help home businesses Support balanced mobility options • Establish a standing transportation commission • People first, then transit, bikes, CARS LAST • Transit frequency • Connectivity to transit for bikes/peds • Density near transit stops/stations Develop community gathering hubs • Patios/outdoor gathering spaces • City “parklets” on public streets • “Slow streets” districts • Promote neighborhood community locations • Coffee shop in every precinct • Map distance from home to park, library, café • Better incentives for community participation in surveys Mr. Walther thanked the planning commission for their work and noted the next meeting will be a study session on May 7 at 6 p.m. 2. Adjournment – 7:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 16 Planning commission May 7, 2025 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 Study Session Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Jan Youngquist, Tom Weber, Estella Hughes (youth member) Members absent: John Flanagan Presenters: Jeff Mill and Rita Trapp with HKGI 1. Zoning Code Update phase 2 - code provisions and non-neighborhood districts analysis Mr. Morrison introduced the presenters, Mr. Miller and Ms. Trapp from HKGI. Mr. Morrison stated that staff will request feedback on the following questions from commissioners: • How well do the currently assigned zoning districts align within each place type? • What are your concerns with the mix of residential and non-residential uses in the mixed- use place types? • What are your concerns with the development scale of each place type, e.g., building height, density, auto- vs. pedestrian-oriented design Chair Divecha stated that some feedback from the community was that too many formal presentations and public hearings happened around the holidays, with phase 1, which made it difficult for the community to attend. Mr. Morrison stated that phase 2 public hearings will be moved to early 2026. Chair Divecha asked what percentage is commercial and industrial today within the city. Mr. Miller stated that it has not been analyzed yet but noted that there is mixed use in the Walker Lake area. Mr. Miller pointed out the commercial and industrial districts and their characteristics, including business park and business industrial areas. He stated there could be some consolidation in these areas going forward. Mr. Miller stated he will create a use map in the future so the planning commission will be able to view the various districts within the city in an easier manner. Commissioner Weber noted the footprint of the city does not change, but the districts will be dispersed differently. Ms. Trapp agreed and added that some neighborhoods could apply mixed uses. 17 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 Commissioner Hyman asked about C-1 on Excelsior Blvd. Ms. Trapp stated that it is a commercial corridor and most of the properties along Excelsior Blvd are C-1, with some MX- 1 in the Excelsior & Grand area. Then there is C-2 near highway 100. Commissioner Youngquist noted that the Texa Tonka Lanes parcel would be prime for MX-1, adding it is underutilized here. She added it is adjacent to the strip mall and seems like a compatible district. Commissioner Hyman added Minnetonka Boulevard will be reconstructed in 2028, so there will be an opportunity for this area to be further developed similarly to Texa Tonka. Commissioner Eckholm added that there are plans to increase transit along Minnetonka and Texas Avenues. Chair Divecha stated her concern is that mixed-use will become cookie-cutter all over the city. Commissioner Eckholm agreed and added he is also concerned that people will default on the lowest cost solution. He stated if we want to move away from this and move more to places designed with intention and more than just a business on asphalt, the city will need to help the developers make up that cost savings. Commissioner Weber added that this could all be viewed as a series of vision statements, especially along Minnetonka Blvd, creating a similar development as Texa Tonka, and then replicating it in various areas throughout the city. Commissioner Beneke noted, however, that some issues have arisen at Excelsior and Grand, with parking compromises and many vacancies. He stated in many ways it was a failure and asked what lessons could be learned from this. Commissioner Eckholm stated pedestrians crossing over Excelsior to get to Excelsior and Grand are walking over 4 lanes of traffic, noting it is a much bigger and more aggressively hostile environment, and is probably one reason it does not work well there. He added that there will probably need to be more development to the north of Excelsior to increase the population to help the businesses thrive. Commissioner Weber agreed with Commissioner Beneke’s thoughts about Excelsior and Grand, and stated we need to learn from that. Ms. Trapp stated she hears the commission saying generally for neighborhood commercial nodes, the idea of neighborhood scaled businesses makes sense, as well as the idea of residential scaled businesses, and that having a mix of both is desired. She added in terms of scale, the commission is saying that pedestrian-oriented is ideal, with building heights at 35-40 feet adjacent to N1 and N2, and at 35 feet in C1, while in MX-1 six-story is appropriate. 18 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 Concerning the Excelsior and Grand area, Commissioner Hyman asked if this area is serving the needs of St. Louis Park or if it is serving the needs of Edina and Minneapolis. Mr. Morrison stated the C-2 areas typically have a regional focus as opposed to C-1 areas which have a neighborhood focus. Commissioner Weber agreed and stated it is a cavalcade of zoning districts and asked where the vision is for this area. Commissioner Eckholm stated he would like to leave these C-2 areas as is, and when they reach the end of their life, not allow them to continue as they are today. He stated he would want to see these parcels broken up, and not as much land wasted on surface parking. Commissioner Youngquist stated that it is difficult to deal with zoning codes and vision, when the city will be working on the comprehensive plan and visioning soon. Ms. Trapp stated it is, however, still helpful to discuss zoning now, even if it is not changed until sometime in the future. Commissioner Hyman stated other than the highways, she considers Excelsior Blvd. to be one of the most hostile streets in St. Louis Park, and added the city should not encourage human beings to be there, as it is so dangerous and terrifying. Commissioner Eckholm stated he is less focused on walkability in this area because Hennepin County developed Excelsior Blvd as it is today. Chair Divecha stated many are going there for the clinic. She stated she thinks of a regional downtown as Main Street in Hopkins, with its walkability. She stated that at this point Excelsior and Grand should not be a cute neighborhood spot, as it is a fast place and a car place and is not a pedestrian location. Commissioner Eckholm stated he thinks the commercial area at Excelsior and Grand as being walkable, but not the Park Commons area, and the Park Commons area needs to be broken up into separate parcels. Commissioner Youngquist added the parcels on the south side of Excelsior are very small and is a corridor of more affordable commercial space. She added if the city advocates for more parcels and redevelopment there, the city will lose many small businesses at this location. The small lots on Excelsior would make it difficult to redevelop. She added the C-2 districts tend to have large parcels which accommodate larger commercial uses. Chair Divecha asked if MX-2 or MX-1 would work on Excelsior. Commissioner Eckholm stated not MX-2, adding it is difficult to want to walk on Excelsior. Commissioner Hyman stated that traffic calming is essential on Excelsior, and much can be done here. 19 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 Chair Divecha stated Excelsior will not become what we want it to, but how can we move it in a better direction. Ms. Trapp pointed out other districts for discussion such as Shelard Park, Historic Walker Lake, and West End. Commissioner Hyman asked about the commercial vs. residential at the West End. Mr. Morrison stated there are many commercial and residential buildings there, and if there is redevelopment done at West End, the planning commission would review the plans and make a recommendation to the city council. Commissioner Eckholm added that there is so much parking in many of these areas where development could occur. He added that in Shelard Park, it would be best to move this office district into an area of high-density residential. Commissioner Youngquist stated, however, in a post-COVID world, possibly office space zoning should be consolidated with something else. Commissioner Eckholm stated he would like to see pedestrian-oriented spaces in all areas across the city. Commissioner Hyman stated the reality is West End is high-density residential now, and this is all clustered near highways, which are the most polluted areas. She stated she wants to allow more density everywhere but wants to be sure it is not concentrated in areas that are statistically less healthy than other areas of the city. The commissioners reviewed the LRT stations' zoning areas, using the current MX districts or a combination of a transit-oriented overlay. Commissioner Youngquist stated there are a lot of industrial zones near station areas, adding that industrial zoning is appropriate near the stations. Mr. Miller also pointed out various transit stations where there are employment areas that are mixed-use, including at Shelard Park, Park Commons, West End. Commissioner Hyman stated that banning residential development near the stations is a concern. Mr. Miller stated that the city council has discussed that planning near stations will be a mix of residential and employment. Commissioner Beneke stated that economic considerations should be noted and kept in mind, adding that while taxes in St. Louis Park are not as high as in other cities, it is a concern. 20 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 Mr. Miller stated in July that he and Ms. Trapp will return to the planning commission meeting with proposals for consideration. Attached is a summary of the “key takeaways” from the planning commission discussion. Mr. Morrison noted the next planning commission meeting is June 4, 2025. A summary of the discussion prepared by HKGI is attached. 