6:00, so I will call the June 17th meeting of the St. Louis Park Planning Commission to order. I'll start with the roll call. >> Commissioner Beneke. >> Here. >> Commissioner DeVecchio. >> Present. >> Commissioner Eckholm. >> Present. >> Chair Flanigan. >> Here. >> Commissioner Hyman. >> Here. >> Youth Commissioner MacLeod. >> Here. >> Vice Chair Strain. >> Here. >> Commissioner Webber. >> Thank you. Uh next on the agenda is the approval of the minutes for three meetings. There's the March 25th regular meeting and study session. And then the April 8th and March 6th meeting as well. >> I move that we approve all three sets of minutes. >> Second. >> Uh any discussion? All in favor of approving the minutes for the three meetings as written, uh indicate by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? Uh the motion passes. Uh next on the agenda is the public hearing for the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and zoning map amendment update phase two. Uh and we have a presentation from staff. >> Thank you, Chair. Members of the Commission, my name's Gary Morrison. I'm the zoning administrator for the city. And I'll be presenting tonight along with Caitlin Shampo, who's city planner. And before we get started with the presentation, I just want to note with the public hearing tonight, it is covering all three elements, the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance text amendment, and the zoning map amendment. So, one public hearing covers all three of them. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Caitlin, who's going to talk about the comprehensive plan amendment. >> Great. Thank you, Gary. Uh good evening, commissioners. My name is Caitlin Shampoo. I'm a planner at the City of St. Louis Park in the Community Development Department, and tonight I'll be presenting the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for your review and consideration. Um and the comprehensive plan amendment is presented in conjunction with the zoning code update to ensure alignment between both policy documents. So, the uh comprehensive plan amendment uh before you tonight proposes to adjust the descriptions and minimum densities for two residential land use designations, change the future land use of a 4.4 acre parcel from commercial to high-density residential, and update tables to reflect these changes. The first part of the amendment proposes to adjust the descriptions and minimum densities of the medium-density residential and high-density residential land use designations. Um and before I dive into these details, I just wanted to note that this amendment is really intended to close policy gaps. Um it's not intended to change any uh policy decisions that were made in previous zoning code update phases. Um it's purely a clean-up amendment to ensure that the city can administer the zoning code as intended. Um so, during the first phase of the zoning code update, City Council approved a comp plan amendment to revise the density ranges of the low, medium, and high-density residential land use designations to better align with the new neighborhood zoning districts. The intent of this amendment was to make sure that both the comprehensive plan and the zoning code would allow for the wider range of housing types um across the city. So, then after further review and application of the code, uh staff determined that there is still a gap between policies in the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. So, we found that the minimum lot area that's required by the zoning code for some of the residential uses did not meet the minimum density requirement of the associated land use designation. So, because of that, staff are proposing reducing the low end of the density range for the medium density residential and high density residential land use designations to maintain that flexibility in the types of housing that are allowed in the city. So, it doesn't uh we're not trying to change what is allowed, but purely allow what the housing types that were intended by the first phase of the zoning code update. And the second part of the amendment proposes to change the future land use designation of a 4.4 acre parcel from commercial to high-density residential. This land use change is also accompanied by a zoning map amendment as part of the zoning code update, which would change the zoning from C2 general commercial to N4, which is the highest residential density zoning district. The property is located at 8800 Highway 7 in the southeast corner of or southwest corner of the city, um and it's adjacent to Minnehaha Creek to the east and then across the street from the Aldi and Target to the west. And the purpose of the future land use change is to accommodate a proposed affordable housing development on the site. The project proposes a seven-story apartment building with approximately 208 affordable units. Um all residential units would be reserved for households earning between 30% and 80% of area median income. And the most recent site plan that the city has seen included 47 one-bedroom units, 81 two-bedroom units, and 80 three-bedroom units. Um the developer hosted a neighborhood meeting for the project on March 3rd to introduce it to the city, kind of gather feedback from residents. Uh and if city council approves the proposed land use change, staff anticipate that the project would require very minimal approvals from the city outside of the standard permitting process like building permits and erosion control. They may apply for a variance or two. Um and then the final part of the comprehensive plan amendment before you tonight would just update applicable land use tables in the comprehensive plan with the changes to the density ranges that were shown on the last slide and the change to the land use guiding shown on this slide. But with that, I will turn it back over to Gary. >> Thank you, Caitlin. So, taking a look at the zoning text amendment, I first want to take one slide to take an opportunity to quick look back to phase one that was a adopted in March of 2025. Phase one adopted the amended the residential districts, basically converted them from residential districts to the new neighborhood districts. It established uses for those districts along with dimensional standards. And it established the new table format that we're expanding on today with phase two. With phase two, we're not proposing any changes to the uses or the dimensional standards that were adopted in phase one. What we are doing with uh article four, currently article four is converting it to article three in this new phase, and we're taking the performance standards that are in article four and moving them into the new article that addresses only performance standards for uses throughout the city. So, a little clean up with article four to make it fit into the new format that we're proposing today. Which is on the screen right now. If we look at the ordinance today, we have six articles. As I mentioned, article four is the zoning districts that includes the residential zoning districts. We're going to 10 articles, which actually seems a little more complicated, but in reality simplifies things a little bit and makes the information a little more easier to find. So, we see article three becoming the neighborhood article. It will encompass all of those districts. So, taking a look at those 10 articles, I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on these. There's a bigger description in the packet before you. But, starting with article one, the