HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08201996 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101039
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1996
Document: PL MINUTES 08201996
J
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 AUGUST 20, 1996
.4 L' CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Bergstrom at
6 7:00 P.M.
. 7- II. ROLL CALL.
8 Commissioners present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Delmonico (arrived at 7:03
9 P.M.), Franzese, Gondorchin, Horst, Makowske, and Thompson.
10 Commissioners absent: None.
11 Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant.
12 III. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 20, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
13 Motion by Thompson, seconded by Makowske,to approve the Planning Commission Agenda for
14 August 20, 1996 as presented.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
6 IV. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 16, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
'. MINUTES. .
18 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Bergstrom,to approve the July 16, 1996 Planning Commission
19 Meeting minutes with the following changes:
20 Page 5, Line 2: delete: "based on the exemption of spot zoning and setting a precedent"
21 and replace with"because it is representative of spot zoning which is
22 detrimental to the character of the immediate vicinity and St. Anthony
23 Village in general, would set precedent potentially to lead to the
- 24 - - destabilization and devalidation of-the Comprehensive Plan objectives and
25 the City's Zoning Ordinances, and unwillingness of the applicant to
26 physically modify the home to the recommendations of Staff'.
27 Page 9, Line 12: delete"and County Road D".
28 Page 9, Line 3: before"this" insert"the timing of and after"because of insert"increased
29 traffic due to CUB".
30 Commissioner Delmonico arrived at 7:03 P.M.
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 V. DESIGNATE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO AUGUST 27, 1996
33 COUNCIL MEETING.
Commissioner Franzese was appointed as the Planning Commission representative for the
5 Tuesday, August 27, 1996, City Council meeting. _
J
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• August 20, 1996
Page 2
1 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
2 A. Subdivision of Property and Replatting Request-Arnie Gregory, The Arbors, Old
3 Highway_8 (96-12)
4 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m.
5 It was noted that Commissioner Makowske would not participate in discussion or voting on this
6 item due to a conflict of interest.
7 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant reported Arnie Gregory, developer for the Arbors
8 Townhomes, has requested that Block 2 and 4 of Auditor's Subdivision 377 be subdivided in
9 order to replat. The replatting-would accommodate revised construction plans to build six
10 townhomes with master bedrooms on the main floor. In order to accomplish this,the revised
11 master bedroom plans require additional floor area on the lower level that by eliminating one unit
12 in each of the two buildings would provide.
13 If his request to replat the property is approved, it would lessen the density of the project which
14 would reduce traffic and noise in the development. Mr. Gregory felt this reduction in the density
15 would be a benefit to neighboring properties as well.
Staff is recommending that this request for subdivision of property be approved. The proposed
subdivision and replatting will not affect any setback variances already approved nor will he
18 need to request additional variances to construct the larger townhomes. Staff has not received
19 any responses from the neighbors to Mr. Gregory's request to subdivide his property.
20 Chair Bergstrom requested clarification of the units on the two maps-presented in the
21 Commissioner's packet.
22 Mr. Jack Buxell, representing Arnie Gregory, explained the terms `Block"-and`Building" are
23 used interchangeably. He then illustrated the layout of the buildings on the final plat and
24 diagram. He explained this request was to change Building 2 from four units to three units,
25 Building 4 from four units to three units and Building 3 to remain a three unit but to enlarge the
26 footprint of the building slightly. This will result in a reduced unit count from 18 to 16 but the
27 footprint of the subdivision will be slightly larger.
28 Mr. Buxell explained the previous plat included 36 parking spaces in front of garages of 18
29 homes and 7 guest parking spaces. The replatting will include 31 parking spaces in front of 16
30 homes and 9 guest parking spaces. One garage will have only one parking space. The
31 architecture of the buildings will remain the same.
32 Commissioner Franzese asked if this was the same plat which was approved last year and if the
zoning had changed.
Planning Commission_ Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 3
1 Ms. Manager Moore-Sykes explained the developer had originally applied for R-4 zoning but it
2 had been reduced to R-3.
3
4 Commissioner Franzese asked if the height of the buildings had changed.
5 Mr. Buxell stated there was not an increase in height of any of the units.
6 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:20 P.M.
7 Motion by Bergstrom, seconded by Horst, to recommend City Council approval of the request
8 for subdivision of property for Arnold Gregory,Arnold Development, Auditors Subdivision 377,
9 Blocks 2 and 4, Old Highway 8, changing the configuration of Building 2 and Building 4 from
10 four units to three units and the footprint of Building 3 and reconfiguration of parking.
