The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-07-78 Planning Comm. AgendaAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING- 12 -7 -78 1. Call to order ( 7:30) 2. Roll Call: Mr. Costa Mr. Rossez Mr. Fahey_ Dr. Keenan Mr. Nardini Mr. Radford Mr. De Lonais Mrs Fisher Mr. Boss ,Mr.Vitale Mr. Winiecki 3. Approval of Minutes: Minutes Nov. -2 -78 See correspondence pages -1- and -2 -. Motion by 2nd by Ayes Nayes 4. Mr. Michael Gerner Special Use Permit. Appearing SEE CORRESPONDENCE: PAGES -3- to -6- PLANNER'S REPORT MOTION T0: Approve Table Deny Refer to Motion by 2nd by Ayes Nayes Page -1- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER- 7- 1978,CONT. 5. Dr. Holmes: Dental Office proposal: Appearing: SEE CORRESPONDENCE: Page -7- Letter from Dr. Holmes concerning site plan. Pages - 8- to -11 - Planner's report: ( NOTE THERE WILL BE A REVISED PLANNERS REPORT FOR THE MEETING) Page -12- revised site plan. Motion to: Approve Table Deny Refer to: Motion by 2nd by Ayes Mayes Page -2- PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 12 -7 -78 -Cont. 6. Others: ( persons appearing) 7. LETTER FROM METRO, CONCERNING ADDITIONAL GRANT MONEY FOR PLANNING. SEE CORRESPONDENCE PAGES 13 and 14. 8. PROPOSED REGISTRATION FORM: SEE CORRESPONDENCE PAGE -15- The purpose of this form is to help recording clerk and city clerk prepare the agenda and minutes. Make any addition or deletion as you see fit. 9. BUILDING OFFICIAL'S REPORT CONCERNING Set Back See correspondence pages 16 to 17. 10. other business 11 Adjourn Page -3- CORRESPONDENCE TO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING- 12 -7 -78 PAGE 1 2 CONTENTS Minutes Planning Commision meeting- 11 -2 -78 Minutes Cont. 3. to 6. PLANNER'S REPORT CONCERNING Michael Gerner Special Use Permit 7. Dr. Holmes letter concerning site plan. 8. to 11 Planner's Report Concerning Dr. Holmes proposal. 12. REVISED SITE PLAN. DR HOLMES PROPOSAL. 13 to 14 Letter from Metro- concenring additional g grant money for planning. 15. Proposed registration form: 16 to 17 Building Inspector report concerning Ryan's Ind. Park. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF LITTLE CANADA 515 LITTLE CANADA ROAD LITTLL CANADA. MINN. ..117 Minutes of Meeting Planning Commission - City of Little Canada November 2, 1978 The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Little Canada was held on the 2nd day of November, 1978 at 7:30 p.m. at 515 Little Canada Road in said City. The following members were present: Peter Costa (Late), Earl Rossez, Michael Fahey (Late 7:50), Richard Boss, Eugene DeLonais, Dr. Thomas Keenan, Virginia Fisher, Ralph Nardini, John Radford, Joseph Vitale, and Frank Winiecki. Dr. Keenan moved to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1978 meeting. Seconded by Virginia Fisher. Motion carried 9 -0. WILLIAM STENGER: Min- Storage ROl3ERT ?ALOE: Mr. Stenger appeared for a special use permit to construct two mini storage buildings on his property located south of County Rd. C on the west side of Park Street. Gene DeLonais moved to recommend granting of a Special Use Permit provided 12 recommendations in Planner's Report of Oct. 17, 1978 are met, including stuccoing of building. Virginia Fisher seconded the motion. Motion carried 9 -0. 