introductory provisions, this is just the purpose and the findings of the zoning ordinance. And it gives us some guidance into how to use the zoning ordinance and how to interpret it. Article two is the general provisions. This establishes things like the zoning map and zoning districts, principal uses, accessory uses, what all of that means. And what we allow for yard encroachments into those yards. Article three is the neighborhood districts, which I already mentioned a couple times. Article four is all the rest of the zoning districts, the non-residential ones. So, that includes the mixed-use districts, the business districts, industrial districts, and the park district. Article five houses all of the planned unit development districts that were adopted over the past several years. There are a total of 26 of them. No changes proposed to any of those other than some basic language cleanup. Article six is the overlay districts. There are currently two of them in our ordinance, the travel demand management district and the flood plain district. Phase two proposes adding a third overlay district, the historic Walker Lake overlay district. Article seven houses all the use specific standards. So, this is a list of all of the uses that are allowed in the city that have some conditions that are specific to those uses. In our ordinance today, um it this list is repeated over and over in each of the zoning districts. So, it creates a lot of redundancy. We're getting rid of that redundancy by taking them all, consolidating them into this one article. Article 8 is the development standards, which includes parking, landscaping, fencing, architectural standards, lighting, and signs. So, all those will be housed here with minimal changes to each of those. Um in some cases, some of those provisions are scattered throughout the zoning ordinance. So, again, we're consolidating all of those requirements into this article. Article 9 is procedures. This includes um how to apply for certain permits, and it also gives guidance as to how the city is due process these applications. That includes planned unit developments, conditional use permits, variances, and others. And finally, Article 10, that's where all the definitions are housed for the terms in the ordinance along with descriptions of each of the land uses. With these changes, there are some other additional changes that were proposing that are worth noting. So, on the right of the screen are the zoning districts that exist today, and it shows the consolidation of those districts into seven new ones. So, we're going from nine zoning districts to seven. Of note here, we're proposing to uh remove the office only district and remove the business park district. Would note again that the regulations that exist in these districts, for the most part, are being continued on to the new districts. I always like to call out the C1 district. Um C1 neighborhood uh commercial district is being converted to the MU1 district because a lot of those properties are the result of a study that was done particularly along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. That study resulted in some uh regulations that were adopted into the C1 district. So, I just want to clarify and assure everybody that those regulations are being continued into the MU1 district. Such as height, yards, buffer yards, and things like that. The MU1 district also includes the mixed-use 2 district, which is currently the Walker Lake area. Um one thing to note, those two districts are very similar, the C1 district and the MX district. However, the MX district does allow some light industrial uses, which is basic assembly, indoor storage, does not allow any outside storage. That that will be continued into the MU1 district. The advantage of this is that it allows art studios in more places in in the city. And it also should note that these uses are are allowed with a caveat that they have to have a storefront. So, whatever activity they're doing inside the building, they have to sell in some sort of storefront. Density bonuses are currently allowed in the MX1 district. In phase two, we are proposing to expand the use of density and height bonuses in the MU2, the MU3, and the B1 districts. We'll note that density and height bonuses are not allowed in MU1 district. And that is out of respect of maintaining the established height that is currently allowed in the C1 and result in the MU1 district, too. So, there's no option to go higher than the three stories that's currently allowed. Density bonuses and height bonuses are allowed by conditional use permit, so they will require a public hearing before the planning commission and action by the council. It also requires application of the city inclusionary housing policies and the energy policies. One of the big changes you'll see in the new structure is the use of tables. The table that I have on the screen right now is a portion, very small portion, of the principal use tables for the non-residential districts. On this table, we see the zoning districts aligned across the top. So, you have the mixed-use districts, the business district, industrial, and park and open space. Then, the list of uses that are allowed in the city along the column on the left. Again, this is a very small portion of that table, but if we look at this, we see the advantages of using the table. If I'm looking to open, let's say, the animal handling limited business, such as a vet shop, um we can see right away that it's allowed in the mixed-use districts, the business district, but is not allowed in the industrial or the park and open space district. We also see that it's allowed by permitted with standards. That means there's some conditions specific to that use, and to see where those standards are, we're referred to article 7, division 4. >> [snorts] >> Under today's ordinance, we would have to actually open up each zoning district, look through the list that's in that zoning district, see if it's allowed there, the manner that it's allowed, and then proceed on to the next one. And I did mention there's nine zoning districts, so it gets a little tedious. So, just in one quick glance, we have all that information available. >> [snorts] >> And there's a table, this one's for principal uses. There's a similar one for accessory uses. We're also using tables to display all the dimensional requirements, and there's a few of these. This one in particular talks about lot area and densities that are allowed in each of the districts. I picked this one because it's a very small table, so you can see all the zoning districts lined up on the left, and the regulations that are the subject of this table across the top. I also like to point out on this one, because it is about density density, and we're talking about the MU-1 district a lot, it's right here where we see that density bonuses are not allowed in the MU1 district, but they are allowed in the MU2, 3, and the B1 district. And the that C means they're allowed by conditional use permit. So, again, all the regulations are right there in the table. >> [snorts] >> Similar table for our building height. I'm bringing this one out again to just to show to kind of go over and over again on this one, I guess, but and when we look at the MU1 district, it's here that we see that density or rather height bonuses are not allowed in the MU1 district, but they are allowed in the MU2, 3, and the B1 district. So, that's where that regulation is found. Tables are used elsewhere in the ordinance. This one has