11 Vote on the motion: Bergstrom, Delmonico, Franzese, Gondorchin, Horst, and Thompson voted
12 aye. Commissioner Makowske abstained.
13 Motion carried.
Chair Bergstrom noted this issue will be considered at the August 27, 1996 City Council
meeting.
16 B. Variance Request for Non-Conforming_R-1 Lot-Bruce Nedegaard. Fordham Drive-(26-
17 13�
18 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:23 P.M.
19 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported Bruce Nedegaard,-owner of Nedegaard.Construction is requesting a -
20 variance for lot area and size for his property located at Outlot C, Fordham Drive. Originally,
21 this property was to be replatted along with the property at 3929 Fordham Drive owned by Tom
22 and Diane Schroeder in order to make both properties conforming residential lots. As a result of
23 the City amending its lot coverage ordinance,Mr. and Mrs. Schroeder later decided to remodel
24 their current residence, leaving Mr. Nedegaard with a residential lot that is not buildable because
25 it does not meet the City's ordinance regarding lot size and area.
26 Currently, the lot is 67.51 feet in width and 8,766.3 square feet. The City's ordinance requires
27 that a buildable residential interior lot be 75 feet wide and 9,000 square feet. Outlot C requires a .
28 variance of 7.49 feet in width and 223.7 square feet.
29 Staff is recommending that this request for a lot area and size variance be approved.
The City received one telephone call in favor of Mr. Nedegaard's development plans for the lot
31 and one in opposition. The City has received no other comments. Moore-Sykes explained the
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• August 20, 1996
Page 4
1 call in opposition was received from the son of a property owner who had requested a lot split
2 but was denied because it would have created an unbuildable lot.
3 Bruce Nedegaard,Nedegaard Construction explained that originally Mr. Schroeder and his wife
4- were going to take their house down and both lots were in conformance. Since that time, the
5 Schroeders did not remove their house and the ordinance changed. This left a non-conforming
6 lot 67 feet in width. Mr. Nedegaard noted the lot was short in width but building plans will not
7 require a side, back, or front yard variance.
8 Commissioner Horst stated he had visited the Schroeder home and Mrs. Schroeder stated there
9 had.not been an agreement between the Schroeders and Nedegaard construction.
10 Mr. Nedegaard noted the purchase agreement had been signed by Mr. Schroeder and the City of
11 St. Anthony did have a copy. Moore-Sykes confirmed this was true.
12 Commissioner Horst asked if Outlot D was being sold to the Schroeders and if Mrs. Schroeder
13 was aware of this.
14 Mr. Nedegaard stated Outlot D was sold to the Schroeders on a contract for deed basis. Mrs.
Schroeder did sign the purchase agreement for the outlot.
16 Commissioner Horst asked if there are other lots of this size in St. Anthony.
17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated there are several non-conforming lots in the City of St. Anthony that
18 have existing homes.
19 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:29 P.M.
20 Commissioner Horst stated he had visited the Schroeder property to determine if there was any
21 objection to the variance. Mrs. Schroeder seemed to have no objection and wanted the property
22 to be developed. Commissioner Horst stated he felt the variance should be granted as there
23 seemed to be no objection from the neighbors.
24 Chair Bergstrom_applauded Mr.Nedegaard for taking a non-conforming lot and building a house
25 without setback variances. This is keeping the intention of the Comprehensive Plan and the
26 City's goals.
27 Motion by Delmonico, seconded by Horst, to recommend approval of a lot area and size variance
28 of 7.49 feet in width and 223.7 square feet for Bruce Nedegaard,Nedegaard Construction, Outlot
29 C, Fordham Drive.
i
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes,
August 20, 1996
Page.S
1 Commissioner Makowske suggested the motion be amended to include, "Strict enforcement
2 would cause undue hardship not created by the landowner due to the lot size and the City's
3 change in Code contributed to the cause of not being able to build using a conforming lot."
4 Commissioners Delmonico and Horst accepted the amendment to the motion.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 Chair Bergstrom noted this issue will be addressed at the August 27, 1996 City Council meeting.
7 C. Sideyard Setback Variance Request for Attached 2-Car Garage - William Hedberg?, 2509-
8 30th Avenue N.E. (,96-1D_.
9 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:32 P.M.
10 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported that William and Evelyn Hedberg, 2509 - 30th Avenue N.E., have
11 submitted an application for a side yard setback variance of 5 feet in order to construct a 20 foot
12 by 24 foot 2-car garage that will be attached to the east side of their home.
