Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/04/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Regular Planning commission meeting April 7, 2021 6:00 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call Sean Walther at 952.924.2574 or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Planning commission A ll meetings of St. Louis Park boards and commissions will be conducted by telephone or other electronic means starting March 30, 2020, and until further notice. This is in accordance with a local emergency declaration issued by the city council, in response to the coronavirus (COVID- 19) pandemic and Governor Walz's “Stay Safe MN” executive order 20-056. The chief administrator has determined that in-person council or commission/committee meetings are not feasible at this time due to the pandemic. All board members/commissioners will participate in th is meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the regular meeting place of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Members of the public can monitor the meeting by “listen only ” audio by calling +1.312.535.8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city , with board members/commissioners and staff participating from multiple locations. Agenda 1.Call to order – roll call 2.Approval of minutes – March 3, 2021 and March 17, 2021 3.Hearings 3a. Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to fences Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 21-08-ZA Public hearing phone number: 952.562.2888 4.Other Business 5.Communications 6.Adjournment Future meeting/event dates: April 12, 2021 – joint study session with the city council April 21, 2021 – planning commission study session May 5, 2021 – planning commission regular meeting and study session 1 2 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 3, 2021 – 6:00 p.m. WEBEX MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes - none 3. Public Hearings A. Costco parking lot expansion Applicant: Costco Wholesale Corporation Case No: 21-06-S, 21-07-PUD Mr. Morrison presented the report to the commission . Commissioner Weber asked if employees can enter the building from the back side of the building as presented. Mr. Morrison stated yes, there is an entrance in the back of the building. Commissioner Weber stated he has concerns about losing the pond and asked what the city code says and if it needs to be replaced. Mr. Morrison stated underground treatment is an acceptable option. The proposed underground treatment is upgrading the pond to today’s regulations for water treatment and containment. Commissioner Weber asked if this is a man -made retention pond. Mr. Morrison stated it is man-made . Commissioner Weber asked more about how Gamble Drive will be improved within this project and if it will be a better traffic flow there . Mr. Morrison stated the intersection was reviewed a few times since it was built and improvements were made from the original design . How ever, Mr. Morrison stated options are limited in that area, and they tried to work within constraints, including closing off one of the parking lot entrances on the east side of Gamble . 3 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Mar. 3, 2021 Page 2 Chair Eckholm stated he has similar concerns in that area and asked what the lane widths are . Mr. Morrison stated they are standard size . C hair Eckholm asked if a 14-foot-wide lane is necessary here. He added he has concerns about customers parking in area 4 and walking across Gamble . He stated he would want to see pedestrian improvements there, so as to be able to cross the traffic lanes safely. Mr. Morrison noted this area would be for employee parking only. Chair Eckholm stated that is also a concern for employee parking there and walking over. C ommissioner Web er suggested moving the entrance and exit lanes and making it a one -way driving area. He added stop lights could also be considered in the area as well as thinking about areas to separate traffic flow. C ommissioner Erwin stated these are all valid points and asked if Costco could engage a traffic study there to improve the situation. Mr. Morrison stated staff has looked at the traffic here over the years, but it is a difficult area. He continued some improvements have been made over the years. C hair Eck holm stated he is concerned introducing more parking here , noting the traffic situation will become worse. Commissioner Beneke agreed with all the commissioners. Commissioner Weber stated overall he likes what is proposed, but he would be more comfortable with less parking proposed. He added possibly the entrance could be moved as well. C hair Eckholm opened the public hearing. Steven Cross, the applicant, stated he has looked at the turn lane and it is an extra wide lane at 14 feet. There is no way to add more lanes. He stated he would be happy to take a closer look at this within the confines of this challenging area. He noted the employees parking across Gamble do have walkways to cross to the building. Commissioner Weber asked if he is directed to work within the parameters of that intersection, or is he allowed to make changes to the actual intersection. M r. Cros s stated they have not explored or considered a total reconstruction of the intersection, noting this is a shopping center area, and this is an undertaking 4 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Mar. 3, 2021 Page 3 related to parking. He added filling in the retention pond is also significantly costly and makes the project challenging as well. He continued changing the actual intersection would be too costly but noted they would look at working with the commission and staff on parking area changes. Chair Eckholm stated the issue here is the way people behave within the space as it is currently constructed. He stated he has concerns about adding 90 parking spaces and more parking stalls will not solve these high traffic concerns. He asked what traffic studies the applicant has done and what solutions they might have . Mr. Cross stated he is not aware of any traffic studies that have been done at the site . He added they are only looking to add parking stalls and moving employee parking to the back of the building to open more front area parking for customers. Caller – Anna Kasinski, 1632 Zarthan Ave S, stated she is adjacent to area 1 and she has concerns about this. She stated the parking and fence would be an eyesore in the area, and she would like Costco to mitigate impacts to neighbors and she agreed also about traffic on Gamble Drive as well. She stated she walks in the area quite often vs. driving into the site, and thanked staff and Costco for the discussion. Commissioner Weber noted the geese in the area love the ponds and asked if the pond is removed, will the rest of the geese move over to the other pond and cause problems there as well. Mr. Cross stated he is not aware of this issue and would need to look into measures that could be done . Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Erwin thanked the caller for their comments. She stated perhaps the commission should refocus on this measure of parking, and if there are future issues regarding traffic control, they could be discussed at a future meeting. Chair Eckholm stated he feels the traffic is a consideration but did note Commissioner Erwin’s comments. 5 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Mar. 3, 2021 Page 4 Commissioner Erwin noted another concern for residents could be lights shining into homes in the area, and possibly Costco could add a privacy fence there to create an edge also . Commissioner Weber added the height of the berm might alleviate that problem, but it could be an issue with larger trucks. Mr. Cross stated the y will be cutting into the berm resulting in a retaining wall on the west side that will block the headlights for the most part. Additional landscaping will be added to complete the screening. He added they will also replace the speed bumps with speed humps in that area to reduce the noise, and they will be adding trees there for screening as well. Commissioner Kraft noted in area 1, the berm would cover the lights issue, also noting she would have concern about adding a fence there but thought trees with more openings there would be better for safety. She asked about area 2 and if traffic comes from that area as well. Commissioner Weber stated in area 2, there is no entrance or exit onto Cedar Lake Road, asking possibly if this is the time to open another entrance there . Chair Eckholm stated he would like a traffic study in the area and if there is historical information as well that staff can provide, he would like to see that. Mr. Walther stated this entire area was a major redevelopment of an industrial property. He noted the traffic entrance s were limited to Park Place Blvd and 16th Street primarily due to neighborhood opposition to access being added to Cedar Lake Road and especially not to Zarthan Ave S, which results in traffic being funneled to only two points. He reiterated that small adjustments to improve the traffic flow have been made over the years and the site complies with previous approvals. Mr. Walther added this is an unusual application as they are increasing the parking and but not the building area. The building area is typically used to model increas es in the traffic and parking demands in the code. This does not mean that there could not be induced demand created by adding parking. He noted this business is doing very well and is a victim of its success and they are workin g to alleviate the parking concerns their customers have voiced. Commissioner Beneke asked why since parking is so tight, Costco is selling off the land. Mr. Cross stated Costco is trading land in one area in order to acquire the pond in another area, so as to create additional parking. 6 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Mar. 3, 2021 Page 5 Commissioner Weber stated the entrance to the parking lot should be reconfigured to force more traffic into the parking lot before turning. Ms. Jeri Krieg, with Costco, noted the parking count at the St. Louis Park store is very low compared to other Costco stores around the country. She stated they have worked with city staff to improve as much as they could over the years. Commissioner Beneke stated typically he would say the commission is discussing items beyond the scope and possibly the commission should recommend the city review the traffic concerns in the area. Commissioner Erwin agreed . Commissioner Erwin made a motion, Commissioner Beneke seconded, recommending approval of the major amendment to the PUD and preliminary plat subject to the conditions recommended by staff, and to have the city council review the traffic concerns noted by the commission on Gamble Drive. The motion passed on a vote of 4-2. (Chair Eckholm and Commissioner Weber opposed.) B. Major Amendment to Park Place Plaza PUD Applicant: Bianco Properties Case No: 21-05-PUD Mr. Morrison presented the report. Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. There were no callers on the line. Paul Hu miston , the applicant, was available for questions. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Commissioner Weber stated he will approve this and would like to have the city council review the traffic in the area as well. Chair Eckholm agreed and asked if they could also look at how to improve the pedestrian experience as well. Commissioner Erwin asked how large the proposed retail units are. Mr. Hu miston stated at this time there are no tenants identified. It is designed for 1 – 7 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Mar. 3, 2021 Page 6 3 tenants. There is a patio for outdoor seating on the north end to accommodate a coffee shop option. Commissioner Erwin stated she would have concerns about traffic at the intersection, but noted it seems these businesses will be smaller. Commissioner Weber made a motion, Commissioner Erwin seconded, recommending approval of a major amendment to PUD as recommended subject to conditions recommended by staff, and to recommend to city council to do a traffic study as well as look at pedestrian enhancements. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. C. Target Knollwood – Boone Avenue reconstruction Applicant: Target Corporation Case No: 21-03-CUP, 21-04-PUD Mr. Morrison gave the presentation to the commission. Commissioner Kraft asked if the city asked Target to take this project on, or did Target know about the issue . Mr. Morrison stated it was a concern of both the city and Target, and Target is responsible for the private road and is initiating the project. Commissioner Weber asked if the watershed district must approve it as well. Mr. Morrison stated yes. The watershed stated it meets their floodplain regulations and a variance request for a wetland buffer will be reviewed by the district. Commissioner Beneke stated he is surprised Target is okay with losing parking spaces, and his only worry might be if they ask for more parking in the future . Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing. There were no callers on the line. Ryan Hyllestad, Kimley Horn, on behalf of Target, was available for questions. Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing. Chair Eckholm stated this is a recurring problem and he is glad Target is proactive on this to rebuild the road and he will support this. 8 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission Mar. 3, 2021 Page 7 Commissioner Kraft made a motion, Commissioner Dagane seconded, recommending approval of the CUP to place fill in the FEMA floodplain subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0. 4. Other Business - none 5. Communications Mr. Walther stated on Monday, April 12, the commission is scheduled for a joint meeting with the city council at a study session. Chair Eckholm will present the planning commission’s 2021 workplan to council. Mr. Walther stated the city council has received several applications for the planning commission and they will be reviewed and finalized by the end of May. Mr. Walther stated the March 17 planning commission meeting will be a study session only. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. 9 10 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 17, 2021 - 6:00 p.m. WEBEX MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Jessica Kraft, Tom Weber MEMBERS ABSENT: Courtney Erwin STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther STUDY SESSION The study session commenced at 6:00 p.m. 1. Zoning ordinance amendment – fences Mr. Morrison presented the report. The ordinance would allow six feet tall fences to the side of a house on a corner lot when the house is not facing the side lot line adjacent to a street, instead of facing the front lot line. Commission Weber stated the zoning ordinance amendment is a good solution. Commissioner Kraft agreed, adding this makes sense vs. coming up with multiple rules for front and corner lots. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant’s fence would need to be shorter now, with the amendment. Mr. Morrison stated the requested fence could still be up to six feet tall with the proposed revision. The area proposed to have the four-foot limit is located between the front face of the house and property line along the street (Texas Circle). Mr. Morrison stated a public hearing will be scheduled for this topic in April with the planning commission. 2. Home occupations Mr. Morrison presented the report. 11 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 17, 2021 Page 2 Chair Eckholm stated there are parking concerns possibly, but he noted noise issues are more concerning. He added if the accessory building is a problem for city council, he would be fine removing that piece. Mr. Morrison stated the complaints that went to council were not about parking, they were about the impacts resulting from home occupations being conducted in accessory buildings. Commissioner Weber asked if there is enforcement action if an occupation is moved to the garage . Mr. Morrison stated yes there is. He noted that enforcement takes time and is problematic in that the city will not contact a business unless staff sees or catches them in the act of using the garage for their business. Chair Eckholm asked what sort of businesses the nuisance cases are. Mr. Morrison stated some are auto repair, storage of items in the garage, or e mployees coming over to pick up items out of a garage, which creates traffic. He added sometimes it can be an odor, such as paint or stain . Commissioner Weber appreciated Mr. Morrison’s comments, but added if the extension is to an ADU and a garage is not included, he is not sure what the difference is between home or garage occupation. Mr. Morrison stated the home occupation is less likely to create nuisance impacts for neighbors if it is being conducted in the dwelling as opposed to a garage or shed. People may be more likely to conduct an activity that results in odors, sound, or other nuisances when conducted in an accessory building than within their own dwelling space. Chair Eckholm asked if there might be more acceptance if the city allowed painting in a shed vs. in a garage, and if removing garages solves 90% of the problem. Mr. Morrison stated the city does not differentiate between a garage or a shed in the code they are both accessory buildings. Commissioner Kraft asked if garage attached to homes are considered an accessory use. Mr. Morrison stated yes . She stated the spirit of the ordinance seems to be that the home occupation is within the home and should not be noticeable . She stated she does not think we need to pursue allowing home occupations in accessory buildings. Commissioner Ben e ke asked if the 25% limit is applicable to the ADU. Mr. Morrison stated it should, but also noted that if the occupant of the ADU is using more than 25%, it would be difficult for city staff to know. 12 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 17, 2021 Page 3 Mr. Walther stated when the ADU was created, it was defined as only when they are designed to be separate units. He stated it there is a living space and flow between the two areas, that is not technically an ADU. Commissioner Beneke asked if all home occupation persons would need to get a permit, so they know what the rules are. Mr. Morrison