to do with the parking regulations. In today's code, there are two tables. One applies citywide. The second one applies to the Walker Lake area. So, what we're doing is taking both those tables and combining it into one. And so, when we look at this table, we see all the land uses lined up on the left. And again, this is very small section of that table. >> [snorts] >> Um so, the uses are lined up on the left. The next column over, we see the parking requirements for the neighborhood district, the business districts, and the I districts. And then the column next column over are the parking requirements for the mixed use districts. And under the mixed use districts, we see that we have minimum parking requirements and maximum parking requirements. So, for the vast majority of this, this is just continued over from existing code requirements. Also with parking, we are taking the Walker Lake parking standards and applying them to the entire mixed use district, so all three of them. So, what this means is that any use can occupy any building and not worry about parking minimums. So, that opens things up for those buildings and what can go on in them, the activity that can occur in them. Um that does not apply for um new construction or additions to these buildings. New construction and additions will have to meet the minimum parking requirements that were on the table that we just looked at. The other caveat is that they cannot remove existing park required parking spaces. They have to remain. Okay. So, those are existing parking standards that are in the Walker Lake area being extended to the entire all three mixed-use districts. Another change proposed in phase two is that parking minimums are not going to be required at all in the historic Walker Lake over overlay district. So, there you can build a new building without having any parking minimums required by the city. >> [snorts] >> We are taking the mural regulations from the signage ordinance and moving them to the architectural standards section of the code. This is done to um basically expand on this distinct distinction between signage and a mural. Right? They're two different things. We are also introducing temporary window security screening regulations. So, this will allow businesses to employ temporary screens that they pull down inside the building when they're closed for additional security purposes. We're also proposing some modic modifications to the visibility triangle. Um this is relatively new and actually is not in the packet in front of you. Um [snorts] what we're proposing a slight tweak. Right now, it's a 50-ft triangle. What that means is at the intersection of two streets, you measure 50 ft in each direction, then you cut across cross diagonally across the property. That's the visibility triangle. We have what height limitations for landscaping structures, fences, and everything like that within that triangle. Problem with that is that it's measured at at curbs. And as you drive around the city, you'll see that we're starting to do creative things with curb lines, bump outs to to assist with uh pedestrian crossings and things like that. So, that creates problems. Basically, it's a big triangle that for most of the properties in St. Louis Park, especially the residential ones, it covers a lot of the front yard. More than is really needed. So, it's a one triangle that's supposed to fit all situations. What we're looking to do is make it a little more site-specific. And simplest way to do that is to not measure it at the curb line, but instead measure it at the property lines. And the triangle would be smaller. So, if it is acceptable with with the planning commission, we would make that tweak and submit it to the city council. We're also altering uh standards for the restaurants. We have been doing this over the past several years. We've been we used to distinguish between restaurants with alcohol, restaurants without. And we have been changing this from one district to another, uh removing that distinction. So, any restaurant in those districts can serve alcohol. And the proposal before you would make that just citywide, wherever there's a restaurant, they can have serve alcohol. And we'd also remove the requirement that if a restaurant is serving alcohol, they can't have a separate bar. We're removing that. If a restaurant is serving alcohol, they can have the seating and they can have the bar area. That's fine. >> [snorts] >> This year and a little bit last year, we've had requests for food trucks at graduation parties and similar events. Unfortunately, our city code does not allow that. So, we're proposing a change to that to allow food trucks to um be located at a residential property for no more than 6 days per calendar year. So, just for special events. And then there are many clarifications to existing language, too. just I again clarify the language and make sure that the intent of the code is clear. So, because we made some changes or are proposing some changes to the zoning districts, that means we have to look at the map. We have to remove the old zoning districts and apply the new ones. For the most part, it is a simple swap like is shown on the screen in front of you. If a property is currently zoned C1, it'll be rezoned to MU1. There are a couple of notable changes. Well, let me back up a minute. Talk about the zoning maps. They are in your packet. Um this I know is quite small, but these are in your in your packet and you can look at those and zoom in on them. Um but what you'll see for the most part is the biggest changes are around the transit stations. Those areas were subject to a study that result that looked at the land uses and how we want them to proceed in the future. So, the intent here is to look at that study and implement those proposals. So, that's what you see in the zoning map. Again, there are a couple areas that I'll bring out. Uh one was already talked about um by Caitlin with the 8800 Highway 7, rezoning that property from C2 to N4. The other one is on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard next to Miracle Mile. There's a few properties just to the east of Miracle Mile that right now are zoned C1. Miracle Mile is zoned C2. And if you look at the map in front of you, the top one, we see these properties right here. There's about five of them that extend from Miracle Mile to Quentin. And you see that they're quite bigger as compared to the the properties that along Excelsior Boulevard as you continue east, they're much smaller. So, the intent here is to recognize that those five properties have more in common with the Miracle Mile property in size, and therefore they're proposed to be rezoned to MU2 to be consistent with Miracle Mile. And then the rest of the properties along the south side of Excelsior Boulevard will remain MU1 as proposed. Over the past year, we had several outreach opportunities um throughout the community and in this effort, we did make specific efforts to target the business community. That involves going door-to-door and handing out notices to each business. It involved targeted emails, several of them. Um it also involved a survey. There were two surveys that were conducted. One was citywide uh to get to gather input from the residents. The other one was targeted to the business community to get comments from them. And the results of those surveys are in your packet. There were two open houses and of course many planning commission study sessions and one city council study session. If the planning commission makes