Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-12-09 Planning Comm. AgendaAGENDA CITY OF LITTLE CANADA PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2009 Call To Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Roll Call 3. Welcome New Member -Tom Fischer 4. Election of Officers 5. Approval of the Minutes -December 11, 2008 PRESENTATIONS: 6. Comprehensive Sign Plan for amulti-tenant building located on property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) - 3225 Country Drive - Graba Properties Correspondence Pages 2 through 14. Amendment to Comprehensive Sign Plan - St. Jude Medical Corporate Campus on County Road B East Correspondence Pages 15 through 26. 8. Preliminary Plat subdividing a property into five (5) single-family lots - 565 Little Canada Road - Pinot Properties Correspondence Pages 27 through 38. Appeal from Zoning Code definition which limits single family size to no more than three unrelated individuals in order to accommodate occupancy of asingle-family home by four unrelated individuals - 882 Westwind Drive -William & Renee Galvin Con•espondence Pages 39 through 45. 10. Revocation of PUD Permits for outdoor storage - 2905 Country Drive - Temo Sunrooms Correspondence Pages 46 through 76. 11. Other 12. Adjourn VG~CL ~:. q :. ~ ~ ` ~, >. ~~ ,~ ~zt~ ~ayca~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www, ci.little-can ad a. mn. u s CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN MAYOR Bill Blesencr COUNCIL Rick Montour ,john Heis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRA7I~R Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan for amulti-tenant building located on property zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Graba Properties 1160 Red Fox Road Arden Hills, MN 55112 PROPERTY LOCATION: 3225 Country Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at a regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m, and will beheld in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to beheld on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2009 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator December 24, 2008 Page 1 of 2 City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road Little Canada, MN 55117 RE: Comprehensive Tenant Sign Plan Property: 3225 Country Drive Little Canada, MN Owner: Graba Properties 1160 Red Fox Road Arden Hills, MN Contact: Robert Wagner 651-260-8939 Please review the proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan for- 3225 Country Drive. This building is a single story 46,000 square foot multi tenant building. Zoned PUD TENANT ID BUILDING SIGNS **Please consider request of 360 Square Feet of Signage for Future Tenant ID Signs. **Request 100 Square Feet of Additional Signage for• East Elevation Tenant -Midwest Gymnastics, Tenant is located in the South East Corner of Building. Each Tenant will be allowed to display an exterior sign, sign size will be allocated by landlord determined by lease frontage. Sign construction method to match Exhibit B or C. Proposed Tenant Sign placement is subject to revision. PYLON SIGN Reface Existing Pylon Cabinet Complete - 192 Square Feet Request to keep sign at its current height 45'-0" to maximize tenant visibility for West Bound traffic on Interstate 694. Page 2 of 2 SIGN SPECIFICATIONS Tenant signs shall consist of Illuminated Channel Letters mounted on Raceway (Exhibit B) or Foamed Plastic Letters (Exhibit C) as described below. All signs shall be fabricated and installed in compliance with specifications outlined as follows and with all applicable electrical codes. ILLUMINATED TENANT SIGNS EXHIBIT B Illuminated Tenant signs shall consist of individually illuminated letters with 3/16" acrylic faces and 1"edge trim. Letter returns will be fabricated .063 aluminum with 5" return depth. Letter return finish color is subject to landlord approval. Letters will be internally illuminated with LED clusters contained fully within the depth of the letter. Brightness shall not exceed 100-foot light lamberts. Individual letters shall be mounted on 8" X 8" raceway: raceway will be finished (TBD) to match the building background. Electrical components shall be located within the raceway. Tenant sign shall be placed 24" inside either side of lease line or in area designated by landlord. NON-ILLUMINATED TENANT SIGNS EXHIBIT C Tenant signs shall consist of individual formed plastic letters. Letter finish color subject to landlord approval. Letter attachment method is blind stud mount. Tenant sign shall be placed 24" inside either side of lease line or in area designated by landlord. v ~ .~ = J ~ ~ U o ~ Ll v ~ O ~ C ~) ~ O a N 67 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ol £ J +` o~ O Q .U ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ _ ~ N O d m m ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ X ~ -- I 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ u ii ~ L ~ N 5 > U ~ J ~ ~ ~ N J U y V ~ i I- ~ J ~T ~ C ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ / \ ~ L6 S m in m O 3 ~ v u rt ~ ~ m S V ~ ~ C Q ~ N ~ ~°~' c +~ 3 ~ ~ N V J C6 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S - U ~ ~ N -F~ ~ ~ C Q ~ ~ Q ~ 0 J U J .~ i -{--~ U N m ~~xl .~m~ ,~ srvaivnna aolaaix3 navwlvnaaa 531V1'JDSSV 6[el ((~~~./ .na V(ibNtlJ 311111 G V »~ NV~31S = _ .~ " ~ 1340W32J 3N?J4 A211Nf10~ EOb£ N C O U O J c al C ~ (0 > C ~ F- ~ -p O N N U O O -Q d ~ 1 ........... ____..._.... I I I I ....- -----._ .. ........_..__ ............ ..___ __ . __.-- ~ ~ - - -- 11 II 11 11 11 11 II 11 I I II II ,~ II 11 II „ II 11 .. j, ; I II 11 j _ O _ II 11 " 11 II 11 n u II 11 j 11 11 11 I 11 n 11 II I j II II II II 11 II 11 11 u u II II 11 11 _ 11 II II II II II II II II 11 II II _ _ en e 11 ° i II II j II II II II II II 11 II ~i II 11 II ' II 11 II - II II II II II II _ II II - II II II II ? II 11 ~~ II 11 II _ II II II ~~ j II II II II ~ II _ 11 II II II L II II II 11 II II : 11 1 II II II II II _ 11 11 11 - II II II II II II II .~'. II II II II II II II II 11 II 11 II i 11 II 11 II II -_. II II II II 11 II _ II -N-- II II II II II II 11 II II II II II II _ - _ _ - II II II -~ 11 1 II 11 11 II ~~ 11 11 u _._ II .__ ~' _ _. II II o II II II II II 11 u II 11 yt-' .. 11 II II __ II II 11 II j u II 1 II 1 u u a II, u< 1 1 n u a ---n-o e nz 11 ~ I 1 11 ~ ---- u u n g 11 L I n< ~ ii ~ n ~= 11 w o ii u u ii ~ ii ~ °'_ ~ 11 11 11 o u ~+ u~ n o u u n ~ u _ u u ~ > u ~? a ? i ~ _ ~, =. 9 ~ N b - e v l ..._... ..._._ 6 ______.._ ._._____ ..._ _ _....... ._ __._._ _ o m ~ - ~ ~ m c ', m m _ ~ m N m ~ i. E ++3 K Z ~ T~ "'E. LErco ~~~o a ~ a w ~ ~ ~ o~ rn O . W ' a N O o LL N~ a ~- c gg $ Q ~° O G 4 V ~ 2 w C o _~ d O v S lD c t3 O N Q ~ oE a m b y a N VS n v S . ~~ ~ a+ U U E ' 'a r E e ~ C O N ~ b E Cl f3 +~-' O~ O .D N N ,v N 2 E. E v°fi Y V l9Q ~4 a -~i tn~ O N ~ 9 m ra.. ..tea ...,,.0 V O d- _W X 0 N ~ ~ v- In O O T H d i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c `4) ~ W II N V ~ ~ r (n L - O ~ S U ~ ~ J Ll ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ i O d ~ NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan nersCa?nacpla nning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Laurie Smith /Steve Grittman DATE: February 5, 2009 RE: Little Canada - Graba CUP /Comprehensive Sign Plan FILE NO: 798.09 - 09.04 BACKGROUND Following the closing of the Knox Lumber building, and occupancy of a portion of the property by Drywall Supply, the City of Little Canada approved a PUD application for the property located at 3225 Country Drive. The final phase of the PUD redevelopment consists of a 46,000 square foot multi-tenant building, formerly the main Knox lumber retail building. At the time of the PUD approval, a final sign plan had not yet been devised. One of the carry-over provisions from an earlier PUD approval to Drywall Supply was that the freestanding pylon sign along Country Drive be made to meet the City's sign requirements. The property owner is now requesting approval of a comprehensive sign plan for the project via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Section 903.110.E.6.b of the Zoning Ordinance requires Comprehensive Sign Plans not processed as a part of the PUD Development Stage Application to be approved at a later date as a CUP. The applicant is requesting 460 square feet of wall signage and a 192 square foot pylon sign. ANALYSIS Comprehensive Sign Plan. The plan calls for a total of eight signs on the property, seven wall signs and one pylon sign. The applicant is requesting to reface the existing 45 foot tall pylon sign located on the northwest corner of the property. The applicant is requesting a total of 460 square feet of wall signage located on the east and north sides of the building. The proposed signs will be internally illuminated. Sign detail for the individual wall signs was not provided. Section 903.110. E.5 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for signage equal to a maximum of 15 percent of the building silhouette for multi-tenant buildings. The aggregate area of the allowed signs may be distributed among the several businesses. The applicant indicates that the proposed signage area will be distributed among the tenants based on leased frontage. The subject building's east elevation silhouette is approximately 5,500 square feet in area. As such, the applicant would be allowed to have 825 square feet of signage including one pylon sign. The applicant is requesting 460 square feet of wall signage and a 192 square foot pylon sign for a total of 652 square feet of signage. The Zoning Ordinance allows free standing signs up to 25 feet in height and 200 feet in area for buildings that are 24,000 square feet or more in area. The existing pylon sign that the applicant is proposing to reface exceeds the allowed height requirement. The applicant is requesting to keep the sign at its current height to maximize tenant visibility for west bound traffic on Interstate 694. If desired, the request to keep the sign at 45 feet can be accommodated as part of the PUD. A general review of the site has indicated that lowering the sign may have minimal impact on the view of this site, and in fact, visibility of the sign may be made more difficult given the reconstruction of the freeway in this area. If permitted to remain at its current height, the City may wish to limit this permission to the current sign plan, retaining the future ability to require sign reconstruction as part of another application. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of a CUP/Comprehensive Sign Plan for 3225 Country Drive subject to the following conditions: Signs shall be erected in accordance with the approved comprehensive sign plan. All signs shall be subject to a sign permit as provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The existing freestanding pylon sign along Country Drive may remain at its current height, provided that future changes to the PUD may result in a requirement to bring the sign into conformity. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Jess Gruba, 3225 Country Drive, Ste 100, Little Canada, MN 55117 2 VG~CL ,~, ~E ~tt~ (°aycaa~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little-canada.mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Blesener & Members of the City Council FROM: Joel Hanson, City Administrator DATE: February 6, 2009 RE: Midwest Gymnastics Development Contract Amendment MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Rick Montour John Keis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson Pursuant to the direction of the City Council at our last meeting, staff has prepared an amendment to the Development contract that releases the $25,000 financial surety required by the original development contract with Mr. Graba. Another provision allows the pylon sign to remain at its current height and face configuration subject to its inclusion in the master signage plan approval. We also reserved the right to require the sign be brought into conformance in the future should any amendments to the PUD be needed. Lastly, we are requiring the Developer to complete the outstanding items. Should he fail to do so, occupancy permits will be withheld. Staff would recommend approval of this amendment as presented. cc: Bob Wagner AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FORMER KNOX BUILDING THIS AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT, MADE THIS _ day of , 2009, by and between the City of Little Canada, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and Graba Properties, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer and City entered into a Development Contract for Lot 1, Block 1, Drywall Supply Addition on Apri122, 2008, WHEREAS, Developer has completed the majority of the obligations set forth in the original Development Contract, NOW THEREFORE, the City and Developer agree to amend the Development Contract as follows: 1. Given the Developer's performance, the $25,000 financial guarantee required by Provision #9 of the original Development Contract is hereby released by the City upon execution of this amendment. 2. The pylon sign discussed in Provision #13 of the original Development Contract may remain on the site at the same height and sign face area as currently exists on the site, subject to the Developer obtaining zoning approval for the Master Signage Plan as delineated in Provision #15. The Master Signage Plan shall include the pylon sign area in the overall signage program for The Property. Should developer or any successors or assigns propose modifications to the property in the future that requires an amendment to the Planned Unit Development approval for The Property, the City reserves the right to require the pylon sign be brought into conformance at that time. 3. The Developer agrees to complete the remaining improvements as specified in Provisions #'s 13 and 14 of the original Development Contract. Failure by Developer to complete the remaining work items may result in withholding certificates of occupancies for any space currently unimproved and not leased in the northern portion of the building as of the date of this agreement. Building permit issuance will provide the evidentiary materials to verify not leased/unimproved areas. 4. All other provisions of the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect as originally contemplated. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands to this Contract on the date stated above. CITY OF LITTLE CANADA: By: William Blesener, Mayor By: Joel R. Hanson, City Adminish•ator Developer: Graba Properties, LLC. By: 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA } } SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2009, by William Blesener, as Mayor, and by Joel R. Hanson, as City Administrator, of the City of Little Canada, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota, on behalf of said municipal corporation. Notary Public } SS COUNTY OF RAMSEY } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2009, by Jess Graba,the of Notary Public Drafted By: City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road, E. Little Canada, MN 55117 651-766-4029 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 28, 2009 MIDWEST GYMNASTICS- DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The City Administrator reported that Midwest Gymnastics has requested that the City release its $25,000 letter of credit that was submitted to guarantee compliance with the development agreement associated with the renovation of the former Knox building on Country Drive. The owners are trying to obtain additional financing on the property, and the letter of credit is complicating the matter. The Administrator reported that significant improvements have been made to building and property; and, upon inspection there are only some minor items that need to be addressed. The Administrator indicated that another issue is the height of the existing pylon. Under the development agreement, the property owners are required to lower the sign by 12 feet to bring it into compliance with the code. The Administrator stated that the property owners have indicated that it will cost approximately $12,000 to lower the pylon. The Administrator reported that in looking at the sign, he was not sure that the height reduction will make the sign less obtrusive nor justify the expense needed to achieve compliance. The Administrator indicated that if the Council agrees, perhaps there is a way to allow the pylon to remain at its existing height, i.e. creation of new zoning regulations for commercial properties within a certain distance from the freeway. The City Planner indicated that the ordinance could be amended to create a district within a certain distance of the freeway that provides a pylon height bonus. Another option would be to amendment the PUD Agreement to allow the sign to remain at its existing height. The Administrator noted the freeway height relative to this particular property, which is at a much lower elevation. Blesener suggested that given the current economy, it is difficult to require the property owner to spend $12,000 to lower the sign height. Keis questioned the need for creating a special zoning district, and suggested that the PUD Agreement could be modified to delay the lowering of the pylon sign until such time as major would be done at the property. He did not feel the sign height was a big problem at this point, and suggested that the issue could be revisited in the future. McGraw noted that the property owner has been very cooperative in getting the property cleaned up and the building rehabilitated. He indicated that the pylon sign does not stand out as a problem. It was the consensus of the Council that the letter of credit can be released and the PUD Agreement amended to allow the pylon to remain at its current height until such time as major work is done at this property. VGGU r~ ..~\ ~ .. o~ ~z~~ ~ana~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little-Canada. mn. us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Rick Montour John Keis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of an Amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the St. Jude Medical Corporate Campus located on County Road B East. The property in question is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: St. Jude Medical 177 County Road B East Little Canada, MN 55117 PROPERTY LOCATION: One St. Jude Medical Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at a regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will beheld by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to beheld on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2009 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator RBCHITECTUflAE ALLIANGE January 29, 2009 Mr. Joel I-Janson City Administrator, City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road East Little Canada, MN 55117 Re: Master Sign Plan - PUD Amendment St Jude Medical, Phase One Campus Expansion Comm. No. 2007.101 Dear Joel: 400 CLI FiON AVENUE SOUTH MINNEA POIIS, MItINESOiA SSd03~3t99 TELEPHONE 16 itI 67I~S10J FAZ 16tt1 ali ~i tl2 St Jude Medical is reyuesling consideration of a Master Sign Plan, amending [he current PUD for their campus located at One St Jude Medical Drive, LitBe Canada, MN 551 l7. Please find [he attached application and exhibits. (t you or your stall have any questions or comments regarding the application or exhibits, please do not hesitate to contact meat 612-874-0189. cc: Jack Yates, Dan Smith, Steve Seviola, St Jude Dave Hill, Cresa Partners Pile Enclosure: Application for Master Sign Plan and exhibits P:\2007\2007101\2oning-Codes\PUD-BAW\Signage Package\2009-0I-29 Master Sign Plan Cover Leuer.doc Supplement to Application Form Description and/or Reason for Request Master Sign Plan - PUD Amendment St Jude Medical intends to provide attractive, clear Signage for the community, visitors, employees and deliveries to it's campus. There are multiple entrances to the Campus, necessitating clear Signage and wayfinding to avoid confusion and potentially unsafe u-turns and traffic congestion. There are two schools fronting CR 82 in the vicinity of the Campus with significant traffic during portions of the day. St Jude's preference is to provide Signage that clearly identifies the sites entrances with good visibility and wayfinding to reduce opportunities for confusion during the entire day, and especially during these busy periods. St Jude Medical is requesting approval of a Master Sign Plan that conforms to Little Canada's Signage Ordinance with following exceptions: o Encroachment upon the Signage Setback and Drainage and Utility Easements along County Road B2, for a Monument Sign and the Service Entrance sign for it's new building. o Increasing the allowable area of directional signs from four (4) square feet to six (6) square feet. Monument Sign: At the new main entrance to the campus, at the intersection of CR B2 and One St Jude Medical Drive, the new monument sign will need to be clearly visible to visitors and guests that are expected to arrive at the new building, as well as differentiate the entrance from employee, service, and other campus entrances that occur along CR B2. The proposed location, size and design of the monument sign will provide the visual cues to reinforce this objective. We are proposing that the monument sign be located within the typical five (5) foot Signage Setback and within the Utility and Drainage Easements in this area for the following reasons: o Good sightlines on approach are required. Locating the sign as close as possible to road helps increase it's visibility - preferably on the east side of the entrance drive. o Storm water pond and grades limit southern orientation. o Drainage and Utility easements cover the majority of the entrance area, requiring sign placement on easement. o Grades and natural features will be significantly impacted is Signage is located behind setback and would disrupt the continuity of [he boulevard appearance along CR B2. P:\2007\2007101\ZoningCodes\PUD-8.4V/\Signage Package\2009-01-29 Suppliement to Application Form.doc Supplement to Application Form January 29, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Directional Signs: o We are proposing an increase from four (4) square feet for signage to six (6) square feet, to allow adequate sized copy and information to be conveyed. o Two (2) new directional signs are being proposed, one at the Employee Entrance and the other at the Service Entrance. Employee Entrance Sign: This sign is intended to direct employees into the site along the west entrance and discourage visitors from entering at this location. o Sign location to conform to the Signage Setback but occur within the Drainage and Utility Easement to allow adequate visibility on approach. Service Entrance Sign: This sign is intended to identify where building deliveries occur. The loading dock is not clearly visible from CR B2 due to the topography, building orientation, and woodland. Clearly marking this entrance is important to ensure delivery vehicles find the intended site entrance and avoid dangerous u-turns, congestion, and large vehicles entering the other site entrances. o Good sightlines on approach are required. Locating the sign as close as possible to road helps increase it's visibility - preferably on the east side of the entrance drive. o Drainage and Utility easements cover the majority of the area, requiring sign placement on easement. o Grades and natural features will be significantly impacted is signage is located behind setback and would disrupt the continuity of the boulevard appearance along CR 62. C~l/11fj1630~(~ ~2 Drainage & Utility Easement Per Plat o/ „"~~ SL JUDE MEDICAL „~ CORPORATE CAMPUS--<~ "~ ~~ I I( __ II t ~~ - - 800.00. S89°5715"E - - t1 I 0 Part of Lot 1, Block 1, ST DUDE MEDICAL CORPORATE CAMPUS (an unrecorded plat) '"` i¢ -Siyn is 0.2 /set South ~-- ~ o/ Property line o It ~I ( i _Brick Siyn_ _ -- _ _ _~ I ~ PP 47 ®b .'~~ r i r r l r ° ~ J i ~o~d ~i ~4UQ J arQU ,~4~F o e'JO r v~y ~ oti_p Q 4, rnU 1 I 1 % 47 j x-x-K-x-x- r-e.~~ Metal Fence I I ( I 1 li ~ ~ f ] r I ~~----Droinpye & Utility Easement !?er'Doa. ~ No. ,3977752 ----~- _= o Lo zo 50]0188-Canps/Syn Exn. N~RT}i SCALE IN PSET Jab/ O]01BB ~'~~)~"~~~+~ ~~ (hereby cen'rfy that this survey, planar report was 4i~ (i ~ prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that ' I am a tluly Licensetl Lnntl Surveyor under the laws ' ®~ ~ ~~ ~ (i 1200 9emlock Lane, Suite 800 of the Stele of Minnesota. llinneepotle, }Iinneeote 55869-5592 / ~ ~ /J r /~ ,e . / Teltphane: (963)124-SSDS Pat: (768b24-Sfi22 ~/(~~,.: - ~ ~ ~~~ f./ ._... _. -___ .__......__ qeh Page; mm.LoueksASaocialea.com Richard 1 Licht - PLS Plennwg CIv11 Eoglneeting lend Svseying . ]enduape AreMtecWte EnvuonmenW 2b71A 1/27/09 ow, IJC'ense No. Uatc ~IGI~ EXIII~I~ Part of Lot 1, Block 1, ST JUDE MEDICAL CORPORATE CAMPUS (an unrecorded plat) '7 M ^~ 6/®~n6,~ /7 ®~ld 636 Drainage & Utility Easement Per Plat of ^~ ST JUDE MEDICAL 'O CORPORATE CAMPUS --~~~~ "~~ i~ i~ - ~ % ~ ~1 ~, - - 800.00 j' S89°5715"E - - ~~~ ~ ~ -Sign is 0,2 /eef South ~ ~ Q ~ ~ i o/ Property Line o ~ ~ ... ( ~ ~~ _8rick S~n__~___~ I '' i t Q) PP i 47 I ~ ~ -~-x-x-x-x-x-x- e.{ Metal Fence /I i / i I ~ I ' 1 i ( ~ ~ ( I ' 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ i ~ i ~ i o ~ ~ I J ~ i ~ ~~~~ ~~-' i & Uti w ~-i--D ro nage lity j vo I j Easement Per Doc. ~ = ti ~ N ~ i j ~ o. 3977752 -----------~m- o °'jo I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ! C1W~nU I i I I 3 I I / 47 f ®® I i + V d I ~ ~I ' i c 6 a c 0 .~ 0 fi N 0] a m 0 K a c 0 U a o x ; a m o m m c ~ ~ ro m o> o ~ 4 ~,. ,. m U C fi w`~ ~ 4 c 1 w ~ °„ ~ o h V ` v C k ~ ~ % h N O v'~ N W ~ d Q U ~MtiI~Z ~ LL t 2 ~ ~ gyti b ~ » r u omF ^~ m =aq ¢` o m 3i~xo Onv~2 O~ LL = N ~ X h O~ V' ~ ~~ Cj ~hx ~M U 4) N Q E W '~~aC Q ~ H m ~ h Q C U ql ~_ C l7 C h G a 0 £~ ~, ~, v 0 .~, 6 C O w v N v C Q~ OJ V .~ N N s ~. ; , NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 plan nersC?nacpla nning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: February 6, 2009 RE: Little Canada - St. Jude Medical Comprehensive Sign Plan FILE NO: 758.09 - 09.08 Background and Analysis St. Jude Medical is seeking an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan for its property south of County Road B-2 by adding a main entrance sign to its new building, and a service entrance sign for loading and other service activities. Both signs would be located along County Road B-2. The service entrance sign is a small monument that would total about six square feet in area. The sign regulations permit such signs (up to four, four square foot signs) without separate approvals. St. Jude's property is well below this threshold currently, however this sign is part of the application package since is technically does not meet the four square foot per sign requirement. The main entrance sign is well under the size and area requirements for facilities of this size. At issue, however, is location. The applicants are seeking approval to locate the monument sign within the required five-foot setback from the right of way of County B-2. The design of the sign is a monument mounted on a lower concrete foundation. The foundation has already been poured, and is located just 0.2 feet from the right of way line. The sign itself, if constructed on the footing as proposed, would be set back about two feet, rather than the required five feet. The applicants have suggested that the proposed location is important for visibility, although they have acknowledged that the footing was poured without a clear definition of the setback requirement. There is a fence line just behind the proposed sign location, although it appears that there is some room to move the sign to the south, away from the right of way without interfering with the fence. There is also a utility pole in the immediate area that may interfere with visibility if the sign is moved. Summary and Recommendation The City may, under the PUD, permit an encroachment of the sign as proposed. The foundation is not considered part of the sign for setback purposes, so the request here is approximately two feet of setback (three feet of encroachment). If the Planning Commission believes this to be reasonable, given the visibility issues along the street and interference from other conditions, the Comprehensive Sign Plan may be approved as proposed. Staff believes that there is some room to move the sign to the south without requiring reconstruction of the foundation, although not enough to meet the full five foot setback. As a result, staff recommendation would be to construct the sign in this manner, permitting the least amount of encroachment possible. This is subject to any engineering concerns related to use of the easement along this right of way line. A condition should be added that if the City needs to do any work in the easement, the property owner will be required to relocate the sign at its own expense. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering VGLC~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~. ~~c~ ; ~z't~ ~anaa~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55 1 17-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little-c anada. mn. us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY PLAT MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Rick Montour John I{eis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of a Preliminary Plat subdividing a property into five (5) single-family lots. The property in question is zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Pinot Properties 3742 Brighton Way Arden Hills, MN 55112 PROPERTY LOCATION: 565 Little Canada Road Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at a regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will beheld by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2009 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator --------„~.~_-____-r_-- ll ll ~ ------- , % I, dW;. ,., iF, u I ' 'I I ' ;~ ~ I ~ I m i I awl z m O I N ---` ! II I ~' - i ~I II _ I I ~ ~I II ••IZ ~r' ~I I ~ ~ ___ ~ ~ ~ I .BAi eao `yoA .o ' ~ 3~ c s e e ~~8888~888e 3@ ~ -- - --' ' ,% i ~ ~e~~ ~ ° ~ ~ {{~ _. ~.- ---- ,- ~m ------- ~.._ - ---- ~ a ~______~ _____ k, ~ I I 8 R7 5 i_____-__~ ____.: I ~ ~~ . ~- _ iA ;" F --- ~ -~ Ye , I '~ / :F ~; k 111 hl ~ I %€ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ' o ~$~ ~ ~ II ~I ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~z ~{~ •~!~ ~~ - ~ ~. ---=-------~ ~ 7. I ,y1.____________ g~_____ F ~ ~ a z ~ 4Q ~Co 4 _ rg .. ________w___ ________~ ,F1----- ~~ ~ y 7 f II€ s i _ 777 E7~'' ;S ,o I . t l' a N ~~ ! ~s 1f B& i ~ j h] ~ ~ Ni x,11 ~ e ;_., ~~-----N~~----~---,, r1 I qq ~- -----------o, _--, y r r ' ~ ~ •i ~ I'i ~ I y ~ ~ _ 6d M t . _ ___ . . -. _ - I: s \• ~ N; ~I i I STREET i ry 2 i- I $ 1. ;III II ~`'< I ° i I I c N I 6 3 ~ I I y• r x } ~ __ ___ __ ~.~___________ i i I ~ I ~ - p ~ a;qq~ p sg Io ~_ _______ r ____~ I tgg$"(tf iS i• A---- fi ,~ I. ~ I f l 33 P 9}9~ N~ ,q i~ f ~ I I~ ~ I a, ~~i~ a ~gi ~- _ s ,a ! ~ ( iE x I %' __~~I _ ~a,ron am.o I 1~f L ~~ 17 : ~-_-_ EM VR"i.¢ ~A'BB'bY10~6 ~~ ~ V /+ ~~~ _~~ .~ N ~ C `y PREUMINARV PLAT DENNV CLARIDGE _ -~ r r- -r. V $ : 3300 KA71E LANE _- ~ .! ~ _ e~ o B $ 565 UTiLE CPNAOA ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 - _ . ~ ~ ~. ° UiTE CNIIDA. 44 _ _ . _ _...___...___._...._...... wn .c n _ _ _ enrwn__w __.__,.____ v~ ~rew~m. su.- _.-.- _~._.~. 1 ~ 1 ._ ~. ~~. s~r~reua av~ MC86#IO'd EW.00 ~ ,~I . ~1 T-T- I ~ ~ / f I I ~ j m i z o m N I ~4 _-.i _. QE ' ~ T~ . h - F ii ~ ~ ! l b iz rl II i j i i i i .er~.Ro;; o.o J ~ ~~ --- ~ y I I e ~' ~ - - ps ~ / '~ ~ ~ i °F ~ / R~ I ~~ I I / d~~0 ~~ ~~ e RN I ~ (~ I tat m _ CIA\~ ~ „D S .y ~~ a ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ - ---- "' FR a ~ ~ I I ~ ~~6'M i ~ N I~ yy df ~~ ~PB - ~ ~c ~ a Rr~Ego sR y r. dg~~ n n ~s~ - - - ~ _. e~ a g ~ E ~ y b ~ °R ~,r _s_,,..-g __ q I ~~ e ~ ~. ~ N I ~ I ~ ~Y ~ i~ S ( I Ic ; -_. -_. - ~- .w.- - f \ ~---- ~ f ~ I ~ I e..~ e i ~\ ` ~, I Al R II ~ ~. I I I I t ; . ~ 3 ~ N ' ~ ER e~~ i~ g .o ~ ~y I I s a !! :~i~ i N I' I II ~t~~R~a ~ i 1.