2. Adjournment – 7:55 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 21 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 Planning Commission Discussion 5-7-2025 Key Takeaways Provided by HKGI Neighborhood Commercial Nodes (NCNs) • Expand use of MX district, e.g. large bowling alley site at Texa-Tonka • Texa-Tonka changes viewed positively • Plenty of C-1 and C-2 zoning; interested in more MX zoning, including along Minnetonka Blvd • Current MX-1 and MX-2 districts may not be best fit for NCNs; may need to tweak one of them or create an additional MX district • 3 stories is too limiting (C-1, MX-2) but 6 stories is too tall (C-2, MX-1); maybe MX-1 height could work (6 stories but 40 ft. adjacent to N1/N2); 40 ft. height aligns with the N-2 district which is not applied to Minnetonka Blvd • Residential limited by C-1: o Must be part of a commercial development, so residential requires mixed use o Must be located above the ground floor o Building height limited to 35 feet • Zoning district should require pedestrian-oriented development most importantly; C-1 does not do this; C-1 standards are auto-oriented even if the uses are not; concern about C-1 allowing developers to do the lowest cost solution; examples could be restricting parking from front yard, maximum front yard setback, buildings with fronts to the street • Consider MX zoning that does not require mixed use; cookie cutter mixed use buildings can result in loss of small commercial businesses and expensive new commercial spaces; horizontal mixed use is acceptable Commercial Corridor/Excelsior Blvd • Is Excelsior Blvd serving SLP residents? Or is it more oriented to regional customers and auto-oriented? Park Nicollet Clinic and many commercial businesses are regional in nature and auto-oriented design • C-1 zoning doesn’t really fit this auto-oriented corridor • The scale and design of the Excelsior Blvd roadway as a divided four-lane highway is a barrier to creating pedestrian-oriented development; the roadway is a barrier rather than a seam so development is one-sided rather than enclosing the roadway; shouldn’t try to make this corridor a cute neighborhood commercial area • South side of Excelsior Blvd consists of many small lots that are challenging for mixed use redevelopment • C-2 zoning isn’t a good fit either due to 6 story building heights; C-2 also may result in the loss of smaller, affordable commercial spaces; assembly of smaller parcels may not be a positive thing 22 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 • Generally, C-1 makes sense for smaller parcels and C-2 for larger parcels; therefore, C-1 may be appropriate for small south side parcels • Most newer developments have been done through MX-1 or a PUD • Even the Park Commons segment is not seen as pedestrian-friendly • Should this corridor be treated as three different places, e.g. east, west, Park Commons? People struggling to understand the vision for this corridor • MX-1 may be appropriate for future redevelopment of Miracle Mile • Use Arrive & Thrive and South Side of Excelsior Blvd plans to guide zoning Districts & Commercial Centers • Current commercial centers/portions of the larger districts, which are very auto- oriented, could be zoned for pedestrian-oriented development; if/when they redevelop, they should not be developed as auto-oriented places again; discussion of West End (west of Park Place Blvd), Target area; parking areas oversized, backs of buildings along streets • Bloomington’s redevelopment in the Southtown area could be an example for pedestrian-oriented redevelopment of an auto-oriented commercial area • Is office zoning outdated, should transition to districts that allow mixed use, e.g. allow flexibility in Shelard Park’s office buildings including conversion to residential • Perception that apartment buildings are most common along highways, the areas with the most pollution, so interested in allowing higher density in more places • Discussion of the West End’s ability to develop with taller buildings and more intense uses because it is located away from lower density neighborhoods LRT Station Areas • Arrive & Thrive plan has been completed but implementation component is in progress; plan still needs to be approved by Council • Potential for using current MX districts or development of an additional MX district or a TOD overlay district • The office district is currently the most intense district, allowing 20-story buildings but not mixed use • Significant amount of industrial and business park zoning in the LRT station areas; does this make sense long-term? • Station areas are difficult to see on the place type maps, need to get a clearer view of the extent of the station areas Employment Areas • Discussed three types of employment areas: o Within mixed use districts o Within LRT station areas o Independent areas 23 Unofficial minutes Planning commission May 7, 2025 • Office zoning may not be needed, allow mixed use instead? • Consider how automation is impacting industrial, so maybe industrial districts should allow more uses or these areas should be rezoned to more flexible districts • Consider that business park was considered a transition/placeholder district when originally created, so it could change 24 Planning commission June 18, 2025 5:00 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 Study Session Members present: Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Sarah Strain, John Flanagan, Estella Hughes (youth member) Members absent: Jim Beneke, Tom Weber Staff present: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director; Laura Chamberlain, senior planner Guests: Marcus Paul, elections specialist The meeting was held off-site at the Union Park Flats community room at 6027 W 27th St, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. The commissioners took a tour of the Union Park Flats led by Project for Pride in Living representatives at 5 p.m. and the presentations and planning commission discussion commenced at 6 p.m. 1. Elections presentation Marcus Paul, City of St. Louis Park Elections Specialist, presented details of the elections process and discuss the opportunity to run for local office in St. Louis Park. He noted that filing can be done in the city offices between July 13 and Aug. 1. The planning commission members introduced themselves and newly appointed planning commissioner Sarah Strain. 2. Arrive + Thrive presentation and discussion Ms. Chamberlain presented the report. She provided a brief overview and updates on the program and discussed the final draft and implementation approach with the planning commission. Chair Divecha inquired about stormwater management and if the public had asked for that. Mr. Walther stated that this area had flooding a few years ago, so public feedback was about in the context of flood control and water quality of creeks and wetlands; stormwater management is the city terminology in capital improvement planning. 25 Unofficial minutes Planning commission June 18, 2025 Commissioner Hyman stated she is happy about the redevelopment being discussed at the Loffler parking lot, but has concerns about the trail connection from Louisiana to the regional trail there and the dumping of snow that happens on the bike path. She added that the bike path connection does not seem to be prioritized. Mr. Walther stated that there is an improved access at the underpass near the end of Monitor Street and provides an alternative access to the regional trail from the south. He noted there is a desired connection to the bike trail from there at the end of Monitor Street. Commissioner Hyman noted she took Louisiana Avenue to get to the meeting this evening, and it put her at a giant parking lot. Ms. Chamberlain stated there are no changes planned for the north side of Oxford Avenue, and if plans come to fruition, connecting the station area and the city would work on creating a pedestrian corridor with Metro Transit that may require changes to the parking lot. Commissioner Flannagan asked how land use factors into the redevelopment. Mr. Walther stated the plan is an important communication and policy tool when property owners or developers approach the city with inquiries for new uses or redevelopment interest. Commissioner Flannagan asked about the form-based standards. Ms. Chamberlain stated they regulate the how building and site design interacts with the public realm of city streets and sidewalks, and zoning regulations mostly focus on design elements and deemphasizes the use regulations and usually provide more flexibility. Chair Divecha asked if, within commercial districts, the city’s zoning code has specific uses that are allowed. Mr. Walther stated yes and added that residential is also allowed in commercial districts, which isn’t obvious based on the names of the districts. Commissioner Eckholm stated that having the smaller commercial parcels as a density bonus is very valuable and may result in some commercial at 2625 Louisiana Ave. He stated he would like to be more generous with the density bonus, adding he would like to have an abundance of substance and an abundance of units developed as well. Ms. Chamberlain asked the commissioners what they envision for new development within the city. Commissioner Eckholm stated that having single stairwells within developments would be one item he would prefer, noting how in other countries, when buildings are built with the highest technology to prevent fire, they only require one stairwell, based on the International Building Code. He stated a change at the state level about this could allow for smaller apartment buildings. Commissioner Hyman stated that when getting off the green line light rail, she would prefer not to see a parking lot. She stated the green line is designed for people not to use cars, or not even own a car, and yet what Metro Transit is communicating is that they do own cars, but having the station surrounded by a parking lot and encouraging park and ride. She stated she would like to see secure parking for her bike and more things oriented towards the station, and a coffee shop or things to do when getting off the train. 26 Unofficial minutes Planning commission June 18, 2025 Commissioner Eckholm stated ta surface parking lot is only present on the Louisiana Avenue Station and noted St. Louis Park seems to be doing better here vs. other cities, as well as re- purposing existing parking lots. He stated that the other light rail stations are pretty good within the city. Commissioner Flannagan asked what other tools the city has. Commissioner Eckholm stated the density bonuses are useful but added that the roadways appear very prominent in the plan illustrations and suggested they be amended to deemphasize them and better highlight other improvements. He added that breaking things up a bit is helpful as well. Chair Divecha added it would be helpful also to have service businesses for people to utilize when they are waiting for the train vs. businesses that are located there but are not ground- floor retail. Commissioner Hyman stated this might have to do with the ample parking available. Mr. Walther added that this also depends on who can afford new development, noting that coffee shops have only a 60% success rate of staying at these locations vs. a dental office, which may sign a 15-year lease, thereby being more financially solid for these uses. Commissioner Eckholm asked if Methodist Hospital is still interested in building new uses in this area of the light rail station on Oxford Ave. Mr. Walther stated that was an idea for them to grow to the north, or a spin-off business or service building. He stated that every 5- 10 years, there are changes, but noted they are not looking to spread out their campus now. He stated they work to redesign their campus and likely will not expand to grow south or north in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Eckholm stated he would prefer commercial and ground-floor retail and added they should be activated spaces and not corporate kingdoms. He added that the intent is to have these feel like a cohesive neighborhood. Commissioner Strain asked if staff gets pushback against ground-floor retail from developers, noting she has heard this in other places, as it is difficult to finance, or different building codes come up, or costs are doubled or tripled, preventing development. Mr. Walther stated that parking can be an issue, and noted also a mixed-use building needs to start with a commercial site and then move into ground-floor retail, especially since LRT is not in yet, most noticeably at Belt Line Boulevard. Commissioner Eckholm added that if rates are lowered, that might help ground-floor retailers come to these vacant spaces. Commissioner Hyman asked if the planning commission could determine the location of freight routes. Ms. Chamberlain stated that within the Comprehensive Plan, there is an analysis of this, along with designations of what can be done. She stated that the guidance 27 Unofficial minutes Planning commission June 18, 2025 for freight can be sent to the commissioners for review during the next comprehensive plan update, and this can be a future topic of discussion also. Commissioner Eckholm asked if the city can get cell phone hotspot data, so the city can build goals around places where people gather. He stated this would be a good tool to determine development areas. Ms. Chamberlain stated that going forward, if the city is able to build an implementation tracker and then report back to the council or the community, that can be very useful for comprehensive plan implementation. Mr. Walther stated that this can also assist with communicating population changes and development projections in certain areas of the city. Commissioner Hyman stated that a cost analysis of projects and development, and comparisons would be helpful in this discussion, also. Ms. Chamberlain stated that data is available to the commissioners. Commissioner Hyman asked if the Hennepin County tax data is helpful. Mr. Walther stated yes, adding that tax formulas are set at the state level. Ms. Chamberlain stated this plan will now go to the city council later this summer for their review, and added a dashboard will be available later this fall for the planning commission to review. 