stated permits are required when customers and students come to the site, we can amend the code to also require the permit when an employee comes to the site. Otherwise, staff gets a lot of calls about the rules for home occupations. We can use the website to make the information readily available. Otherwise, whe n the city receives a complaint, we use the first encounter to share the rules. We begin enforcement if they continue to violate the rules. He stated this will be brought forward to the commission as a public hearing in April as well. 3. Transit oriented development zoning districts Ms. Monson presented the report. Chair Eckholm stated he does support the vision shown within the presentation and appreciates the adjustments to the stations that has evolved over time . He added he would like to see a discussion around what can be done to make the crossing over Hwy. 7 more walkable and pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Weber asked about the commitment of NordicWare in the area and if that has been done as we hoped they would. Ms. Monson stated their plan is what the city had hoped for in the area, and also includes public space with their coffee shop also. Commissioner Weber asked if the jobs station will be an opportunity or a challenge with more people working from home since covid. Ms. Monson stated over time as market shifts and more people are working from home, there is definitely opportunity there for amendments to the code to allow for more mixed -use areas. Commissioner Weber stated he supports the vision as well. Chair Eckholm added he likes the mixed use along the Beltline corridor also. He asked if there has been any interest from Methodist Hospital related to the healthcare area station. Ms. Monson stated early on there was interest for medical uses in the area. 13 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 17, 2021 Page 4 Mr. Walt her added Methodist Hospital is always under continual change and development of their property. He added they have been invited as a partner in the Louisiana Station planning, especially since they are the largest employer in the city. Mr. Walther stated the city has worked with Methodist on the north- south connection there and also removing barriers in the area. He stated there is enormous opportunity here. Chair Eckholm stated he has heard on Next Door recently there are no connections to Minnehaha Creek within the city. He asked if there will be ways to make more public connections to the creek. Ms. Monson stated there are boardwalks west of the city’s municipal building. Mr. Walther added there are walking areas along Methodist Hospital and a lot of work has been done to re -meandering the creek in that area. He added the history of contamination in the city has led to restoration and protecting the water quality as well, especially in conjunction with the hospital and healthcare uses. Commission er Kraft stated she appreciates all the connections and creating of new nodes, adding they are only as effective as people being able to get access to these connections within their neighborhoods. She asked if these will be park and rides at all, and how easy will it be for folks to access the stations with car or bikes . Ms. Monson stated the Beltline and Louisiana Stations will both have park and rides . Mr. Walther stated there has also been acquisition of smaller properties in the area, near the rail tracks, and those will eventually be used as more park and ride lots . He stated there is no park and ride at the Wooddale Station. Commissioner Weber asked if there has been any thought of using a shuttle to get folks to the light rail stations. Ms. Monson stated there is no shuttle being considered at this time but that Metro Transit will be adding or adjusting bus routes to better serve the light rail stations. Chair Eckholm asked if building materials, such as timber, would affect how high or large buildings could be within the city limits . Ms. Monson stated the transit zoning districts will provide opportunities where there could be higher height of buildings, adding that Louisiana and Beltline could be those areas that would be more appropriate for this as there is less single -family residential surrounding those stations. 14 Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission March 17, 2021 Page 5 Ms. Monson stated she will be sending a report to city council on the TOD zoning district and the commission and council can discuss this further during their joint study session on April 12. Mr. Walther added the commission will also discuss their 2021 workplan with the council, as well as regulations around single -family house sizes . Mr. Walther also added that Commissioner Erwin will be leaving the commiss ion and a vacancy will be created on the commission now with her absence. She will continue to serve on the commission through the end of May. The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. 15 16 Planning commission: Regular meeting Meeting date: April 7, 2021 Agenda item: 3a 3a Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to fences Case Number: 21-08-ZA Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Review Deadline: Not applicable Recommended motions: Chair to close the public hearing. Motion to recommend approval of the ordinance pertaining to fences as recommended by staff. Summary of request: Planning commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance to both clarify and amend which part of the property is considered the front, back and side yards when applying the fence regulations. Specifically , it is the intent of the amendment to clarify the yards on a corner lot when the principal building (i.e. the house) faces the side lot line abutting a street, not the front lot line as defined by the zoning ordinance. It is also the intent of the amendment to apply the same yard definitions to fences as are currently applied to accessory buildings, accessory dwelling units, and parking vehicles. Summary of amendment: Fences are limited to four feet in height in the front yard and six feet in height in the side and rear yards. These regulations work well when the front face of the house faces the front lot line. They do not, however, work as expected when considering houses on a corner lot when the front face of the house is oriented toward the side yard abutting the street instead of facing the front lot line . The front lot line of a corner lot is defined as the shorter of the two lot lines adjacent to a street. However, a house constructed on a corner lot may face either the front lot line or the side lot line adjacent to the street. Houses facing the side lot line adjacent to the street result in a situation where the fence heights no longer relate as expected to the placement of the house. 