HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 07202004 Meeting Sheet .
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
102909
BOX: 27
Folder: PL PACKETS 2000-2004
Document: PL PACKET 07202004
• PUBLIC HEARING AND/OR OPEN FORUM
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO 5PEAK AT A PUBLIC
HEARING AND/OR OPEN FORUM ON � —0 0 c� 00,iL,oiv SS/dl/L-
J
Name Address
JCCA b 1/
�vNSC-:-r �fL-M OX)0 �/4
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
JULY 20, 2004
7 p.m., Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. MEETING MINUTES
5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of June 15, 2004
6. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
6.1 Designate a Planning Commission Member to the July 27, 2004, City Council Meeting
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7.1 Dave Wiggins, 3200 Skycroft Drive, side yard setback variance
7.2 Rod Rabine, 2800 34th Avenue NE, front yard setback variance
7.3 Sunset Memorial Park, 2250 St. Anthony Boulevard, monument sign variances: (a) for
second sign and (b)for sign height
7.4 City of St. Anthony, 3301 Silver Lake Road, electronic monument sign requests: (a)for a
conditional use permit; (b) variance for sign height; and (c) variance for copy surface
area
8. CONCEPT REVIEW
8.1 Three Rivers Park District, for Silverwood, County Road E and Silver Lake Road, review
proposed signage plan
9. PUBLIC INPUT
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular
agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the
City Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
10. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
11. ANNOUNCEMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 1
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 June 15, 2004
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners Gray,
17 Hoska, Jensen, Tillman and Young.
18
19 Absent: None.
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Hall.
22
23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
24
25 Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the meeting agenda
26 as presented.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously
29
30 V. MEETING MINUTES.
31
32 5.1 Review and Approval—Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 2004.
33
34 Chair Stromgren stated that he had corrections:
35
36 Page 2, line 36—Strike the word `not' at the end of the sentence.
37 Page 2, line 41 - states `review the front and south elevations, should state `review front or south
38 elevations.'
39 Page 3, line 7—the acronym reads `FARS' should be `FAR'
40 Page 5, lines 8 and 16—Firm reads `RKF', should be `BKV'
41 Page 9, line 35 —states `there are federal guidelines that would have to be followed'; should state
42 `He suggested working with the sign company as they may suggest guidelines'.
43 Page 10, line 30—reads `Ron Tusinine, City Council Member' should read `Brian Theusen, City
44 Council Member'
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15,2004
Page 2
1 Motion by Commissioner Hoska, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the meeting
2 minutes of the Planning Commission of May 18, 2004 as amended.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously
5
6 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
7 6.1 Designate a Planning; Commission member to the June 22, 2004 City Council Meeting_
8
9 Chair Stromgren stated that Commissioner Tillman would attend the City Council meeting on
10 June 22, 2004.
11
12 VII. PUBLIC BEARING.
13
14 7.1 Hennepin County— St. Anthony Library/St. Anthony Shopping Center, 2941 Pentagon
15 Drive, Amend Comprehensive Sign Plan.
16
17 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
18
.19 Ms. Hall stated that the Hennepin County/St. Anthony Community Library is requesting an
20 amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan at the St. Anthony Shopping Center to allow for
21 sign colors that are not included within the existing Shopping Center sign criteria. She noted that
22 the proposed colors and signage, have been reviewed and approved by the property owner, Al
23 Esther. She indicated that the logo for the Hennepin County Library system has been redefined
24 adding that they would like to incorporate the changes to have the updated look. She provided
25 the Commission with an overview of the proposed sign plan noting that Richard Lang from
26 Visual Communications is present to answer any questions.
27
28 Richard Lang, 2743 Toledo Avenue South, St. Louis Park, stated that he has been working with
29 Hennepin County and the St. Anthony Library to redesign the signage for St. Anthony. He
30 reviewed the proposal noting that the colors are not that highly unusual stating that they are
31 looking to give the Library a more updated appearance. He noted that the most interesting part
32 of the signage is the lettering stating that the letters would have a deep plum coloring during the
33 day and light up as white in the evening. He provided the Commission with an example of the
34 materials and reviewed how the signage would be made noting that it is similar to what is used
35 on buses. He stated that the change would provide the Library with a very updated look and
36 would keep it in context with what is being done in the rest of the Shopping Center area.
37
38 Chair Stromgren clarified that the proposed signage would comply with the current standards.
39 Mr. Lang confirmed that it would.
40
41 Chair Stromgren noted that the size of the letter is slightly smaller and asked for clarification.
42 Mr. Lang confirmed stating that it is an overall change in the lettering and reviewed with the
43 Commission. He explained that the letters have to be sized in a specific way to avoid damage to
44 the letters in the area where they would be hung.
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 3
1 Chair Stromgren asked if this is a system wide upgrade. Mr. Lang confirmed that they have been
2 upgrading signs throughout the metro noting that St. Anthony was a key site.
3
4 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.
5
6 Commissioner Tillman clarified that the items that do not match is the color of the letters and the
7 color of the returns. She referenced the Subway sign and reviewed the discussions the Planning
8 Commission has had in the past regarding colors. She stated that she really likes the sign.
9
10 Vice Chair Hanson noted that they made an exception with the Subway sign noting that it has set
11 precedence and reviewed.
12
13 Chair Stromgren stated that the upgrade to the sign is very encouraging noting this signage
14 would identify them as part of the Hennepin County Library system.
15
16 Commissioner Tillman stated that as long as they maintain the standards as far as back lighting
17 she has no issue with the colors.
18
19 Motion by Commissioner Tillman, seconded by Vice Chair Hanson, to recommend a change to
20 the shopping center comprehensive sign plan to allow the two requested colors and the change
21 for the returns for the library sign as stated in the Visual Communications letter and consistent
22 with the overall signage plan for the City of St. Anthony.
23
24 Motion carried unanimously
25
26 Chair Stromgren stated that City Council would consider this request at their June 22, 2004
27 Regular meeting. He suggested that the applicants be present to answer any questions the
28 Council might have.
29
30 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW
31
32 8.1 Dave and Lisa Wiggins, 3200 Skycroft Drive, Side Yard Variance.
33
34 Ms. Hall stated that Dave and Lisa Wiggins are requesting a side yard variance of 12-feet for an
35 addition to their home. She stated that City Code requires that a side yard adjacent to a street
36 must be at least 45-feet wide noting that the proposed 15-foot by 24-foot addition would put their
37 home within 33-feet of 32nd Avenue. She stated that the petitioner, Dave Wiggins is available to
38 review and answer questions.
39
40 Dave Wiggins, 3200 Skycroft Drive, reviewed his request with the Commission stating that they
41 would like to increase their living space, storage and office space. He stated that their current
42 living space is the family recreation room located in the basement and reviewed with the
43 Commission. He stated that by adding more living space he and his family would be able to
44 remain in the area, which is their preference. He explained that they did considered adding to the
45 rear of the house, which would not require a variance and indicated that there would be a number
46 of issues. He stated that they have a very mature, 40 to 50 year old,basswood shade tree that is
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 4
1 approximately 25-feet from the house. He explained that if they excavate in that direction the
2 tree would have to be removed. He stated that an addition to the back of the home would ruin
3 the character and utility of the.backyard area. He stated that they have done considerable
4 landscaping to the backyard and would prefer to keep the yard area for family entertainment. He
5 reviewed the watershed areas on both sides of his home noting that an addition to the back would
6 cause water drainage issues that could impact their neighbors. He stated that they are proposing
7 to build out on the side yard and reviewed with the setbacks and location of the existing home
8 with the Commission. He referenced the character of the neighborhood and explained that they
9 are extending the length of their home, which would not affect the way the structure lines up with
10 the homes on either side. He noted that the site line from the street is sheltered by a natural
11 barrier and reviewed with the Commission.
12
13 Chair Stromgren asked if the location of the maple tree on the corner has been measured. Mr.
14 Wiggins stated that he measured it as best he could and reviewed with the Commission.
15
16 Chair Stromgren stated that it appears to be the same setback as their neighbors to the west and
17 reviewed. Mr. Wiggins confirmed and reviewed the lot measurements with the Commission. He
18 stated that he has discussed the proposed addition with the surrounding neighbors noting that no
19 one has voiced any issues or concerns.
20
21 Commissioner Young asked Mr. Wiggins what the exterior of home would be when completed.
22 She noted that the current home has stucco on the sides and asked if they would carry the same
23 theme with the addition. Mr. Wiggins reviewed the front architecture noting that the limestone
24 base goes well with the chimney. He explained that they do plan to remove the brick along the
25 front and try to match across the front of the house. He stated that the south and west side would
26 probably remain stucco adding that he does like how it looks with the rest of the house.
27
28 Commissioner Young asked what he plans to do with the windows. Mr. Wiggins explained that
29 the south side of the house, facing the street, would have fewer windows for privacy reasons and
30 reviewed with the Commission. He stated that the windows to the west would be relatively large
31 and they are installing a patio door off the dining room to provide direct access to the deck area.