2 abstained (Fahey & Chairman) Mr. Robert Zilge presented a plan to expand his building with a new shop and office for Empire Bucket, Inc. at 70 W. Woodlynn. It would be concrete block construction. Ralph Nardini moved to approve the plan as presented. Seconded by Joe Vitale Motion carried 11 -0. Page -1- Planning Commission November 2, 1978 Page 2 PROPOSED ORDINANCE: Meeting An ordinance is proposed relating to the set back requirements for garages and other non - principal buildings or structures Mrs. Virginia Fisher made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance. Seconded by Dr. Keenan. Mike Fahey moved that the Planning Commission recommend the Council use the Comprehensive Plan, when adopted, for purposes of rezoning areas of the City which do not conform'to the zoning recommendations contained in the plan. Seconded by Jack Radford. Ayes 6 -- Nayes 4 - Chairman abstained. Mike Lerner appeared requesting approval for a new site plan for construc- tion of a van conversion facility at Demont & Rice St. Virginia Fisher moved to refer to the Planner for his recommendations. Joe Vitale seconded the notion. Carried 10 -0. Chairman abstained. Dick Boss moved that the building department check out the existing buildings in Ryan Industrial Park to determine compliance with permits issued by the City Council with regard to setbacks, and submit a written report of findings to the Planning Commission. Jack Radford seconded the motion. Carried 10 -0. Chairman abstained. Duly adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ' Respectfully submitted, Michael Fahey Secretary Little Canada Planning Commission page-2- ''JJJ Ifir" t r J 7 Jar I X1 r J_ . urban planning • design • market research :JlJ(II(( �� 416 east hennepin avenue mlmea i 11JIIl i "Li_ 1 J 55414 minnesota 5414 (61 ?_)379 -4600 MEMORANDUM TO: Little Canada Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 17 November, 1978 RE: Michael Gerner - Special Use Permit (Demont Avenue) BACKGROUND Mr. Michael Gerner has submitted a request for a special use permit to construct a 60 x 100 foot building on the north side of Demont Avenue near its intersection with Rice Street (see attached graphics). The building would be used to con- duct a van conversion operation. The property in question is currently vacant and zoned B -2, General Business. Surrounding uses and zoning, as shown on the attached map, include: West - 7 -11 Store, zoned B -2 North- Single family dwelling, zoned B -2 East - Currently vacant, 2 fourplexes have been preliminarily approved by the Council and Planning Commission, currently zoned B -2, proposed zoning is residential South - Across Demont, IHoggsbreath Disco, zoned 13-2 and mobile home park, zoned 13-2 and R -3. The applicant had previously requested a permit for a similar but smaller building on Minnesota. (See staff report 5 September, 1978) In the process of fulfilling information requests by the Planning Commissions, the applicant discovered that drainage of the proposed site prohibited his project from being built as proposed. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1. As in the previous request, the primary issue here is the acceptability of the proposed use in the district for which it is zoned. Van conversion facilities are not specifically listed in the Little Canada Zoning Ordinance. However, "Automotive service: Service stations; service garages, etc." are allowed in a 6 -2 district. The question arises whether a van conversion facility should be considered as a manufacturing operation. The applicant has indicated in a phone conversation that activities expected to take page -3- -S -ailed L0.8L (60'89L) JOUJOQ I004DIW 04U010A uoa saiinbs 1.1.1D1 (al.roD uca loa4ol4D Doi :0o •panlosoi es 4s.r } 4snw anogn pa{naawnua san l a44 'uoianool 044 Jo; oise4daoon sl osn pasodoid 044 4044 euiwao{ap uolssiwwoj F;uiuunld 044 pino9s a0J41 aend 'aaywanoN Li uoissiwwoJ 6c amid 0pouo) 014411 Little Canada Plan, Hig Commission 17 November, 1`77%: Page Two place would encompass various aspects of van customizing to include instal- lation of cust',rn upholstery, seats, accessories and some custom painting. In addition, retail sales would be conducted in approximately 1200 square feet of the building. While Mr. Lerner has stated that body work would not be a part of the conversion operation, it should be noted that installation of decorative windows, involving cutting holes in the body exterior is a fairly typical occurrence in the van conversion process. 