3. Communications Mr. Walther stated the St. Louis Park school board is making a change to their city- appointed member on the board, which will affect Commissioner Beneke’s position on the school board. Mr. Walther added that the school board would still like to provide feedback to the city through alternative ways, and he noted that Commissioner Beneke may apply for that position through the council appointment process. Mr. Walther added that Commissioner Hughes will be leaving the planning commission to attend college, so her position will be opening up. Commissioner Hughes stated she has a friend who is interested in the position, which is on the city website now. Mr. Walther added that Vision 4.0 is well underway, and current activities include small group community conversations with online training now available for hosts, pop-ups around the city including five events that are designed and led by local artists, and an online survey that he asked commissioners to help publicize. Mr. Walther noted the upcoming planning commission meetings scheduled for the rest of the summer: • July 2, 2025 - planning commission canceled • July 16, 2025 - planning commission study session meeting • August 6, 2025 – board of zoning appeals and planning commission regular meetings expected 28 Unofficial minutes Planning commission June 18, 2025 • August 20, 2025 – planning commission regular meeting Mr. Walther stated commissioners should have received forms related to the new stipend and noted those need to be completed and submitted to the city. Mr. Walther added that Brian Hoffman, building and energy director, as well as Mr. Greg Hunt, economic development manager, will both be retiring in July. He stated his duties will temporarily shift, so he will be attending fewer planning commission meetings. Ms. Chamberlain and Mr. Morrison will have greater roles staffing the meetings in the interim. 4. Adjourn – 7:47 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 29 30 Planning commission July 16, 2025 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 Study Session Members present: Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, John Flanagan, Estella Hughes, Sarah Strain, Tom Weber Members absent: Sylvie Hyman, Jim Beneke Staff: Laura Chamberlain, Gary Morrison Guest: Jeff Miller, HKGi 1. Zoning code updated phase 2 – code provisions and non-neighborhood districts analysis Mr. Miller and Ms. Chamberlain presented the report. The planning commission was asked to provide feedback on the zoning code update phase 2 approach and analysis so far. In addition to updating the non-neighborhood districts, phase 2 will also involve updates to all of the remaining articles/divisions of the zoning code: • special provisions, e.g., parking, signs, lighting, landscaping, architectural design • administration and procedures, e.g., CUP, variance, amendments (text or map), PUD • definitions • general provisions Mr. Miller stated at tonight’s meeting that he will provide an analysis of the current non- neighborhood districts. These districts include the following nine districts: • Neighborhood commercial (C-1) • General commercial (C-2) • Vertical mixed use (MX-1) • Neighborhood mixed use (MX-2) • Office (O) • Business park (BP) • Industrial park (I-P) • General industrial (I-G) • Parks and open space (POS) Mr. Miller stated that updating these districts will address alignment with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 31 Unofficial minutes Planning commission July 16, 2025 Ms. Chamberlain explained the Arrive + Thrive planning project and updated the planning commission on the plans. She noted areas of commercial, industrial, and residential, and presented maps to the commission related to this. She noted the Micro Center area as a potential site for redevelopment. She also pointed to the SWLRT station areas and noted these areas for development, both close in and further out from the stations as well. Mr. Miller stated that tonight’s discussion will be on MX districts and uses, and stated that staff will look at and present this broadly. Three scenarios were explained related to the districts and for discussion. Ms. Chamberlain stated that scenario 1 involves the broadest changes. Mr. Miller stated scenario 2 is an office business park rezoned to MX neighborhood commercial, while C2 remains and allows mixed use. Mr. Miller stated that scenario 3 will allow for no change in the commercial district and leave C1 and C2 as is, while reworking the mixed-use district. This scenario is the least amount of change. Chair Divecha noted that lighter industrial uses could be included. Commissioner Weber asked which option leaves the city with the fewest legal non- conforming properties. Mr. Morrison stated scenario 2 or 3. Commissioner Weber noted all three scenarios include mixed use 1, 2, and 3, and the only add-ons in 1 would be industrial park and industrial. Mr. Morrison agreed. Commissioner Eckholm asked if we want more mixed-use, how do we get developers to look at the properties where they can do mixed-use. He stated scenario 1 is the most optimized. Commissioner Flannagan agreed and added that this could be accomplished with fewer zones, and MX absorbing C2. Commissioner Strain stated she has similar concerns and noted that maybe C2 should be a placeholder like a business park, as the city transitions to more of a walkable community. She stated that, where things are now, she wants to be sure the city does not contaminate the mixed-use districts. Commissioner Weber asked if there is any way scenario 1 can be written in a way to grandfather in the current auto areas, while including additional requirements. Commissioner Eckholm stated that auto areas sound like a non-confirming use, which is allowed to be used, but not expanded on. Commissioner Eckholm stated the city cannot keep allowing the comp plan to include that the city wants less auto usage, but then allow auto uses. He added that the line needs to be drawn somewhere. He asked how the city can transition out of this. 32 Unofficial minutes Planning commission July 16, 2025 Chair Divecha asked for clarification in the new proposal showing that MX 1 would not require housing, but it could have a home, apartment or commercial, or a building. Mr. Miller stated that if there is commercial, it would have to be mixed-use. Chair Divecha noted the small businesses on Minnetonka Blvd and asked if MX 1 creates any burdens for them. Commissioner Eckholm stated that if anything changes on Minnetonka Blvd, there should be more small businesses there, not fewer. Mr. Morrison stated that the proposed MX 1, if merged with the C1 district, would have size limitations on retailers, and housing would not be required. Mr. Miller added that MX 1 on Excelsior would allow for more lighter industrial or a broader range than C1 does today. Mr. Morrison added that there could, however, be provisions added to this. Commissioner Eckholm stated he has concerns about Excelsior Blvd and whether the county will ever shrink the road. He added that the strip mall is affordable there, but it is not maintained well. He added he would also like to see smaller businesses in the Walker Lake area to create a small business district. Mr. Morrison stated that Lake Street in the Walker Historic District has been a success with many investments going into those buildings, and with little turnover. Commissioner Weber pointed out the old Johnny Pops building in the future Wooddale Station area. He stated Johnny Pops got so successful that they needed more space and moved to Maple Grove, but noted it would have been good to have them stay in St. Louis Park. He asked if, in the future, if a building does not work for a business, is there an opportunity for a business to build a larger building, and noted that this could be accomplished with the fewest number of districts. Commissioner Eckholm stated that, as a built-out city, while it might be difficult to offer an opportunity for a business to expand, it should be encouraged. Commissioner Weber stated he likes scenario 1 and would like staff to adjust some points and address some needs. Commissioner Weber stated it is hard to know about residential areas in the future. He added that no businesses will close in the city because of these zoning changes. Chair Divecha noted the Bremer Bank on Hwy. 7, which is zoned C1. Ms. Chamberlain stated it could move to MX 2. Ms. Chamberlain noted comments from Commissioner Hyman, who was absent: “In response to the discussion questions, on mixed-use, I do not see any concerns when it comes 33 Unofficial minutes Planning commission July 16, 2025 to mixing uses in current office, business park, and commercial zoned areas. For light industrial uses, we would need a definition of light industrial. I do not know where they would be particularly concerning over other places. We should take a look at uses that are concerning in general, and if there are polluters, are they concentrated in one area, and if so, they will always disproportionately impact marginalized people. We should focus on limiting polluters more broadly, not just in pockets. There is no definition provided for auto- oriented, and I assume it means uses targeted towards automobiles and therefore heavier polluting uses. These should be limited throughout St. Louis Park. Regarding building heights, I do not see any issue with building heights or any concerns.” Chair Divecha asked how minimum parking influences zoning decisions. Mr. Miller stated this will be on the agenda at the next meeting. Mr. Morrison stated with current standards, there would not be enough parking for 2-3 story buildings in the new districts because the land parcels are too small. Chair Divecha asked what barriers there would be today. Mr. Morrison stated that parking and landscaping would be barriers. Mr. Miller stated the commission is in favor of scenario 1, but also scenario 2 in some areas. Mr. Miller stated the community survey is still live and the responses will be available to the planning commission at the Sept. 3rd meeting. He added that identified changes based on this discussion tonight will come back to the planning commission for review, and then discussions regarding special provisions will be held at the Sept. 3rd meeting. 2. Communications Mr. Morrison noted the upcoming planning commission meetings: • August 6, 2025 – board of zoning appeals (BOZA) and planning regular meeting • August 20, 2025 - planning commission regular meeting • September 3, 2025 - planning commission study session • September 17, 2025 - planning commission regular meeting Ms. Chamberlain stated the city council has reviewed Arrive + Thrive, and stated it is expected council will approve it in August. 