32
33 Commissioner Jensen asked if a basement would be included under the addition. Mr. Wiggins
34 confirmed that they plan to include a basement noting that this area would probably become his
35 office space. He explained that he is a schoolteacher and plans to utilize that area for storage and
36 office space.
37
38 Vice Chair Hanson asked if they anticipate using any drain tile. Mr. Wiggins explained that the
39 previous owner had placed drain tiles in the southwest area of the basement noting that they
40 continued to have water seepage from the windows. He stated that approximately two years ago
41 they repaired the drainage problem by increasing the grade and redirecting the water to run
42 around the house and off the lot. He assured the Commission that he would address any drainage
43 issues noting that it is his hope that he would not have to install drain tiles.
44
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 5
1 Commissioner Hoska asked for clarification of what would be included in the addition. Mr.
2 Wiggins clarified stating that the addition would include the office area and one additional
3 bedroom with an egress window installed.
4
5 Commissioner Gray asked Mr. Wiggins how long he and his family have lived in the area. Mr.
6 Wiggins stated that it would be five-years this fall.
7
8 8.2. City of St. Anthony, 3301 Silver Lake Road, Electronic Monument Sign Plan
9
10 Susan Hall stated that the topic of a City Electronic Reader Board goes back a few years noting
11 that the City Council.has now identified this issue as a City goal for 2004. She stated that
12 Council would like to see a sign installed this summer. She provided the Commission with a
13 brief history noting that the first recommendation concerned the location and the second related
14 to the need for an ordinance amendment to allow for electronic signs. She reviewed the locations
15 under consideration with the Commission noting that the preferred location, as recommended by
16 the subcommittee, is in the area in front of the tennis courts near the intersection of 33`d Avenue
17 and Silver Lake Road.
18
19 Ms. Hall stated that on June 19, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to amend
20 the City ordinance to allow for electronic signs, as a conditional use, in areas zoned recreational
21 open space on city and/or school owned property, for public information purposes only. She
22 stated that Council did eventually adopt this with conditions and considerations to be given to
23 safety and aesthetics noting that the public hearing brought a lot of discussion about what the
24 sign would look like. She reviewed the recommendation and conditions the Planning
25 Commission made to the City Council that includes: flashing and animation is prohibited;
26 addresses the hours of operation; message changeability; sign aesthetics that include color, size
27 of the reader board and sign, construction materials and landscaping; safety issues; purpose of
28 the sign should be for public services only. She stated that a Concept Site Plan has been provided
29 for their review.
30
31 Commissioner Jensen asked if the landscaping would be different or comply with the standards.
32 Ms. Hall stated that there would be landscaping noting that they have not made any decisions
33 with respect to the standards. She stated that next month their review would include landscaping
34 around the sign and reviewed with the Commission.
35
36 Chair Stromgren clarified that this is to replace the sign that was located at Kenzie Terrace and
37 St. Anthony Boulevard. Ms. Hall confirmed stating that this sign would also be a better reader
38 board for all concerned.
39
40 Commissioner Jensen reviewed the three options and asked for clarification on the Staff
41 recommendations. Ms. Hall reviewed the locations and proposed sign sizes with the
42 Commission.
43
44 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the tennis court location and expressed concerns about the
45 possibility of children hiding or playing in the area and asked if the area could be blocked off to
46 eliminate access. Chris Clark, LeRoy Sign Company, stated that they could block the area
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 6
1 noting that it would be relatively easy to do. He reviewed with Commission noting that it would
2 not increase the size or the cost.
3
4 Commissioner Young asked if there would be a cost increase if they change the size of the sign.
5 Mr. Clark reviewed the size noting that it would increase the matrix, which increases the cost of
6 the sign. He reviewed the power requirements with the Commission.
7
8 Chair Stromgren noted that the original memo mentioned 9-inch text and asked if they have a
9 target. Mr. Clark stated that with a full matrix they could go with the same size as what is
10 proposed for the north side. He indicated that it would have less space for display on the sign.
11
12 Chair Stromgren clarified that the panels come in a standard modular size. Mr. Clark confirmed
13 and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that the sign is larger due to the logo.
14
15 Vice Chair Hanson asked what the life expectancy is for the LED signage. Mr. Clark explained
16 that the LED is a new technology noting that they have good service records. He stated that the
17 LED modules rarely go out adding that the vendor has a five-year warranty on the unit. He
18 stated that they have had similar signs up and running in other areas for over ten years with no
19 problems.
20
21 Chair Stromgren stated that he is believes the.site between the north lot and City Hall would be
22 the better location because it is closer to Silver Lake Road.
23
24 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he likes the tennis court location better. He stated that it is a wide-
25 open grassy area adding that it could be built to be more visible. He stated that landscaping
26 would really dress up the area.
27
28 Commissioner Hoska stated that he did his own study with neighbors and friends noting that they
29 all preferred the tennis court area. He stated that the sign would be bigger and easier to see
30 adding that the location between City Hall and the parking lot could be obstructive.
31
32 Commissioner Gray agreed stating that the visibility would be much better from the tennis court
33 location. Commissioner Jensen stated that elevating the sign would make it easier to see.
34 Commissioner Young agreed stating that the tennis court location would provide a longer period
35 of time to see the sign as people are approaching.
36
37 Chair Stromgren noted that it appears to be a consensus to the tennis court location.
38
39 Commissioner Jensen stated he would prefer the 10 feet by 12 feet sign size and utilize the area
40 for more landscaping.
41
42 Commissioner Tillman noted that the current banner in the area seems to be a good size for the
43 sign noting that it is very visible.
44
45 Commissioner Young asked if they have given any thought to the color of the brick they would
46 use. Mr. Clark, stated that they plan to stay consistent with the brick used at City Hall.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 7
1
2 Commissioner Tillman asked the Mr. Clark for his feedback regarding the size of the signs. He
3 stated that the sign is getting a bit large adding that due to the location the size would definitely
4 make it more visible. He stated that the landscaping would really make the area look great.
5
6 Commissioner Tillman asked if the smaller of the two signs would work the best. Mr. Clark
7 stated that the smaller of the two signs would work the best for that area noting that it would be
8 very visible.
9
10 Commissioner Jensen asked who would do the landscaping. Ms. Hall stated that the Public
11 Works Department would probably be involved in addition to possibly a gardening group in the
12 area.
13
14 8.3 Silver Lake Village, LLC, Silver Lane to the north; Silver Lake Road to the east,
15 Line Railroad Right-of-Way to the south; and Stinson Boulevard to the west; Amend
16 Planned Unit Development(PUD)to include Taco Bell Parcel
17
18 Miles Lindberg, Architect, stated that he is currently working with the tenants on this particular
19 parcel. He stated that the parcel should be brought into the current PUD. He stated that the
20 parcel has been under the same ownership but was not included as part of the original PUD. He
21 explained that they are moving forward with an approved plan and have an opportunity to
22 enhance this site. He further explained that the current tenant, Taco Bell, is on a month-to-
23 month lease and that they are currently working to place a longer-term prospect into that area.
24 He referenced the site plan stating that they are looking to improve the access to and from the site
25 and reviewed the access points with the Commission. He stated that currently access into Taco
26 Bell is off the main drive and intersects with Silver Lake Road. He explained that they would
27 like to relocate the access point to the west side of the parcel and reviewed with the Commission.
28
29
30 Commissioner Jensen asked if the parcel is directly east of Wal-Mart. Mr. Lindberg confirmed
31 stating that the access would be through the Wal-Mart parking lot in addition to a three-quarter
32 access point to the south of the current Tires Plus site. Chair Stromgren noted that the access
33 points shown on the site plan show a turn-off onto Silver Lake Road and asked if this access
34 point is part of the existing site. Mr. Lindberg confirmed that it is.
35
36 Vice Chair Hanson asked if McDonalds would be a part of the plan at Wal-Mart. Mr. Lindberg
37 clarified that McDonalds is not part of the plan.
38
39 Perry Thorvig, City Planning Consultant with DSU, indicated that the curb cutoff at Silver Lake
40 Road,by the Taco Bell, would-be removed adding that a Wendy's Restaurant would replace
41 what is currently on the site. He stated that the change would allow better use of the parking lot
42 area and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that they also have a proposal coming for an
43 Applebee's Restaurant noting that they would also share the parking area. He explained that this
44 is all part of the same PUD and reviewed with the Commission.
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 8
1 Vice Chair Hanson asked if they would be facilitating the same type of design in the area as the
2 downtown area. Mr. Thorvig explained that they would have to review the brick materials to
3 determine if the materials are compatible with Wendy's standards.
4
5 Commissioner Jensen asked if Applebee's and the Video Store would use the same access point
6 and expressed concerns as to whether the access would be adequate. Mr. Thorvig explained that
7 the Developer is currently trying to negotiate with the Video Store with respect to common
8 access points. He stated that presently they would have their own access curb cuts noting that
9 access to Applebee's would be off 39"and the second access point would be off the north/south
10 driveway that frames the far edge of the Cub Foods parking lot.
11
12 Chair Stromgren suggested that for the next review they include an updated PUD site plan that
13 shows the changes and the open space areas.