2. The area, heights, frontage and yard requirements contained in the Little Canada Zoning Ordinance have been compiled with. 3. Required parking for the building as proposed is 46 spaces, based upon 1200 square feet of retail space at 1 space per 85 square feet, and 4800 square feet classified as "other business" at 1 space per 150 square feet of floor area. The site plan for the conversion shop indicates space for only 26 cars. In discussing this issue with the applicant, he was agreeable to reducing the size of the building to provide additional parking area and reduce the number of required spaces. This issue is particularly critical in light if parking problems experienced in the past with commercial uses in the immediate area. 4. The following information is required by the City Zoning Ordinance and was not submitted with the request: water supply, waste disposal and drainage. These items should be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. Drainage is of particular concern as nearly the entire site will be covered with impervious surface. Further, the site is currently substantially above the grade of Demont Avenue. The Williams pipeline which crosses the property from east to west is being lowered and, according to the applicants, the entire site will be graded to the level of Demont Avenue. In addition to not including these engineering aspects of this project, the site plan has not included a screening and landscape plan. This is felt to be an important consideration in view of the existing residential use across the street and the proposed residential units to the east. RECOMMENDATION The proposed use is viewed as questionable for a B -2 district in that the anticipated activity is not considered compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Note should be made that the area in question has been recommended and preliminarily approved by the Planning Commission to be developed as a B -3, Highway Business district. While the new ordinance has not yet been formulated, the proposed van conversion operation would not be included as a permitted use. Rather, the most fitting area for this -ype of business would probably be a B -W, Business Warehouse district, which is a transition between commercial areas and industrial. page -4- _r 1T1-I T TIT I; r 2212013 tP:I II IOI 15114 3jl 1I 10 .4B „, .� I 111111 h" h � -30 i -f 51 , "'353 3 3e3 w t � ,1 II i ' A Q - I I +1 I {! 4�i' �3l 404�1>C�Sl�iti c1 11'.‘ -; A.... AV ,1; 1..1.. .L.i Z. 'vro e. A .73-49 �' ;5.33 - 'f1e- .}c..-I 47A 7. 42'r� ^, 1 .29n,L . 9 -1.nc 4) gig "°OZ 7 P 'NB K °212 V R �I—k_ -.1 2 3515.5: 3' Iz Residential - 7 -11 ai 1II7 :L T T 1 1 T� 'r T 1 1 1 1-1— 2 2 - --1 5 I' S 117 1161151 14 1 15111 1 11 4 5 1 5 1 2 I G k5 14 I) 12 I LAKE 1-1-7111 b�15�14113�i21111Ar7G1514I 1 1 LLLLL I 1 1 ,H 1.75 °c„ 9 cx. PROPERTY IN QUESTION 13 tYTTT °+131716151 2 13 1,CR 12 13 14 4 10 14 102 Hoggsbreath Disco 5i> G9 I 2 � ' 0z' 10o 5 w J 1 - 29 :2; 2 : 26 3 i a 4. 1 j 27 - .. -_ -16'1 ._ JyL-• T 2.5 2G • L7 Y_1 2e 60 ... 19 bid 60 I383c .4��` F- --i01 I .. .. 1.. '-i 1VI 17 15119 olt1 122I23124I25laGIa7I291?9I30. 