17 Regular meeting meeting of April 7, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to fences Below is an illustration from the zoning code definitions of yards. In the example of the zoning code definition of yards applied to an actual property is illustrated below . In this example, the front face of the house is oriented toward Texas Circle and the front lot line is along Texas Avenue . Fences up to four feet in height are allowed in the front yard, and fences up to six feet in height are allowed in all other yards, including the side yard adjacent to a street located between the front face of the house and Texas Circle . 18 Regular meeting meeting of April 7, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to fences The amendment proposes to: 1. Clarify the yard definitions applied to accessory buildings, accessory dwelling units and vehicle parking; and 2. Apply the same yard definitions used for accessory buildings, accessory dwelling units and vehicle parking to the fence regulations. The result of the amendment is that the regulations pertaining to the location , dimensions, and other performance standards of fences, accessory buildings, accessory dwelling units, and vehicle parking will all be based upon the orientation of the front face of the house, rather than the dimensions of the property lines. Background: A variance application was presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals on October 7, 2020. The variance request was the result of how the ordinance addresses fence height on corner lots. The BOZA tabled the application to the October 21, 2020 meeting with the request that staff work with the applicant to find a solution that works for both the applicant and the city. Staff met with the applicant and both decided it is in the best interest to pursue a text amendment that would apply the fence height maximums in a manner consistent with how the house is oriented on the lot. The intent being that the four-foot maximum would be applied to the area in front of the house, and the six -foot height maximum would be applied to the side and rear of the house. This would allow all properties in similar situations throughout the city to be treated equally under the code as opposed to having to go through the expense and time of applying for a variance. As a result, the applicant withdre w the application . The planning commission reviewed the proposed amendment in a study session on March 17, 2021 and directed staff to schedule the public hearing for the amendment. Next Steps: If the planning commission recommends approval, then the ordinance will be considered by the council on May 3, 2021. Attachments: Proposed ordinance. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning and zoning supervisor 19 Regular meeting meeting of April 7, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to fences Ordinance No. ___-21 Ordinance regarding fences The City of St. Louis Park does ordain: Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on April 7, 2021 on the ordinance, and Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning commission (case no. 21-08-ZA), and Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City Code: Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-162(b) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to add the following underlined text to the list of land use descriptions. (b) Definitions . For the purpose of subsections (d) and (e) of this section, and of section 74 (fences) of this chapter, the listed terms are defined and illustrated as follows: Back yard means the area of a lot extending the full width of the lot behind a line created by extending the rear face of the principal building to the property lines located to the sides of the principal building. between a line created by extending the rear face of the principal building and the rear lot line. front face means the elevation of a principal building that is oriented toward the front lot line. On a corner lot, the front face may be oriented toward the front lot line or a side lot line adjacent to a street. Typically, the front face of the principal building contains an entry to the building and that entrance is more architecturally prominent when viewed from public streets. Said entrance does not include an overhead garage door. When it is ambiguous, the zoning administrator determines which is the front face of the building. Front yard means the area of a lot which extends the full width of the lot between the front face of the principal building and the lot line adjacent to the street right -of-way in front of the principal building . between a line created by extending the front face of the principal building and the street in front of the house. Rear face means the elevation of a principal building that is opposite the front face of the same principal building. Side yard means the area of a lot between the front and back yards. building walls and the side lot line. 20 Regular meeting meeting of April 7, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Title: Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to fences Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect , 2021. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council May 17, 2021 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney First Reading May 3, 2021 Second Reading May 17, 2021 Date of Publication May 27, 2021 Date Ordinance takes effect June 11, 2021 21 22