13 Currently, the owners have a single car garage that sets back from the house and five feet from
the property line. The proposed attached 2-car garage would sit in front of the existing single car
T5 garage. The variance is needed because the west side of the house sits five feet from the property
16 line as well. The combined side yard setbacks for this property is 10 feet;the City Ordinance
17 requires a combined total of 15 feet for side yard setbacks.
18 When Staff asked about adding to the existing garage structure,the owners indicated that they
19 had a need for the additional garage space and that attaching it to their home would provide
20 security to them both from the weather and possible criminal activity that might be directed at
21 them because of their age. Their proposed attached double car garage would have two doors, one -
22 in the front and the other in the back so that they can have access to the existing garage that will
23 sit behind the proposed garage. The existing garage will be used to store equipment.
24 The owners were advised by Staff to apply for a variance rather than obtaining a garage setback
25 permit because the double car garage addition is being attached to the house, thereby making it a
26 part of the principal structure of the property. When an accessory building(including garages)is
27 attached to the principal structure of the property, then the setback requirements of the principal
28 structure apply (Section 1650.02, Subd. 3). The City Attorney was contacted and concurred with
29 Staffs interpretation of the City Ordinance. A copy of a letter received from City Attorney is
30 included in the Commissioner's packet.
31 Staff has also received several telephone calls and a signed petition from neighbors in opposition
to the proposed construction of the attached double car garage. A letter from the owners'
immediate neighbor to the east was also received stating they are concerned with the potential
34 loss of visibility as the result of this project. Many were also concerned about what it would look
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 6
1 like with two garages on the same property. They felt something could be constructed that
2 would meet the owners' needs and be acceptable to the neighbors.
3 Staff is recommending the request for a five foot variance to the side yard setback be denied
4 based on no demonstrated hardship and on the amount of neighbor opposition presented.
5 Commissioner Franzese noted the letter from City Attorney dated August 19, 1996 in regard to
6 this issue contained inaccurate information as it did not address the current issue. There was
7 Commission consensus that this issue did however, require a variance request.
8 Mr. Bob Schmidt, representing William and Evelyn Hedberg, distributed photographs of the
9 Hedberg residence and other properties in the area. Mr. Schmidt stated the Hedbergs only other
10 options would be to add a single car garage, 11 to 12 feet wide, within the existing buildable area
11 or add to the existing garage which would result in a loss of access. The Hedbergs feel they have
12 a hardship due to their age and a safety issue. They need space to store a utility trailer and also to
13 store their granddaughters car. Mr. Schmidt suggested other lots in the neighborhood are closer
14 than allowed to the property line.
15 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if the Hedbergs had considered widening the existing garage
and attaching it to the house by way of a breezeway.
17 Mr. Schmidt stated this was not possible due to a•three season porch that would have to be
18 removed, the large amount of lot coverage that would result and a 75 foot mature tree that would
19 have to be removed.'
20 Commissioner Makowske questioned the width of the new garage and stated upon inspection of
21 the lot, he had found nothing unusual about the size, shape or topographics.
22 Mr. Schmidt stated the proposed garage would be 16 feet wide to comply with the ordinance that
23 requires 5 feet between eaves of buildings..
24 Mrs. Grewe, 2513 - 30th Avenue N.E., stated she lived next door to the Hedbergs. The proposed
25 garage would completely block her view of the street. She felt there was plenty of room on the
26 lotto consider other options. She felt the single car garage could be enlarged and brought up to
27 attach to the house without blocking her view. Mrs. Grewe stated she would also like a two car
28 garage but was in the same situation as the Hedbergs.
29 Commissioner Thompson asked if it would be possible to widen the single car garage and pull it
30 forward on the lot.
Mr. Schmidt stated this was not usually successful with a stucco building.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 7
1 Mrs. Grewe stated there was blacktop behind the garage and suggested the garage could be
2 moved back and the new garage could be built in front of it.
3 Mrs. Helen Wressell, 2920 Roosevelt, stated she did not agree with the safety concerns. She felt
4 this was the safest area to live in and noted everyone in the neighborhood looked out for each
5 other.
6 Mr. Walter Feigal, 2505 - 30th Avenue NE, stated he lived on the west side of the Hedbergs. He
7 suggested the garage be moved four or five feet over and a new garage constructed. He noted
8 fences were restricted to six feet in height and the garage would be much higher than that.