1_11 L 1 1 111] ,1/1, 1( 1—II 111 T 1,, -11 II4I13I12II1110I9Ib171G15141 1211 1 1 1 1 I_ 1 1 1 I 1 ° [SAY T1 1 1 1 11 11 T 17'IQI11LOnl2, 1221 ?3�C4��2712BI2930 1 1 11 1 I F r 1 T T r. I 51141151121111101916 71161314 312;1_ eANSIT AVE? 115 1.._,1.1 _ _1 - -: T _ i 1 _fi T.:1_ t_I I 119 1 201 2 -I I a2 231 Lh1 23 26 ti l 28129190 1 1.10 Mobile Horne Court 27 1 I 26 25 V/ 24 l 7 _23 Ph1 6 22 11 21.5% i ; _ i i._- 60 -`" " N 1 19 # 2 Iv, 13 I 7 •I 14- IG 15 c. 9 Page -6- DR, MARK W. HOLMES, D.D.S., P.A. DENTIST Lovemh.er 10, 1278 City of Tittle Canada dlanidturf Cofmission City of Tittle Canada City Council 515 :est Tittle Canaila Toad Tittle Canada, Fninnasota Gentlemen and Ladies: The igidwest rlanninm, Incoranrated, fin has advised ne that my ori2inal plans for narking sracos firCUIA my proposed office buildin2. aro inaloquste. tccording to the City of Little CEr.13E. code, one automciaile r--rlK ilir seer.° is required for every 150 scuare fset 011 utilizA offics :dace, dince 21G0 stters feet will be utiljee,1 in Mie3 ec/e veul..1 require amaregittately 23 soaces. 1dow- ever, because our eatirotsi onsd is for earbinm s-)a.ces ( ten anloyaes end six oatients ), 1 sumscst Met e carbinm lot larger tAnTa 2.5 autngobile soaccs is unneeded and would be datrigentul to the esthsiTics and ".-:been sasce" of the area. Therefore, 1 recuest a variance to allo-,) a sarkinm lot for 20 automobile soaces The City code also establishes that a cognerciel hu±lcl±nq be set back. 40 feet from the front rroporty 7rever, r,cte no buildir2 La that area is set back that distance, and since the neiehborinm building to the .ost nearly touches this boundary line, 1 would consider it on economical liability and herilshio to be set so far behinil ox±st±ns bui.16iruzs. Therefore, I request a variance to ellow this buildinni, to be constructed 30 feet from the front rooerty line. esoectfully, :•ark U0]»-.r 2750 LAKE SHORE AVENUE (AT LITTLE CANADA RoAD. 1 BLOCK WEST OF Hwy. 35E) ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 TFLIEPHONE 484-7725 page-7— . J_rf J��1j_7}.�[::a iDelh i- 111111-it fiff t) _] 11 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM DATE: RE: 1 _ 370,3 -C{3 urban planning • design • market research 416 east hennepin avenue minneapolis 1 1 i 111 �z. _ minnesota 55414 (612)379 -4600 Little Canada Planning Commission Brad Nielsen 31 October 1978 Holmes Dental Clinic - Building Permit Request BACKGROUND The applicant, Dr. Mark Holmes, proposes to construct a building on Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1 of F. Eisemengers 4th Addition. The proposed building will be a two level structure totaling approximately 4,000 square feet in area. The upper level is to be used as a dental clinic, and the lower level as a dental labratory. The property in question contains approximately 26,400 square feet (.61 acre). Surrounding uses and zoning include: West - North - East - South - Commercial, zoned B -2 Apartments, zoned R -3 Residential, zoned B -2 Residential, zoned R -1 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The applicant was contacted by phone on Thursday, October to discuss some problems with the proposed project, ..:fi call non- yi i' i . sire- 'y non-compliance with zoning ordinance requirements. Dr. Holmes indicated that he would try to resubmit revised plans in time for review prior to the Planning Commission meeting on 2 November. As of this writing, new plans have not been received. Based upon the plans which were submitted, the following issues are presented: 1. The proposed dental clinic is a permitted use in a B -2, General Business District. While the dental lab proposed for the ground floor is not specifically mentioned in Little Canada's current zoning ordinance, this district is viewed as being more suitable for such a use than an industrial district might be. Page-8_ Little Canada Planning Commission 31 October 1978 Page Two 2. The site plan submitted indicates a front yard setback of 30 feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires a front yard setback of 40 feet. Other setbacks are in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Based upon a parking requirement of 1 space for