~"K ~~ ~~° ~ ! a~~ S --09 r .,.,... j , e ~ E: v ~w sa f ~~~ 9R 'YQ86L~.0'P -- ~ CounW Roetl El sun n. n w / ~/-/jam,{ '~ N „; BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHY DENNY CLARIDGE .o.._...-.. .. er.~.. m ' S g -_-- ? w.,.. ~..,, ,~,,, ~ , .-. .«... '_.. O . y ', 8 °y ' 565 IJTTIE CANADA (IiI1L GNSDA Y11 ROAD 3300 KA71E LANE ARDEN MILLS, MN 55112 _ ___ ~ -~, ~~~ ' - 2 Pr ~_,., I. ------ ~ i o I I d$ [y[y o I y :.. $ I t- LS a q e z 1 ~~ I I g o ~ i ~ ~ ~ I j-i- ' _ ~ I I I I ~w ~~ N°•h °~y I I K Q - ' 4 ~ s -1 i I b I c b I _____ . _ p9 O / I _ ._N ....£~ j ~~ ~'I '' iya Cage iy ib _i _ n 6 R oY 6' p~ ~i/ III °h, I ~ B~B~98~ ~ I /~ 1 1 I ~ ~ I 99yy yVpp00 ~- .`°~` S 3 ~ g - - - -' I \ ~ -- I 55 g E b ..-_ - I ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ I I tl ~ s ' ~----`- ----; '; s ~ ~ I I ~ I ' - u b i ,-._ i n zb .; xff~.2 xsf ~,P "s$xd5i ~ ' ~ I I ~ SCI I d~ ~x x § <~ ~. a :~~ b°. i ~ ~ :A - I S £.. S 57 $£ Sa _~'~ fi:.f,ei'.;r _ n._ - ~ x n a ~ rf s€ ~ -- - - -- --~ z a I FI€ I ~~ ~ ">-~h s~ - - - -- - i If m a li I -' °~ g t o p N m - Vas e s s, "r sQ Y 'r ~ .s I LF y ~ I3_ Stl I I t spar ~ O S ~ ~~ d a~ IIeF _M _ I a ~ i d x. ,~ i yo~~ z i 1 >I ~ C F~ ~ Y Lb 4 4 [. ~ I II I # £ 25 iF3o ~d ~ i I I~ t x. x_ P Y m i p ~~~ i ~ Ic~lr tr g zA§~ _____ \ ~, i _id_______ ~ ~ ~ j 1s ga t r;7,yzg€~i t 9K' 3 ~ kin •k'^pY I H ~ .nn F; ~ $ 4. ~ 2 $£f x4 I # y .~•. _ I w ~ 4 ~' ~~ p 4FYY L.i' gS .~ I I~ I ~ ~ § A £E [ a } ~I {rI ~n ~ {A 9S ` x I I e I l S 3{ ~P k 0 ~. >. II \ ~ ~ I_ C g~ kY 9 Qu I ~ y ~~ 14 '~ 2~~$PY S =1s:' ~ ~ I I _3fskG ~'SO ~ t I %~x ~9 to I 9 2 l i a I ~ ~4p f O d xj ~ ~ y - __ 8. ~ I ~ pp ,. , j3A '' II I I ~ ~ I ~ 4 A V f .ke i I ~ ~S ' -~ o[ mx< ~ I I I i s I $i yH~ ,>. A ~E,'~~,b: ~ :.. ~ ~I( i i§, i I I I S' ~ g~ ~'~~ ~ h=. .._J T ~.~•9q I i I qt f I _ LPfTLE CANADA RO aD I_ _ ~~,ny y I" C t- Roed PI r~ k Ee R,. s'~1 _~ TWO ~ncd" .~+Y.LL- .~` s~ I 11 PZ( r ~ ; m ^ ~ d d; 3 GRADING PLAN DENNY CLARIDGE _ "' -,-- 33D0 KATE LANE .a m.~. ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~•~ "' n e ~ ~ ~. 565 Ui-.E CANADA ROAD pRDEN HILLS, MN 55112 --- -- '~' ~ t •: ~. ~~ i um[ cuvDA urv __... _- __~ - i ; I ; ..__-_ . ._____ . __--___..__ ...__ I ~ I ~,..,n. n.. _ .- ~ _b ~_.._.....,..., o~ j' .. ~~ . j _- ~ s~ ~€ I i I I i ~ ~~ ~ I I &a~ , I o ~ o w ~ I z n ~ l I m"9 o _, ' ~~ I ~ I g~€ I I I ; gC - I ; n I I I I ; ; i ; ~ ~ ~ E$ i ~ b b ~ I b ; i ; _ .__..___. ~ _~•~ i w~c 5 9 _ _ _ _ ~ ;' II __ ee3a8aaa o ; .,~' S II ~~@~~~~ e ; I $ g ,; ~, ...__.. O i ~5~ j S -- i y it it G aJ i1 ~ ; ' ,~,, ' '~ a: / 'I r `g a it ~ nII / ~ { I ~ ° I ; y / ~ I ~ ; ~ ~ ~_______ _ _______~~ a I ~ t I+7 I ~ € 4Ey ~` ~g o ~L ~ 5 I 3 g 5 __ __ _._ _ i .I C u ~° ~ II II # E~~ ~~ g i i i I~ i _ [ ' ~~c ga ;f ~; --- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~L ; ~ ~ a ¢ ---- ; 1 ~ ° ~ ~g~ ~ 4 ~ 4 II ~ I III ~ i I ~ ~ °~ R ~~ ,°~,ya i b B.. 0 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~• I I ~~ a a~ •~ I ~I a I ~; ~ \ I it ' tit ~ I ,,I I ----- --- --------_, , I ~______ __ - ~ I i I I- e A o ----------- - -_ - ~ i ~~ ~ I~ I ~o ~~~ '' ~ i ~ i III i II J~S ~•$ ~ .._..._..~w~n ..._O_! i i i li I n. E`o ~ 1 -~ i i ~ I >~g (~z ; ' F ' y o ~ p ; oa min A i ~ ~ ' IF ~ I ; d~ ; ;. ; -- - I ~ ~ LITTL ANADA ROAD _ C <y Roed 21 r~ 3t i unun PLAN DENNY CLARIDGE C 1 ~ ~ -- 3300 HATIE LANE - ~ ~` ~/`" 8 g' 565 ^TRE CANADA ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 _ -~~ ~ 1 ~~- umE cu~~nn ux ~~.r.~iHC ~..ussoa.aT~s TRU> UURTU February 4, 2009 File: 120121 E-0240 Honorable Chair and Planning Commission City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road East Little Canada, MN 55117-1633 RE: DENNY CLARIDGE DEVELOPMENT CITY OF LITTLE CANADA Dear Planning Commission: We have reviewed the submittal package for the proposed Denny Claridge development located in the northwest corner of the Edgerton Street and Little Canada Road intersection. The submittal documents included an existing conditions plan sheet, preliminary plat, grading plan, and utility plan all dated January 26, 2009. Based upon our review we would offer the following comments. Grading Plan 1. Additional drainage swales will need to be added to the grading plan along the lot lines between all lots to ensure drainage from each lot is not discharged onto an adjacent lot outside of a drainage and utility easement. 2. The maximum grade allowed by City ordinance is 4 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (4:1) without the recommendation of the City Engineers. Due to the existing grades we would recommend that the City increase the maximum allowed grade to 3:1 in areas where trees could be protected or saved. 3. The retaining wall shown on the driveway to Lot 3 is over 4 feet high and therefore retaining wall plans signed by a licensed engineer will be required prior to final approval. The wall could be tiered to a maximum height of 4 feet where the distance between the walls is greater than or equal to the wall height. It also appears that wall may need to be extended to the north based on the grading currently shown. 4. The portion of the existing driveway that exits onto Little Canada Road is being removed as part of the development. It is our recommendation that the portion of the driveway that will remain be brought up to the current code requirements. The improvements needed would be the paving of the driveway, to eliminate sediment erosion from the gravel surface, and the turnaround at the house should be reduced to a 10 feet wide by 15 feet long area as allowed by code. Ltr-020409-PC 10062 Flanders Court NE, Blaine, MN 55449 -Phone: (763) 780-0450 -Fax: (763) 780-0452 Planning Commission February 4, 2009 Page Two 5. The maximum driveway grade allowed by City code is 6% and nearly all driveways exceed this requirement. Due to the existing topography we would recommend that the City allow the maximum driveway grade for this development be 10%. 6. No driveways should be constructed closer than 5 feet from a property line. 7. The ponding area on the north end of the development is proposed to pipe discharge to the north. This concentrated discharge could create an erosion problem on the bank into the park to the north. The discharge rate and overall discharge volume will need to be looked at in more detail and permanent erosion control measures installed as part of the final plans. 8. There is sufficient grading to require the treatment of storm water runoff from the site to the City standard and the developer should provide a disturbed area determination on the grading plan. Based on the disturbed area the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed requirements and permit along with a NPDES permit apply. 9. Amore detailed grading plan of the ponds will be necessary on the final plans after drainage calculations have been completed. Utility Plan 1. The sanitary sewer line to the north of the development that is being used for sanitary sewer extension is currently owned and operated by the Metropolitan Council. The specific details on the connection and a permit for the connection will need to be coordinated with their representatives, however it is our recommendation that a new manhole structure be added over the existing line to allow adequate maintenance of the new line by City crews. The location of the connection to this line may need to be moved to ensure access to the manhole with maintenance equipment. 2. The maximum grade allowed on an 8" gravity sanitary sewer line is 8.29%. This is the maximum grade that will be allowed especially due to the very low flows in this line. Inside drops conforming to the City details can be utilized to minimize excess depths. 3. The watermain service location for Lot 4 should be moved to eliminate the disturbance to the existing driveway on Edgerton Street. 4. Any work within the Edgerton Street right-of-way will need to be permitted through Ramsey County. If the bituminous surface is disturbed full lane replacement will be required. 5. All curb stop locations must installed in an area accessible by City Public Works staff and be within drainage and utility easement or street right-of-way. 6. A drainage and utility easement will be required over the 8" sanitary sewer mainline. This easement should be a minimum of 3 times as wide as the pipe is deep centered over the pipe. 7. An access must be provided to manhole #3 that would be accessible by the City sewer cleaning truck. Based on the driveway configuration shown and the location of the manhole the access will be easiest to provide off of the driveway to Lot 3. A drainage and utility easement or an access easement Llr-020409-PC 10062 Flanders Court NE, Blaine, MN 55449 -Phone: (763) 780-0450 -Fax: (763) 780-0452 Planning Commission February 4, 2009 Page Three will need to be provided for City personal to drive to the manhole for maintenance. We would recommend that an agreement be provide to ensure that the City is not responsible for maintenance or repair of the driveway as a result of their use for access to the structure. 8. A profile view must be provided with the final plans for the sanitary sewer extension. Miscellaneous 1. No drainage calculations were provided with this submittal and therefore a full review could not be completed. These calculations should be completed for the pre-existing conditions and the post-developed conditions for the 2 yr, 10 yr, and 100 yr storm events for review and approval. 2. Soil borings and infiltration rate determination will be needed in the areas of the proposed ponds. This information should be provided with the storm water and drainage calculations. 3. A tree survey should be completed on the site as required by City code along with alandscaping/replacement plan. 4. A detail sheet will need to be included in the final plan for the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water construction. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above information at (763) 780-0450 ext. 13. Sincerely, ELFERING & ASSOCIATES Lee Elfering, P.E. City Engineer cc: Bill Dircks, Public Works Director Llr-020409-PC 10062 Flanders Court NE, Blaine, MN 55449 -Phone: (763) 780-0450 -Fax: (763) 780-0452 NQRTHWEST ASSOCIATE I) CQNSUI.TANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners(c'vnacplanning.com PLANNING REPORT TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Laurie Smith /Stephen Grittman DATE: February 5, 2009 RE: Little Canada - Pinot Properties; Preliminary Plat FILE NO: 798.09 - 09.05 BACKGROUND Pinot Properties has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat consisting of five single family lots. The subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and is guided for low density residential uses by the Comprehensive Plan. The subject property currently includes a single family home, tennis court and three detached accessory buildings. The existing single family home is to remain and be incorporated ANALYSIS Zoning. The subject site is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into five single family lots. Subdivision Name. The applicant did not provide a name for the proposed plat. As provided for in Section 1005.020.A.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant shall provide a proposed name for the plat which is easily differentiated from existing subdivisions in the City. Lot Requirements. The R-1 Zoning District requires single family lots to have at least 11,000 square feet in area. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the five acre property into five lots each having 18,800 square feet or more in area. Exact lot areas for the proposed lots were not provided. The table below illustrates the lot requirements of the R-1 District. Setbacks Lot Lot Area Width Front Side Side Rear Corner 11,000 s ft. 85 ft 30 ft. 10 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. The proposed lots are consistent with the lot requirements of the R-1 District. However, Section 1006.020.D of the Subdivision Ordinance states that side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines. The proposed subdivision contains two side lot lines, one between Lots 2 and 3 and one between Lots 4 and 5 that are not at right angles to Edgerton Street. City staff would advise that these side lot lines be redrawn to be located perpendicular to Edgerton Street. At issue in this plat is the grade between much of the site and Edgerton, the primary access street. Access to Edgerton can only be achieved at the northern- or southern- most portions of the property. Access. The subject site abuts two collector roads -Little Canada Road (County Road 21) to the south and Edgerton Street (County Road 58) to the east. Section 1006.020.K of the Subdivision Ordinance recommends that lots platted along collector streets be platted in a manner that provides for turn-around access and egress on each lot. The ordinance further provides that all lots must be designed so that access can be provided from the street on which the lot has its frontage. In this case, driveways are shown to provide access, although for a few of the lots, the driveways are sharply skewed to comply with this requirement. As a part of the plan, a new lot will be platted along Little Canada Road, and a portion of the existing driveway will be abandoned in that area. The access to the existing home is proposed to remain from Edgerton Street. Construction Plans. The applicant has submitted preliminary construction plans for the proposed preliminary plat. These plans address grading and utility construction. These plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Easements. The preliminary plat illustrates drainage and utility easements at the perimeter of each lot as required by Section 1006.040 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Drainage and utility easements must also be designated over the two proposed ponding areas. All easements are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Sidewalks. The proposed plans do not indicate the addition of any sidewalks. The City's proposed Trail System Plan shows trails along both Little Canada Road and Edgerton Street. Park and Trail Dedication. Section 1007 of the Subdivision Ordinance outlines the City's park and trail dedication requirements. The applicant is not proposing to dedicate any land for park and trail use as a part of this plat. The Park Commission should make a recommendation related to cash or land dedication for this plat. 2 Tree Preservation. As provided for in Section 903.020.G.11.a of the Zoning Ordinance, all existing trees which do not have to be removed to accommodate streets, buildings, utilities or drainage shall be saved. Trees over six inches in caliper shall be marked with a red band and surrounded by protective fencing prior to any grading of the site. Removal of significant trees is subject to review and approval of City staff. Additional tree preservation information is necessary to Landscape Plan. A landscape plan was not submitted with the proposed preliminary plat. As a condition of approval, the applicant must submit a landscape plan for the proposed development including the required inventory of significant trees proposed to be removed as provided for in Section 903.020.G.11.a of the Zoning Ordinance. Existing Accessory Structures. The existing tennis court and three detached accessory buildings shall be removed as a condition of approval of the final plat. Development Contract. The applicant is required to enter into a development agreement with the City and pay all applicable fees and securities upon approval of a final plat. The development contract is subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Additional items need to be provided by the applicant in order to fully evaluate the proposed preliminary plat. It may be appropriate to consider tabling of the Preliminary Plat, pending submission of the remaining material to clarify any outstanding issues. If the Planning Commission believes that the application can go forward at this time, we would recommend that at least the following conditions be included as outlined below: The applicant shall provide a name for the proposed plat as provided for in Section 1005.020.A.