9 Mrs. Kerry Fritze, 2508 - 30th Avenue, stated she did not agree with the safety concern. She
10 stated she had constructed a fence on her property which required a variance but she had received
11 permission from her neighbors. She would also like to construct a double garage on her lot but
12 there is not room. She felt the proposed garage would increase the chance of intruders on the
13 Hedberg's property.
14 Commissioner Franzese noted this was a difficult situation and encouraged the neighbors to
15 continue working together.
it Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:55 P.M.
17 Chair Bergstrom stated the City Codes prescribe what a property owner can do on his property
18 up to a certain limit. There is room on the lot to build some type of structure. He acknowledged
19 the non-conforming structures in the neighborhood but stated they were in existence before the
20 City Code.
21 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he had viewed the.site and did not feel the request was out of
22-- line. The windows at the Grewe residence currently face the garage and he did not feel the
23 proposed garage would affect the view or the resale of the house. He noted the Hedbergs could
24 construct a fence and that would block the view completely. Commissioner Gondorchin noted
25 however, after visiting the site,he had difficulty seeing that strict enforcement would cause an
26 undue hardship. He encouraged the Hedbergs to discuss other options available with Mr.
27 Schmidt.
28 Chair Bergstrom stated in terms of community development, he would almost always support a
29 proposal that increased the value and utility of a structure. However, in this case he was
30 concerned with supporting an undue hardship.
31 Commissioner Horst stated he saw no undue hardship in this case. He felt the request was based
solely on convenience. He also felt this was not a unique circumstance but very common to lots
in the City of.St. Anthony.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 8
1 Commissioner Gondorchin stated granting the variance would be within keeping in the spirit of
2 St. Anthony as it would allow the chance to upgrade a garage and also the circumstances are not
3 created by the landowner as this is an existing structure. However, he did feel there were other
4 options available to the Hedbergs.
5 Commissioner Delmonico stated he agreed there were options available to the Hedbergs.
6 Commissioner Franzese noted it was valid to want a two car garage but also was unable to find
7 undue hardship or extraordinary circumstances.
8 Commissioner-Makowske agreed.
9 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Horst, to recommend City Council deny the request for a 5
10 foot side yard setback variance, William and Evelyn Hedberg, 2509 - 30th Avenue N.E. as the
11 Commission is unable to demonstrate an undue hardship,there are no unusual physical
12 characteristics of the land, no extraordinary circumstances exist, and City Ordinance for this lot
13 pertains to all other lots in the area and does not cause the problem.
14 Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Bergstrom noted this item will be addressed at the August 27, 1996 City Council meeting.
16
17 D. St. Anthony Health Care Center, Mike Miller(96- U.
18 1. Conditional Use Permit.
19 2. Parking Setback Variance.
20 3. Lot Coverage Variance.
21 4. Rear Yard Setback Variance.
22 5. Side Yard Setback Variance. -
D Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 8:07 P.M.
24 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported Mike Miller, Administrator and owner of the St. Anthony Health
25 Care Center has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit in order to build an addition to
26 the St. Anthony Health Care Center that will expand the size of the nursing home and assisted
27 living health care center. The proposed addition will have two floors which will add 16,000
28 square feet for the nursing home and another 16,000 on the second floor for assisted living units.
29 The proposed conditional use is a use that is specifically listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance as
30 permitted in this zoning district.
31 The owners recently received approval from the State of Minnesota to expand the size of the
32 facility so as to accommodate the construction of 2-bed rooms that will replace the current 4-bed
rooms. The approval is required before any nursing home facility can expand and it was
determined by the State that St. Anthony Health Care Center was most in need of expanding by
35 assigning their application first priority. The facility will not be increasing the number of beds,
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• August 20, 1996
Page 9
1 only the.number of rooms, which will provide more livable space and privacy to the residents of
2 the facility.
3 The State of Minnesota recognized their need to build the proposed addition by granting them an
4 exception to the moratorium that is in place to prevent the construction of additional nursing
5 homes or expanding the number of beds for a nursing.home facility. By adhering strictly to the
6 City's Ordinance requiring a 30 foot parking setback, St. Anthony Health Care facility will not
7 be able to construct their proposed addition, thereby causing an undue hardship for their residents
8 to continue to exist.
9
10 The St. Anthony Health Care Center has been operating at this site for 29 years in the same
11 capacity. Despite the long history this facility has in the City,the Center has not been shown to
12 be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of anyone residing or working in the
13 vicinity of the facility. It has also not been detrimental to property values in the area.