14
15 IX. PLAN REVIEW
16
17 9.1 Silver Lake Village, LLC, Silver Lane to the north; Silver Lake Road to the east; Soo
18 Line Railroad Right-of-Way to the south: and Stinson Boulevard to the west Final
19 Plan/Plat Review for Phase One of Housing Portion.
20
21 Perry Thorvig, DSU, provided the Commission with an overview of the Dominium Group's
22 Final Development Plan at Silver Lake Village. He explained that the concept for the project
23 was approved in September of 2003 as part of the overall submittal. He stated that the criteria to
24 be used, is consistent with the Concept Plan that was approved by City Council in September.
25 He reviewed the building location and lot coverage with the Commission noting that the building
26 has changed slightly. He reviewed the proposal noting that the building density is 261 units,
27 which is up 18% from the 220 units originally approved in the Concept Plan.
28
29 Commissioner Jensen noted that the building footprint has stayed the same. Mr. Thorvig
30 confirmed that the footprint remained the same stating that they added smaller units and
31 reviewed with the Commission. Mr. Thorvig stated that 79 of the units have been designated for
32 seniors and would be located in the west wing of the building, closest to Stinson. He stated that
33 the senior units would be a standard, one bedroom unit and reviewed the floor plans with the
34 Commission. He stated that the affordability of the project is 20%noting that 52 of the units
35 would be affordable to people with an income of 50% or more of the area average median
36 income. He reviewed the parking with the Commission stating that there would be a total of 444
37 spaces available. He stated that 210 of the spaces would be located underground noting that a
38 site plan and landscaping proposal was submitted and accepted by the City's Design Review
39 Committee.
40
41 He stated that the appearance, density and setbacks are also issues that they have been working
42 through. He referenced the appearance stating that they are still a bit unclear as to what type of
43 materials would be used as they do not have the colors finalized yet. He reviewed the
44 surrounding areas with the Commission noting that buffering appears to be ok. He stated that the
45 parking concerns have been addressed noting that there is a lot of open space within the project
46 to accommodate. He referenced the setback issue stating that on the west side, closest to Bakers
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 9
1 Square, is a very thin,narrow side yard that is approximately 2.5 feet in width. He stated that the
2 landscape proposal shows shrubbery in the area noting that it is being suggested that they not
3 plant anything in that area as it would not be durable or viable in long run. He stated that they
4 should have the materials and colors finalized prior to presenting the plan to Council.
5
6 Commissioner Gray clarified that the affordable housing units would not be restricted to a
7 specific area of the building. Mr. Thorvig confirmed stating that the affordable units would be
8 spread throughout the building.
9
10 Todd Hubmer, City Engineer, stated that he has worked closely with the Development Team
11 throughout the process and that he has reviewed the plans. He stated that he does not see
12 anything inconsistent with respect to any of the designs. He stated that his only issue and
13 concern is with some of the elevations along 39t°Avenue in addition to details relating to the
14 construction on the utility work. He stated that the Concept Plan, as presented, is consistent with
15 what has been seen in the past.
16
17 Gary Vogel, and Matt Karesh, both of BKV Group,provided the Commission with an overview
18 of the exterior elevations. He noted that the easterly half of the site is retail. He stated that the
19 Central Park area is the split between the retail from the east and the residential from the west
20 and reviewed with the Commission.
21
22 Mr. Vogel reviewed the site layout with the Commission stating that they have also brought a
23 working model for their review. He stated that the Central Park design is currently in process
24 and referenced the additional units stating that they have more, longer angles around the
25 building. He reviewed the access points and parking areas with the Commission noting that
26 there are direct pull-up areas in the general occupancy area. He reviewed the landscaping
27 proposal stating that there would be a wider median down the center that would include
28 landscaping. He stated that the Courtyard would include a swimming pool, a barbecue pit and a
29 spa that would available to all residents.
30
31 Commissioner Jensen referenced the color schemes and materials and asked if they have made
32 any decisions yet. Mr. Vogel explained that they have not made any decisions on the materials
33 yet. He stated that they did bring examples of the bricking for their review adding that they
34 would like to see a reddish colored brick, which is the basic color of brick used on the Wal-Mart.
35
36 Commissioner Jensen asked if this is their final review. Chair Stromgren confirmed that this is
37 the final review as part of the PUD requirement. He stated that the plan has already been
38 approved and reviewed with Commission.
39
40 Commissioner Hoska referenced the underpass near 38`h Lane and asked if it would be wide
41 enough for emergency vehicles. Mr. Vogel confirmed that it would be wide enough stating that
42 they met with the Fire Department to ensure that they did meet the emergency vehicle
43 requirements.
44
45 Mike Karesh, BKV, provided the Commission with an example of the development with a 3-D
46 Study Model for their review. He reviewed the process they used to determine the appearance of
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 10
1 the development with respect to residential with Commission. He stated that the current
2 elevations work well with the concept of a small town feel and reviewed with Commission. He
3 reviewed the arch pass-through and the clubhouse location with the Commission stating that the
4 infill between would create a repetition and patterning that would provide an interesting view.
5
6 Chair Stromgren stated that there is cement slab in some areas and panel in others and asked for
7 clarification. Mr. Karesh confirmed and reviewed the materials that would be used for siding at
8 the various elevations with the Commission.
9
10 Commissioner Jensen asked when they would make the final decision as to the type of brick.
11 Mr. Thorvig stated that they would like to have the decision made prior to the next City Council
12 meeting. He provided Commission with examples of the bricking used at Wal-Mart and the
13 Village Shops along 39`h Avenue noting that all of the colors under consideration would play off
14 each other quite well and would also remain consistent with the area.
15
16 Chair Stromgren explained that it is the Commission's hope that they would consider a more
17 textured appearance in the residential areas. Mr. Karesh confirmed that they would be looking at
18 a more textured appearance for the residential areas and reviewed with the Commission.
19
20 Patricia Grimes, 3201 Townview Avenue Northeast, St. Anthony Housing Group, stated that
21 back in September there was discussion that approximately 25% of the units would be affordable
22 noting that it has dropped to 20% with a change to 50% of the median income. She stated that it
23 would require a $12.65-per hour job and expressed concerns stating that the median wage is
24 approximately $10.00, which means that many would not be able to afford a unit. She reviewed
25 their concerns stating that they would prefer to see a 30%to 50%variable median wage that
26 would allow more of the residents an opportunity to purchase a unit. She noted that the County
27 funding also anticipated the 30% to 50%median wage guidelines and encouraged them to take
28 this under consideration.
29
30 Mr. Moorhouse explained that there has been a misunderstanding with respect to the median
31 income percentages. He clarified that the proposal has always been at the 50%median income
32 range. He stated that the 30%might have come from the calculations that were used when
33 explaining the process. He stated that the proposed 20%to 25% affordability is what they would
34 like to accomplish adding that the percentage would fluctuate during the term of the
35 affordability.
36
37 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the 20% affordability median and suggested that the Commission
38 include a condition in their motion to maintain at 20% to 25% affordability.
39
40 Chair Stromgren asked if the agreement spells out the access to the affordable units. Mr.
41 Moorhouse confirmed that the agreement specifies up to 25% and the written correspondence
42 with the City specifies access to the affordable units would be throughout the building and
43 evenly distributed. He stated that affordable units would be included in both the general
44 occupancy and the senior area. He assured the Commission that they are very committed noting
45 that the affordable units will fluctuate between 20% and 25%.
46
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 11
1 Chair Stromgren recommended that the colors and the materials be clarified prior to presenting
2 the plan to City Council for consideration.
3
4 Motion by Chair Stromgren, second by Vice Chair Hanson to recommend approval of the
5 Dominium portion of the final plan, based on the fact that it is consistent with the Northwest
6 Quadrant Redevelopment Plan and Site Guidelines; that the conditions clarify that the color and
7 the materials are consistent; Landscaping along the west parking line would be eliminated for
8 future use; representation that the agreement sets a minimum at 20% for affordable units with a
9 maximum of 25%.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously
12
13 Mr. Thorvig stated that the north portion of the housing development is a project managed by
14 Len Pratt and Dan Hunt. He stated that their preliminary concept plan was approved at same
15 time as the Dominium location. He stated that they are proposing four modified,u-shape
16 buildings and reviewed with the Commission. He explained that the building appearance is four
17 stories and would have a flat roof and brick facing with the use of stucco board. He stated that
18 the colors are very close noting that it would be a rusty-reddish brick color with a lighter cream
19 on the stucco board. He noted that specific colors have not yet been designated adding that they
20 are currently working out the pricing. He stated that the density of the building is down to 251
21 units and reviewed with the Commission. He indicated that all of the units are `for sale' units
22 noting that affordability is the only question as none of the `For Sale' units meet the 50%median
23 guidelines. He explained that the units are projected to cost approximately$200.00 per square
24 foot and reviewed with the Commission. He reviewed the parking requirements with the
25 Commission noting that the plan is basically the same as Dominium. He stated that the final plat
26 is consistent with the preliminary plat adding that they are requesting approval of the `For Sale'
27 portion, as it is consistent with the approved Concept Plan. He stated that the design guidelines
28 have been included for their review noting that one of the conditions outlined is that the exact
29 colors must be defined prior to final permit approval.