3. Adjournment – 7:33 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member 34 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: August 20, 2025 Agenda item: 3.a. 3.a. Knollwood Chipotle comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permits Executive summary Location: 8528 Highway 7, 8530 Highway 7 Case number: 25-03-CP, 25-04-CUP Applicant: Lindsay Knollwood 2, LLC Owner: Lindsay Knollwood 2, LLC Review deadline: 60 days: October 7, 2025 120 days: December 6, 2025 Recommended motion: Chair to open public hearing, take testimony, and close public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use of a portion of 8528 Highway 7 from ROW – Right of Way to COM – Commercial. Motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow in- vehicle service and the use of off-site and shared parking for 8528 Highway 7 with the following conditions. Motion to recommend rescinding special permit and approval of a conditional use permit for 8530 Highway 7 to allow in-vehicle sales and service and more than one principal building on the site. Summary of requests: Lindsay Knollwood 2, LLC applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit for the proposed development at 8528 Highway 7, along with a separate conditional use permit for the existing commercial development at 8530 Highway 7. The applicant proposes development of a Chipotle restaurant with a drive-through lane for pick up orders only on a vacant property formerly owned by MNDOT. To facilitate the development, the applicant requests to change the comprehensive plan future land use designation of a portion of the site at 8528 Highway 7 from ROW – Right of Way to COM – Commercial. The applicant also applied for a conditional use permit to allow the in-vehicle sales and service use and allow for off-site and shared parking on the existing commercial lot to the north. These requests are accompanied by requests to rescind the special permit for the existing commercial lot to the north and replace it with a conditional use permit to allow for more than one principal building on a lot and in-vehicle sales and service. The proposed project does not alter the existing buildings on 8530 Highway 7, but changes to site plan will occur. Supporting documents: Site survey, site plan, landscape plan, building elevations Prepared by: Katelyn Champoux, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director 35 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit Discussion Site information: The site at 8528 Highway 7 is directly south of an existing commercial development at 8530 Highway 7. The site was formerly used for a westbound on-ramp to Highway 7 from Aquila Avenue South and was encumbered by a highway easement until the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) released this easement to Lindsay Knollwood 2, LLC in 2022. MnDOT retains a highway easement over the remainder of Tract BB, Registered Land Survey No. 1058. Site area (acres) 0.4 acre unencumbered by highway easement Use Vacant parcel 2040 Future Land Use Right-of-way Zoning C-2 general commercial Surrounding land uses North: Commercial East: Commercial, right-of-way South: Right-of-way West: Commercial Background: The property at 8530 Highway 7 has an existing special permit originally approved in 1985 by Resolution No. 85-99, amended later that same year by Resolution No. 85-138, and amended a second time in 1986 by Resolution No. 86-02. The original special permit allowed grading and 8530 Highway 7 36 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit construction in the floodplain to accommodate the remodel and expansion of an existing car wash building for retail purposes. Changes to the project plan necessitated amendments to the special permit to allow the demolition of a previous car wash and construction of an automotive service center. Present considerations: The applicant requests the city: 1) Approve a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use of a portion of the property located at 8528 Highway 7 from ROW – Right of Way to COM – Commercial. 2) Approve a conditional use permit to allow in-vehicle service and the use of off-site and shared parking for 8528 Highway 7. 3) Rescind the existing special permit for 8530 Highway 7 and replace it with a conditional use permit for 8530 Highway 7 to allow in-vehicle sales and service and more than one principal building on the site. Zoning analysis: Below is a table summarizing the zoning requirements for this project. Further details on some of the requirements are provided after the table. Factor Required Proposed Met? Use Restaurants without intoxicating liquor license In-vehicle services (with CUP) Restaurant, fast food In-vehicle services Yes, with CUP Height 6 stories or 75 feet 1 story Yes Building Materials Minimum 60% class 1; Maximum 10% class 3 Class 1: North - 94%, East - 89%, South - 72%, West - 95% Class 3 materials will not be used on the building. Yes Off-Street Parking 84 total parking spaces required for both lots 84 parking spaces provided between both lots Yes EV charging infrastructure Four parking spaces served by level 2 charging stations with at least one adjacent to an accessible parking space Provide EV charging conduit to 21 parking spaces to support future EV charging needs Four parking spaces served by level 2 charging stations, including one accessible parking space Applicant will provide plans showing conduit for future EV charging of at least 21 parking spaces prior to city council Yes Bicycle parking 4 spaces 4 spaces provided Yes Yards – Front / Rear 5 feet n/a 87 feet n/a Yes Yards – Side/Side 5 feet 10 feet, 18 feet Floor Area Ratio 2.0 (maximum) 0.14 Yes Landscaping Tree requirement: 15 trees Shrub requirement: 92 shrubs 15 trees, 92 shrubs Yes 37 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit Access. The Chipotle lot will not have access to Aquila Ave S or Highway 7. Customers will access the proposed restaurant from 37th Street West via a proposed easement across the existing commercial site to the north. The Minnesota Department of Transportation restricted access to Highway 7 when it released its highway easement over a portion of the property located at 8528 Highway 7. The city will also prohibit direct access to Aquila Avenue South and State Highway 7 as a condition of approval in the conditional use permit. Building materials. The zoning ordinance requires at least 60% class 1 materials, which includes materials such as glass and brick, and allows for up to 10% class 3 materials. The proposed Chipotle restaurant building proposes at least 72% class 1 materials on each building elevation. The project complies with this zoning requirement. Ground floor transparency. The proposed building provides more than 50% transparency along the northern (front) façade, along with more than 20% transparency along Highway 7 and Aquila Ave S. The proposed building meets the ground floor transparency requirements. Height. The proposed building is one story, and approximately 18 feet in height. The maximum height allowed in the C-2 general commercial district is 6 stories or 75 feet. The proposed building meets the height limits. Yards. As noted in the table above, the project complies with all minimum yard requirements for the building. Off-street parking. The zoning ordinance requires 26 parking spaces for the Chipotle site and 68 parking spaces for the uses on the existing commercial lot to the north. The zoning ordinance allows the minimum parking requirement to be reduced by up to 10% for any parcel located within one-quarter mile of regular bus transit service, as defined in the ordinance. Bus Route 17 with 15-minute weekday service stops along 37th Street West adjacent to the existing commercial property north of 8528 Highway 7. Both properties qualify for the 10% reduction, which reduces the total minimum parking requirement to 84 parking spaces. The proposed project provides 68 parking spaces in the existing commercial lot, including six spaces provided by the parking bays in the Firestone building, and 16 parking spaces in the Chipotle lot for a total of 84 parking spaces. The applicant has requested a conditional use permit for off-site and shared parking with the existing commercial lot given the Chipotle parking lot is an extension of the existing parking lot and the Chipotle lot cannot accommodate the minimum required parking for the proposed use. The applicant is required to execute perpetual access and parking easement agreement(s) with the adjacent property to allow for off-site parking, shared parking, and driveway access. As a condition of approval recommended by city staff, the applicant must submit the agreement to the city for the city attorney’s review and approval, and they must submit proof of recording the agreement to the city. Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). Two (2) level-2 EV chargers will serve a total of four parking spaces on the site, including one ADA parking space. The applicant will provide plans showing conduit for future EV charging of at least 21 parking spaces prior to city council. The project complies with the EVSE requirements. 38 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit Bicycle parking. The zoning code requires bicycle parking spaces equivalent to 10% of the automobile parking spaces, but no less than four bicycle parking spaces. This project requires four (4) bicycle parking spaces, which are provided on the west side of the proposed building. Landscaping. The zoning ordinance requires one tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter. Fifteen (15) trees are required for the Chipotle lot. Seven (7) trees will be planted on the Chipotle lot and eight (8) trees will be planted on part of the adjacent site impacted by the project for a total of 15 trees. The zoning ordinance also requires at least 92 shrubs for this project. This requirement is met by the new shrubs planted on both sites. Screening. The zoning ordinance requires all off-street parking areas located within 30 feet of a public right-of-way to provide screening between the parking lot and right-of-way, except at access points. The project proposes shrubs and trees along the eastern property line abutting Aquila Avenue South. The zoning ordinance also requires refuse and recycling handling to be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. The new trash enclosure proposed for this project will be screened by a six-foot tall fence. Comprehensive plan amendment analysis: The applicant requests a change to the future land use designation of a portion of 8528 Highway 7 from ROW – Right of Way to COM – Commercial. Below is the existing and proposed future land use map showing the change. 39 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit A request to amend the city’s land use plan should be evaluated from the perspective of land use planning principles and community goals. These reflect the community’s long-range vision and broad goals about what kind of community it wants to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. General consistency with the comprehensive plan The city’s land use plan should reflect the broad goals, policies and implementation strategies incorporated in the comprehensive plan. These elements are the basis for evaluating the requested change. Commercial & office land use goal #1: Preserve and enhance community commercial centers that offer desirable and complementary commercial retail and services for the community’s residents, workers, and visitors. A. Minimize the adverse impacts associated with large community commercial centers using design, performance standards, site planning techniques, minimizing surface parking, buffering, and traffic management. B. Encourage infill development and aesthetic improvements to commercial surface parking lots in order to enhance adjacent public streets and sidewalks to more efficiently utilize commercial land. Impacts to surrounding properties and the physical character of the neighborhood Staff do not anticipate significant impacts to surrounding properties nor the physical character of the neighborhood given the existing commercial uses surrounding the project site. The properties to the north, east and west contain a variety of commercial uses including retail, restaurant, and service. The 2040 comprehensive plan guides the adjacent properties for COM – Commercial, which is intended to accommodate a wide range and scale of commercial uses. Regional policy Metropolitan Council review of this comprehensive plan amendment is required. The Metropolitan Council must authorize the city to put the amendment into effect. Staff expect that an amendment to change the future land use of a portion of 8528 Highway 7 from ROW – Right of way to COM – Commercial would be viewed favorably by the Metropolitan Council. Staff find the goals and policies of the 2040 comprehensive plan support guiding this portion of the property for COM – Commercial uses. Conditional use permit analysis: Staff finds the application meets the following general requirements for conditional use permits listed in city code section 36-33(b): 1. Consistency with plans. It is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The use of this property as a fast- food restaurant is consistent with the comprehensive plan, with approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use guiding from right-of- way to commercial. The proposed project meets the requirements of a fast-food 40 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit restaurant located within the C-2 general commercial zoning district, along with additional requirements for in-vehicle services and off-site parking. 