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Lot areas for the proposed new lots shall be shown on the proposed plat. 3. Side lot lines between Lots 2 and 3 and between Lots 4 and 5 shall be revised to be located perpendicular to Edgerton Street, where possible, as required by Section 1006.020.D of the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Turn around access and egress shall be provided for each new lot. 5. All construction plans (grading, streets, utilities, etc.) are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 6. Drainage and utility easements must also be designated over the two proposed ponding areas, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. Park and trail dedication requirements shall be satisfied as recommended by the Park Commission. 8. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan and tree preservation plan subject to the review and approval of City staff. The existing tennis court and three detached accessory buildings shall be removed upon approval of the final plat. 10. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and pay all fees and securities required by it, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Pinot Properties, 3742 Brighton Way, Arden Hills, MN 55112 4 VG~CL a '~ . R~} ~ _ ~~z`t~ ~°anaa~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little-c anad a. mn. u s CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPEAL MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Rick Montour John Keis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Joe] R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request to consider an Appeal from the Zoning Code definition which limits single family size to no more than three unrelated individuals in order to accommodate occupancy of asingle-family home by four unrelated individuals. APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: William & Renee Galvin 882 Westwind Drive Little Canada, MN 55109 PROPERTY LOCATION: 882 Westwind Drive Little Canada, MN 55109 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this mattel• at a regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2009 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson, City Administrator February 4, 2009 City of Little Canada Zoning and Commission 515 Little Canada Road East Little Canada, MN 55117 To Whom It May Concern: We are interested in renting our home to four women, one of them being our daughter. In doing some research, we have discovered that the Little Canada Zoning Ordinance prohibits more than three unrelated people to live together in a single family dwelling. After discussing this with Steve Grittman, we have decided to ask that a special exception to this ordinance be granted due to some unique circumstances. We have a 21 year old daughter who is developmentally disabled. We feel that at this age it would be beneficial for the continuance of her growth and independence to live out on her own with people who have similar disabilities. In our efforts to have her placed in a group home, we have discovered that the State of Minnesota and Ramsey County have discontinued additional housing placement for adults with disabilities. Due to these budget cuts, many families like ours are finding it very difficult to find independent housing for their young adults with disabilities. Therefore, with the help of our daughters Ramsey County Case Worker, Angela Ellis, we are attempting to provide an alternative for ourselves and three other families in the Little Canada area. All four of our families and many more are in similar situations. Our two story home has five bedrooms, three bathrooms and a large yard. It would make an excellent home for the women. The home would be staffed with professional care attendants and overseen by a house manager. All four women are involved in work programs within the community, which they attend on a daily basis. None of the women will be in the home unsupervised at any time. The maintenance and care of the property will be overseen by our family. With the help of Angela Ellis from Ramsey County, we have examined and found that it will require the living expense budgets of four women to support the operational costs of the home. This is why we are asking you to consider the addition of one extra unrelated person to occupy this residence. Our daughter feels very comfortable and safe in the Little Canada area. Along with the other women, she has many friends and family nearby. After much consideration, we feel that this is an excellent solution for our four families and we all appreciate your consideration of our unique circumstances. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~~~~f/~ ~,~~ ~ William M. Galvin Renee B. Galvin 882 Westwind Drive Little Canada, MN 55109 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CON;SU4TA,NTS, INC.. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Bob Kirmis /Stephen Grittman DATE: February 5, 2009 RE: Little Canada -Galvin Zoning Ordinance Appeal FILE NO: 758.09 - 09.06 BACKGROUND William and Renee Galvin have expressed a desire to rent their home located at 882 Westwood Drive to four women, one of whom is their daughter. The City's zoning ordinance, specifically the definition of a "family", does not allow more than three unrelated individuals to live together in a single family dwelling. To be noted is that the City's definition does not establish a limit on the number of related persons who may occupy a dwelling. The ordinance does allow the City to make exception to the "family" definition if it is determined that it is necessary in order to comply with federal Fair Housing laws. In this regard, the applicants wish to formally appeal the City's definition of "family" in order to accommodate their desired living arrangement. The Calvin's daughter is 21 years of age and is developmentally disabled. The applicants feel it would be beneficial for their daughter to live independently with people having similar disabilities. According to the applicants, they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to place their daughter in a group home facility due to recent State and County budget cuts (additional placement for adults with disabilities has been discontinued). The three other developmentally disabled women (who would reside in the home) are it similar situations. All four women are involved in daily work programs in the community but do not drive. The applicant's home has five bedrooms and three bathrooms. The home would be would be staffed with professional care attendants and overseen by a house manager. The property itself would be maintained by the applicants (the homeowners). ANALYSIS Definition of "Family". Section 902 of the City's zoning ordinance defines "family" as follows: A person living alone or any of the following groups, provided that the members of the group live together as a single housekeeping unit and do not exceed the maximum occupancy limits under chapter 4 of the city code: a. An individual plus one (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized custodial relationship, including foster children and bona fide domestic servants employed on a full-time basis by the family in the dwelling unit; or b. Two unrelated people and any children related to either of them; or c. One (1) or more persons occupying a premises, subject to a limit of not more than three (3) unrelated persons eighteen (18) years of age or older. The definition of family is established for the purpose of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods by controlling population density, noise, disturbance and traffic congestion and shall not be applied so as to prevent the city from making reasonable accommodation where the City determines it necessary under applicable federal fair housing laws. d. Group residential facilities when property licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services or the Minnesota Department of Corrections under MN Stat. 245A.11 and 241.021. The applicants are seeking an exception to item C above to allow more than three unrelated individuals to occupy a single family dwelling. The proposed living quarters would not qualify as a "group residential facility" as identified in item D above (which allows up to six residents) as the facility would not be licensed by the State on Minnesota, although it appears as if it would be operated in such a way. Appeals. Section 922-A of the Zoning Ordinance establishes an appeal process when it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination by an administrative officer in the enforcement of this Ordinance. Requests for appeals are considered by the City Council serving as the Board of Adjustment, following a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The applicant's request to be granted an exception from the City's definition of "family" will be processed as an appeal. In this report, we have identified potential issues that the family size definition is intended to address, including general zoning issues related to the occupancy of single family property. The City should evaluate this appeal based on whether the proposed exception would address the zoning issues in a way that would justify waiving the 3- unrelated person standard. Fair Housing Act. In consideration of the applicant's appeal, it should be determined whether or not denial of the applicant's request would in any way violate the intent of the Fair Housing Act (to provide fair housing throughout the United States). The basic premise of the Fair Housing Act (Section 804) is not to deny housing (sale or rental) to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. As previously indicated, the applicant's home would be occupied by four developmentally disabled individuals. The Fair Housing Act does not specifically address the definition of "family" in regard to "related" and "unrelated" persons. Obviously, the applicant's do not wish to deny occupancy to those persons having handicap. The City's definition of "family" is established for the purpose of preserving the character of residential neighborhoods by controlling population density, noise, disturbance and traffic congestion. Of particular question is whether or not the preceding concerns, regardless of whether or not the dwelling occupants are related, can be mitigated to the satisfaction of the City. Evaluation Criteria. As noted above, it is considered appropriate to identify issues which should be addressed in order to minimize potential adverse impacts associated with the proposed use. Based upon a review of the Fair Housing Act and typical zoning standards related to health, safety and general welfare, the following should be considered: Maximum Occuoanc~ A primary intent of the non-related persons limitation (within a dwelling) is to control adult population density and therefore maintain the character of single family residential neighborhoods. Thus, it is considered appropriate to establish an occupancy limit on the requested exception. In this case, the applicants suggest that the occupancy by the 4 tenants, and supervising staff, will not be dissimilar to a typical single family home due to the characteristics of the use. Age of Occupants. The City's definition of "family" references a maximum of three (3) unrelated persons eighteen (18) years of age or older. The appeal is from this specific provision since the four occupants are all of adult age. Supervision. All four dwelling occupants are developmentally disabled. The applicants suggest that the nature of the occupancy by developmentally disabled adults with supervision will not result in any negative impacts on the neighborhood, but instead, the home will be no different, or perhaps have less impact, than a licensed group home. Since the State initiated requirements for licensed group homes of up to six occupants, plus staff in the early 1990s, there have been few if any reports of negative impacts on single family neighborhoods. Most communities report that such residences blend into their neighborhoods without notice. Off-Street Parking. The applicant has indicted that dwelling residents will not drive. Thus, off-street parking and associated traffic impacts will be minimal. Based on this situation, there should be no additional negative traffic impacts on the area, nor should there be a concern over lack of parking facilities on the property. The applicants indicate that occupants are picked up by a driver for work. If this exception is approved, this issue may be made a condition of occupancy to avoid concerns over parking and traffic. Secondary Uses. The dwelling in question is to be maintained by the applicants/ property owners. Recognizing this and that few vehicles will be parked on the property, the garage should be used only for parking of staff vehicles, and not for off-site storage. As an accessory building, the garage is to be used only in support of the principal occupancy of the property. Rental License. As a condition of exception approval, it is expected that the property owners secure a rental license. Such license will document the conditions of use approval. Any changes to the conditions of approval would require the issuance of a new rental license. Building Alterations. To maintain the integrity of the neighborhood and zoning district purpose, the home should not be altered in a manner which is inconsistent with future re-use as a single family dwelling. Building and Fire Codes. The age of the home has not been specified. As a condition for this group occupancy, the home should be made subject to all applicable requirements of the State Building and Fire Codes. Noise. Like all other uses in the City, the emission of noise from the dwelling should be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Rules 7030 as amended. Based on the description of the use by the applicants, the exception to the number of unrelated occupants should not raise issues with noise or other similar concerns. RECOMMENDATION The City's definition of "family" stipulates that not more than three unrelated persons may occupy a dwelling. The limit on the number of unrelated persons is intended to preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by controlling population density, noise and traffic congestion. Thus, it is not so much the number of persons which is of concern but rather the impacts produced by such persons. The limit of three unrelated adults has been established as the maximum at which such persons are likely to avoid raising the issues noted above. The proposed exception is based in the belief that due to the nature of the proposed occupants, expanding the number of unrelated adults from three to four, in this particular case, will not cause the negative impacts that the limit is designed to avoid. Considering the residents of the dwelling will not drive, impacts related to traffic congestion and parking are expected to be minimal and no greater than a dwelling occupied by four related persons. Moreover, licensed group homes in similar circumstances -with up to six occupants -have functioned without issue for several years in many locations. In this regard, Staff believes the proposed residential facility can compatibly exist within the context of it neighborhood provided the following conditions are satisfied: 1. No more than four (4) persons (not including the house manager and professional care attendants) shall reside on the premises. 2. Residents shall be eighteen (18) years of age or older. 3. With the exception of the professional care attendants and house manager, dwelling occupants shall not store private automobiles on the property. 4. Secondary use of the property including, but not limited to, off-premise storage shall be prohibited. 5. The property owners secure a rental license. Such license shall document the conditions of use approval. 6. The facility shall not be altered in a manner which is inconsistent with future re- use as a single family dwelling. 