30
31 Len Pratt referenced the site plan and reviewed the relationship between the `For Sale' units and
32 rental with the Commission. He provided the Commission with an overview of the orientation
33 and layout stating that with the reconstruction of 39"Avenue comes a sequencing of the `For
34 Sale' units noting that the first to be built would be on the corner. He stated that there would be
35 a park that would separate the retail/office buildings from the housing units and reviewed with
36 the Commission. He indicated that there would be outdoor parking spaces and a private drive
37 that would be shared by both the rental and the `For Sale' areas. He referenced the front
38 elevation of the building stating that there would direct access from the first floor homes to 39`,
39 Avenue or from the south side out to the courtyard. He stated that they have approximately 150
40 people who have expressed an interest in this development noting that he has a subset of buyers
41 that have already made a commitment to buy. He stated that the number one reason they have
42 heard to purchase is that they feel that they have come home to St. Anthony. He noted that the
43 people interested in the units have either lived here all their lives and are now downsizing or used
44 to live here and want to come back into the area.
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 12
1 Mr. Pratt referenced the garage and the underground parking areas and reviewed the layout with
2 the Commission. He explained that they have provided garages within a garage for some of the
3 residents who want additional security when spending long periods of time away from home. He
4 indicated that the need for storage was a strong factor and request by those interested in the units.
5 He stated that the 13 floor plans have been included for the Commissioners review adding that
6 some of the larger homes would also include a sunroom, deck or porch option. He reviewed the
7 Community Room area and amenities with the Commission stating that they had initially
8 intended this building to be a single-story, one room community room. He stated that the
9 common area would go up a full two stories and would include a kitchenette, and an office for
10 the property management on the first floor with a workout area and library to be located on the
11 second floor. He reviewed the access points to the building with the Commission noting that the
12 building would be accessible from 39'' and the main courtyard area. He thanked the Commission
13 for their time and assured the Commission that they would have the color selections made prior
14 to their presentation to City Council.
15
16 Commissioner Jensen stated that it does appear that they are trying to provide assurance that
17 continuity and flow are key to the program. He stated that it is clear, by looking at the detail, that
18 there is a strong commitment to high quality homes.
19
20 Vice Chair Hanson asked if they have had any discussion regarding the possibilities of sharing
21 the pool. Mr. Pratt confirmed that he and Mr. Moorhouse have been in discussion regarding the
22 pool. He stated that they have discussed several options that would be workable and reviewed
23 with the Commission. He reviewed the project schedule with the Commission stating that it is
24 their objective to have the basement in for the office building by the August timeframe.
25
26 Motion by Commissioner Gray, second by Vice Chair Hanson to recommend to City Council the
27 approval of the final plat and site plan and that it is to be consistent with the Northwest Quadrant
28 Redevelopment Plan design guidelines for development and to ensure that the color of the
29 exterior materials matches the rest of the development and is consistent.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 X. PUBLIC INPUT.
34
35 Chris Huber, 3412 Silver Lake Road, stated that he has lived in St. Anthony Village for the past
36 38 years. He stated that he visited with Ms. Hall regarding the City electronic monument
37 signage adding that he is very pleased with the recommended location off 33`d and Silver Lake
38 Road. He noted that the northern location could have created some problems for residents along
39 that area and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that he has observed what has occurred
40 in this area this area for many years noting that the basic reason for their concern on the location
41 of the sign is because it could have been an additional intrusion in the area where he lives in
42 addition to the potential for danger because of visibility. He stated that the Commission has
43 made a very wise recommendation to City Council by recommending placement of the sign at
44 33`d and Silver Lake Road.
45
46 XI.ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 15, 2004
Page 13
1
2 Ms. Hall stated that the Public Works Open House is scheduled for June 24, from 4:00 p.m. to
3 7:00 p.m. and reviewed with the Commission. She also mentioned there is an Open House at the
4 City's new liquor store on June 24, from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
5
6 Vice Chair Hanson stated that it was exciting to see the 3-D dimensional example that Dominium
7 brought to the meeting. He stated that they are doing a very good job breaking up their
8 development noting that it is exciting to see how close they are getting to a start time.
9
10 Commissioner Jensen stated that on June 2, 2004 he attended a seminar on the Role of the
11 Planning Commission Member. He stated that it was an excellent seminar noting that there are
12 some very good sponsored seminars like this that help the Planning Commissioners with their
13 roles and reviewed with the Commission.
14
15 X1I. ADJOURNMENT
16
17 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Gray, to adjourn the meeting at 9:27
18 p.m.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 Respectfully submitted,
23
24 Bonnie Sullivan
25 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
ADDRESSING THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Public Hearings.
In keeping with Roberts Rules of Order, the following
procedures apply to Public Hearings:
• Mayor/Chair asks for staff report on item and opens item
for discussion.
• Citizens wishing to speak, should raise their hands and
approach the podium when recognized by the
Mayor/Chair, then clearly state full name and address for
the record. Spokespersons are given more time for
presentations, and groups are encouraged to use them.
• Everyone who wishes, will have a chance to address the
Council/Commission. Citizens must address all questions
and comments to the Mayor, who will then determine who
will answer them. Questions will be answered when. all
persons have had a chance to speak. Only one person
may speak at a time. Citizens are urged to be polite and
quiet as comments are made to the Council/Commission.
Applauding or other displays of approval or disapproval
are inappropriate during City Council/Planning
Commission proceedings.
• No one will be given an opportunity to speak a second time
until everyone has had an opportunity to speak initially.
Please limit second presentation to new information and
not rebuttals.
• When public comments are completed, the
Council/Planning Commission closes the public hearing
and starts its own discussion. The audience is welcome to
listen quietly to the discussion but is requested not to
make comments.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 07/08/04 MEETING DATE: 07/20/04
TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission Members
FROM Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager _�j t
i
SUBJECT: Wiggins Variance Request
Requested Action:
July 20 is the public hearing for the side yard variance request of Dave and Lisa
Wiggins, 3200 Skycroft Drive. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be
forwarded to the City Council for their July 27 meeting.
Background:
Dave and Lisa Wiggins are requesting a side yard variance of 12 feet for an addition to
their home. City code requires that a side yard adjacent to a street must be at least 45
feet wide (30 feet plus the 15 feet street easement/public right of way). The 15 X 25 foot
proposed addition would put their home within 33 feet of 32nd Avenue.
The Petition for Variance attached describes the request and hardships, etc. Last
month, Mr. Wiggins visited with the Planning Commission about the request when he
came forward for a concept review.
Attachment:
Petition for Variance
Date:
Fee:
R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00
Other . . . . $100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Variance
Applicant: Ilig CLVJ Lis,&- W1 ' ms Phone: 706 `F I QJ
Address:
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): C7WnC;,�
Legal Description of property proposed for variance: L&f 2, Qfock I , �.�
Street Address: 3-too S kv biwe-
Presently Zoned: — \ '
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please,respond to these conditions using additional sheets if
necessary.
L. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced. o lers4.�, y M�kloor -6 norms ,rte 1c. aS�aj'
C5ex'- af4ck�14) o �CiV1G�5Ccs�idl �ass��.2 toss o (c�vc�c ivass }rc+�
2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district.
C bee— a c�-Q � Q 3i&-y"J, si c a {?r r-vac 10
e YYU�'haa� vldScc �� t rea i y.av
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Signature f pplicant
06 -07 -04 *60 o00CK
Variances. (1665.06)
Application. An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply
with the Zoning Code, or of property on which such a structure is proposed.to be
constructed, may apply-for _a variance upon payment of the fee as specified in the,
Zoning Ordinance.
Council Approval. Variances to the dimensional provisions of the Zoning Code may
be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, after a
public hearing is held by the Planning Commission. Variances will not be granted
with respect to uses. A majority of affirmative votes by the Councilmembers present
is required to approve a variance request.
Evidence. No variance will be granted unless the evidence presented by the petitioner
discloses all of the following facts:
(a) The subject matter of the application is within the scope of the Zoning
Ordinance subsection regarding variances.
(b) Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship
because: '
1.) The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the
variance.
2.) The circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the
owner.
3.) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character. of
the locality.
4.) Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship.
(c) The circumstances,causing the hardship are unique to the individual
property under consideration.
(d) The granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Code.
Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission will consider the
application at a public hearing at any regular or special meeting. Notice for the public
hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115 of the City Ordinance. The Planning
Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, will make a recommendation
to the Council as follows:
(a) Recommend that the variance application can be granted because the
evidence considered at the meeting supports each of the findings
Petition for Variance
Owners: Dave and Lisa Wiggins
Property: 3200 Skycroft Drive NE
Request: Side Yard Variance
This purpose of this letter is to request an 12 foot side yard variance to accommodate,an
addition to our single-family, split-level residence at 3200 Skycroft Drive. City code
requires that a side lot adjacent to a street be at least 45 feet wide(30 feet plus an additional
15 feet for street easement/public right of way). The addition we are proposing would put
our structure within 33 feet of 32°a Avenue.