2. Nuisance. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. Staff do not anticipate the proposed project will have adverse impacts on the existing and anticipated traffic conditions adjacent to the site. In 2014, the City of Hopkins partnered with the City of St. Louis Park and other affected jurisdictions on the Blake Road Corridor Study to plan for changing transportation needs in this corridor. The study area included the intersection of Aquila Ave S and 37th Street W in St. Louis Park, which is adjacent to the proposed Knollwood Chipotle project site. The study examined the existing and future (2035) level of service for this intersection and identified an overall level of service of A-B for both timeframes. Given this information, staff find that a traffic study is not necessary for the proposed project and do not anticipate adverse impacts to traffic flows in this area. 3. Compliance with code. It is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of city code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. The proposed use meets the conditions required for restaurants and in-vehicle services located in the C-2 general commercial zoning district. 4. Consistency with service capacity. It will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. The proposal is consistent with sewer and water service capacity. 5. Site design. It is consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. The site design meets these requirements. 6. Consistency with utilities. It is consistent with the city’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. The utilities have capacity for the proposed use. Staff find the application meets the following requirements for conditional use permits listed in city code section 36-194(d)(11). These conditions are specific to in-vehicle sales and services located in the C-2 general commercial zoning district: 1. Drive-through facilities and stacking areas shall not be located within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers, unless the entire facility and stacking areas are separated from the lot in a N district by a building wall. The proposed project is not located within 100 feet of any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use or has an occupied institutional building. 41 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit 2. Stacking shall be provided for six cars per customer service point and shall comply with all yard requirements. The proposed pickup lane can accommodate a queue of eight (8) cars without encroaching into the driveway and parking areas. 3. This use shall only be permitted when it can be demonstrated that the operation will not have a significant adverse effect on the existing level of service on adjacent streets and intersections. The Blake Road Corridor Study indicated an overall level of service of A-B at the intersection of Aquila Ave S and 37th Street W in its analysis of existing service levels and 2035 service levels. 4. The drive-through facility shall be designed so it does not impede traffic or impair vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement, or exacerbate the potential for pedestrian or vehicular conflicts. The proposed pickup lane can accommodate a queue of eight (8) cars without encroaching into the driveway and parking areas. The facility does not include an order board and the lane is used for pick-up of online orders only. 5. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. The new restaurant site located at 8528 Highway 7 will be accessed from 37th Street West via a shared driveway and easement across the site at 8530 Highway 7. This street connects to Aquila Avenue South to the east, which is classified as a Major Collector. 6. Any canopy constructed as part of this use shall be compatible with the architectural design and materials of the principal structure. This condition is met. The proposal does not include a canopy over the drive-thru lane. 7. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this requirement. This condition is met, with approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to change the land use guiding from ROW – Right of way to COM – Commercial. Staff find the application meets the following requirements for conditional use permits listed in city code section 36-361(j). These conditions are specific to off-site parking in any zoning district: 1. Paved pedestrian access shall be provided and maintained between the off-site parking facility and the principal structure. This condition is met. The proposed project provides concrete walkways along all sides of the building, except for the side adjacent to the drive-thru lane. 2. The off-site parking facility shall be located no further than 300 feet from a residential structure and no further than 500 feet from a non-residential structure. Shuttle service may be provided as an alternative means of access for non-residential uses. The off-site 42 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit parking is provided on the adjacent lot to the north with which 8528 Highway 7 shares a parking lot. The proposed off-site parking will meet the distance requirements. 3. Off-site parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant recorded by the county. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the city council. The applicant is aware of this requirement. Staff will include this requirement as a condition of approval to ensure it is met. Staff find the project meets all general CUP requirements as well as the specific requirements for in-vehicle sales and services in the C-2 general commercial zoning district. Next steps: The CPA and CUP applications are tentatively scheduled for city council consideration on Tuesday, September 2, 2025. Public outreach: A public hearing notice was posted in the Sun Sailor and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the site. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the following: Motion to recommend approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use of a portion of 8528 Highway 7 from ROW – Right of Way to COM – Commercial. Motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow in-vehicle service and the use of off-site and shared parking for 8528 Highway 7 with the following conditions. 1. City council approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to COM – Commercial and Metropolitan Council authorization of the comprehensive plan amendment associated with the development applications. 2. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved official exhibits and city code. 3. Construction and staging information will be provided to staff for review and approval before building permits are issued. 4. In-vehicle sales are prohibited on the site. 5. Direct driveway access to Aquila Avenue South and State Highway 7 are prohibited. 6. All new utility service structures shall be buried. 7. Prior to installation of any new signs, the applicant shall submit the necessary sign permits and a site sign plan that shows all existing and proposed signs. No signs will be permitted in public right-of-way. 8. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility and city representatives. b. All necessary permits shall be obtained. 9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following conditions shall be met: a. Final construction plans for the private stormwater system shall be signed by a registered engineer and approved by the city engineer. b. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park in the amount of 1.25 times the 43 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit estimated costs for private site improvements including landscaping and private stormwater management system. c. A perpetual access and parking easement agreement(s) shall be executed between both properties to allow for off-site parking, shared parking, and driveway access. The agreement shall include a site plan designating parking stalls for use by customers of motor vehicle service use. Said agreement must be submitted to the city for the city attorney’s review and approval as to the form of the agreement. Proof of recording the city approved agreement shall be submitted to the city. d. A perpetual utility easement shall be executed between both properties. Said agreement must be submitted to the city for the city attorney’s review and approval as to the form of the agreement. Proof of recording the city approved shall be submitted to the city. 10. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All city noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through Friday, and between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. d. The City shall be contacted a minimum of 72 hours prior to any work in a public street. e. Work in a public street shall take place only upon the determination by the city engineer (or designee) that appropriate safety measures have been taken to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety. f. The developer shall install and maintain chain link security fencing that is at least six feet tall along the perimeter of the site. All gates and access points shall be locked during non-working hours. g. Temporary electric power connections shall not adversely impact surrounding neighborhood service. 11. Prior to the issuance of any permanent certificate of occupancy permit the private utilities, site landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with the official exhibits. 12. Upon city approval of and acceptance of private site improvements, the developer shall provide a one-year warranty in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit for 25% of the final construction costs of the improvements. 13. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 14. The conditional use permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the use, building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed or abandoned. 15. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. Motion to recommend rescinding special permit and approval of a conditional use permit for 8530 Highway 7 to allow in-vehicle sales and service and more than one principal building on the site. 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A1 – Site Plan; Exhibit B1 – Grading and Drainage Plan; Exhibit C1 – Site Plan; Exhibit D1 – Floor Plan; Exhibit E1 – Elevation Plan; and Exhibit F1 – Landscape Plan. (Exhibits are on file in the City Development Department at the City of St. Louis Park). 44 Regular meeting of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 3.a.) Title: 8530 Highway 7 – Knollwood Chipotle – comprehensive plan amendment and conditional use permit 2. Structure on the property shall have a minimum floor elevation of 905.8 NGVD. 3. Any rooftop equipment shall be screened with materials which are architecturally compatible with the main structure. 4. Any exterior lighting on the site shall be provided such that light rays will be directed perpendicular to the ground surface and will not be directly visible from off the site. 5. All improvements shall be completed by October 15, 1986. 6. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 7. The conditional use permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. 45 46 47 ITEM 1 4 ITEM 1 4 N O P A R K I N G N O P A R K I N G STATE HI G H W A Y 7 37,500 AA D T ( 2 0 1 9 ) A Q U I L A A V E S 4, 0 0 0 A A D T ( 2 0 2 0 ) 37TH STR E E T W CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS 8 9 3 11 7 1 8 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 26.0' 16.0' 5.7' 20. 0 ' 7.6 ' ACCESSIBLE ROUTE ARROW. DO NOT PAINT, FOR CODE REVIEW ONLY, TYP. 5 . 0 ' 7 . 0 ' 5.0' EXISTING FIRESTONE 4,366 SF EXISTING WELLS FARGO EXISTING MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING 7,752 SF 1 2 . 0 ' 1 1 . 1 ' 2,581 SF 5' PARKING SETBACK PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE 5' PARKING SETBACK FULL BIT. PVMT. RECONSTRUCT, TYP, SEE FINAL GEOTECH FOR THICKNESS TRASH ENCLOSURE(S), SEE ARCH'L PLANS FOR DETAILS PVMT. STRIPING, TYP. BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY, TYP. MATCH EXISTING SIDEWALK PER CITY STANDARDS, TYP. MATCH EXISTING CURB, TYP. PROPERTY LINE BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY 5 . 