14 In addition to obtaining the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed expansion,the owners need
15 to obtain several variances because of the unique situation of this property and that of Chandler
16 Place. It has long been recognized that both Chandler Place and St. Anthony Care Center lack
adequate parking. This is evidenced by the amount of parking that occurs on Foss Road and
Chandler Drive. Part of this proposed expansion project will be to provide additional visitor
19 parking on site.
20 Mr. Miller has filed an application for a 15 foot variance to park in the sideyard setbacks at Foss
21 Road and Chandler Drive. The ordinance requires a 30 foot setback when the sideyard is
22 adjacent,to the public right-of-way. Parking plans have been submitted that show four parking
23 spaces in the parking setbacks of Chandler Place on Chandler Drive side and St. Anthony Care
24 Center on the Foss Road side.
25 Mr. Miller is requesting this variance because the expansion of the St. Anthony Health Care
26 Center will need a minimum of 144 parking spaces on site as required by the City's Parking
27 Ordinance. Showing parking spaces in the setback allows him to meet the required number of
28 spaces for his facility and proposed addition. He feels that getting a variance to park in the
29 setback is a better solution to the parking situation than asking for a variance that forgives the
30 eight parking spaces.
31 The curb cuts on both Foss Road and Chandler Drive meet the minimum width requirement of
32 the Parking Ordinance and are far enough from the intersections of 37th Avenue N.E./Foss Road
33 and 37th Avenue N.E./Chandler Drive so as not to obstruct the view of motorists entering or
34 exiting the side streets to either facility.
0 Staff has determined that the curb cuts are far enough from the corners of 37th Avenue N.E. of
36 each affected side street that it will not pose a hazard to motorists. If the owners' variance
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 10
1 request to park in the parking setback is denied, they will then be required to obtain a parking
2 variance for eight spaces. There is no surrounding property available for purchase to
3 accommodate the eight parking spaces needed.
4 Staff is recommending that the parking setback variance request of 15 feet be approved.
5 Because of financing requirements established through HUD, subdivision of the property was
6 done earlier this year creating separate lots for Chandler Place and St. Anthony Health Care
7 Center. This was done to insure that funds to be used for the expansion went to the St. Anthony
8 Health Care Center only. But in creating two separate lots to facilitate financing of the proposed
9 addition,-the existing facilities are in close proximity to each other. The proposed addition to the
10 St. Anthony Health Care Center will now require a 25 foot variance for the.rear yard and a seven
11 foot sideyard setback in order to be constructed.
12 Mr. Miller has filed an application for a 25 foot variance to the City's Rear Yard Setback
13 Ordinance requirement. The ordinance requires that the rear yard must have a depth equal to or
14 greater of 20%of the entire lot or 40 feet in an R-4 zoning district. Mr. Miller has also filed an
15 application for a 7 foot.variance to the City's Side Yard Setback Ordinance requirement. The
16 ordinance requires that there must be two side yards with a minimum width of 15 feet between
the property line and the side of a structure in an R-4 zoning district.
18 The rear and side yard in question are adjacent to Chandler Place, which is owned and
19 administered by the same owners of the St. Anthony Health Care facility.. There also exists an
20 easement between the two existing facilities further south along the same lot line that allows for
21 the transport of meals from the kitchen of the St. Anthony Health Care facility to the dining area
22 of Chandler Place. There will not be detrimental impact to Chandler Place should these variance
23 requests be approved.
24 The purpose of the proposed variances is not based solely on a desire to increase the value or
25 income potential of this property, but will correct overcrowding with an updated and modern
26 nursing home facility.
27 The variances for the rear yard setback and side yard setback are necessary in order to complete
28 the proposed addition. If the variance requests are not approved, the St. Anthony Health Care
29 facility will not be able to alleviate the crowding conditions that four beds to a room creates,
30 thereby causing an undue hardship to continue to exist.
31
32 Staff is recommending that the rear yard setback variance request of 25 feet and the sideyard
33 setback variance request of 7 feet for the SW corner of St. Anthony Health Care Center be
34 approved.
0 The proposed expansion will also require the owners to obtain a variance for lot coverage.
36 Because of the need for increased parking and the proposed addition,the total coverage by
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 11
1 impervious surfaces of both lots is 123,401 square feet; the combined total square footage of the
2 lots is 218,980, which translates to a lot coverage of 56%. The City Ordinance allows a
3 maximum of 50% lot coverage in an R-4 zoning district. Therefore,the owners are required to
4 obtain a lot coverage variance of 13,911 square feet.