a recommendation to the city council tonight, that recommendation will proceed to the city council on July 20th um for the comprehensive plan and the text amendment and the map amendment. Um the comprehensive plan does not need to proceed to August 3rd uh but the the zoning ordinance text amendment and the map amendment need to be heard twice by the city council. Second So, the second reading will be on August 3rd. If the city council proceeds with both of those, then the ordinance will be published on August 13th and then the ordinance becomes official 15 days after that, which is August 28th. So, tonight staff is recommending that you conduct the public hearing and again it's one public hearing for all three elements. And we are proposing a motion to recommend approval of the amendments to the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and the zoning map as recommended by staff. It is at your discretion if you want to take it all in one motion or if you want to break it up between the three elements. And with that, we will answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you very much. That's a very thorough presentation. Thank you. Um I have notes. Uh so before I open up the public hearing, do my colleagues have any clarifying questions? >> Can you explain more about the visibility triangle thing? >> Yes, the So the visibility triangle is a 50-ft triangle. So that means that we measure 50 ft along each street curb. So basically at the intersection, there's typically a radius, and we extend the curb lines into the street until they meet. And at that point, we measure 50 ft each direction. Then at the terminus of those 50 ft, we cut across the property to complete the triangle. Within that triangle, um nothing can be Well, I shouldn't say nothing. Most obstructions are required to be under 30 in in height. So fences, shrubs, landscaping, retaining walls, things like that. That's in the public right-of-way and on private property. So anything within that triangle. Trees, of course, can be planted in that triangle. However, the branches have to be trimmed up at least 5 ft. So you got this window between 30 in and 5 ft that should be clear for visibility for vehicles, bikes, pedestrians using the right-of-way. So the proposal that we're talking about with engineering is to take a look at that because that's one standard that applies at every intersection throughout the city. And not all intersections are created equally. They're not all the same. There are a lot of variations. The end result is that most of the properties in St. Louis Park, especially the residential ones, when you apply this triangle, it cuts across the front yard quite a bit. Right? You might see some fences out there with an odd diagonal across the front yard at those intersections. That's the triangle. So, the intent here is to relax that a little bit in those situations, um but still maintain visibility that's appropriate for that intersection. Um one of the thought patterns is that if there's a stop light at the intersection, then we're okay with a smaller triangle because it's a controlled intersection um as opposed to other ones. Um many of the street reconstructions that's going on, they have parking bays, meaning that at the intersections, they bump the curb in to the street a little bit to reduce the distance that a pedestrian has to cross an actual street, right? So, that bay, that bump out creates a uh affects the triangle because we're measuring at the curb. We're measuring at that bump out. So, there's a lot of unique situations that come into play. So, if we standardize it by just sticking with the property lines cuz those aren't changing and measure it there, then engineering can continue to do what they do with the streets in their designs and the visibility triangle isn't affected. It's still measured at the property lines. >> Do we currently allow parking in that area? Like cars to be parked there? >> For the most part, um parking is supposed to be, I believe, about 30 ft away from the intersection. So, it does encroach a little bit into the 50-ft triangle, which is kind of one of the um inconsistencies that are out there. >> Okay. And if we shift to property line, is it going to stay 50 ft or is it going to be reduced? >> It's it's going to be reduced to a smaller dimension because now we're further into the property. It doesn't have to be 50 ft along the curve, it'll be something like 10 or 15 ft out to property lines. >> Okay. >> Um but it'll result in in many cases um in a similar triangle, but in most cases it gives some relief especially to the residential properties. And then if a if there's a real odd angle out of street, it helps with that, too. Gives you better visibility. >> Uh is uh Miracle Mile uh unique at all in that you'd have a uh mixed-use MU-2 adjacent to a uh R-1 right behind it? Or does that happen in other places around the city? >> There are other places, Commissioner. Um Texarkana is an example, Texarkana Mall. And then the Cedar Lake um Louisiana intersection is another situation. >> And the existing Miracle Mile is already that situation, right? >> It is, it's on C-2. And I should note that in the C-2 district under today's regulations, you can do a mixed-use building. Just like you can in MU-2, so there's really no change. >> Commissioner Mitchell? >> Uh yes, I was in going through the minutes there's in our March 25th meeting we discussed the relationship between the height and density bonuses and some potential mismatches. And the the our no our minutes say Mr. Morrison acknowledges needed further review. Do you know if that got addressed in any meaningful way or changes? >> Yes, we took a look at that. I don't exactly remember what the tweak was, but we took a look at it. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I think it just really entailed some clarification in the language. >> Okay, sure. >> Any other questions from commissioners? Okay. Uh sounds good. We will open up the public hearing. Um before we start ask we mean keep comments to about 3 minutes. Uh do we have a light at 3 minutes? Okay. Also be a light there? Okay. Um that will turn red when your your time is up. And then if you have any comments, I believe Laura already has some blue cards, but if you'd like to fill out a blue card and bring it up to staff, they'll bring it up to here and we'll call you to the podium. Uh so starting from the top I have uh Jonathan Solomon. >> Hi, my name is Jonathan Solomon. Um I say had uh one quick comment and then um just a another general comment. Um first of all, um I was uh paging through and I was uh pleased to see some language clarifica- clarifying um restrictions on the definition of sport courts. Um in my neighborhood, there was a kerfuffle recently involving sport courts and I'm happy to see that's been clarified and hopefully that will make it so that sort of thing is um less likely to go as far as it did in that situation. Um generally, at the time I commented to the commission that I was very supportive of uh sporting equipment in neighborhoods and things like basketball hoops and other things to uh allow children and youth to do outside activities and I think that's something that the city in general should encourage through its um zoning and other stuff. Um the other comment I had is um, just around parking. I haven't read through the entire zoning code obviously, but um, as someone who lives in the city, I I own a car. Uh, we're a two-car household and we have kids who are starting to become driving age, but um, I also uh, walk and bicycle and use public transportation and I think for livability in the city, um, it's important to support um, all different modes of transportation. Um, I think that we have a lot of surface parking lots and in new developments we build a lot of um, parking ramps and hidden parking lots and I think uh, we should be working as hard as we can to reduce the amount of parking and really to reduce the minimum parking requirements on new development. Um, I would love to see less space of the city taken up with asphalt um, and more for building housing or grass or permeable surfaces. Um, there's benefits there for just better uses of our land um, and it also has environmental benefits um, allowing uh, water runoff to be reduced because it goes into permeable surfaces. So, um, I'd love to see more improvements in that regard going forward. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh, up next we have Ian Thomas. >> Good evening, commissioners. Ian Thomas, I live at 2925 Monterey Avenue. I want to thank you for representing the residents of St. Louis Park in planning decisions and making your policy recommendations to the city council. Um, like the previous speaker, my comments relate to the parking minimums. Um these really are outdated, unnecessary, and harmful laws, and they're inconsistent with the city's vision. Uh one of our strategic priorities is safe infrastructure that connects people and places with an emphasis on walking, biking, and transit, and yet by mandating specific and overlarge numbers of parking spaces for every building, we encourage sprawl, we push destinations further apart, we force people to drive for many or most of their journeys, we create an unsafe walking environment, and we fuel this cycle of automobile dependence. Second, we strive to produce a range of quality, affordable, and attainable housing options. But since the cost of building surface parking is 5 to 10,000 dollars per space, and 25 to 50,000 dollars per space uh in an underground garage, requiring just one space per bedroom adds hundreds of dollars to the monthly rent that has to be charged. There are lots of one-car and no-car families in St. Louis Park, and developers should be free to offer affordable apartments without the city imposing an unnecessary financial penalty. And lastly, by increasing the community's dependence on automobiles, we drive up our transportation-related uh carbon emissions, making a joke of our claim to be uh exhibiting climate leadership. >> [snorts] >> So, the arguments in favor of parking minimums are really very weak. City staff worry that without parking mandates, developers will intentionally underbuild parking, forcing their residents to park on nearby streets, possibly in single-family neighborhoods. Not only is this argument specious, developers have no incentive whatever for inconveniencing their own tenants and they also have access to good modeling that can help them predict the parking demand. But it also leans heavily on the false assumption that certain residents in the city can dictate who is allowed to park on the public streets in their neighborhood. And then there's a concern that parking reforms will be unpopular with the public. However, in a survey administered by the city last year, supposedly to give up to guide development of this zoning code, 65% of respondents said they want to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements in neighborhood commercial zones and 82% indicated there is already enough or too much parking and there were similar results for the other zoning districts. With all this in mind, it's very disappointing, especially at a time when hundreds of progressive communities across the country, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, have or are eliminating parking mandates, that St. Louis Park's proposed zoning code update phase two retains them everywhere except the Walker Lake area and makes just a few tepid reductions in other districts. Even more alarming to me is the lack of any objective analysis that went into these specific recommendations, which appear quite arbitrary and were proposed without conducting any parking utilization studies to see how the existing requirements are playing out. So, during your >> January 21st study session, you considered three options. >> want to be against your comments, but your time is up. Can you just wrap up, please? >> I will wrap up. >> Thank you. >> The first was to reopen discussion of parking minimums and delay approval of the zoning code update. Secondly, to conduct a parking study as part of your 2026 work plan and then make recommendations for amending the ordin- ordinance and third to hold off on any changes until the 2050 comprehensive plan update. I recall that you agreed on the middle option and I encourage you all to take a proactive and hands-on role in designing the parameters of that 2026 parking study. Thank you very much for your attention. >> Thank you very much for your comments. Uh do I have any more who cards? Uh do I have uh Alex Calderon? Right? >> All right. Um well, for as much as I do during the day as a pediatrician, um this is nerve-wracking, but um I'm Alex. Um I'm a pediatrician that moved here about 4 years ago from Ohio, um predominantly because of the amazing green space and much more walkable areas that we live in. And um to echo the similar sentiments shared by my colleagues here, um you know, I definitely also agree that just having parking minimums written large should just be out of the code. Um but to hopefully keep a little more interest in time as far as things go as my role um in my life when I'm not here, I'm missing bedtime. Um I have a focus on pediatric health and kids' health. And from that standpoint, there are certainly several factors in removing parking minimums that can also apply to improving the lives of our own children and frankly just people in general in our community. Um you know, number one as far as this goes with kids, um in asphalt creates heat. Heat creates I mean, just lack of comfort as my 4-year-old would tell you um being sunscreened every day. Um but from that side of things, um not only that, it increases likelihood for things like heat-related illness, um reducing outdoor playtime, which is crucial to kids' development. Um and beyond that, just increased risk during heat waves, not to mention the fact that we've had over the past several years numbers of um increased air quality days where we just have to stay inside because oops, it's too hot. And now oops, there are fires across, you know, our continent that are causing problems beyond what we we Um beyond that, strictly speaking from a housing standpoint, um less parking spaces means more ability to use mixed-use spaces and create more places for kids to live and people to live in general. That impacts health in way more ways than we realize, but so I just say that impacting you know, our kids' health is I mean, when you provide the basics for kids as far as housing, as far as food is concerned, and just make sure they have the basics of life kind of covered for. So, many more things in their lives go better from the options of like increasing access to medicine and what have you, which from that side of things when you talk about um you know, incentivizing cars and their existence by creating parking spaces for them, you incentivize the idea that we need to drive everywhere. And from that standpoint, makes it harder to get places like you know, walk to the local pharmacy and to get drugs, to walk your local clinic to get care. And you know, opponents might say, "Oh, but you need a car to get to these places anyways." And I'm not saying that I don't live in a in America, frankly. But, to sit and to say, "Yep, that's status quo, it's fine. You know, what else we going to do? It's just how life goes." is is kind of antithetical. I'll end by saying that in accordance with Ian's comments, every single one of the five strategic goals for the town would be served by removing parking minimums, period. I don't have to explain all his points. He had many great points. I'm sure all folks here will as well, but to do that as well as supporting kids' health, it's pretty clear. Removing parking minimums in our code across the board would vastly serve everyone, kids especially, but especially adults and just make life better for everyone here. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. I do have Luke Fans Anton. >> Good evening, Chair Commissioners. My name is Luke Van Santen. I'm a resident of Minnetonka, not of St. Louis Park. Uh the reason I'm here tonight though is I'm a member of the West Metro Active Transportation Alliance in support of our mission to prioritize sustainable transportation choices in the West Metro. I'd like to urge you to support an approach that will better position St. Louis Park and our larger region to both take advantage of this opportunity and fulfill our duty to address global climate change. Automobile transportation is the leading source of greenhouse gases in Minnesota and one of the leading sources worldwide. Making it easier for people to not be reliant on cars for transportation by not requiring parking minimums is a powerful step to meeting the challenges we are faced with. Please remove parking minimums or at minimum conduct a full and complete parking study before updating any ordinance related to parking. Thank you very much for your time. >> Thank you. Can I have uh Tim Golden Crown? >> Hi. Excuse [clears throat] me. I'm really impressed by everybody's really well-written arguments. I I'm not as prepared. Um I live on Brownlow Avenue. It's in the area right behind Park Tavern and uh I happen to be right in a neighborhood that right behind me is now zoned as a mixed-use district. It's been an empty parking lot for as long as I've lived here. Um 12 years plus at this point, but recently it was grassed over and I think there's plans to develop it. I would say um having lived in Maywood for a long time, knowing my community um there's an opportunity I think we consider whether this is a neighborhood or a mixed-use area. I think it actually fits much better as a neighborhood district with houses and families living in those houses as opposed to businesses. It just doesn't fit the fabric of that neighborhood and I'd ask you to consider whether there's an opportunity to assess if there's we can change it, if we can make it something that actually the residents in that direct area would prefer. So, that's my ask. Is just Is there something we can do to reconsider that specific empty parking lot soon to be something else and make sure everybody who lives there is going to be comfortable with that there. Is that Thank you. Thank you very much. I don't see any more blue cards. Uh I will seeing no more blue cards, I'll open it up if anyone would like to approach the mic and make uh comments as well. Okay. Uh seeing no more comments, I will close the public hearing. We greatly appreciate your questions and comments. Um Do we have any questions from commissioners? I guess we take a motion first or do we >> Uh chair, you can ask uh clarifying questions of staff um and before the motion is made um and then discussion would happen after the motion. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah, just for that last question from Tim, can the staff get that exact location so that can be looked into? >> Yes, thank you. Um I will coordinate with you but after um but I believe I know the property you're talking about. All right. Thank you. >> Any more clarifying questions from commissioners? Okay. Uh seeing no questions, I will entertain a motion. >> [laughter] >> I've got the It's on the TV, too, if you'd like. >> All right. >> Sure. Uh yes, I move I'm going to do it all in one. I move to recommend approval of the amendments to the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning map as recommended by staff. >> Second. >> Uh okay, hear a motion and a second. I will open it up for discussion. Commissioner Train? >> Yes. Um I really appreciate everyone coming out tonight and talking about uh the proposed zoning ordinance. And uh specifically, we in our study sessions have talked quite a bit about parking. Um and I love hearing the support for continued discussion on the parking. And I think adding that to the 2026 work plan is a good step forward to make sure that we're doing right by it and not rushing an amendment in either direction as part of this update right now. So, I look forward to that continued discussion this year. >> And just a little clarifying, we're not adding it. It is on the work plan currently, right? >> Correct. Correct. >> we on our work plan is about >> voting parking norms? >> Yes. >> Yeah, I'll I'll just reiterate um thank you for coming out and speaking in support um of, you know, the parking situation you want to see in the city. That really does help us understand where the community is coming from and who like the the direction that you want the community to go. Um being at the tail end of the 2040 plan just to speak to kind of um the options that we had for reviewing parking and how the 2050 plan was one in consideration as at the tail end of the We're at the tail end of the 2040 plan at this point and that plan really does lay out a huge amount of what we as a body are looking at when we are making changes like these zoning these zoning maps. This is all flowing from the 2040 plan. So, what I would say is in addition to the the 2026 discussions we're going to have, be sure to be involved in the 2050 plan um when those discussions start happening when those meet when you get the notifications of those meetings, making sure that you are a part of those discussions and saying, "This is These are the values I have. This is what I want to see us uh how we want we should guide our land use." Those decisions flow from that document in a really powerful way and it is what we and the City Council look to as guidance as to what the community has said they want. So, um with that, I also want to thank city staff and our partners for all the really um long work they've done um bringing the second phase of the zoning code amendment. Um again, like I said, tail end of the 2040 plan and we're wrapping up phase two. So, it's a lot of work that's happened and um you've you've done an an amazing job making it a lot simpler for folks coming to our community to look at our code and say, "What can I do with this property? It does it work for me? In a much quicker way than we ever could have with the old code." So, thank you. Councilmember >> Uh yeah, I have a couple thoughts. I think for folks who read our minutes, you'll know that there's a lot of advocates for reducing and or eliminating parking minimums and so the comments do not fall on deaf ears and just echoing the comments of our commissioners here that I think we're all very eager to dig in with a lot of rigor to our work plan and do that assessment um thoroughly. Um I also want to recognize Commissioner Hayman for bringing