every 150 square feet of floor area, the proposed project requires approximately 27 spaces for parking. Although Little Canada's parking requirements have been questioned in the past as being excessive, the proposed use could potentially employ as many as 20 people (based upon the applicant's own projection). This does not include the projected patient traffic (six per hour, according to the applicant). In light of these considerations, the ordinance requirement of 27 spaces is not felt to be excessive. It should be noted that the applicant has indicated in his letter that there is room for 20 vehicles, yet the site plan shows only 8 spaces. The applicant has stated that an attempt has been made to save as many of the existing trees on the site as possible. While this is considered a commendable idea, the parking requirement should still be satisfied. If the parking spaces can't be provided, it may suggest that the building is too large for the site. Also in regard to the parking area shown on the site plan, the directional parking spaces may create maneuvering problems. Perpendicular spaces are recommended. 4. No indication is made on the site plan as to the topography of the property. More importantly, there is no indication of site drainage. This issue should be subject to review and comment by the City Engineer. 5. No landscape plan has been provided with the applicant's proposal . While the dental clinic is a permitted use for the district for which it is proposed, con- sideration must be given to buffering the surrounding residential uses from any adverse impacts which could result. RL=COMMEEENDATION Based upon the preceding evaluation, it is suggested that the Planning Commission with- hold any recommendation until the issues raised are resolved. cc: Joe Chlebeck Don Valenta Don Carley Clayton Parks Larry Squires Dr. Kirk Holmes Pile No: 758.09 Case No: 78.05 page -9- ,.3.5 A-3-f_. (0 te CO 9---3) N C2� • ZC ) 0-v` - ri a ¶so- C• _ >.. . 1 ':AO6i • -.., 'vy' + o 5 23 c.c. o 5 O.`.A or 3a R.. -)RS .,l 1 -j. -.. .a9 •a 1.7, (o, .'2cG. FD s itsn. 6+7 3 14 ' '4 ..i. . -,o z"�55�'Si l �G�&- _ f A ` moo¢ �� 4, 316 010 -.- 101 -_y l� -a- -- 1C.9 — i- :, -, .3 aJ` P !+ 2 • erf ,S. C 0 ( 5 .3 ,0 6-) w6 Y l� ✓ < _ ��i5u` 39 0 s ■ r C S N 0 50 a AG ,A3 J a C J • . /. .. 4: 1 4 1 .� I'.. 0=:-:'13o:s -_-ti ( •,,, 54 nut, _ •— V M a ^�f/a `A Z .'j �; i 4. , 4-30c 20 o 010 Or- obi . _ _- • , 4,0 4A�, -- '_f`!'i e? E `� 'C K ?d �7,,..((�� ¢i �4n 54.E a ' l.. _. - 59 . °v ti... f34.S. �� t e'• i AV DQ^o.c• ''t .o. ..a 1 ..'2.17 -y 10 °GO 1c5 .198. ._ b— r - 1 7.1t,2,0'' I ' 1 • 1 • , bo r.%, i K: T o :1 ---T M w , 8. �. li 4. r'! 3110 .I' ♦2 ✓�\ 4d.- 0.J ` , 94 1'. _:50. K" oo. :ENTRAL a. .mwxum._ ...e_. O qa O 3- m 155w_ o t- O C 1 OX. 191'U4C ROW j 0 page -12- NCV J7 1316 CITY OF LITTLE CANADA 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291 -0359 November 21, 1978 Mr. Joseph Chlebeck Clerk City of Little Canada 515 Little Canada Road Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 Subject: 1978 -79 Local Planning Assistance Grants Program Dear Mr. Chlebeck, On October 26, 1978, the Metropolitan Council adopted the attached 1978 -79 Local Planning Assistance Grant Guidelines for the distribution of additional funds to communities and counties for the development of comprehensive plans required of them by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. Under the guidelines, your community has been allocated an additional $ 2,701 for 1978 -79 which, when added to your 1976 -77 allocation of $ 5,547, comes to a total of $8,248 . Your 1978 -79 entitlement was derived from a formula allocation approach. The formula, which is described in Section VI of the guidelines, was based on an objective evaluation of the needs