5 Staff advised Mr. Miller of the need to also contact the Rice Creek Watershed District to
6 determine if the current storm water retention pond will be adequate to accommodate the storm
7 water run-off from the proposed increase in impervious surfaces. There will not be a significant
8 or detrimental impact to the storm water retention pond that drains Chandler Place and St.
9 Anthony Health Care facility should this variance request be approved. The current lot coverage
10 for both facilities is approximately 52%.
11 Mr. Miller has filed an application for a lot coverage variance of 13,911 square feet. Again, the
12 variance for lot coverage is necessary in order to complete the proposed addition.
13
14 Staff is recommending that the lot coverage variance request for St. Anthony Health Care Center
15 be approved to allow the proposed lot coverage of 56%.
16 Staff is also recommending that the request for a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of use
for the St. Anthony Health Care Center be approved contingent upon obtaining approval for the
variance requests described herein.
19 Mr. Miller held a neighborhood meeting to discuss plans for the expansion. Staff has received no
20 responses from any of the property owners or neighbors.
21 Chair Bergstrom noted these issues have been before the Planning Commission twice and the
22 Commission is familiar with the details.
23 Commissioner Makowske asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the conditional use permit
24 and if he recommended any further conditions.
25 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the City Attorney has reviewed the document and has no further
26 comment.
27 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Franzese to recommend City Council approval of a
28 Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of use of the St. Anthony Health Care Center.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 Commissioner Gondorchin noted all variance approvals would be predicated by approval of the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 12
I Motion by Gondorchin to recommend City Council approval of the parking setback variance
2 request of 15 feet, the rear yard setback variance request of 25 feet, the sideyard setback variance
3 request of 7 feet for the SW corner, and the lot coverage variance request to allow 56% lot
4 coverage for the St. Anthony Health Care Center as it meets the following variance criteria:
5 1. Strict enforcement of the ordinances would cause undue hardship as the facility is
6 landlocked.
7 2. Unique circumstances as the expansion plan is designed to meet the existing changing
8 health care needs.
9 3. The lot coverage is not detrimental as long as it received approval of the Rice Creek
10 Watershed District.
11 4. Granting of the variance will keep the spirit of the zoning process to help redevelopment
12 of the community, create jobs'and keep St. Anthony vigorous.
13 5. Granting of the variance will not alter the character of the area.
4 Chair Gondorchin noted the property is already dedicated to this use. This proposal offers an
opportunity to maintain the facility until the year 2000.
16 Commissioner Franzese noted the high demand for this type of service to the extent that the
17 permit was put to the top of the list and the moratorium was waived at the State level.
18 Chair Bergstrom declared the motion and Commissioner Makowske seconded the motion.
19 Mr.Mike Miller, Administrator and owner of the St. Anthony Health Care Center stated a unique
20 characteristic was that this was the only nursing home in the City of St. Anthony. He reported
21 application had been filed with the Rice Creek Watershed District and would be considered at
22 their August 28, 1996 meeting. His civil engineer has worked with the Watershed engineers and
23 developed a drainage plan which has received preliminary approval. The drainage ponding on
24 site will be expanded by 10% and the same drainage culvert will exist. The existing building
25 will drain partly into the center courtyard and a small amount into the pond. The roof will hold a
26 couple inches of water which will slowly drain.
27 Mr. Miller asked that approval of the variances not be predicated by Rice Creek Watershed
28 District approval as it would have to be brought back before the City Council after there August
29 27, 1996 meeting. Mr. Miller stated he is hoping to have ground breaking on October 1, 1996.
30 D.J. Krans Construction has been selected to do the construction. The construction would then
be completed in April 1997 at which time the remodeling will be completed. One revision to the
plan is that they have found room for two more parking stalls on the Foss Road side. The
33 neighborhood has expressed concern with parking during construction. This has been resolved
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 13
1 with Elmwood Church providing for employee parking. The Caravelle Apartments have also
2 indicated they will allow parking on their site during daylight hours.
3 Commissioner Franzese questioned the issue of trucks.
4 Mr. Miller stated the loading dock area had been reconfigured to allow larger trucks to back in
5 and out. The townhouse residents have been made aware that during construction there will have
6 to be access made available for the trucks to drop off supplies.
7 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 8:30 P.M.