up a lot of the concerns around parking and wanting to push us to do more of a formal process on addressing parking and uh so thank you for for doing that and your service to the commission. Uh sad you're not going to be staying with us. Um I also want to just highlight some of the other changes that I'm very proud of with this some of these I feel like we made a lot of adjustments to prioritizing so there's there's work around the cars and the parking side and there's also creating design and requiring design to be pedestrian focused and bike focused and I feel like there were a number of changes with this code that I appreciate our consultants and staff took into account to make our facades requiring basically street access um you know more pedestrian walkability from your car even into the so that into the building so that you're not walking in driveways. So I think as we we look parking is a really important piece to make our city accessible but also it doing the the that feels like kind of one reduction piece and then also turning up the volume on design and planning with respect to improving conditions for pedestrians and and bikers. So I'm I'm I'm pleased with that I'm also pleased with the changes to the um optional bike parking taking up a park required parking spot with a bike. Um I also do want to acknowledge we are making progress on parking. I I recognize it's not to the extent that some folks want but I we are making progress and I think the way that we view the Walker Lake District is kind of like a test little microcosm to see how this works. Um that's basically kind of what was done in the past and we're kind of moving those forward and so um, we are we are moving forward. We are making progress and I I'm I'm proud of that with our commission. So, thank you. >> Mr. Wyman. >> Uh, I just want to thank everyone for showing up again. Um, and I feel like I dropped the ball on asking this earlier, but um, and it wasn't in the presentation, but the Mia brought it up the um, allowing a parking space that's currently only for cars. Um, the draft statement um, currently says that um, conversion of a required vehicle parking space shall require a permit approved by the city before construction. Um, I'm just curious if we could get that part removed. Um, just because it seems like an unnecessary step for um, like land owners to take in order to add that parking. I think or like add bicycle parking. Instead, it should be like if that parking is found to be out of compliance, then like some action could be taken retroactively, but I just think that we shouldn't be putting any barriers in the way of businesses and land owners who want to add bicycle parking. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Um, we at a staff level did talk about how we're going to handle that. And we decided on a permit um, because we have some standards that would be applied to the type of racks, so to speak, that can be used. We want them to be firmly established so they can secure the the safely. Um, the permit itself is an administrative permit. Couple bucks. Very easy to do. As a policy citywide, we don't want to refer rely on enforcement. That's a very negative way to approach the community. Um we'd rather take it up front uh where everything's still on paper and we can deal with any changes then rather than tell people they have to rip something out and redo it. >> Okay. And then the 5% maximum is that it I just think it should have a little clarification that like at a minimum you are allowed one space for this cuz 5% could be point whatever of a space that's not a full parking space. >> And I believe the language does say at least one at least it should if it doesn't. If it doesn't, I apologize. >> It says a minimum of one required vehicle parking space and a maximum of 5% of required. >> So we got a minimum of one. So the really small parking lots if 5% is 0.2 or whatever, they can do one parking space. >> Okay. I guess it wasn't clear >> Okay. >> to me that it allows one. Um and yeah, I just want to like clarify my thoughts. I am a bit disappointed in the amount of progress we're making in this step, but I also believe that we are making some progress which is better than nothing. Um and I'm excited to be off of the planning commission so that I can heckle you guys. >> [laughter] >> Um yep. About um the next step for this and I'm really excited to see what we end up doing cuz as the public has pointed out like I really love the statement about how this having parking requirements as they are currently is just out of line with all of our strategic goals. So, um very excited to see where this goes. I'm excited that we're getting the progress that we're getting right now, and yeah, don't think that you're seeing the last of me. >> Mr. Medicky. >> Uh yeah, well, I'll just uh mostly reiterate what others have said. I thank the staff for all the work they've done. I I think we have accomplished, you know, some things like no parking requirement at least in the second historic walker. It kind of sets it up as a prototype for what we can do. Uh I think we've done other things to encourage mixed-use development and and other things like that. And now that uh our zoning has been uh sort of optimized and uh it's just a make it easier job uh to drill down on some issues like parking in the future now. >> Mr. Meckley. >> Thank you. Uh I just like to echo everyone and reiterate my support uh for all of the great work we've done and thank all the people here who joined us to make comments. And uh yeah, I just clarify that. So, I am a non-voting member. So, when you see me not voting, it's not me uh protesting or anything. >> [laughter] >> Any other comments? >> I'll take this opportunity to echo a lot of what's been said. Uh I want to thank everyone for coming out. I recognize you took time out of your daily lives, missed kids' bedtimes, things like that. Like it is a it's a challenge to get here. I mean, I have a hard time getting here at 6:00 uh sometimes, especially with busy schedules. So, I really appreciate everyone coming out and giving their comments. Um I also want to echo my support of a lot of the comments that were made. Um you know, I'm really excited to in the next phase of our work plan tackle parking minimums um and do that sort of rigorous study that was called for and was called out we sort of didn't have a chance to do in this we'd like to do going forward. And what we can do to reduce or eliminate parking minimums. Yeah and as as several have mentioned in Mr. Ben Akiva's recent echo that I'm really proud of the change to um move the expand the Walker Lake change where any use can go in any building to the rest of the city. That means you know if a coffee shop wants to open up where it used to not be allowed because of parking they can do that today as long as they're going into an existing building. So that is hopefully a big pressure release valve on some development into adaptive reuse of buildings we have today. And recognizing that there's more to do for um new development or or additions to existing buildings in the future. >> Mr. Chapple. >> One additional thing I'd like to point out is one of the things we did accomplish with this code and the changes of it may look a little Byzantine to have like the MX go into the M and the the I go to the I and how that graph worked. Um but one of the effects that we kind of did is we sort of cordoned off auto-oriented uses into one specific district that is quarantined if you will into specific areas where we