CURRENTLY: The structure we currently live in was built in 1961, and has been carefully
maintained and updated for over 40 years. It is difficult to argue that the property cannot be
put to "reasonable use"without an addition when it has been so efficiently utilized in the
past. Yet, we are finding the house lacking in many important respects. First, there is a need
for a larger, more useful, and efficient living space on our main floor. Second, we need more
storage space. Our closets are small, the basement is small and crowded, and the attic is
unusable for storage. Third, we need a room that would function as a home office space. As
a math teacher, I have a need for additional space at home for my library, files, and desktop
computer.
PROPOSED: The proposed 15x25 foot addition would include a main floor family room, a
basement office, and a basement bedroom. Modifications in main floor layout would allow
for more efficient use of our dining room and kitchen. Additional storage would be
accomplished through built-in cabinets and shelves in the new family room and modifying
the basement layout. We believe this addition would not alter the essential character of the
locality, noting that neighboring properties along 32°a Avenue are set back similar distances
from the curb and that potentially problematic sight lines from the streets to the addition are
blocked by a large pine tree.
HARDSHIP: It is our belief that the side yard is the only viable option for the proposed
addition. Visually, the side yard along the street seems to be large enough for the addition.
If this side yard were adjacent to another property, we would not need a variance. However,
city code indicates that for corner lots, a distance of 45 feet from the street be maintained.
Could the addition be put in rear yard,where no variance would be needed? We believe a
rear addition would:
1) likely result in the loss of a mature shade tree (40 year old basswood);
2) ruin the character and functionality of our landscaped rear yard;
3) reverse recently corrected watershed problems due to the slope toward the house;
4) exacerbate water runoff problems for our north neighbor at 3204 Skycroft Drive.
Respectfully,
B. H. BRADLEY
CIVIL ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR
9829-24TH AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS E.MINN. ,
PARKWAY 4-2169 .
vf
{
t
i
' e
■f �.}mss .�•� .Ir ' i1�GWS7�6MrRPMIP.Aweia�r�.:S>+RS<,•�nJ , ... v.Y..
La
V/' rya
Ss
it
WE
y �t�.�a•3' . C,� _ Sri - '
a 1
i
A *
r
'l 1 `:
T=
� LIB. � 11�_.I I• _ � � 11 � _ •
---I. W IL fl:
t II IIIji II
Av-�
MEMORANDUM'
DATE: 07/08/04 MEETING DATE: 07/20/04
TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manag IJVJ--,
SUBJECT: Rabine Variance Request
Requested Action:
July 20 is the public hearing for the front yard variance request of Rod Rabine, 2800 34th
Avenue NE. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City
Council for their July 27 meeting.
Background:
Rod Rabine is requesting a front yard variance of 2.5 feet in order to add a front entry to
his home. Mr. Rabine is planning to build a.handicap accessible front entry with a ramp.
The variance request is necessary in order to navigate a motorized wheelchair into the
front door. The Petition for Variance attached describes the request and hardships, etc.
According to the city code, in the R-1 single-family zoning district, the front yard must
have a depth equal to the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the average of the
front yard depths of the two adjacent lots. Given this formula, staff went to the subject
property to measure the adjacent two lots. Staff found the east property (2804 34th
Avenue NE) measures 30 feet from curb to home; the west property (2712 34th Avenue
NE) measures 35 feet from curb to home. An average of the two adjacent lots is 33 feet;
therefore, the subject property should have this depth at a minimum.
With the petitioner proposing to extend 2.5 feet out from the current front of the home,
with a 2.5-foot variance request, would leave a 30.5-foot front yard setback. This would
match up pretty closely to the east neighbor's front yard setback, which is 30 feet.
Mr. Rabine has explained to city staff that the proposed front entry would have four
posts, so you would be able to"see through it."
Attachment:
• Petition for Variance
Date:
Fee:
Other . . $ 60.00 �12
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Variance
Applicant: _Phone:
Address: Al ��W
Status of Applicant pooperty Buyer, Lessee, etc.): ®U. /�'�
Legal Description o proposw for varian e: 4-071 S O T Street Address: h / Sim
Presently Zoned; P
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if
necessary.
L. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the parcel or lot, the proposed variance. would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Set
Signature of Applicant.
JUN Z` 2004
A P&6.
I;Y:
Variances. (1665.06)
Application. An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply
with the Zoning Code, or of property on which such a structure is proposed.to be
constructed, may apply for a-variance upon payment of the fee as specified in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Council Approval. Variances to the dimensional provisions of the Zoning Code may
be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, after a
public hearing is held by the Planning Commission. Variances will not be granted
with respect to uses. A majority of affirmative votes by the Councilmembers present
is required to approve a variance request.
Evidence. No variance.will be granted unless the evidence presented by the petitioner
discloses all of the following facts:
(a) The subject matter of the application is within the scope of the Zoning
Ordinance subsection regarding variances.
(b) Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship
because: '
1:) The property cannot be put to. a reasonable use without the
variance.
2.) The circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the
owner.
3.) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality.
4.) Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship.
(c) The circumstances.causing the hardship are unique to the individual
property under consideration.
(d) The granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Code.
Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission will consider the
application at a public hearing at any regular or special meeting. Notice for the public
hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115 of the City Ordinance. The Planning
Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, will make a recommendation
to the Council as follows:
(a) Recommend that the variance application can be granted because the
evidence considered at the meeting supports each.of the findings
Rod Rabine
2800 34th Ave NE
St. Anthony, MN 55418
612-789-4072
06-28-04
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council,
I am applying for a variance affecting the front of our home. The goal of the
project is to create a handicap accessible front entry with ramp. This project will have a
front stoop/landing extending from the front of our home 5.5 ft. The front stoop/landing
will be 35.5 ft from the easement line. The ordinance allows me 33 ft from the easement
line, I am asking for a variance of 2.5 ft in order to complete the project. We need the
front landing this size to maneuver a 4 ft motorized wheelchair into the front door.
The circumstances leading to the project are as follows; My mother and father live in
Michigan during the summer. They are 70 plus years old, and my mother is paralyzed
from the waist down. She is permanently in a wheel chair and has trouble getting into the
front of our home. As of now we do not have a ramp, but wish to put one in creating an
accessible entry. My parents live with us several months out of the winter, and visit often
during the summer.
Our entry currently is from the side of our house, and faces our front closet. The area
between the front door and closet is 5 ft. My mother's "Amigo" wheel chair is 4 ft long.
The entry gives her 12 inches to maneuver her way into the house. She has to go forward
and back several times to get inside. She has hit the closet door many times which gives
her a jolt. The new entry will allow her to have a straight approach into the house. The
permanent ramp will eliminate the use of a clumsy/heavy portable ramp.
My wife and I have a 4 year old son and plan on raising him here in St. Anthony. We have
lived here for 2 1/2 years. I have a secure job with the City of Mpls, and appreciate the
proximity of my home to my job. We have no intentions of selling our home, on the
contrary we plan on staying here until retirement. I say this to show we are not motivated
by the increased value of our home, but only the relieve this project will bring.
It is important to us to give my mother a home she can live in without the.hardships of a
non-accessible home. If for any reason my father were to pass on, I feel obligated and
would insist on having a home my mother could live in. This project would give us that
home and relieve the hardship.
We thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter.
Materials used in project
Front entry with handicap.ramp
*Concrete pavers
*Ramp facing will be stone or brick
*Walkway will have railings with pillar posts
*Ramp will come off the driveway
*Front door will be changed to facing the street
]Landscaping
*Various shrubs and flowers
Our house setback and lot coverage in detail
Our lot is 10,500 sqft
*35%= 3675 sqft of coverage is allowed under city ordinance
The coverage we have now broken down is;
*2028 sqft House/Sidewalk
*1052 sqft Driveway
*440 sqft Garage
*135 sqft Rear porch
Total coverage is 3655 sqft leaving 20 sqft of coverage left to be used
The nieghbors house to the west has a setback of 35 feet, The neighbor to the east has a
set back of 30 feet. I am allowed a 33 ft set back. I am requesting a variance for 2.5 ft
changing my setback to 29.5 ft.
The change in setback only includes a front landing for the front door.
�A
•JJ ,fir. - .��F �h� ' '. y�,,.
1 4P
o24po
1^I�erc .q. Y3 t sc thus s�lr pp, ptssl, a "Port t F
1F$3'PTL"{]$red bq rae.or'unr or ire r vijp2
' � :fsici�i an3<`�,a Y dam s. dv,',�- Rr�surecl�rir� � •.
_so 4L
a'";� ntl fah£ 0�2
N
N
rQZ
r-
1
. r
I �
•fps �m� y_ , 1�
,off
sL-
I 1
I� 1
Ih
1 �
1 I
aq I I M "I, Zbo -IMF
rvtlsd�
�o ���.p�d s6�,�,�o�. t�""J S ,S ss�]� a"o�" �"�s .011
sseio prnd,„o, „zf
sycfl -P li*M MA/7 V9aMP9) JWIOO� 91 1(,'-A
� R
rl _
® I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 07/08/04 MEETING DATE: 07/20/04
TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Sunset Memorial Park Sign
Requested Action:
July 20 is the public hearing for the sign variances associated with a second monument
sign proposed for Sunset Memorial Park, 2250 St. Anthony Boulevard. The Planning
Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their July 27
meeting. The applicant requested this case be brought forward swiftly; therefore, no
concept review was held.