7. All applicable requirements of the State Building and Fire Codes are satisfied. 8. The emission of noise shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minnesota Rules 7030 as amended. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering William and Renee Galvin, 882 Westwind Drive, Little Canada, MN 55109 VGGCL ~+~~ ffsy F u ~:.ti ~~ ~ll { ;.. ~ ~i`t~ C°aytaa~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little- canad a. mn. u s CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF PUD PERMITS MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Rick Moniour John Keis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Jocl R. Hanson PROPOSAL: The City of Little Canada is considering the Revocation of PUD Permits for outdoor storage issued to the following: Temo Sunrooms 2905 County Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 The property in question is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at a regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 12, 2009. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will beheld in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will beheld by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to beheld on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, February 12, 2009 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson City Administrator ~~ 5=` ~•~_ `~tt~ ~°anaa~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little-c anad a. mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Blesener & Members of the City Council FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Code Enforcement Officer DATE: January 22, 2009 RE: Temo Sunrooms - 2905 County Drive MAYOR Bill Blesoner COUNCIL Rick Montour John Keis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson In May 2007, Temo Sunrooms was granted a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit for their site at 2905 Country Drive. This permit allowed them to display one gazebo on the south side of their property from March 1 to October 31 of each year. In January 2008, I conducted an inspection of this property and the gazebo was not removed. I immediately started working with Temo Sunrooms to correct the violation. Ml•. Maietta indicated that the contractor was the cause of the delay and due to weather conditions it was not possible to remove. Additionally, Mr. Maietta indicated that they preferred to leave the gazebo up year round. As a result in March 2008, Temo Sunrooms applied for an amendment to the permit. In March 2008, Temo Sunrooms applied for an amendment to allow year round display of the gazebo, year round storage of two additional display trailers, and a commercial dumpster. The City Council denied their request for the dumpstel• and denied the year round display/storage of all three displays/trailers. Temo Sunrooms was issued an amended permit to allow for display of the gazebo from March 1 to October 31. With the other two display trailers only from April 1, 2008 through October 31, 2008 and from April 1, 2009 through October 31, 2009 with review in October 2009 to extend the permit. I once again went out to the property on December 8, 2008 to see if these items were removed and all three remained on the property. I called Mr. Maietta twice to discuss the permit provisions. Mr. Maietta said he would have to contact his contractor to figure out when in fact it could be removed. I did not hear back from Mr. Maietta and followed up with his office once again on December 17. Mr. Maietta left me a voicemail that his contractor was still working on a possible date and with weather conditions was unsure. He indicated that Temo Sunrooms was having a lunch at their property on December 18 and the contractor was attending. He hoped it could removed at that time. I left Mr. Maietta another message reminding him it was all three displays, not only the gazebo in the front of the building. Mr. Maietta left me a message on the December 19 indicating he had totally forgot about the two trailers in the back of the building, but they would be gone within two or three days. I sent a letter to Mr. Maietta on December 19 because none of the displays had been removed. I gave Temo Sunrooms until December 24 to have the violations corrected or city staff would be forced to pursue further code enforcement action. On December 26, 2008 all three displays still remained on the properly. I conducted an inspection of the property yesterday and the gazebo on the south side of the building has been removed, but the two other displays still remain in the rear yard. City code 923.040.D.5 -Administration Planned Unit Development states Inspections Diming Development. a. Compliance with Overall Plan. Following Final Plan approval of a PUD, a• a stage thw•eof, the Zoning Adminish•ator shall, at [east annually until the completion of development, review a[I permits issued and consh•uction undertaken and compare actual development and with the approved development schedule. If the Zoning Administrator finds that development is not proceeding in accordance with the approved schedule, or that it fails to any other respect to comply with the PUD plans as fnal[y approved, he shall immediately notify the Council. Within thirty (30) days of such notice, the Council shall either by ordinance revoke the PUD permit, and the land shall thereafter be governed by the regulations applicable in the district In which it is located; or shall take such steps as dt shall deem necessafy to compel compliance with the Final Plans as approved; or shall requn•e the landowner or applicant to seek an amendment of the final Plan. At this time, city staff is notifying the Council of Temo's noncompliance with the PUD permit conditions. Given the continual violations with Temo Sunrooms, it is staffs recommendation that the City Council pursue further code enforcement options to bring this site into compliance. The following are options available - l. Contact Temo Sunrooms and allow additional time to remove the final two displays. 2. Issue citations for the violations. 3. Pursue revocation of the PUD Permit. Please advise city staff as to which code enforcement option the Council wishes to pursue. Cc: Patrick Kelly, City Attorney Steve Grittman, City Planner Robert Maietta, Temo Sunrooms MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 28, 2009 TEMO SUNROOMS CODE COMPLIANCE MARCH MEETING CHANGE The City Administrator reviewed the Code Enforcement Officer's January 22, 2009 report relative to code compliance issues at Temo Sunrooms at 2905 Country Drive. It was noted that after several attempts to achieve code compliance under the PUD Permit, the gazebo has been removed from the property, but the two display trailers remain on the property. The Administrator outlined the options available to the City which include continuing contact with Temo Sunrooms to achieve compliance, issuing citations for the violations, or pursuing revocation of the PUD Permit. It was the consensus of the Council to request that Mr. Maietta, Tema Sunrooms, appear before the Council in February to discuss this non- compliance issue. Should those discussions not prove successful, the Council indicated their willingness to pursue revocation of the PUD Permit. Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2009-1-29 -RESCHEDULING THE MARCH 9, 2009 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING TO TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 2009 AT 7:30 P.M. The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Boss. Ayes (4). Nays (1) Montour. Resolution declared adopted. CALL FOR Mr. James Monge III, League of Minnesota Cities attorney representing CLOSED the City in the Valor Enterprises litigation, advised the City Council to SESSION - call for a closed session to discussion settlement discussions and VALOR negotiations pursuant to State Statutes. He noted that there will be no LITIGATION decisions made at this closed session and no other business will be discussed. Mr. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.2009-1-30 - TEMPORARILYADJOURNING THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AND CONVENING INTO CLOSED SESSION The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Boss. Ayes (5). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. VGGCL ~(: ~tt~e ~°anaa~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.littte-canada.mn.us February 2, 2009 Temo Sunrooms Attn: Robert Maietta Sr. 2905 Country Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 RE: PUD Permit Dear Mr. Maietta: MAYOR Bill Blesener COUNCIL Rick Montour John Keis Michael McGraw Shelly Boss ADMINISTRATOR Joel R. Hanson At the City Council meeting on January 28, 2009, the Council reviewed my report regazding the violations of the PUD Permits for Temo Sunrooms. A copy of this report was mailed to you on the 22"d. To recap this memo, I outlined the history with your property and requested the Council direct city staff as to whether citations should be issued, revocation of PUD Permits, or grant additional time for compliance. During this meeting, it was the Council consensus to request a representative from Temo Sunrooms be at the Council meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2009. This meeting will be a public hearing to consider the possible revocation of the PUD Permits. However, it will also allow Temo Sunrooms an opportunity to explain why compliance is and has been an issue in the past. Since the PUD Permits are being considered for revocation, the Planning Commission will also be reviewing the matter at their meeting on Thursday, February 12. To be clear, if the Council revokes the PUD Permit for Temo Sunrooms you will not be allowed any display or storage of trailers now or in the future. If you have any questions, please call me at 651-766-4046. Again, I strongly encourage someone to be in attendance at both meetings on February 12 and 25. The Council will betaking some form of enforcement action on this matter. Officer ~~ r ~~z`~ ~°ana~a 515 Little Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1600 (651) 766-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-4048 www. ci.little-canada.mn.us CITY OF LITTLE CANADA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUD PERMIT COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT MAYOR IIill T3lesener COUNCIL Riclc Montow~ E3arUara Klan John Keis Michael McGraw ADMINISTRATOR Jocl R. Hanson PROPOSAL: A request for approval of the following: PUD Permits allowing the outdoor storage of up to three unscreened display trailers, the outdoor storage of an unscreened commercial dumpster, and the outdoor display of a gazebo; Comprehensive Sign Plan as part of a PUD Application; and Text Amendment increasing the maximum number of Massage Therapy Principal Business Licenses to three (3). The property in question is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER: Country Drive Partners 2905 Country Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 PROPERTY LOCATION: Temo Sunrooms & Exteriors 2905 Country Drive Little Canada, MN 55117 PLANNING COMMISSION: The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at a regular meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 13, 2008. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. CITY COUNCIL: Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, March 13, 2008 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, March 26, 2008. Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request. The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the necessary arrangements. Joel R. Hanson, City Administrator February 21, 2008 Little Canada Planning Commission 515 Little Canada Road Little Canada, MN. 55117 RE: 2905 Country Drive, Parcel ID 06-29-22-14-0025 Greetings: I am submitting a request for the following changes to my current zoning status and or apply for the appropriate required Conditional Use Permits. 1. I would like to be able to park my two existing display trailers in the back of my building when they are not in use. They are 16' x 8'/z' and 14' x 8 %z' in size. I may purchase a third trailer in the future as well. During the summer months they are gone constantly in use, but in the winter they would be sitting in the back of my parking lot more of the time. The trailers fit comfortably and take up one existing marked parking space. Approval of this request would not impact traffic congestion nor increase safety concerns. Additionally, I do not believe allowing my parking request would injure or detract from the use of neighboring property. I currently have a high fence in the back of my property and trees and landscaping on the side. The building already had 80 parking spades when I purchased it. 2. I am currently going to lease approximately 1500 sq ft. in the back portion of our building to Vita Bella Health & Wellness Center. They will be offering Therapeutic Massage, Specialty Facials, Nutritioual Management, Pilates, and beginning and advanced Yoga. Approval of this request would not impact traffic congestion nor increase safety concerns. Any increased traffic to this destination would pale in comparison to the amount of existing traffic currently utilizing Country Drive. Maximum increase of five to twelve cars would be at this destination at any one time. Massage and facial appointments are usually one to two hours plus in duration and Yoga and Pilate classes would be scheduled a few times per week. 3. I would like to request approval of two future signs, one which will be installed in the future in the front of the building and one on the side of the building for the new tenant. The dimensions in the front will be 20' high based on my square footage and 155 sq. ft. maximum sign area. The signage for the side of the building will not exceed 4'x 10'. Total square footage of the proposed signs including the existing 44 sq. ft. sign currently on the front of the building would be 239 sq. ft. which is well below the 528 sq. ft. I'm allowed given the 90' x 145' dimensions of my building. 4. I would like to request putting a commercial dumpster in the back of my property for a period of 10 days at a time up to 8 times a year during our busy season to handle overflow. This is covered and presented no debris issues in the past. 5. I would like to request to leave my gazebo display, currently installed on the side of my building there on a permanent basis. It is esthetically pleasing and has presented no issues or problems. It helps compliment the sale of are other products. Additionally, significant storage space is required to store it which I do not currently have. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Rob~rt Maietta Country Drive Partners NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway. Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2581 plan nersC nacpla nning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: March 6, 2008 RE: Little Canada - TEMO Sunrooms -Country Drive PUD FILE NO: 758.09 - 08.03 Backaround and Analvsis The applicants are the owners and occupants of the office/warehouse building at 2905 Country Drive. The property is zoned PUD, and was developed as a part of a City- initiated tax increment financing project to provide high quality office and office- warehouse space along I-35E. Over time, a total of four buildings have been built in this area, with future plans for additional redevelopment to the south of the subject property. In the spring of 2007, the applicant requested the ability to construct a detached accessory garage building in the parking lot behind the principal building. The application also includes a request for the construction of a gazebo that would be located in the front parking lot. The purpose of the garage building was to be for storage of company equipment which the applicant indicates is often stored outside. It should be noted that outside storage is not permitted in this district, and there is an existing garage building near the proposed location. The purpose of the gazebo is as a sales display -the applicant markets this product to retail purchasers. The City Council approved amendments to the PUD to allow the display of the gazebo seasonally between March 1 and October 31 of each year, and to allow the construction of a garage, in which the applicant was to be required to keep all storage materials, including room for a dumpster. The applicant had been storing materials and a trash dumpster outside on the parking lot area. During the past 10 months, the gazebo has remained on site past the removal date of October 31, and the applicant has found a potential tenant for a portion of his building. As a result, the applicant is seeking a revised PUD permit for the following purposes: 1. Park two (and potential a third) display trailers outside in the rear of the building (the applicant indicates that these trailers are often moved off-site to other display locations, but would be on-site during the winter). 