0 ' 1 2 . 0 ' 6.0' 16.0' 21. 4 ' 4. 0 ' R80.0 R4.0 8 . 5 ' 8. 5 ' FULL BIT. PVMT. RECONSTRUCT, TYP, SEE FINAL GEOTECH FOR THICKNESS MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT, TYP. VALLEY GUTTER. SEE DETAIL. VALLEY GUTTER. SEE DETAIL. ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES, INCL. SIGNAGE, STRIPING AND RAMPS. SEE DETAIL. BUILDING STOOP. 16.7' 1 2 . 0 ' BUILDING OVERHANG OUTDOOR PATIO SEATING AREA. SEE ARCH'L PLANS 1 8 . 0 ' 1 8 . 0 ' BUILDING STOOP. BUILDING OVERHANG CONC. WALK TYP. 8 . 5 ' R 4 2 . 0 6 . 0 ' 8.0' BIG BLOCK RETAINING WALL, TYP. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ELEVATION AGAINST WALL. INC'L FENCE ATOP WALL & DRAIN TILE BEHIND WALL. SHOP DRAWINGS REQ'D. 14.0' 5'X6' RELOCATED CONC. TRANSFORMER/UTILITY PAD POTENTIAL LOCATION SERVING EXISTING MULTI-TENET BUILDING. COORD. FINAL SIZING & LOCATION WITH MECH'L & UTILITY CO. BIG BLOCK RETAINING WALL, TYP. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ELEVATION AGAINST WALL. INC'L FENCE ATOP WALL & DRAIN TILE BEHIND WALL. SHOP DRAWINGS REQ'D. PYLON STYLE MONUMENT SIGN. POTENTIAL LOCATION. COORDINATE FINAL SIZE & LOCATION W/ SIGN VENDOR & OWNER SITE LIGHTING POTENTIAL LOCATION COORDINATE FINAL LOCATION / SIZE / TYPE / FIXTURE COUNT W/ LIGHTING PLAN., TYP. SITE LIGHTING POTENTIAL LOCATION COORDINATE FINAL LOCATION / SIZE / TYPE / FIXTURE COUNT W/ LIGHTING PLAN., TYP. B612 C&G B612 C&G B612 C&G PVMT. STRIPING. R 3 7 . 0 CONCRETE PAVEMENT. SEE DETAIL TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES 78 BOTH PARCELS R 8 . 0 R 3 0 . 0 R15. 0 R4.0 R1 5 . 0 R1 0 . 0 1 8 . 0 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 9 . 0 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 3 6 . 1 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 3 5 . 0 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 8.5' 1 0 . 7 ' 1 0 . 8 ' 1 1 . 0 ' PROPERTY LINE 4 . 0 ' 7.2' RECIPROCAL CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR TRASH ENCLOSURES ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACES(2) POTENTIAL LOCATION W/ CHARGING EQUIP. & SIGNAGE. COORD. W/ ELECT'L PLANS. PROPOSED EASEMENTS UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER THE EXISTING PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY A SHARED ACCESS & PARKING EASEMENT WILL BE RECORDED AGAINST BOTH PROPERTIES 8 WAYFINDING SIGN FOR CHIPOTLE. POTENTIAL LOCATION. COORD. W/ OWNER & SIGN VENDOR 5 . 2 ' 5 . 9 ' 87.0' 6 . 6 ' 7 . 9 ' 4 0 . 9 ' 6 . 1 ' 12.0 ' R 3 . 0 R8 . 0 R2 7 . 0 4.0' 8.5'1 8 . 0 ' R8.0 R3 . 0 R3.0 R3 . 0 R4.0R3.0 R4.0 RELOCATED PYLON STYLE MONUMENT SIGN.(FIRESTONE) POTENTIAL LOCATION. COORDINATE FINAL SIZE & LOCATION W/ SIGN VENDOR & OWNER JIMMY JOHNS DRIVE-THRU PICKUP WINDOW JIMMY JOHNS DRIVE-THRU ORDER BOARD BIKE RACKS. HOOP STYLE. SEE DETAIL ELECTRIC VEHICLE PARKING SPACES(2) POTENTIAL LOCATION W/ CHARGING EQUIP. & SIGNAGE. COORD. W/ ELECT'L PLANS. 6'X3' CONC. TRANSFORMER/UTILITY PAD POTENTIAL LOCATION SERVING CHIPOTLE BUILDING. COORD. FINAL SIZING & LOCATION WITH MECH'L & UTILITY CO. Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 5000 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060 COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c PR O J E C T PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2025 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 7/7/2025 CITY SUBMITTAL SET 8/7/2025 CITY RESUBMITTAL PC DRAWN BY JR, DK REVIEWED BY PS PROJECT MANAGER PATRICK SARVER PROJECT NUMBER 23456.01 CH I P O T L E K N O L L W O O D 85 3 0 S T A T E H I G H W A Y 7 S T . L O U I S P A R K , M N 5 5 4 2 6 LI N D S A Y - K N O L L W O O D 2 , L L C 34 5 0 C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 1 , M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 3 4 5 48776 David J. Knaeble LICENSE NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 08/07/2025 REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION C2.0 SITE PLAN OWNER INFORMATION LINDSAY-KNOLLWOOD OUTLOT, LLC 3450 COUNTY ROAD 101 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55345 JONATHAN LINDSAY 612-747-3030 JLINDSAY@LINDSAYGROUP.COM SITE LAYOUT NOTES: SITE PLAN LEGEND: TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL ARROW PAVEMENT MARKINGS SIGN AND POST ASSEMBLY. SHOP DRAWINGS REQUIRED. HC = ACCESSIBLE SIGN NP = NO PARKING FIRE LANE ST = STOP CP = COMPACT CAR PARKING ONLY PROPERTY LINE CURB AND GUTTER-SEE NOTES (T.O.) TIP OUT GUTTER WHERE APPLICABLE-SEE PLAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS TO CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. SIGNAGE WILL BE APPROVED THROUGH A SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT. PROJECT MAY HAVE UP TO 200 SF OF SIGNAGE WITH A MAXIMUM OF 100 SF FOR ONE SIGN FACE AND MAX HEIGHT OF 25 FT FOR A PYLON SIGN. 2. PROPOSED PYLONG SIGNAGE ON THE CHIPOTLE SITE CANNOT BE USED FOR SIGNAGE FOR THE BUSINESSES ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SIGNAGE FOR THAT PROPERTY MUST BE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. ACCESSIBILITY ROUTE ARROW (IF APPLICABLE) DO NOT PAINT. 1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS & ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS. 6. LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 7. CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 9. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS-SEE DETAIL. 10. CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES. 11. SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL. 12. ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM 3' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 14. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. 15. PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 16. ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP. 17. BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 18. ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. 19. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO INSTALL ANY SIDEWALK AND CURBING PER DESIGN PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL CURBS AND SIDEWALKS WILL DRAIN PROPERLY IN FIELD CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEER 24-HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CURB AND/OR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION TO REVIEW AND INSPECT CURB STAKES. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CURB OR SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT IF THIS PROCEDURE IS NOT FOLLOWED. CONCRETE PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE) AS SPECIFIED (PAD OR WALK) SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, WITHIN ROW SEE CITY DETAIL, WITHIN PRIVATE PROPERTY SEE CSG DETAIL OPERATIONAL NOTES SNOW REMOVAL ALL SNOW SHALL BE STORED ON-SITE OUTSIDE PARKING LOT. WHEN FULL, REMOVAL CO. SHALL REMOVE EXCESS OFF-SITE. TRASH REMOVAL TRASH SHALL BE PLACED IN EXTERIOR TRASH AREA AND REMOVED BY COMMERCIAL CO. WEEKLY. DELIVERIES DELIVERIES SHALL OCCUR AT THE FRONT DOOR VIA STANDARD COMMERCIAL DELIVERY VEHICLES (UPS, FED-EX, USPS). 0 1" = 20'-0" 20'-0"10'-0" N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (IF APPLICABLE). SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DETAIL. BITUMINOUS MILL & OVERLAY 48 8500 - 8520 STATE HIGHWAY NO. 7 8 5 3 0 S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 7 ITEM 1 4 I T E M 1 6 P A R C E L 1 P A R C E L 2 ITEM 19 ITEM 1 9 ITEM 1 4 I T E M 1 6 ITEM 1 9 ITEM 19 ITEM 19 ITEM 1 9 N O P A R K I N G N O P A R K I N G STATE HI G H W A Y 7 37,500 AA D T ( 2 0 1 9 ) A Q U I L A A V E S 4, 0 0 0 A A D T ( 2 0 2 0 ) 37TH STR E E T W CONSTRUCTION LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXISTING FIRESTONE 4,366 SF EXISTING WELLS FARGO EXISTING MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDING 7,752 SF 2,581 SF 1 - CP 1 - CP 1 - AJ2.5 1 - GC 1 - GC 4 - IA 6 - DS 1 - IV 1 - OV 8 - HJ2 6 - AB5 1 - OV 4 - LR 7 - HJ2 1 - AR2 1 - AR2 1 - AL 3 - CM 4 - AB5 5 - PN3 4 - CA3 3 - SS2 3 - PN3 3 - ZA 5 - AB5 8 - LR 3 - CA3 3 - PN3 1 - AR2 7 - AB5 3 - ZA 5 - CA3 1 - PS 5 - PF 7 - LR 4 - PF 4 - LR 1 - AJ2.5 1 - AL 1 - AJ2.5 SYMBOL QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME SIZE GROUND COVERS 675 sf Rock Maintanence Strip / Rock Maintanence Strip 1"- 3" Washed river rock, uniform in size over filter fabric, composed of round rocks that may be varied in color. Include aluminum edging as shown on plan, or as needed. See detail. Mulch 3,963 sf Blue Grass Based / Sod Commercial grade, locally grown, well rooted sod blend of improved Kentucky Bluegrass w/ uniform color, leaf texture, density and varieties consisting of a minimum of two and no more than four common cultivars. Sod PLANT SCHEDULE SITE L1.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN Civil Engineering Surveying Landscape Architecture 5000 Glenwood Avenue Golden Valley, MN 55422 civilsitegroup.com 612-615-0060 COPYRIGHT CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.c PR O J E C T PRELIMINARY: NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2025 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 7/7/2025 CITY SUBMITTAL SET 8/7/2025 CITY RESUBMITTAL PC DRAWN BY JR, DK REVIEWED BY PS PROJECT MANAGER PATRICK SARVER PROJECT NUMBER 23456.01 CH I P O T L E K N O L L W O O D 85 3 0 S T A T E H I G H W A Y 7 S T . L O U I S P A R K , M N 5 5 4 2 6 LI N D S A Y - K N O L L W O O D 2 , L L C 34 5 0 C O U N T Y R O A D 1 0 1 , M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 3 4 5 24904 Patrick J. Sarver LICENSE NO.DATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 08/07/2025 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ONLY PLANT MATERIAL FREE OF NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES AND/OR TREATMENTS OF ANY KIND, INCLUDING BY NOT LIMITED TO IMIDACLOPRID (CONFIDOR, ADMIRE, GAUCHO, ADVOCATE), THIAMETHOXAM (ACTARA, PLATINUM, CRUISER), CLOTHIANIDIN (PONCHO, DANTOSU, DANTOP), ACETAMIPRID (MOSPILAN, ASSAIL, CHIPCOTRISTAR), THIACLOPRID (CALYPSO), DINOTEFURAN (STARKLE, SAFARI, VENOM), AND NITENPYRAM (CAPSTAR, GUARDIAN). 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL CERTIFY, THROUGH SUPPLIERS POLICY STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT, THAT NO NEONICOTINOID BASED INSECTICIDES HAVE BEEN USED ON SITE OR DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE GROWING OR STORAGE PLOTS OF THE SUPPLIED PLANT MATERIAL, INCLUDING THE PLANTING OF AGRICULTURAL (OR OTHER) SEED TREATED WITH NEONICS.. POLLINATOR SAFE PLANT MATERIAL: LANDSCAPE NOTES: PROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED ORNAMENTAL TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED EVERGREEN TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PROPOSED CANOPY TREE SYMBOLS - SEE PLANT SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES DECORATIVE BOULDERS (ROUNDED & BLOCK STYLE), 18"-30" DIA. LANDSCAPE PLAN LEGEND: EDGING - SHALL BE COMMERCIAL GRADE, 4" DEPTH ALUMINUM, BLACK OR DARK GREEN IN COLOR, INCLUDE ALL CONNECTORS, STAKES, & ALL APPURTENANCES PER MANUF. INSTALL PER MANUF. INSTRUC./SPECS. SEE SHEET L1.1 FOR PLANTING SCHEDULE SEE SHEET LT1.0 FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING PLAN PLANTING SEASON SCHEDULE SEASON CONIFEROUS DECIDUOUS REMARKS SPRING PLANTING APRIL 15 - JUNE 15 APRIL 15 - JUNE 15 FALL PLANTING AUGUST 21 - SEPTEMBER 30 AUGUST 15 - NOVEMBER 15 NOTE: ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION 0 1" = 20'-0" 20'-0"10'-0" N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R MULCH SCHEDULE AREA MULCH TYPE EDGING FABRIC REMARKS TREE RINGS 4" DEPTH, SHREDDED CEDAR YES NO SEE DETAIL SHT. L1.1 PLANTING BEDS ROCK MULCH, SEE LEGEND YES NO MAINT. STRIP AT BUILDING FOUNDATION ROCK MULCH, SEE LEGEND YES YES NOTE: COORDINATE ALL MULCH AND PLANTING BED MATERIAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, PROVIDE SAMPLES AND SHOP DRAWINGS/PHOTOS/DATA SHEETS OF ALL MATERIALS 1. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILITIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 2. REFERENCE MULCH SCHEDULE FOR MULCH MATERIALS AND LOCATIONS. 3. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK. 4. IF SHOWN ON PLAN, RANDOM SIZED LIMESTONE BOULDERS COLOR AND SIZE TO COMPLIMENT NEW LANDSCAPING. OWNER TO APPROVE BOULDER SAMPLES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. 6. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 7. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR TWO (2) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE. 8. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 6" LAYER TOPSOIL AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 9. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 10. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE. 11. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. 12. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. 13. PROVIDE SITE WIDE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN AND INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE FULLY PROGRAMMABLE AND CAPABLE OF ALTERNATE DATE WATERING. THE SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE HEAD TO HEAD OR DRIP COVERAGE AND BE CAPABLE OF DELIVERING ONE INCH OF PRECIPITATION PER WEEK. SYSTEM SHALL EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT/BACK OF CURB. 14. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE APPROVAL OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING PRICING FROM OWNER, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS: CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. PARKING ISLANDS SHALL BE PREPARED WITH CLEAN SOIL TO A DEPTH OF 5 FEET AND IMPROVED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE, NUTRIENT AND MOISTURE-RETENTION LEVELS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PLANTINGS. (EXCEPT WHERE THIS CONFLICTS WITH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUCH AS THE UNDERGROUND STORM WATER BASIN.) 2. ALL PLANTING BEDS OUTSIDE OF PARKING ISLANDS WITH TREES SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST 2 FEET DEPTH OF CLEAN TOPSOIL FILL WITH DIMENSIONS TO ACCOMMODATE 54 CU. FT OF TOPSOIL. 49 SEAL SHEET NUMBER: REVISION DATE ISSUE DATE TITLE: PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BY PROJECT INFORMATION CLIENT CONSULTANT J. LINDSAY THE LINDSAY GROUP, LLC 3450 COUNTY ROAD 101 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55345 © C O P Y R I G H T W I L K U S A R C H I T E C T S NOT F O R CON S T R U C T I O N A901 2025-0210 SAS HW Y 7 & A Q U I L A ST . L O U I S P A R K , M N 5 5 4 2 6 KN O L L W O O D SH E L L B U I L D I N G EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVESA901 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE1 A901 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE2 A901 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE4 A901 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE3 50 Planning commission: Study session Meeting date: August 20, 2025 Agenda item: 1 1 Discussion of Zoning Code Update, Phase 2 Recommended Action: No action at this time. Provide feedback to staff on the draft zoning map and architectural performance standards. Background: At the July 16, 2025, planning commission study session, HKGi consultants and city staff provided an overview of the non-neighborhood zoning districts, which are: • Neighborhood commercial (C-1) • General commercial (C-2) • Vertical mixed use (MX-1) • Neighborhood mixed use (MX-2) • Office (O) • Business park (BP) • Industrial park (I-P) • General industrial (I-G) • Parks and open space (POS) At the July 16, 2025 study session, the planning commission directed staff to prepare a zoning map that: 1. Renames current MX-1 to MX-2 community mixed-use. 2. Renames current MX-2 to MX-1 neighborhood mixed-use 3. Converts the office district to MX districts 4. Converts the business park district to MX districts 5. Converts the C-1 neighborhood commercial district to MX-1 neighborhood mixed-use. 6. Converts some C-2 general commercial districts to MX-2 districts. 7. Retains some properties as C-2 general commercial. These properties are currently used as large box retail, shopping centers, and/or motor vehicle sales land uses. They are also located near highway interchanges. It is expected that these uses will continue for the foreseeable future and are reasonably located with direct access to the highway system. Analysis: At this study session, staff will present the draft zoning map and discuss the architectural design section of the zoning ordinance. Zoning map: The draft zoning map which reflects the above changes is attached. If the draft zoning map is acceptable to the planning commission, then staff will begin reviewing zoning district performance standards, land uses, and other more general performance standards. It is important to agree on the zoning map prior to reviewing district standards and uses as the proximity of the zoning districts to each other and neighborhood districts may influence the proposed district standards and uses. 51 Study session of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update, Phase 2 A request was submitted by Brad Middendorf, owner of 9445 Minnetonka Blvd to have the zoning changed on his property from Neighborhood-2 to a commercial district. His property was the subject of the sign variance heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on August 6, 2025. As noted in that report, the building was constructed in 1946 as a motor vehicle repair use. It was rezoned to residential by 1949. The building has been occupied by legally non-conforming uses since and has been occupied by legally non-conforming office uses since the 1980s when the council authorized the entire building to be occupied by an office land use. As a legally non- conforming office use, the building can continue to be occupied by office uses, but the building cannot be added onto and cannot be occupied by a more intense use. The legal non- conforming use is protected by state statute. The building can be maintained and even replaced to the same dimensions. If the building were rezoned to a commercial district, then the non-conforming status would be removed, and it could be occupied by any commercial use allowed in the district it is rezoned into. This raises the potential of other commercial uses occupying the property that may create more traffic and/or noise for the neighborhood. Additionally, it is a better practice to consider rezoning when there is a development proposal. That way the city and neighborhood can consider the full development proposal before acting on a rezoning request. Rezoning now, when there is no development proposal is premature. The property has a reasonable use as a legally non-conforming office use and has been operating that way for over 40 years. Staff advised Mr. Middendorf that the current Neighborhood-2 zoning is the best district for the property. It allows the current office use to continue as a legally non-conforming use and states the intent of that corner to be residential should it ever be redeveloped. The comprehensive plan reinforces this intent by having it designated as medium density residential on the comprehensive plan land use map. Architectural design. Staff will also discuss the architectural standards portion of the zoning ordinance. While we can discuss any portion of the zoning ordinance, staff would like to focus on its use of architectural materials as a major factor for determining what the city deems as acceptable architecture and consolidating architectural standards into one section. Discussion questions: At Wednesday’s meeting, we will be discussing the following questions. •Zoning map: Does the planning commission want to proceed with the draft zoning map knowing that the review of the zoning district standards and uses will be based on the draft zoning map? •Architectural ordinance: o Should the ordinance continue to focus on materials? o Should the architectural elements currently found in various zoning districts be consolidated into the architectural section? 52 Study session of August 20, 2025 (Item No. 1) Title: Discussion of Zoning Code Update, Phase 2 Next step: Planning commission meeting on September 3, 2025 to review community survey input, confirm changes to the non-neighborhood districts and discuss the special provisions article of the zoning code. This article includes parking, signs, landscaping, lighting, and architectural design standards. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by: Laura Chamberlain, senior planner Attachments: •Current zoning map •Draft zoning map •9445 Minnetonka Blvd zoning change request. •Architectural standards section of zoning ordinance. 53 IFFSt. Louis Park J_IJ M I N N E 5 0 TA 1111 POS-Park and Open Space Nl-Neighborhood 1 N2-Neighborhood 2 Official Zoning Map 1111 MXl-Vertical Mixed-Use Floodplain 1111 MX2-Neighborhood Mixed-Use � Flood Fringe 1111 0-0ffice � Floodway 1111 BP-Business Park IP-Industrial Park Cl-Neighborhood Commercial 1111 IG-General Industrial -· Travel Demand Management Boundary 1111 C2-General Commercial 1111 PUD-Planned Unit Development �pe-i,-ie-nu.-L-IF� in the-Piwk- 54 55 9445 Minnetonka Blvd rezoning request Request: Subject property: SITE Hi g h w a y 1 6 9 In d e p e n d e n c e A v e S 56 Sec. 36-366. Architectural design. (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to serve the public interest by promoting a high standard of development in the city. Through a comprehensive review of both functional and aesthetic aspects of new or intensified developments, the city seeks to accomplish the following: (1) Implement the comprehensive plan; (2) Preserve the character of neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas; (3) Reasonably maintain and improve the city tax base; (4) Reduce the adverse impacts of dissimilar land uses; (5) Promote orderly and safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; (6) Discourage the development of identical and similar building facades which detract from the character and appearance of the neighborhood; (7) Preserve the natural and built environment; and (8) Minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties from buildings which are or may become unsightly. (b) Building design. Buildings shall be designed to enhance the attractiveness of the city’s streetscape by minimizing monotonous structures and long, blank walls. Additionally, buildings shall, through use of architectural details and scale, have architectural features and patterns that provide visual interest from the perspective of the pedestrian. The following techniques shall be incorporated into building design in order to accomplish such requirements. (1) Architectural design elements that will be considered in the review of building and site plans include building materials, color and texture, building bulk, general massing, roof treatment, proportion of openings, facade design elements and variation, window and openings. Site plan design elements that will be considered in the determination as to whether site plan design is superior include quantity, quality, variation, compatibility and size of plant materials, landscape berms and screening walls. Also considered will be the overall order, symmetry and proportion of the various elements within the site and within the larger context of the area or corridor. (2) The height, bulk, general massing, roof treatment, materials, colors, textures, major divisions, and proportions of a new or remodeled building shall be compatible with that of other buildings on the site and on adjacent sites. (1) Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to wall height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall deviation at the 2:1 ratio shall be two feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to three feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be increased to 4:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to four feet. The building wall deviations must extend from the grade to the roof, or top of the parapet. 