Background:
Sunset Memorial Park is requesting two sign variances for a ground, or monument, sign
proposed for the intersection of St. Anthony Boulevard and New Brighton Boulevard
(see map attached). On behalf of Sunset Memorial Park, the Lawrence Sign Company
has been contacting the City on this request.
Two variances have been requested by the applicant: (1) for a second monument sign;
and (2) a height variance of 6 feet for a proposed height of 14 feet.
The City's zoning map for the subject property shows it as R-1 Single Family. However,
according to the city code, cemeteries fall under Recreational Open Space (ROS). For
all intensive purposes, the City will consider this request under the ROS district; the
cemetery is considered a legal nonconforming use in the ROS.
Technically, staff has explained that one ground sign is allowed. One monument sign
was recently erected on the property at the Park entrance, on St. Anthony Boulevard
across from Gross Golf Course. (Please note this monument sign is not yet landscaped,
which is a requirement of all ground signs.)
The proposed ground sign measures an overall height of 14 feet with the base_. The
maximum height for a ground sign is 8 feet, thus the variance request for 6 feet.
Upon review of the proposed sign, staff has noted the copy surface area measures 13'
X IV% or 97.5 square feet, for one side. In addition, after the fact, the applicant
explained this is a two-sided sign, which would put the total copy surface area at 195
square feet. In the ROS, the maximum allowed for copy surface area is 150 square feet,
which is quite liberal. The applicant's sign exceeds this; however, a variance request did
not come forward for this.The applicant is over by 45 square feet on copy surface area.
Staff has explained this to the applicant, but it was after the Public Hearing posting
occurred. It appears a variance for copy surface area would be necessary to implement
the proposed signage as two-sided.
The sign drawing submitted by the applicant does show landscaping; however, it is
limited given the pedestal and overall sign size.
This issue goes back to earlier in the year, when Lawrence Sign Company approached
the City on behalf of the Park, about the proposed signage. At that time, city staff
explained that the proposed sign did not meet the city code and rejected it. After that,
they attempted to submit the same sign repeatedly and were denied. In June, city staff
received an incomplete sign variance application and asked the applicant for more
information. Staff has since gone back and forth with the applicant, with information still
incomplete. All along, the applicant has expected and leaned heavily on the City to fill
out the variance application for them.
City staff has indicated, as presented, that the proposed ground sign is not acceptable.
The applicant wanted the request to come forward through the city process, as is, to see
what the response would be to the variance requests.
Attachments:
Petition for Variance
o Map
C Proposed Sign Drawing
UU/10/LUU4 11::su V'AA U12 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY 2002
06/08/2004 12:18 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY 141002
Y :s WD ja 833
Date:
Fee: $100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Petition for Sign Variance
Applicant: L °
L.J
Address: y� �iPlC4 1�,`�\ 4� '�` � 55104 Phone:
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.):_;a":) Ir,-jStd>>ef
Street address and/or legal description of property petitioned for variance:
Zoning dipinct In which roperty is located:
Request: -
mnrrlAt71Q,�t
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions, using additional sheets,
if necessary.
1. The granting of the variance will not. be detrimental to the-public welfare or
Injurious to other property In the neighborhood or village.
2. A particular hardship to the applicant would result if the strict letter of the
regulations are adhered to.
3. The conditions upon which the applications for a variance are based are unique
to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same land-use classification.
Si aturd of Applica t
Date:
06 -14-04 * 100 - OOCK
June 18,2004
Susan M.H.Hall
Assistant City Manager
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony,MN. 55418
RE: Sunset Memorial Park
Susan,
Thank you for your feedback,noted below you will find the detail needed to complete the
Variance Application. Please let me know if anything further is needed. We are committed to
meeting the your deadlines,to ensure we are on the calendar for your next meeting.
A- We are requesting a variance to allow for our Sign to have an overall height of 14'-0".
B- We are requesting a variance to allow for a second Monument Sign, on our clients
extremely large property.
Sign variance questions 1-3:
L The granting of this variance will in no way be detrimental to public health or
welfare. Nor will it be in to any other property within the neighborhood.
This Sign will be within the fenced property of the Memorial Park, and we will
constructed in a safe,thoughtful manner.
2• Our client will find particular hardship placed on their business should they have
to adhere'to the strict letter of the known regulations for this site. The have
allowed to identify it.
access (road frontage)all along this side of their property, and are not being
I This situation is unique to this site, as it has a large layout,and spans across
several frontages,therefore requiring addi
business. tional Signage to properly identify their
Best Regards,
Scott M. Ruzin .
Account Executiv
Lawrence Sign, Inc.
945 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE A ST PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104 A 651.488.6711 A FAX 651-488-6715
www.lawrencesign.com
Page 1 of 1
TIMM
lip 3V Ut Back
\�, Pmpessd Sign Location
Sti (5p sm Bid ftm 1"")
46'Sot BaCkk
frv�s 0
^ (-' C=54
�.111c.1LG_ _ - l• mpMeffrdftRat
ui
Jr
Mmiroarsoua �Al
Xf rd a4s WE :a
t'
OIDOi Mc16f1 i � s warosA
file //(`•\T)nrr iimPntc%„?nan(i%?n.c Pttinoc\chPnrv\T.nr,al%20Settines\Temnorary%20Intemet... 7/6/2004
I-awlence
ign
945 PIERCE BUTLER ROUTE,ST.PAUL,MN 55104 f
.._.._.. _ WWW.LAWRENCESIGN.COM
ALDERWOODS
CLIENT-
ZMANTHOW
J r • •
ter c��`�'�?�,C ����� •I� t 1 t°I` 3 I �
�A t -',; I Alain Entrance
ACCOUNT D(ECUTIVE-
NT
6 i< ! �, f•rt '.;.,` " - •rte,. wrzs I Ise 1�' -:.y-I.�•:
�4ain Entrance ^�
DESIGNER-
ri r. f
DRAWING-
to g\F.. �6 C ctr, 6'°'`� �•' s.ry�' �i:.kT�4•`+.,.y,'
'} P• � ,� � �i �r �dd' �" ��� 1 Si�,l��l] �.y-1 i. ��'.><� t � �}i�.��""°'�°-�'43. I -
`�'` •" 1 y.. 3 � v S r � ! ,j.y�� � f' �e tom^• ti.,= I • !
,.- A z.�` -P. r 7 r �_t E-tty�tl�1 a�`�: Sq j: ����: .r c �:, Y?- ,• �. +,3 �,. 4.
•+d,y ! r .s t+', �}-• N �lt w 'd!5 e• tti F.�j( J ,a- -�•.• } ,t�ty 44s�i. I - '
! r ' [.3 e •%' 1: t;_3 r tit i to
y �-° f
! .,�yn, •5q',✓rt ra �... 3_ r S� E .tea"ter';-- _.�':..Y._ _ ,�_'.,c::�_ -s34�s-,;>ri�.i;�' DATE
Ismu-
1 c r
:
,t• ,,.,,._.
PROPERTY THESE PLANS ARE THE EXCLUSIVE
■ ■
ARE THE RESULT ■ ORIGINAL
WOR . EMPLOYEES .
I, THEY ARE SUBMITTED TO YOUR
PURPOSE COMPANY FOR THE SOLE
■ ■
:7 tV'.;. - -i a :- -. I..I OR TO
PURCHASE FROM
■ ACCORDING ■
THESE PLANS. ■ ■ OR
■ ■ ■ ANYONE
■ ■ ■ ■
COMPANY, OR USEOF THESE PLANS
TO ■ ■
THE ■ EMBODIED
IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN.
EXHIBITION EVENT THAT SUCH OCCURS,
LAWRENCE SIGN EXPECTS TO BE
j REIMBURSED $ 2 , 000 IN
DOU13LE FACE NON- ILLUMINATED FO5T & FANEL 51 N 5CALE: 1/4" =1'-0" ■EFFORT ' ■ ■
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 07/12/04 MEETING DATE: 07/20/04
TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: City Electronic Monument Sign
Requested Action:
On July 20, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for the actions
associated to implement the City's electronic monument sign. This includes two sign
variances and a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission's recommendation
will be forwarded to the City Council for their July 27 meeting.
Background:
On June 15, the Planning Commission held a concept review of the City's electronic
sign. The sign is proposed to be located on the hill in front of the tennis courts, nearby
the intersection of 33rd Avenue and Silver Lake Road (see map attached). The sign will
be two-sided, in a closed off W" configuration (see attached drawing).
City staff has been working with LeRoy Sign Company on sign specifications. Two
variances will be necessary to implement the signage: (1) for copy surface area; and (2)
a height variance of 2 feet for a proposed height of 10 feet. A conditional use permit is
also required.