2. Permit a tenant in his building that offers "health and wellness" services including yoga, pilates, massage, nutrition, and "specialty facials". A companions application is requested that would increase the therapeutic massage licensing allowance to accommodate this additional massage license in the City (from two to three total licenses). Comprehensive Sign Plan to construct two new signs on the property. One would be a freestanding sign in the front yard area, and the second would be a wall sign identifying the prospective tenant. 4. Provide an allowance for an additional dumpster to be stored outside in the rear of the property up to 8 times per year for 10 day periods. 5. Make the gazebo display in the front/side of the parking area a permanent, year- round display. Item 1 -two additional display trailers to be stored outdoors in the rear portion of the site (with potential for a third trailer in the futurel. As was noted above, the development of this area was intended to provide for higher- quality office and office-warehouse properties. The City zoned the property to the PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning district to ensure that the City would have adequate zoning authority to realize its development goals for the area. Outdoor storage is one of the issues that the City has had significant issues with in other industrial areas. As such, the addition of this type of storage would appear to be inconsistent with the objectives of the district. The previous staff report also addressed the use of parking areas for storage. Even though this site does not currently have a parking issue, staff would be concerned about reducing the parking supply. With the potential addition of a tenant which could attract both staff and customers at a higher rate than would warehouse space, parking is likely to become a greater issue. Additionally, where outdoor storage is allowed in the City, one of the basic requirements is that it not take up required parking area. Item 2 -PUD Permit for "Health and Wellness" business. The business requested for the site would be similar in clientele to a salon or other service business. In the City's classification of commercial uses, this would be most typical of a commercial/retail area, whereas the site in question was originally intended to be office and office-warehouse. The primary difference between these uses is the nature of the traffic to the site. In a retail/service business, the retail end-user visits the property to purchase or consume the service being offered. In an office-warehouse environment, it is rare for the end-user to visit the business location. As a result, traffic to retail/service businesses is higher, resulting higher traffic in the area and increased pressure on parking facilities. In the past year or two, there has been some movement toward more retail activity along Country Drive, particularly with the auction sales at Rose Gallery and the transition of the Levitz site to Hom Furniture. Both of these examples are farther north on Country Drive, however, and have greater exposure to freeway visibility. The site in question has limited visibility due to the topography of the area. The City should carefully consider whether a transition of this area to a more retail/service orientation would be consistent with long-term City land use goals. One consideration in this regard would be the effect of this transition on competitive locations, such as areas along Rice Street. Item 3 -Comprehensive Siqn Plan to construct two new signs on the property -one freestanding and one wall sign. In the PUD District, potential sign area is regulated by two elements: (1) the maximum allowances of the sign ordinance for commercial uses, and (2) modification of those allowances based on the requirement that PUD design is required to demonstrate a higher standard of design beyond the basic ordinance standards. The freestanding sign proposed by the applicant is a 155 square foot pylon sign on a 20 foot pole. This is the maximum sign allowance for buildings in this district based on building size. In the area, there are a mix of freestanding signs. For the building directly adjacent to the TEMO site, a monument sign identifies the Ramsey County Sheriff's offices. To the north are two newer buildings which have pylon signs identifying the office occupants. Pylon signs area allowed, and the proposed sign is at least nominally consistent with the sign regulations applicable to the property. Staff would recommend the following modifications to the sign as being consistent with the PUD district: - A sign panel design that avoids a lighted white plastic panel background. Instead, the applicant should "reverse out" lighter text from a dark background. - Sign materials that are an improvement over a simple metal pole, augmenting the based with masonry material or other similar improvement. - Consider landscaping around the base of the sign. - Rather than a pylon design, utilize a monument style sign which is less visually intrusive and utilizes materials consistent with the building. Item 4 -Provide for up to eight 10-dav periods allowing additional outdoor dumoster storage. As with the display discussion above, outdoor storage is the most problematic issue in the City's commercial and industrial areas. All of the buildings in the development in question were required (consistent with ordinance standards) to provide for screened 3 garbage dumpster enclosures which were built into the site planning for the project. It would appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the district, as well as inconsistent with the City's routine zoning standards, to provide for outdoor dumpster storage on an ongoing basis. Since PUD projects are required to demonstrate how such projects represent upgraded design, approval of outdoor storage of dumpsters in opposition to ordinance standards would seem to require significant upgrades in other areas. Item 5 -Make the front yard gazebo display permanent rather than seasonal. Planning staff continues to believe that outdoor display is inconsistent with the intent of the district as aoffice-warehouse development. To the extent that retail activities occur on the site in such areas, they are typically conducted within the buildings as a part of the showroom aspect of the business. It would not appear compatible with the intent of this zoning district to begin an allowance for outdoor display of retail goods, even though this particular display is likely to generate only a lower volume of traffic. Summary and Recommendation The purpose of the development district in which the applicant's building is located was to provide for ahigh-quality office and office-warehouse project area. The addition of new outdoor display, outdoor storage, and retail/service uses to the site appear to be inconsistent with the intent of the district. As such, planning staff recommends denial of the requests for permanent outdoor display, outdoor storage of display trailers, outdoor storage of dumpsters, and a PUD Permit for the Health and Wellness business as a retail/service use (Items 1,2,4 and 5). The following findings would support these recommendations: • The introduction of a retail/service use into the area would generate consumer retail traffic that the development was not designed to accommodate. • The additional storage space would occupy parking spaces that were programmed to serve potential office occupancy of the building, and would not be available if the building use changes to a more intense use. • The outdoor display of retail goods is not consistent with purpose of the district as a site for office and office-warehouse uses. • The outdoor storage of display trailers is not consistent with the purpose of the PUD District as a higher quality office-warehouse development. • The outdoor storage of dumpsters is not consistent with the purpose of the PUD District as a higher quality office-warehouse development. The permanent display of the gazebo would occupy parking spaces assigned to the building based on the zoning ordinance, and would occupy space in the front yard area which is inconsistent with the purpose and aesthetic objectives of the district. 4 Because the applicant's sign request appears to be consistent with the general regulations for signage for commercial/industrial buildings, staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan, with the following conditions to make it consistent with the goals and intent of the PUD zoning: A sign panel design that avoids a lighted white plastic panel background. Instead, the applicant should "reverse out" lighter text from a dark background. b. Sign materials that are an improvement over a simple metal pole, augmenting the based with masonry material or other similar improvement. Consider landscaping around the base of the sign. d. Rather than a pylon design, utilize a monument style sign which is less visually intrusive and utilizes materials consistent with the building. Pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Lee Elfering Country Drive Partners, 2905 Country Drive, Little Canada, MN 55117 5 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Blesener and Little Canada City Council FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: March 20, 2008 RE: Little Canada - TEMO Sunrooms PUD -Summary NAC FILE: 758.09 - 08.03 TEMO Sunrooms appeared before the Planning Commission on March 13 requesting a series of amendments to their Planned Unit Development Permit at 2905 Country Drive. The applications are for the following: • Outdoor Storage of up to 3 Display Trailers • Outdoor Storage of commercial dumpster • Outdoor Display (changed from temporary to permanent) of Gazebo • Comprehensive Sign Plan • Ordinance Amendment increasing number of massage therapy licenses from 2 to 3 Staff and Planning Commission recommendations are shown below: Staff Planning Commission 3 Display Trailers Denial Temporary Approval, with removal of display trailers by October 31, 2008 Commercial Dum ster Denial Denial Permanent Gazebo Denial Approval until March 1, 2010 with revious Cit conditions Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval, subject to Approval, subject to conditions in staff re ort conditions in staff re ort Massage Therapy Licenses Approval, based on current Approval license re uirements MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA MARCH 13, 2008 MINUTES PUD PERMITS, COMP. SIGN PLAN, AND TEXT AMENDMENT- 2905 COUNTRY DRIVE - TEMO SUNROOMS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of Little Canada, Minnesota was held on the 13th day of March, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Chair Dan Knudsen called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the following members of the Planning Commission were present at roll call: PLANNING COMMISSION: Mr. Dan Knudsen Mr. Scott Barraclough Mr. Tom Duray Mr. Jon Hall Ms. Kate Socha MEMBERS ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Mr. Jeff Helmeke Mr. Chuck Pechmann Mr. Steve Grittman, City Planner Ms. Kimberly Holien, City Planner Mr. Kevin Helander, Cable TV Ms. Kathy Glanzer, City Clerk Duray recommended approval of the February 14, 2008 minutes as submitted. Motion seconded by Socha. Motion carried 5 - 0. The City Planner reported that Temo Sunrooms, 2905 Country Drive, is requesting the following: PUD Permit for outdoor storage of three unscreened display trailers; PUD Permit for outdoor storage of an unscreened commercial dumpster; PUD Permit for outdoor display of a gazebo; Comprehensive Sign Plan as part of a PUD application; and Text Amendment to increase the maximum number of Massage Therapy Principal Business Licenses to three (3). MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2008 The City Planner indicated that the area was a redevelopment site for the City and was redeveloped with office/office-warehouse space. Temo Sunrooms purchased one of the buildings about a year ago. The Planner noted that in the Spring of 2007, Temo Sunrooms requested a PUD Permit to construct a display gazebo on their property as well as a second accessory garage structure at the back of the property. The structure that Temo Sunroom was using for a garage is actually a trash enclosure. Temo Sunroom is storing its 4-yard dumpster outside when it is to be stored within this trash enclosure structure. The Planner outlined the approval that the Council granted on May 23, 2007: • Approving the Amendment to PUD Permit to allow a display gazebo on the Temo Sunroom property at 2905 Country Drive from March 1 through October 31 of each year, with the gazebo to be placed on the south side of the building behind the front of the building. Approving the Amendment to PUD Permit to allow the construct of one garage/dumpster enclosure structure not to exceed 800 square feet in size, located at the rear of the Temo Sunroom property at 2905 Country Drive, contingent upon the removal of the existing trash enclosure structure prior to construction commencing on the new garage, and subject to garage/dumpster enclosure structure location resulting in the minimal loss of parking spaces. The City Planner pointed out that Mr. Maietta, Temo Sunrooms, did not remove the gazebo over the winter months. He also noted that the garage/dumpster enclosure structure was not built. Mr. Maietta has now indicated that his interest in how he uses his property has changed somewhat, therefore, he has made the applications before the Commission for consideration this evening. The Planner noted that Mr. Maietta is requesting that the gazebo be allowed as a permanent outdoor display on the property. He is also requesting the ability to store up to three unscreened display trailers and an unscreened commercial dumpster at the back of the property. Additionally he is requesting that the City amend the Code to allow three massage therapy business licenses in the City so that he can rent a portion of his business to a massage therapy/wellness business. A result of that second business is the need for a Comprehensive Sign Plan to provide signage for both businesses. Bob Maietta, Temo Sunrooms, indicated the he was surprised when he received a call from the City informing him that he could not store his -2- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2008 display trailers on his property. He reported that he was told by City staff that he needed to apply for a PUD Permit. Maietta reported that the displays are two sunrooms on trailers that are put on display at Home Depot stores and Sam's Club stores. These trailers would not spend much time at 2905 Country Drive from spring to late fall. Maietta reported that he may purchase a third display trailer in the fixture. He indicated that other cities will only allow the trailers to be displayed at the stores for a certain number of days, so when they are not scheduled at a store, they would return to Little Canada. With regard to the commercial dumpster, Maietta reported that they periodically have a large dumpster on the property in addition to their 4- yard dumpster. Maietta reported that when he purchased his property he thought that it had a garage