and financial resources of all communities and counties in the Metropolitan Area. Your community has already entered into an agreement for the 1976 -77 funds, and this agreement contains an Appendix A, which is your original grant application for those funds. The guide- lines, under Section X, provide that if a community's total grant allocation for both 1976-77 and 1978 -79 does not exceed 75% of the cost of preparing or updating its plan as shown in Appendix A, the community would not have to reapply for its 1978 -79 funds. Based on a preliminary review, this appears to be the case with your community. Within the next 4 -6 weeks, we will prepare and send to you an amendment to your original grant agreement. After your commu- nity :makes any necessary changes, passes a resolution officially requesting the funds, executes the amendment and returns it to us, the Council will disburse your community's funds. B etoeen An Agency Created to Coordinate the Planning and \ Citi,. Metropo)tt ui Arta Comm i Anoka County 0 Carver County 0 i)ahota County o Henn page 13- :pity 0 Scott County 0 Wa e} 1ngton Co y now and when you receive your agreement amendment, no specific action on your community's part is required except that you may begin to evaluate Appendices A and B of the agreement and determine the necessary changes and additions. If you have any further questions, you may contact Linda Tomaselli, Local Planning Assistance Grants Coordinator, at 291 -6517. Sincerely, JB:im Attach. cc: Mayor Donald J. Valento Midwest Planning page -14- c:00Q1A rao-e4 n Boland Chairman REGISTRATION FORM ( FOR PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS) ( PLANNING COMMISSION ( CITY COUNCIL NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP: CODE TELEPHONE NO. IF SPEAKER IS REPRESENTING AN ORGANIZATION GIVE NAME OF ORGANIZATION : SPEAKER- Organization- IF SPEAKER IS REPRESENTING A CLIENT: SPEAKER: Name Address Te1NO. CLIENT'S NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP TELEPHONE DOCUMENTS: 1. Letter of intent. 2. Plot Plan. 3. Survey 4 other FOR ZONING PURPOSES PROPERTY PRESENTLY ZONED AS LOCATION: BUILDING SET BACK PARKING REQUIRMENTS DRAINAGE STATEMENT OF CHARGES FOR PLANNER OR ENGINEERING TO BE SENT TO: NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP TELEPHONE Page -15- CITY OF LITTLE CANADA RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Of lice of: JOSEPH G. CHL. EL3ECK, Clerk 515 Lillie Canada Road Little Canada, Minn. 55117 4844177 December 1, 1978 MEMORANDUM T0: Little Canada City Council 10E1ORANDUM FROM: L. Squires, Building Inspector RE: Setback encroachment, Ryan Ind, Park I was requested to check a possible setback encrouhment of one of the buildings in Ryans Industrial Park. I have attached a sketch of the building and approximate setbacks. A 40 foot setback was required. Whoever staked the buidling evidently used one curb line stake as a property stake and thus the mistake. Setback mistakes are not conwnon but are made at times. The only way to minimize these mistakes would be to require that all structures be staked or located by a registered surveyer and this would be an added cost. Very truly yours, -,i ::Iii/ S. Squires, Building Inspector City of Little Canada LS:of cc: City Council Page -16- MAYOR Donaitl Valonto COUNCILMEN Robert De Pace Raymond Hanson Morris "Mort" Jespotson Roy P. Nadeau, Jr. , / ,• • / L „„) C-.C- I "4- I - rCarr.,/,`••••,. ner.35.211,•tr•,/ ^1••• C r , • iff • t<1; • ; i , (..1! ,t (i","" :71 .. • P • ! ' . r ; i i ,••• c. , ' iiii" Z'' / 1 I ' 1 ''. "... .. `a - t .'" I I .1 t. •, r.`4 . ' CC--• ''''..-".+..ti) •-• . -•-•'-/fil .o . Z ■ i ' . -• -..) i ) t 1 . 7 L .5)'-'" • ■ ' .4 t i ;1 i i 4 1-r 1 t., .. ...„.:,.....":7[...,3 I 1* ''.• t f. are-- t.; Page-17-