It is recommended the City go with a 10' h X 12' w sign, which includes a two-foot brick
base. The sign's message center measures 4' h X 12' w, while the top half of the sign is
the City logo, measuring 4' h X 12' w. Per side, the sign's copy surface area measures
96 square feet. A double-sided side is recommended, which would make a total copy
surface area of 192 square feet. Per the sign ordinance, a maximum of 150 square feet
is allowed for total copy surface area in the Recreational Open Space (ROS) zoning
district, where the sign is proposed to be located. Therefore, a variance of 42 square
feet would be necessary.
The City's sign ordinance requires ground signs to be a maximum height of 8 feet. The
proposed sign is 10 feet with the brick base. Therefore, a height variance of 2 feet is
necessary for the proposed sign. Under the ROS zoning district, there is no requirement
mentioned for ground sign height; however, the City opted to ask for this variance given
typical ground sign height.
As far as justification for the variances, one reason the sign got larger was because it
had to incorporate the city logo. The city logo is dimensionally difficult to reduce to make
the sign copy surface area smaller. The city logo cannot be sized any smaller than
shown on the drawings to work. The city logo is required, per City Council goals and
objectives, for uniform communications. In addition, the sign needs to be large enough
for visibility purposes, so it can be seen from the roadway and is safe. Finally, the City
JUL.13.2004 3:04PM LEROY SIGNS N0.710 P.3i3
AT07 2/2004 Q9:43 FAX 012 781 8323 Crff ST.ANx'IfONY:
date; ( Iy1oN
Fee: 100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Petition for Sign Variance
Applicant: city of St. Anthony
Address: 3301 Silver Lalte Road Phone;612T789,8�81
status of appllcar► (cw-,ai, dwyer, renter, agent, etc.): owner
Street address and/er legal description of property petitioned for variance:
3301 Silver Lake Road
Zoning district in which property is located: Recreat.onal open Space
q oast: Variance oft S.t. in sface area and 2' = total height Requested
t is
fo khe propos z y wnumen- sz.gn.
/Minnesota Statutas and City Qrdinancas require that the following condition: be satisfied
for approve{ of this request. Please respond to these conditions, using additional sheets,
if necessary.
1. The granting or the variance will not be detrimental to the•pubic welfare or
in urious to other property in the neighborhood or village.The jarger size and height
will allow tie sign to be easier to read and will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or have a negative affect on px'am'ty
2. A particular hardshin to the applicant wotuid result if the strict letter of the
regulations are adhered to. In order for the sign to be properly visible to drivers
on Silver Lake Roam, the sign needs to be set back fr= the street as proposed
and thus needs to be slightly 'taller and Larger to be properly visible.
3. The conditions upon which the applications for a variance are based are uni ue
to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable,
generally, to other property within the same land-use classification. The greater Set bacac
allows the sign to have greater visibility to both the north & south flow of the
traffic. The larger site is required to allow greater visibility of the s�9r1 and the
puiolic Service mssages that.will be displayed. Dire to the layout and Shape Of the
City logo, the larger size is required to properly display the top identification.
section of the sign so it '
S gnature of Applicant
Date:
JUL.13.2004 3:03PM LEROY SIGNS N0.710 P.2i3
OVER BO 'Y. E ;ARS
P95jCjN CQNWl TINQ 0 PARRICATIN6 o MAINTFNANGI' • $f RllfGS it INVALIATIaN
JUIy 12, 2004
St, Anthony Village
Adrruaistratim Offices
330I.Silvor L*e road
St. A-thOUY, MN 55418-1699
Aft City Commil Members
I
RE; Variance Request for City Mon-wment Sign
A varimce is being reqti,e d.to increase the sige of the Tpont}me4t sign proposed for the
area so4th of the City ball and just west of the terwis court. 'plus area is zoned
recreai orW open space and the surface area allowed per section 1400.12 SO4. 4 for a
ground sign cannot exceed 150 square feet. The propose4 sign is 8'h x 12' ;-- 96 s,f,per
side,for a total of 192 sX, thus a variance of 42 s,f, in Wace area is being requested.
Also, a height varimee of 2' is requested, There is no height parameter set firth in this
section, however Stxbd, 2 is Section 1400,01 limits the total height of a sign to $ feet,
including pedestal.
Aue to the shape of the city logo,the larger area is prppvsrrd so the top.identiixcation
section of the sign cats be properly visible from the street land be proportionately correct.
The variance requested will not be detrimental to the safety of people wallciug or driving
in the area, The larger sizo will Mow the sip to be easily road=4 give the desired
iruage of a tastefully designed mon=ent sigh that gives 4n overall look of gtWity and
cl}aractor to the City bIall complex, The height variance vill allow the sign to be installed
on a brick.base that will match the existing City Doll btail4ing.
i .
6325 Welcome AYo,N. • Mi#peapol}s,,MN 55429
Ofd ce: 743-535-0080 - I;ax763-533-2593
I
Date: 6/14/04 Fee: $130.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Applicant: city of St. Anthony Phone: 612=7,99-,9,9,91
Address: 330.1 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN. 55418
Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): Owner
Street address and/or legal description of property in question:
3301 Silver Lake Road
Zoning district in which property is located: Recreational Open Space (ROS)
Conditional use proposed: Electronic Message Sign;
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions be satisfied
before a conditional use may be authorized. Please respond to these conditions, using
additional sheets, if necessary.
1) The proposed conditional use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the
zoning district in which it is to be located.
Yes. The electronic message sign is allowed in the ROS district, as a conditional use.
2) The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or inurious to property values or
improvements in the vicinity.
The message sign will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the vicinity. It will not be injurious:'to property values.
3) The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to
provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will
contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or community.
The message sign will be a benefit to the community, offering important messages
and reminders, of a public service nature.
Signature of applicant:
City of St. Anthony
Application for Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit Items:
Flashing and animation prohibited.
Hours of operation are limited and shall be between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Message will not change faster than 5 minutes
Sign aesthetics-
- red or white lettering only
- readerboard size not to exceed 4'h X 12' w
- brick base to match City Hall/Community Center building
- landscape plan to be minimum of shrubbery, as presented
Consideration should be given to safety and also the surrounding neighborhood.
Sign may only be used to promote items of general interest to community. Attached Sign
Policy will govern content.
Z
- D
FOX TMS m
=m gY z
f OTHERS
G
f
II I i o
1 I 1 1 Z
T9
o
N
m
5 CD
- G
"0
r
990
f -
i 0" STEEL GAS LINE' - - - - - -
9`•
i
i
o�
S. -
_.. ray
.b n
L.���S � � �P''�- �h><-; t^a� �� ,d•i �.,r,,_ror,,,' '?" r F +� MtYSd,4��'c�"�°
y ".'.��.:+e/�,g,��`t°f'M°'+F'��.._' w�.�;;,'P� 3'm`iy„a'Pb,(1' '�'..�y�. >5 dvar^^�'-•i� 'S�' ���s''3� yd
��^.: .:-- , i n cram'+�!E� �1 ,��'a f4 � ` 'j�,t�-���' Zf'�"�P�� � �`..� `�`• � ��t.
� M�%f��lf�.��;� � �4 V�A�+7' J.Y .R ;;i' } .'�' '� t�t�r� n,y`•`MC I
J �H� '! .s:�. .7t. i y^_,., a•w a��'a]; •7,,,r• c�j�3�"y�
. .a _._ -. .r i::• >7 - �xi�., •tY ��'1Ri fr 7 .. � „� -�tBMR &`�x w, - 'Zi�r�'�y��l
r .� 1 ��} 4wr ,e + � s�` y��,• .''ff1 .� x �yo-a "ti �'+•i7i
- � '44+E%�. -��r �P"y fx G„y� 5 nt• j i.r� j. r
Frei
;. a f3 1Y y
� ,.;-?tea,• ' '�-r.� •tds�}��.1����r��y�"'1� - _ y�
i.16j
� � t
I
l�-'*x w'a� � �.,• r t .r ,�"f�WTy,� ''t7't1�,,:�` ->r•'-tt�Cn� �""'�"'� �..,e���'�'.�r�'`Ys .�.�i'�k� -.^it1,..51
Y6r` �rw•.� "c '.� ` c [ , � "'3 t el..7q Pte..,.+ = .t ai' Sr�R�
�1'n'�•^L�+'�,., w..,};�.alud ,�-. d,t Y ''}}•'�w.5e :� tr ii
SALESMAN: SCALE:
e_t k 1. �,Jhr;H� a ° i �i..., C rx y} ,` a E a. .� `'' .�• 6325 WELCOMEAVE.N. CHRIS CIARK NTS
MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55429
�M
irk ilh �r a I � ' r fir} yl Suyd ` b. ,7 ^r r s 1 o nl s (612(535 0080 FILE: LOCATION:
iM ST-ANTI.CDR Tennis court
71
(2) In a district zoned for light industrial businesses, signs containing one
square foot for every 100 square feet of ground floor space will be allowed
up to a total sign surface area of 150 square feet.
Subd. 4. Recreational Open Space. The following signs are pern fitted in a Recreational
Open Space District and may be erected after obtaining a permit and paying required
license fee.