behind the building and was unaware that this was actually a trash enclosure. Maietta reported that the showroom area within his building decreases his storage space; therefore, he had proposed to construct an up to 800 square foot garage/trash enclosure on the property. Given the challenging business year he has had, the garage was not built. Maietta reported that it is his intention to build this garage/trash enclosure in the future. Knudsen asked the purpose of the additional dumpster. Maietta reported that it is needed occasionally to accommodate overflow. Maietta noted that the 4-yard dumpster would continue to be needed for the property. Maietta stated that he is requesting the PUD Permit for outdoor display of the gazebo since he felt the City would realize that the gazebo is not an eyesore and would allow it to stay outside. Knudsen asked if the intention was to store the gazebo inside the new garage that was to be built. Maietta replied that that was the intent, but he would like to leave it as a permanent display. Maietta reported that he is also requesting a Comprehensive Sign Plan so that he could construct a sign providing signage for Temo Sunrooms as well as whatever tenant he has for his property. The City Planner indicated that the PUD District allows a freestanding sign on the property. However, a Comprehensive Sign Plan is required if the building is multi-tenant. Maietta reported that should the City not expand the number of massage therapy business licenses, he would try to find another tenant. Therefore, the Comprehensive Sign Plan is required. Maietta reported that the tenant he is proposing is a wellness center which would have one office for massage therapy and another for facials. Maietta indicated that the wellness center is actually his wife's business. -3- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2008 Duray asked the size of the commercial dumpster being proposed. Maietta reported that it would be a 10-yard dumpster. He indicated that he operates a residential roofing and siding business and does a lot of storm damage work. Maietta indicated that this creates additional disposal needs. Duray asked why the 4-yard dumpster is not being stored in the trash enclosure. Maietta replied that there is no room for it, and that is why he was going to build a larger garage. Socha asked why a commercial dumpster was needed on the property if Temo Sunrooms builds its sunrooms on site. Maietta reported that the assembly of a sunroom on site does not generate a lot of trash; therefore, he does not have a dumpster at a sunroom construction site. However, the roofing and siding aspects of his business does generate more disposal needs. Maietta reported that he does have an on-site dumpster for roofing jobs. However, siding jobs take longer and most cities will only allow the dumpster at the job site for a limited amount of time or on the street for a day or two. Therefore, he would like to have a commercial dumpster at 2905 Country Drive to bring the siding debris back to the shop location. Knudsen noted that Maietta is asking that the larger commercial dumpster be allowed approximately 25% of the time. Knudsen asked what would determine when the dumpster is there. Maietta replied that it would be a matter of demand. The dumpster would be utilized for the storm damage repair portion of his business, allowing him to bring trash back from the job site. Barraclough asked for additional clarification on the two dumpsters. Maietta reported that the 4-yard dumpster would be permanent and would support his sunroom business. That dumpster would be emptied once per week. A 10-yard commercial dumpster would come and go and Maietta reported that it came and went four times during 2007. Duray asked when Maietta would be building the up to 800-square foot garage/trash enclosure. Maietta reported that it is difficult to project the fixture of his industry, therefore, he could not estimate when he would build the garage. Maietta stated that if he can store his display trailers outside, that reduces some of his need for the garage. Knudsen stated that the City tries to work with business owners, but pointed out that outdoor storage has been a significant issue in the City. He pointed out that this particular business is directly adjacent to a residential area. Knudsen also noted that the concept of the office/office-showroom business for this area was that there would be -4- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2008 no need for outdoor storage. Knudsen stated that he cannot support the outdoor storage of the trailers or the dumpster. Knudsen stated that he did not have an issue with allowing the gazebo to remain as an outdoor display. With regard to the wellness business, he felt that the Commission had to consider the combination of businesses proposed and the precedent that would be set. Knudsen asked about the synergy of the wellness business in combination with the Temo Sunroom business. Mr. Maietta acknowledged that on its face, there wasn't any, but pointed out that the wellness business is his wife's business. Knudsen stated that based on this fact he would be open to allowing the wellness business in this location. John Grant, 2901 Condit Street, reported that he is the residential property behind Temo Sunrooms. He has contacted Mr. Maietta to discuss some of his concerns with the proposal. Grant noted that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the PUD Permit for the garage storage building last year, and indicated that he would rather not look at this garage structure. Grant stated that it was preferable to him to look at the outdoor storage of the display trailers on a temporary basis if that would delay construction of the garage. Grant felt that the trailers would be more easily screened from Condit Street than the garage. Grant stated that from his living room he currently sees vans, trailers, and dumpsters at the back of the Temo property. Grant believed that the commercial dumpster that is at the back of the property is a 20-yard dumpster and not the 10-yard dumpster stated by Mr. Maietta. Grant noted that there is also the 4-yard dumpster in the back. Grant stated that there are two issues with these dumpsters. The first is that they are an invitation for people to drive behind the building and dump their own debris into them. The second is that people drive behind the building to scavenge from these dumpsters. Grant stated that he was not opposed to the outdoor display of the gazebo as requested by Maietta. However, he was disappointed that the gazebo was not taken down as Maietta agreed so. Grant expressed concern going forward with Maietta's compliance with the commitments that he makes. With regard to the massage business, Grant stated that his only concern would be the days and hours of operation, noting that the business is adjacent to a residential area. Duray asked if Maietta would put the display trailers into the garage once it is constructed. Maietta replied that he would, indicating that it was better to keep them indoors in terms of keeping them clean. Duray -5- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2008 asked if Maietta would have no need for outdoor storage once the garage is constructed. Maietta replied that that was correct. Maietta reported that the wellness business would have similar hours to his business. He indicated that Temo Sunrooms is open until 8:00 p.m. on the weekdays and is open on Saturdays. Maietta stated that the businesses would be scheduled around the convenience of their customers. Maietta felt that he should be allowed to utilize his parking lot for the parking of these display trailers. He indicated that if it is a problem that his vans are parked behind the building, he could move them to the front. Maietta stated that his parking lot has 80 parking spaces, and when he purchased the property, he thought he would be able to use the parking lot. Duray pointed out that the main issues of concern are the outdoor storage of the display trailers and the dumpster. Duray suggested that an option would be to allow the display trailers to be store outside until the garage is built. Knudsen felt that condition should apply to the gazebo. Knudsen pointed out that the economics of the business may be that the garage is not built for another two or three years. Knudsen felt that the outdoor storage of the dumpster should not be allowed, and that Mr. Maietta would have to find another solution for the disposal of job site refuse. Knudsen also felt that the outdoor storage of the display trailers on a long-term basis was a problem. Duray stated that he could support the outdoor storage of the display trailers for a year. Maietta stated that he would be willing to find permanent storage of the display trailers during the winter months. Knudsen noted that if the outdoor storage request is denied, Maietta would be forced to that solution. Maietta noted that during the spring to fall months, the trailers would be offsite perhaps five days a week and back to 2905 Country Drive two days per week. He indicated that some cities will allow the trailers at the stores for two weeks. Grant stated that given the display trailers would be gone most of the summer, he was agreeable to allowing them over the spring to late fall months. Barraclough suggested that the outdoor storage of the display trailers be allowed on the property until October 31, 2008. Barraclough stated that he did not support the outdoor storage of the commercial dumpster. He indicated no problem with the outdoor display of the gazebo. Barraclough suggested that the wellness business was better located in a retail area, and did not see the mix of the two businesses. -6- MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 2008 Duray recommended approval of a temporary PUD Permit for the outdoor storage of up to three unscreened display trailers with a sunset date of October 31, 2008 at which time these trailers would have to be removed from the site or stored inside. Motion seconded by Barraclough. Motion carried 4 - 1. Knudsen voted against. Knudsen recommended denial of the PUD Permit for outdoor storage of an unscreened commercial dumpster based on the recommendation of the City Planner as outlined in his report dated March 6, 2008. Motion seconded by Barraclough. Motion carried 5 - 0. Knudsen recommended approval of the PUD Permit for the outdoor display of the gazebo until March 1, 2010 under the same location requirements as previously imposed by the City. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 5 - 0. Mr. Knudsen recommended approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan allowing signage identifying two tenants at 2905 Country Drive subject to compliance with the recommendations of the City Planner as outlined in his report dated March 6, 2008. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 5 - 0. Mr. Duray recommended approval of a Text Amendment increasing the maximum number of Massage Therapy Principal Business Licenses to three (3). Motion seconded by Knudsen. Motion carried 4 - 1. Barraclough voted against. -7- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL LITTLE CANADA, MINNESOTA MARCH 26, 2008 MINUTES PUD PERMITS, COMP SIGN PLAN, AND TEXT AMENDMENT- 2905 COUNTRY DRIVE - TEMO SUNROOMS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of Little Canada, Minnesota was convened on the 26th day of March, 2008 in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. Mayor Bill Blesener called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and the following members of the City Council were present at roll call: CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Council Member Council Member Mr. Bill Blesener Mr. John Keis Mr. Michael McGraw ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Council Member Council Member City Administrator City Attorney City Planner Cable TV Producer City Clerk Ms. Barbara Allan Mr. Rick Montour Mr. Joel R. Hanson Mr. Patrick Kelly Ms. Kimberly Holien Mr. Kevin Helander Ms. Kathy Glanzer Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL UTION N0.2008-3-76 -APPROVING THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 12, 2008 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AND THE MARCH I3, 2008 WORKSHOP COUNCIL MEETING AS SUBMITTED The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (3). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Mayor Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider the following the following Zoning requests made by Temo Sunrooms at 2905 Country Drive: PUD Permit for outdoor storage of three unscreened display trailers; PUD Permit for outdoor storage of an unscreened commercial dumpster; PUD Permit for outdoor display of a gazebo; Comprehensive Sign Plan as part of a PUD application; Text Amendment to increase the maximum number of Massage Therapy Principal Business Licenses to three (3). MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 Blesener summarized the recommendations of the City Planner and the Planning Commission with regard to these zoning requests. The City Planner reported that in the Spring of 2007, Temo Sunrooms was granted a PUD Permit to allow a display gazebo on their property from March 1st through October 31st of each year. They were also granted a PUD Permit to construct agarage/dumpster enclosure structure of not more than 800 square feet in size at the rear of their property contingent upon removal of the existing trash enclosure prior to construction of the new garage/trash enclosure. The Planner reported that the new garage/dumpster enclosure has not been constructed, and the gazebo was not removed from the property during the winter months. The Planner indicated that the applicant is now requesting that the gazebo be allowed as a permanent display as well as requesting outdoor storage of an unscreened commercial dumpster and three unscreened display trailers. Additionally, Temo Sunroom is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan required for multi-tenant buildings and a Text Amendment to provide for a third massage therapy business license. The Planner then reviewed her March 20, 2008 and March 6, 2008 reports in detail. Bob Mietta, Temo Sunrooms, indicated that he has been storing his display trailers in the parking lot on his property and was surprised when the City asked that he remove the trailers. Mietta reported that he has a $1 million building with 82 parking spaces, and he was taken aback when he was told that he could not park these trailers in his parking lot. Mietta reported that during the summer months, these trailers are seldom at the site since they are displayed at various Home Depot and Sam's Club stores. During the winter months, however, they would be at the Temo Sunroom site. Mietta reported that he would like to utilize his parking lot to store the two display trailers he has and would likely be adding a third. Mietta reported that he has also requested the ability to store a commercial dumpster on his site from time-to-time. However, after the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, and recognizing the concerns of neighboring residents, Mietta indicated that he is withdrawing his request for the dumpster. With regard to the gazebo, Mietta stated that there was some initial concern from neighbors. Mietta felt now that the gazebo has been up for a period of time, the neighbors view it as a compliment to the property. Therefore, he is requesting that the gazebo be allowed as a permanent structure. Mietta reported that given his current business climate, he was 2 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 unable to get the garage built and did not have storage space in his warehouse for the gazebo. Mietta noted that he is requesting approval of a Comprehensive Sign Plan given he is bringing another tenant into his building. Mietta reviewed the recommendations of the City Planner with regard to this sign and requested that he be exempted from the requirements for amonument- style sign constructed with masonry