8 Motion by Gondorchin to amend the motion on the floor to read as follows: Recommend City
9 Council approval of the parking setback variance request of 15 feet, the rear yard setback
10 variance request of 25 feet, the sideyard setback variance request of 7 feet for the SW corner, and
11 the lot coverage variance request to allow 56% lot coverage for the St. Anthony Health Care
12 Center as it meets the following variance criteria:
13 1. Denial would create an undue hardship as the site is landlocked.
2. Redevelopment will not alter the character of the area.
15 3. Circumstances are unique to the individual as the project is a redevelopment to meet the
16 changing demands of the health care industry.
17 4. Granting of the variance is keeping in the spirit of community development as it will help
18 in the revitalization of the economic base of St. Anthony by providing jobs.
19 5. The State of Minnesota recognized the hardship and waived the moratorium that is in
20 place to prevent construction of additional nursing homes or expanding the number of
21 beds in a nursing home facility.
22 6. Unique circumstances exist as St. Anthony Health Care Center is the only nursing home
23 in the City of St. Anthony.
24 7. No one is opposed to the redevelopment.
25 Makowske seconded the amended motion.
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
Chair Bergstrom recessed the meeting at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened at 8:40 P.M.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 14
1 VII. CONCEPT REVIEW.
2 A. Proposed Building Site and Plans for SAV II - OPUS. Apache Plaza.
3 Mr. Tom Gurtzner, KKE Architects presented a preliminary site plan for the SAV II Liquor Store
4 at Apache Plaza. This proposal includes an addition to the existing Tires Plus building. The
5 building is approximately 10,000 square feet and the addition of 4,800 square feet will result in a
6 building just above 15,000 square feet. The main entrance of the store will be located at the
7 northeast corner of the proposed building. Parking will be on three sides along with the existing
8 parking. Some regrading will be required to correct drainage on the site. There will be several
9 one way entrances and some two way traffic. There are 27 parking stalls provided for the SAV II
10 store. A total of 54 parking stalls located on the site which exceeds the requirement of 50 stalls.
11 The entire parking lot will be restriped.
12 Mr. Gersner then presented the preliminary floor plan. Total square footage of the SAV II store
13 is 8,300 square feet. Mr. Gersner noted the 60 foot cooler which dictated the layout of the store.
14 Mr. Gersner explained the exterior design of the building. It will coordinate with the current
15 design of the mall. Signs are intended for two sides of the building to.attract traffic from both
16 frontage roads. The signs will be approximately 54 square feet each which is within the sign
17 requirements.
0 Mr. Gersner stated this proposal will require one variance of the interior lot line.
19 Mike Larson, Liquor Store Operations Manager, stated the hardship to justify the variance occurs
20 because the SAV II store has to stay within the building line of the bank and the existing-Tires
21 Plus store.
22 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if Tires Plus was satisfied with the parking arrangement. He
23 also questioned if the width of the building was due to the large cooler.
24 Mr. Gersner stated he believed Tires Plus was satisfied with the parking arrangement. He noted
25 the width of the store was due to the large cooler. Mr. Larson stated the cooler needed to be this
26 size as beer sales accounted for 62%of the store business.
27 Mr. Gersner explained the canopy on the building now will continue to the side of the building
28 and then cut back to a small metal canopy.
29 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if an area was reserved for the dumpster and if the color of the
30 signs had been determined.
31 Mr. Gersner stated the dumpsters belonged to Tires Plus. The bulk of garbage from the liquor
store is cardboard and is stored inside.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
Page 15
1 Mr. Larson stated the color of the signs has not yet been determined but he would work with
2 Tires Plus and OPUS to insure they are compatible on this issue.
3 Commissioner Franzese expressed concern with the curb cuts and the traffic flow on site.
4 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he felt the curb cuts were a good feature to control traffic.
5 Commissioner Horst expressed his concern with the lot line variance and the size of the proposed
6 liquor store.
7 Mr. Larson stated this size was consistent with other liquor stores in the area. They had
8 considered downsizing the building but it was not feasible, especially with a CUB Food Store
9 being built on the site.
10 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Gersner and Mr. Larson for the presentation.
11 B. Proposed Building Site and Plans for Lot 3. Apache 3 Plaza- OPUS.
12 Jay Scott, OPUS Corporation, introduced Lee Steadman, President of Realty Development
13 Advisors. Mr. Steadman has purchased Lot 3 from First Bank, St. Marie Company.
Mr. Steadman stated the proposal will include an 8,500 square foot building which will be
oriented toward Silver Lake Road. Two businesses will be located in the building. One
16 proposed business will consist of 2,000 square feet and will include a low impact drive-through.