(1) Subject to approval of the Council, only ground and wall signs are allowed
in this district. The ground sign may have a sign surface area not to
exceed 150 square feet.
(2) Subject to the approval of the Council, and as.a conditional use, electronic
message signs. The procedures contained in Section 1605.04 shall apply
to the issuance of a conditional use permit for an electronic message sign.
The conditions with respect to the-issuance of any conditional use permit
for an electronic message sign shall cover at least the following:
a. the sign shall not be permitted to flash or contain any animation.
b. the hours of operation of the sign; provided, that in no event shall
the sign be permitted to be operated between the hours of 10:00
PM and 6:00 AM.
C. the message changeability shall be limited to the minimum amount
of changes required to accomplish the purpose of the sign.
d. aesthetics of sign, including, but not limited to, message color, size
of message board and sign, construction materials and landscaping.
e. location of sign with regard to surrounding area.
f. sign may only be used to promote items of general interest to
community.
1400.13 Adiustments and Appeals.
Subd. 1. Composition. The commission of adjustments and appeals will be comprised of
all of the members of the Planning Commission.
Subd. 2. Powers and Duties. The commission will hear and make recommendations to
the Council regarding:
(1) Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement,
decision or determination made_ by an administrative officer in the
enforcement of this Chapter.
14-13
"Draft"
POLICY FOR THE COMMUNITY BULLETIN BOARD SIGN
The City of St. Anthony has erected an Electronic Community Bulletin Board Sign at 3301
Silver Lake Road and desires to adopt a policy in regard to messages placed on the Electronic .
Bulletin Board.
The following guidelines will be used in placing messages on the Bulletin Board:
1. Scope:
a. The Community Billboard is an electronic marquee located at 3301 Silver Lake
Road.
2. Purpose:
a. To communicate effectively with all City residents, businesses, visitors and
community members.
b. To give City functions and community organizations the publicity for which the
sign was intended.
c. To provide newsworthy information and notices of organizational events,public
meetings, activities, opportunities and programs.
3. Operation:
a. The activity or event to be announced must be taking place locally or originate in
St. Anthony.
b. Notice of private activities, without a public purpose, and private business
functions will not be displayed.
c. Messages will be in good taste, with the City reserving the right to make final
determination as to what will or will not appear on the sign,how it will be
presented and in what order it will appear.
d. Length of time the message will appear on the board will range from two to ten
business days.
e. Events will be placed on the board subject to the priority and judgment of the
City.
Electronic Sign
Page 2
4. Priority Order:
a. City Council meetings and public notices,
b. City events of a community-wide nature.
c. Events relating to a narrow portion of the community such as churches,
schools and non-profit organizations.
d. City Manager or his designee will have final approval of priority.
5. Political Announcements.
a. Only activities, meetings, etc. which are open to general public will be
announced. Activities or meetings where a fee is charged must have the fee
noted in the announcement.
b. No announcement may endorse, urge, support or attempt to influence the public with
regard to any candidate or issue, nor may any announcement be used for making
statements,promises, or any other campaign messages. Names of candidates or
issues will be used only when such names are necessary to identify the purpose of, or
speakers at, a meeting or an event.
6. Procedure.
a. Requests for billboard space must be made in writing to the City Managers or
his designee two weeks prior to the Monday on which the marquees are
changed.
b. Upon approval, the City Manager or his designee, will provide copies of the
billboard announcement to the requesting person.
C. The format and style of messages presented on the community billboard will
be dictated by the physical limitations of the marquee.
7. Responsibility:
a. The City Manager bears ultimate responsibility for the enforcement
and interpretations of the policies outlined in this procedure.
b. The City Manager may designate an individual (s) who will be
responsible for the implementation and administration of the policies
as outlined in this procedure.
Ir
1� ►�
•. 1/ X 4•;�
x Blank back side
Facing tennis courts
1/ ►1
it
►� I��i l��i l��i l� i l� -4- i
Hv MINT JULEP(14)
I ain thon
ilia e
PAN AKE B
C RE�KFEST
AMERICAN LEGION 4'0
6325 WELCOME AVE, CHRIS CLARK 3/8
SATURDAY 6- 1 �
�j.
MINNEAPOLIS,
_ = 0080 court
Example of a Hennepin County produced park Directional sign:
ONWOW
French �'
Regional
ENTRANCE
Temporary Main Entrance Sign
Three Ri*vers
PARK DISTRICT
SILVERW D
rea
Recreat'llon
"Under ft parent
12 in ►
•
Three Rivers
PARK DISTRICT
12 in
R y 2 in
ORDINANCE ENFORCED
•
ad
TRPD Park Boundary
PMS 295 Rocky Coast
Painted Aluminum
Precise location of
roadside park
directional signs to
Sherwood Signage Map be established by
Ramsey County
Rode - -
• w
Legend N T
+ Entry Sign
• Boundary Marker Sign
--- County Directional Sign
Page 2
Park District staff is aware of the St. Anthony Village request for the placement of a Village
monument sign on Park District property at the corner of West County Road E and Silver Lake
Road. At this time we are not planning to place a Park District sign at that corner,but will
determine if a Park District sign will be needed in conjunction with the response to the Village's
request.
We ask that our sign request be placed on the agenda of the St. Anthony Village Planning
Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 20, 2004. We also would welcome the opportunity to
attend this meeting and update the Commission on our development plans for Silverwood and
answer any questions Commissioners have regarding our sign project for the Park.
Please contact me at (763) 694 7640, if you need further information and/or clarification on our
sign project. I look forward to your response and to working with you further on this and other
projects related to Silverwood that involve both of our agencies.
i
Sincerely,
Denis R. Hahn
Outdoor Education Manager—Special Facilities
c: Douglas Bryant, Superintendent and Secretary to the Board, Three Rivers Park District
Tom McDowell, Director—Department of Program and Facility Services, Three Rivers
Park District
Doug Berens, Central Services Manager, Three Rivers Park District
Jay Hartman,Public Works Director, Saint Anthony Village
July 9, 2004
Susan M.H. Hall
Assistant City Manager
St. Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Dear Ms. Hall,
As we discussed at our meeting on July 7, 2004, Three Rivers Park District will begin limited
park operations at our Silver Lake site(formerly Silver Lake Camp—Salvation Army Site) on
September 15, 2004. As mentioned, the Park District's Board of Commissioners has approved
Silverwood: A Center for Arts and the Environment as the park's name. This fall, we will
provide autumn walking trails and several public programs, including two public open houses to
introduce the community and region to this beautiful park and the Park District's development
plans for Silverwood.
Although the park will be under development for the next two years, we would like to facilitate
limited public access beginning in late September 2004. As a part of this effort, we would like to
install boundary, directional and main entrance signs. Attached is an area site map showing the
approximate sign placement locations for the boundary and directional signs, as well as for the
main entrance sign. Also attached are images of these three types of signs, which are:
Boundaa Signs: 12"x 12"blue and cream-colored signs to be installed on the perimeter fence,
which borders the east,west, and north sides of the Park. An estimated 12 signs will be installed.
Directional Signs: Approximately 48"w x 24"h,brown with white border and white lettering
directional signs placed along the county roads approaching the park. Signs will be placed at the
following three locations (signs, sign locations, and the necessary permits to be provided by
Ramsey County):
1. On the east side of Silver Lake Road and south of the junction of Silver Lake Road
and West County Road E to provide direction to Silverwood for northbound traffic.
2. On the west side of Silver Lake Road and north to the junction of Silver Lake Road
and West County Road E to provide direction to Silverwood for southbound traffic.
3. On the north side of West County Road E and several hundred feet east of the main
park entrance to provide direction to Silverwood for westbound traffic.
Temporary Park Entrance Sign: A 4' x 8' sign including Three Rivers Park District name and
logo and park name. It will be a temporary sign and located at 2950 West County Road E., which
is the current main-public entrance to the park. When the park is fully operational, the location
for a permanent sign will be determined.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 07/12/04 MEETING DATE: 07/20/04
TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission embers
FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Silverwood Sign Plan
Requested Action:
Review the sign plan recently submitted to the City by the Three River Park-District for
Silverwood, located at County Road E and Silver Lake Road. On July 20, the Planning
Commission will hold a concept review on the plan. On August 17, the Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing, with the request going to the City Council on
August 24.
Background:
The Three Rivers Park District is gearing up to open walking trails on the former
Salvation Army Camp Site, now called Silverwood, in mid September. The District staff
is gearing up for this and has submitted a signage plan (see attached). They would like
to install the signs within the next couple of months.
Three types of signs are proposed for the site: (1) boundary signs; (2) directional signs;
and (3) Temporary Park Entrance sign. All of the signs fit under the sign ordinance, with
the exception of the directional signs proposed. The maximum size for a directional sign
is 5 square feet; the proposed directional sign measures 8 square feet; thus, a variance
of 3 square feet for each sign is necessary. One of the proposed directional signs is
shown north of County Road E in the City of New Brighton. That sign would need New
Brighton's approval.
Attachments:
• Letter from Three Rivers Park District
• Sign Plan