57 (2) No building may display more than ten percent of any elevation surface in bright, high intensity or pure tone primary or secondary colors. No fluorescent or neon colors shall be used on any exterior elevation surface. (5) The development must locate the noise-producing portions of the development, such as loading docks, outside storage and outside activity away from adjacent residential areas. (6) All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more than 50 percent of another principal building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year. This section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use district, mixed-use district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible. (7) Interior and exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether permanently or temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or more than ten percent of any individual window or contiguous window area. (8) Ground floor transparency. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor street-facing facades in the C-1, C-2, and MX Districts, and retail, service, and restaurant uses in O and BP Districts: a. Window paintings and signage shall cover no more than 10 percent of the total window and door area. b. Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of three (3) feet. Display of merchandise is allowed within this three (3) feet. c. Interior storage areas, utility closets and trash areas shall not be visible from the exterior of the building. d. No more than 10 percent of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90 percent of window and door area shall be highly transparent, low reflectance windows with a minimum 60 percent transmittance factor and a reflectance factor of not greater than 0.25. e. Buildings, and additions to existing buildings, shall maintain a minimum of 50 percent ground floor transparency on the front façade, and 20 percent on all other ground floor street facing facades. Buildings which expand the gross square footage of the building by more than 50 percent shall bring the entire building into compliance with these transparency requirements. f. The city acknowledges a degree of flexibility may be necessary to adjust to unique situations. Alternatives that provide an increase in pedestrian vibrancy and street safety including but not limited to public art and pedestrian scale amenities may be considered and may be approved by the Zoning Administrator, unless the development application requires approval by city council, in which case the city council shall approve the alternate transparency plan. 58 (c) Building Materials. Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the adopted building code and the manufacturer’s specifications and shall be subject to the regulations listed below. Products listed as “integral colored” shall continue its surface color consistently through the depth of the product as opposed to being colored, painted, or stained on the surface only. (1) Classes of materials. Materials shall be divided into class I, class II and class III categories as follows: a. Class I. The following materials are considered class 1 materials as specified: 1. Brick 2. Marble, granite, or other natural stone 3. Integral colored cast stone (the stone is colored consistently through) 4. Textured cement stucco 5. Architectural wall cladding (Nichiha, Equitone and similar brands) Material must be through colored and at least 5/8 inches thick. 6. Copper 7. Porcelain 8. Glass 9. Wall mounted solar energy system 10. Residential buildings containing four or fewer dwelling units may utilize the following additional materials: i. Wood ii. Vinyl siding iii. Fiber-reinforced cement board iv. Prefinished metal 11. Residential buildings containing five or more dwelling units may utilize the following additional materials: i. Up to 10% of the required class 1 materials may be finished with clapboard and/or shake-style fiber-reinforced cement board with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch. 12. Park buildings under 3,000 square feet may utilize the following additional materials: i. Wood. b. Class II. The following materials are considered class II materials as specified: 1. Exposed aggregate concrete panels 2. Burnished concrete block 3. Integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete block 4. Cast-in-place concrete 5. Insulated exterior wall panels (E.I.F.S., Drivit and similar brands) 6. Fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch 7. Prefinished metal. 8. Integral colored concrete panels other than smooth finished. c. Class III. The following materials are considered class III materials as specified: 1. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or unscored) 2. Unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels 3. Unfinished or surface painted metal 4. Smooth finished concrete panels 59 5. Brick, stone, or integral colored material which has been painted (2) New construction minimum class I materials. At least 60 percent of each building face visible from off the site must be of class I materials except as permitted by subsection (d)(4)c. of this section. Not more than 10 percent of each building face visible from off the site may be of class III materials. Portions of buildings not visible from off the site may be constructed of greater percentages of class II or class III materials if the structure otherwise conforms to all city ordinances. The mixture of building materials must be compatible and integrated. (3) New construction buildings in I-G and I-P districts. a. Not on major streets and not near residential. For buildings in the I-G and I-P districts which are not located on a principal arterial, minor arterial, major collector, or adjacent to or across from any neighborhood zoned property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to a class I material as certified by the architect or manufacturer. b. On major streets or near residential. For building walls in the I-G and I-P districts facing on a principal arterial, minor arterial or major collector, or adjacent to or across from any neighborhood zoned property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent provided that the remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to a class I material as certified by the architect or manufacturer and that the architectural design and site plan are superior quality as determined by the zoning administrator. The architecture and site plan shall meet the following minimum criteria to be considered superior quality: 1. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet. 2. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20 percent or the size of 20 percent of the overstory trees installed shall be increased to 3 1/2 caliper inches. 3. A minimum of ten percent of the building facade must be windows or glass spandrels. (4) Existing buildings. Existing buildings may paint or stain their exterior utilizing product specifically formulated for its intended use. All painted or stained surfaces shall be maintained so it is free of chipping and peeling. (5) Temporary materials. On non-residential properties, covered patios with a permanent solid roof may enclose the wall openings with transparent non-glass materials for up to six months per calendar year provided the permanent exterior wall materials are not covered. (d) General provisions. (1) All exterior finishes for one and two-unit dwellings and accessory structures shall be installed within one year from the issuance of the building permit. (2) Additions and accessory structures. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment, colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features of additions, exterior alterations, and new accessory buildings shall address and respect the original 60 architectural design and general appearance of the principal buildings on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section. Clear acrylic that is high impact, double- skinned, non-yellowing, and a minimum eight (8) millimeter thick may be classified as a Class I material for accessory greenhouses. (3) Screening. a. The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following methods. Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible from the ground within 400 feet from property in a N district, only the items listed in subsections 1 and 2 shall be used. 1. A parapet wall. 2. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the building. 3. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky, whichever is most effective. 4. Solar collector surface and its frame shall be exempt from rooftop screening requirements. b. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground tanks); refuse and recycling handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening. c. All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter. (4) Parking ramps. All new parking ramps shall meet the following design standards: a. Parking ramp facades that are visible from off the site shall display an integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors with the principal building. b. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades. c. If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right-of-way or recreational trail, the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings. (5) Awnings and canopies. a. Design parameters. Awnings and canopies shall be designed, installed, and maintained to meet the following criteria: 1. Awnings and canopies shall have noncombustible frames. If an awning can be collapsed, retracted or folded, the design shall be such that the awning does not block any required exit. 2. Awnings and canopies less than 25 feet in width may extend into the public right- of-way up to two feet from the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally. 61 3. All portions of any awning and canopy shall provide at least eight feet of clearance or any walkway and twelve feet of clearance over a driveway or private roadway. 4. Canopy posts or other supports located within a public right-of-way or easement shall be placed in a location approved by the city engineer. b. Permit required. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any awning or canopy. In addition to the building permit, an encroachment agreement shall be issued by the city engineer prior to the installation of any awning or canopy that extends into, upon or over any street or alley right-of-way, park or other public property. The encroachment agreement shall include provisions that hold the owner of the awning or canopy liable to the city for any damage which may result to any person or property by reason of such encroachment or the removal of such encroachment. Additional conditions may be imposed on encroachment permits to protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to protect nearby property owners from hardship or damage or to protect other public interests as determined by the city engineer. c. Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to the installation of an awning or canopy. 1. Application form and fee. A separate fee shall be required for the building permit and encroachment agreement. 2. Dimensioned and scaled site plan and building elevations. 3. Four sets of drawings for each awning or canopy proposed. d. Projections to be safe. All such projections over public property shall be structurally safe, shall be kept in a safe condition and state of repair consistent with the design thereof and repaired when necessary in the opinion of the city engineer or building official by and at the expense of the person having ownership or control of the building from which they project. e. Removal upon order. The owner of an awning or canopy, any part of which projects into, upon, over or under any public property shall, upon being ordered to do so by the city engineer, remove at once any part or all of such encroachment and shall restore the right-of-way to a safe condition. Such removal and restoration of the right-of-way will be at the sole expense of the property owner. The city may, upon failure of the property owner to remove the encroachment as ordered, remove the encroachment, and the reasonable costs of removing such encroachment incurred by the city shall be billed and levied against the property as a special assessment. (e) Appeal. In any instance where the zoning administrator denies a permit or a request for preliminary approval of building materials or building design, the applicant may submit an appeal to the interpretation, based upon the plans and other papers on file in the office of the zoning administrator. 62