want to say for the majority of the city we want to focus on um you know walk roll bus bike car in that order. Um and the places that are more of a big box focus and uh even in those districts we have opened it up where to some degree you would be allowed to do um more dense uses in those districts if the an owner decided to do so. Um but at the very least we've made sure that those sorts of uses aren't going to expand into other areas and the majority of the city will be focused on the priorities that we've set out for the kind of community everybody has said we we like to live in. >> Uh any other discussion or comments from commissioners? Uh Commissioner DeVecchio, how do we want to You'd asked about um more information about the property brought up during the public hearing. Do we want to try and discuss that now or is that a thing we should follow up on? >> I mean, uh it sounds like the the ask was whether that could be considered from being a mixed-use dist- like zoning to one of the neighborhood zones. So, it may be worth talking about now if we can. Um I quickly looked on the map at what the property I believe it to be and it looks like it's in the Walker Lake. So, I I that to me is I think I would love city staff to correct me if I'm wrong. Um but it I believe it would be a mixed-use one. Um so, very low-density mixed-use if uh if if a business did go in there, it would be in the character of the Walker Lake area. Um but open to some clarification. >> Yes, thank you, uh Commissioner Eckholm. I uh believe that the property um this was a former uh city or municipal parking lot um that uh the city has since um through our analysis of all of our municipal parking lots has decided to retire and it was no longer needed um to supply uh parking within the area. Um the uh property has since as um was mentioned has since uh just kind of um been sorted over at this point. Um but I believe that the city has not um undergone any analysis as to uh uh uh sale or future development of the property, um that is something that um before it could be developed, it would have to kind of go through all of those steps. Um and that could be an appropriate time to um just you know, there'd be plenty of uh public interfacing at that point. Um so, it could possibly be changed at that time. Um but if the planning commission feels that, you know, the direction should be um uh moved more to a residential uh or neighborhood uh district now, that is certainly something that we can have as an amendment to this. >> I Oh, sorry. I shouldn't be >> Can we get the address? Um >> And commissioners, I would note I believe the change would also require a comprehensive plan >> Mhm. >> amendment and notices were not made for that change. >> So, to clarify, it is currently set as MX1 in the plan we're on the that is currently up for discussion right now? >> Correct. It's currently as intended or proposed to be mixed use one. >> Okay. >> Great. Thank you. >> Um Chair, the I believe that the uh property is uh 3301 Gorham Avenue. >> How would one spell Gorham? >> Uh Chair, uh g o r h a m. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> So, did I understand staff correctly that that would require comp plan amendment and we don't we we can't make that adjustment today. >> That is correct. It requires notification to neighbors. >> Okay. >> Furthermore, I mean looking at it in the relation to Walker Lake, I do think that MX1 is is appropriate, but if there was a proposed development that would require a comprehensive plan, that would be something that could be discussed in the public hearings at that time to decide whether that is an appropriate direction for that comprehensive plan change to go. >> I would agree with that. >> Yeah, I think I second that as well. Um Yeah, I do appreciate the comment. Thank you. Um but you know, given the constraints on the comprehensive plan especially, uh doesn't sound like a change we are able to make at this time. Uh all right. Any other comments or questions? All right. And then do I just call to a vote since we had a motion? >> Yep. >> Great. Um so on the motion that Commissioner Fletcher made to pass to approve the amendments to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and zoning map as recommended by staff. Uh all in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Any opposed say nay. The amendment passes. The motion passes. Uh I think jumping to this agenda. Uh next in the agenda is other business. >> And no other business. >> Great. Uh any communication from staff? >> Uh yes, thank you, chair. Um, we have a few items uh, for communications tonight. Uh, first of all, as has been mentioned, this is the last meeting of uh, Commissioner Hyman, and I want to take a moment to recognize her service and contributions to the commission. Um, Sylvie, thank you for your uh, continued passion and uh, your attention to detail. Um, it has really enhanced the commission, and I'm really glad that we had your perspective, especially through the um, zoning ordinance update. Um, I don't know if anyone else would like to say anything, or Sylvie. >> I I'd echo that. Um, you know, I I really appreciate your input every time. You'll be in my ear, even if you're not in those meetings, and I am excited to see you at the podium uh, for future public hearings. Uh, so thank you for all you've done to contribute to the commission. >> This body doesn't work very well when we all are speaking with the same voice, and challenging us as you did on parking when we would say, "We think this is fine," and you would say, "No, it's not." I think that that was a really wonderful thing to have in those discussions. I think your contributions on the other side of the dais will be just as valuable. So, thank you for your service. >> Yeah, thank thank you all for um, kind of just like keeping me in check a bit, too. I know I I get really fired up about this, and um, yeah, I'm really excited to take what I've learned from this side of the table, and um, yeah. Uh, I didn't prepare anything. >> [laughter] >> Um, I'd also really like to thank staff. Um, I know I didn't make it easy for you, um, basically ever. Um, so, [clears throat] yeah, I'm definitely excited to continue my reign of terror. >> [laughter] >> Thank you. >> All right, thank you. Um, our next meeting is scheduled for July 1st. We will have a new commissioner seated. Christopher Caton. He's in the audience today. At that meeting we will also be electing a new chair and vice chair. And so those of you who are interested in those positions, think about that and throwing your hat in the ring. We will also be reviewing an updated purpose statement for the commission. Also at that meeting we will be kicking off with a our comprehensive planning journey with a study session that's pretty much a comp plan 101. So kind of you know, setting the table a little bit before we really jump into a bunch of stuff. And then I wanted to highlight that uh the first study session on the parking minimums discussion will be on July 15th where we will be looking at case studies for examples of parking minimum reductions as well as yeah, so starting that kind of study. And that is it for communications. >> Thank you very much. I'm very excited about that. Thank you. Any communications from commissioners? Okay, seeing no further communication, uh I will adjourn. I need a motion to adjourn I suppose. Sorry. >> No, you don't need a motion. >> Okay, I will adjourn >> You can just do it. >> the June 17th meeting of the planning commission. >> Mhm.