17 This area would be ideal for a photo finishing store such as Ames or ProEx. The rest of the site,
18 approximately 6,500 square feet will be used for a video store. 89 parking stalls are provided on
19 the site. The main access will be off 39th Avenue.
20 Mr. Steadman illustrated the elevation of the building. He stated the exterior will be an efface
21 matter with brick on the lower level and rock face block on the back of the building. The
22 building may have to be moved due to the building envelope which is included in the Restrictive
23 Easement Agreement they have with Super Valu. They are currently working with Super Valu to
24 resolve this issue.
25 Mr. Scott explained the building envelope was included in the REA to allow Super Valu to
26 approve the sight corridors. This building appears to be small enough to shift to the north to
27 accommodate the view corridor if necessary.
28 Mr. Scott stated the only variance request would be a parking lot setback variance to the west of
29 5 feet. The other option would be to remove the parking area to the west as the parking stalls are
30 not needed at this time. It would however, be more cost effective to install the parking now. Mr.
31 Scott stated the sign plan should be within the City's sign criteria.
0 Commissioner Franzese questioned the traffic flow. She noted there was only one egress and
33 ingress. She questioned if it would be difficult to turn east when exiting the parking area.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 20, 1996
• Page 16
1 Mr. Steadman stated he did not foresee a problem. Mr. Scott stated there was also the possibility
2 of approaching First Bank to request a drive-line to cross their lot.
3 The Commissioners cautioned Mr. Scott and Mr. Steadman on requesting variances and also
4 complimented them on a good design.
5 VIII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
6 A. Review Submitted RFPs and Select Short List to be Interviewed on September 17, 1996.
7 Chair Bergstrom asked the Commissioners for their input as to the four proposals received for
8 the Comprehensive Plan Update.
9 Commissioner Gondorchin felt all four were quality presentations. He noted the cities Sanders
10 had worked with previously did not appear similar to the City of St. Anthony. DSU seemed as
11 though they may be too quick.
12 Chair Bergstrom stated he had worked with DSU previously. He noted he had spoke with the
13 City and City Attorney and they assured him there would not be a conflict of interest.
14 Commissioner Franzese noted BRW had previously worked with the City of St. Anthony.
0 Commissioner Horst stated he was disturbed at the high cost of BRW and Sanders. He stated he
16 was concerned that the City work with someone who would be dedicated to getting a lot of
17 public input. Norwest Association had a low price and had worked with the City of Wayzata.
18 Wayzata may have more similarities to the City of St. Anthony than some others. Dahlgren
19 appeared to be light on public hearings.
20 Commissioner Makowske stated he felt that Sanders and BRW were more user-friendly and had
21 included a table of contents. He expressed concern with the high price of Sanders and BRW.
22 Commissioner Gondorchin stated it would be helpful to see a product each company has done for
23 a similar City.
24 There was Commission consensus to develop a list of questions and to interview all four
25 companies on August 11, 1996 at 7:00 P.M. Direction was given to staff to draft a letter to that
26 effect.
27 Chair Bergstrom noted the Comprehensive Plan Update may require interaction with Planning
28 Commission members.
29 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he would be willing to help in the private sessions.
Commissioner Delmonico and Franzese stated they would prefer to ask the company what they
need from the Commission and see where each Commissioner's interests lie. Commissioner
32 Makowske stated he was very interested in being involved with this process.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• August 20, 1996-
Page
996-Page 17
1 There was Commission consensus to include the budgeted amount of$30,000.00 for the
2 Comprehensive Plan Update in the letter to the four companies and ask them to be prepared to
3 discuss their proposals in light of the budgeted amount.
4 IX. COMMENTS.
5 A. Commissioners.
6 Commissioner Franzese suggested Staff investigate having Silver Lake Road given back to the
7 City of St. Anthony.
8 B. Staff.
9 1: September Public Hearings.
10 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the issues scheduled for public hearings at the September Planning
11 Commission meeting included the two concept reviews of this evening,the liquor store and
12 video store.
r
13 2. TIF Review- September/October.
14 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the Commissioners will be asked to review amendments to the TIF
15 plan. This needs to be done in September or October and is required by Minnesota statute.
IX. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Delmonico, seconded by Horst, to adjourn the meeting at, 10:43 P.M.
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 Respectfully submitted,
20 Lorri Kopischke
21 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
•