materials, or similar, consistent with the building. Mietta cited the additional cost of this type of sign. He felt that the sign he would construct would be attractive and would be nicely landscaped. Mietta reported that his wife would like to locate a health and wellness business in his building offering a variety of services, including massage therapy. There are currently only two massage therapy business licenses allowed in the City, and Mietta noted that he has requested the City amend its code to allow tluee. Blesener noted that last spring the Council discussed the issue of outdoor storage with Mr. Mietta, and this was the reason that a PUD Permit was approved for an up to 800 square foot garage/trash enclosure structure. That garage was to be used to provide Mr. Mietta with additional indoor storage space. Mietta stated that he did not recall discussing the display trailers at that time, and was caught off guard when he was informed that he could not store these in his parking lot. Blesener noted that it was discussed that the small dumpster currently being stored outside was to be moved into this garage/dumpster enclosure. Mietta reported on the economic downturn that his business is being faced with. In an attempt to keep people employed, Mietta indicated that he has not been able to construct the garage. He again indicated that he was not aware that he could not park his display trailers in his parking lot. McGraw asked how long Mietta has had the trailers. Mietta reported that he has owned them since 2002. He purchased the property on Country Drive in 2006. Mietta reported that the trailers have been stored on the property since that time and have not been raised as an issue until recently. Blesener noted that the Planning Commission is recommending that the display trailers be allowed on the property until October 31, 2008. Mietta indicated that if he cannot store the trailers on the property beyond that date, he would try to rent space elsewhere to store them. Mietta stated that he had a hard time justifying renting space and not being able to use his parking lot for this storage. MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 McGraw asked if Mietta researched the outdoor storage issue when he purchased his property. Mietta replied that he did not. He also indicated that he purchased the property with what he thought was a garage in the back, and has since learned that this structure is a dumpster enclosure. Blesener asked if the display trailers could be stored inside if Mr. Mietta was not leasing part of the building to another business. Mietta replied that the wellness business will take up office space and not warehouse space. Blesener asked if there is room in the warehouse for the trailers. Mietta replied that there may be room for one, but not both. Mietta reported that there was no room in the dumpster enclosure and he did not think the doors were wide enough anyway. Keis asked what is being stored in the dumpster enclosure. Mietta replied that it is full of building materials. Blesener pointed out that when the City granted approval for the larger garage (which has not yet been built), it was with the understanding that the smaller dumpster will have to be moved inside. Blesener stated that the Council could follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission, but it was his gut feeling that the issue would be back before the Council in the fall. Mietta stated that he informed the Planning Commission that if he could not store the display trailers outside after October 31, 2008, he would find rental space for them. He again noted that the display trailers would seldom be at the property in the summer. Keis stated that one of his concerns is that these issues were discussed last year, and they are again before the Council. Keis stated that he would feel better if Mr. Mietta had taken down the gazebo as he had agreed to, and questioned what will happen in another year. Mietta stated that he could not say what will happen in the future. Mietta felt that both his intentions and track record have been good. He again indicated that he is trying to keep a lot of people employed, and business economics did not allow him to construct the garage/dumpster enclosure. He indicated that he lost $2 million in business this past year. The City Administrator reviewed the approvals that were granted to Mr. Mietta in 2007. He further noted that the display trailers would be considered outdoor storage and would not be allowed to take up required parking. Parking requirements are based on building size. Keis asked about signage. Mietta stated that he would put up the same style sign as is on the building and is agreeable to having lighter text on a dark background. Blesener asked about a massage therapy business in a PUD District. The City Planner replied that this is an acceptable use in the PUD District. The 4 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 City Administrator noted that should the Council amend the ordinance to allow a third massage therapy license, the business would have to apply for the proper licensing meeting City Code requirements for this type of business. Blesener asked if there was anyone from the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Mr. John Grant, 2901 Condit Street, reported that his property looks at the back of the Biagini and the Mietta properties. He reported that he discussed Mr. Mietta's proposals with him prior to the Planning Commission meeting and is glad to hear him withdraw his request for the commercial dumpster. Mr. Grant indicated that he would rather have the display trailers stored in the parking lot from April through October with some screening than have the 800 square foot garage/dumpster structure constructed. Grant felt that both the current dumpster structure and the garage/dumpster structure that is proposed as a replacement would more intrusive on his property than the outdoor storage of the trailers. Grant informed the Council that Mr. Mietta indicated he would be agreeable to planting some trees to screen the display trailers from his view. Grant stated that he would rather hear Mr. Mietta say he will find another location for the trailers during the winter months than to say he will try to find another location. Grant agreed that the gazebo does not look bad, and agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow it for another two years under the previous conditions that were placed on it. Grant reported that he has done work inside the Mietta building prior to its being owned by Mr. Mietta. He believed that there is ample room inside the building for storage of the display trailers and the gazebo. He again stated, however, that he would not object to the display trailers being stored outside from April 1 through October 31 provided they are screened in order to avoid construction of the 800 square foot garage/dumpster enclosure. Blesener pointed out that an 800 square foot garage is similar to a residential garage. Grant pointed out that a residential garage would not be allowed to be constructed 10 feet from a residential street. He again stated that he would rather look at a 9-foot high display trailer than an 18- foot high garage. Granted also noted that this portion of Country Drive backs up to a residential area and is different than the other end of Country Drive. Mietta stated that he disagreed with Mr. Grant's statement that he could park both his trailers in his warehouse space. Mietta stated that he MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 informed the Planning Commission that if they wanted him to move the trailers during the winter months, he would move them. Mietta again stated that he is still perplexed as to why he cannot park these trailers in his parking lot. Mietta stated that he would screen the trailers from Mr. Grant's view by planting some trees, and noted that the trailers would be less of an eyesore than the stuff stored on Mr. Grant's neighbor's property. Mietta stated that he owns commercial property and pays a lot of property taxes. He stated that he is asking to use his property for a commercial business. There was no one else from the general public present wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by Keis, seconded by McGraw, the public hearing was closed. Keis stated that he would support the Planning Commission recommendation to allow the display trailers to remain on site until October 31, 2008. Blesener noted that this would allow the trailers on the property through October 31, 2008. Blesener agreed, and stated that if the garage/trash enclosure is not constructed to provide space for the indoor storage of these trailers, then Mr. Mietta should find another location to store them. McGraw pointed out that the display trailers will be in and out of the site during the spring, summer, and fall. Blesener again pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended a deadline of October 31, 2008. McGraw asked if it was O.K. to allow the display trailers during 2008, but not 2009. Keis too noted that the trailers would move in and out the majority of the spring, summer, and fall. Keis suggested the trailers be allowed to stay for two years similar to the Commission's recommendation for the gazebo. Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2008-3-77-APPROVINGA TEMPORARYPUD PERMIT ALLOWING THE O UTDOOR STORAGE OF THREE DISPLAY TRAILERS FOR TEMO SUNROOMS AT 2905 COUNTRY DRIVE FROMAPRIL I, 2008 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2008 AND FROMAPRIL 1, 2009 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2009 WITH THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE TEMPORARY PERMIT IN OCTOBER OF 2009, AND WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THERE WILL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF THESE TRAILERS DURING THE TIME PERIOD NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2008 AND NOVEMBER 1 THROUGHMARCH31, 2009 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (2) Keis and McGraw. Nays (1) Blesener. Resolution declared adopted. Mr. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL UTION N0.2008-3-78 -DENYING THE PUD PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF UNSCREENED COMMERCL4L DUMPSTER REQUESTED BY TEMO SUNROOMS, 2905 COUNTRY DRIVE, NOTING THAT TEMO SUNROOMS HAS WITHDRAWN THE REQUEST FOR THE UNSCREENED COMMERCL4L DUMPSTER The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. Ayes (3). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0.2008-3-79 -DENYING THE PUD PERMIT FOR PERMANENT OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GAZEBO REQUESTED BY TEMO SUNROOMS, 2905 COUNTRY DRIVE, WITH THE INDICATION THAT THE MAY 23, 2007APPROVAL FOR THIS GAZEBO IS UPHELD WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: "APPROVING ANAMENDMENT TO PUD PERMIT TO ALLOW A DISPLAY GAZEBO ON THE TEMO SUNROOM PROPERTYAT 2905 CO UNTRY DRIVE FROM MARCH I THROUGH OCTOBER 3I OF EACH YEAR, WITH THE GAZEBO TO BE PLACED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE B UILDIGN BEHIND THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUILDING" The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (3). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. Mr. McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO.2008-3-80 -APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANAS PART OFA PUD APPLICATION FOR TEMO SUNROOMS, 2905 COUNTRYDRIVE, SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS 7 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 26, 2008 OF THE CITY PLANNER AS OUTLINED IN HIS REPORT DATED MARCH 6, 2008 The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Blesener. Ayes (2) McGraw, Blesener. Nays (1) Keis. Resolution declared adopted. Keis indicated that he supported Mr. Mietta's request to be able to construct a pylon sign rather than a monument sign. Mr. Keis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTIONNO. 2008-3-87 -APPROVINGA TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE INCREASING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MASSAGE THERAPY PRINCIPAL BUSINESS LICENSES TO THREE The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. Ayes (3). Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. SUBDIVISION Mayor Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider an Amendment ORDINANCE to the Subdivision Ordinance relating to dead-end and cul-de-sac streets. He noted that both the City Planner and the Planning Commission have recommended approval of the amendment. The City Planner reviewed her March 6, 2008 report and outlined the proposed changes to the ordinance. The changes do the following: • Clarify the fact that the City's 500-foot cul-de-sac length standard does not apply to temporary cul-de-sacs; • Clarify that the City retains the discretion to require longer cul-de- sacs under specific conditions; • Define temporary cul-de-sacs as streets being those where future extension is anticipated; • Clarify that cul-de-sac standards applicable to temporary cul-de- sac streets refers only to the cul-de-sac radius; • Clarify the standards for variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to become more closely consistent with State Law. The Planner indicated that these amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance are proposed in advance of the recodification of the City's ordinances due to the pending litigation relative to the Richie Place plat. The Planner also noted that the amendments proposed reflect the actual intent and practice of the City in applying its Subdivision Ordinance. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 783.231.2561 plan nersC~nacpla nning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: February 6, 2009 RE: Little Canada - Temo Sunrooms -PUD Permit Revocation FILE NO: 758.09 - 09.07 Background and Analysis In March of 2008,Temo Sunrooms was granted two PUD Permits for outdoor storage. The first related to three display trailers which were to be stored in the rear of the property between April 1 and October 31, with the requirement that the trailers would be off-site from November 1 through March 31 while they were being used at trade shows. This permit was granted for storage during these periods for both 2008 and 2009, after which the City would review the permits and consider (potentially) any extension. The second permit related to a gazebo, also used for display. This gazebo had been approved in 2007 for display during the same period (April through October). In 2008, the applicant sought permission to display the gazebo year-round, a request that was denied by the Council, which reiterated the display period approved in 2007. The applicant has continued to store both the trailers and the gazebo beyond the permit dates, despite significant amounts of correspondence from the Code Enforcement Officer. Although the review period for the trailers was not scheduled until later this year (October), staff is bringing the issue forward at this time since the applicant has refused to comply with the terms of the permit issuance. The City has the following options for enforcement: For the display trailers - a. Revoke the PUD Permit at this time, based on noncompliance with the terms of the permit. b. Allow use of the remainder of the permit through October 2009, but act now to deny any renewal/extension after that date. c. Take no action now until renewal/extension is to be heard later this year. For the gazebo - a. Revoke the PUD Permit at this time. b. Take no action on the PUD Permit, but direct staff to issue citations for violation of the terms of the permit. Summary and Recommendation Revocation of the PUD Permits is being brought by staff at this time due to the history of non-compliance with the storage on this site. The March 2008 PUD Permits were issued as a result of the applicant's notice that the previous permits had not been adhered to. Staff is concerned that continued enforcement efforts, without the threat of revocation, would not be fruitful. pc: Kathy Glanzer Steve Westerhaus Jessica Jagoe