HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 04162002 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
iosszi
Box: 34
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2002
Document: PL MINUTES 04162002
, r
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
�2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 APRIL 16, 2002
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER
10 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Melsha invited the Commissioners and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille, Commissioners Hanson, Hoska,
17 Steeves, Thomas, and Tillman.
18 Absent: None.
19 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Henry.
20
21
22 IV. PUBLIC INPUT.
23 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda.
4 45
26 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
27 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda as
28 presented.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
33 6.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 19, 2002.
34 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Vice Chair Stille, to approve the Planning
35 Commission meeting minutes of March 19, 2002 as submitted.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
40 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the April 23, 2002, City Council
41 Meeting.
42 Chair Melsha indicated that Commissioner Tillman was available to attend the next City
43 Council meeting on April 23, 2002.
44
45 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
46 8.1 Troy Martenson.3645 Chelmsford Road: subdivision request for single-family lot.
07 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m.
48
49 Susan Henry stated that Troy Martenson, property owner of the single-family residential
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 2
1 lot at 3645 Chelmsford Road, is requesting a lot split. She explained that Mr. Martenson
2 contacted city staff several months ago about the feasibility of splitting the single-family
3 residential property at 3645 Chelmsford. Because of the lack of details and sufficient
4 information, staff recommended he get a survey completed. Staff also noted to Mr.
5 Martenson that he needed to be the property owner when bringing the subdivision request
6 forward. Since that time, the survey has been completed and Mr. Martenson has closed
7 on the property. Staff has requested proof of ownership paperwork but has not yet
8 received the documentation, like a purchase agreement or deed.
9
10 Henry reviewed the survey submitted by Mr. Martenson that depicts two parcels: A and
1 1 B. Parcel A is drawn to be a substandard lot of 6,420 square feet. Once the lot is split as
12 proposed, Parcel A would become the interior lot. According to city code, interior lots
13 are to be a minimum of 9,000 square feet or less than 75 feet in width at the building
14 setback line.
15
16 Henry noted that Parcel B is drawn to be 17,120 square feet, which needs to be a
17 minimum of 11,000 square feet, or less than 90 square feet in width at the building
18 setback line, to meet city code requirements; this drawn parcel far exceeds that standard.
19 Parcel B's setbacks are not written to City code in relation to the proposed building
20 shown on the survey. The minimum rear yard must have a depth equal to the greater of
1 20% of the depth of the entire lot or 25 feet; the survey shows 13 feet. The minimum
front yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the
3 average of the front yard depths of the two adjacent lots; the survey shows 26 feet.
24 Henry noted that Parcel A does not meet some of City code minimum standards;
25 however, this is the parcel with the existing home and detached garage.
26
27 Henry indicated the total square footage of the subject property is 23,540 (107 X 220)
28 square feet. Although this is enough square footage to technically split the property into
29 two, it is not all-usable square footage due to the easements on the property. Mr.
30 Martenson did not know of the easements until after he, acquired the property and the
31 survey was completed. Prior to the April 16 Planning Commission meeting, he plans to
32 check with Northern States Power on the details about the 75 foot overhead lines
33 easement. She advised that Mr. Martenson and Pioneer Engineering, the surveyor, both
34 received copies of the City's ordinance as it pertains to the single-family zoning district
35 and subdivision of land.
36
37 Henry explained that prior to receiving the survey and when in discussions with City staff
38 about the lot split, Mr. Martenson's sketches on a City plat map showed Parcel A at
39 9,095 square feet and Parcel B at 14,445 square feet. City staff offered to meet and
40 discuss the subdivision request in relation to the city code with the applicant. He said he
41 wanted to wait until after the April 16 public hearing.
42
43Henry stated staff recommends denial of the lot subdivision because it does not meet
04 minimum lot standards nor does it meet the setbacks required by city ordinance. By
45 approving this lot split, the City would be approving a substandard lot (Parcel A). She
46 indicated Mr. Martenson is aware of staff's recommendation and is looking for direction
47 on how he might proceed in working with the City to redevelop the property.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 3
1
2 Troy Martenson, 3645 Chelmsford Road, indicated he was unaware of a 75 foot NSP
3 easement through the back of his property. He stated he may now propose to tear down
4 the single-family home to rebuild townhomes, as he is not going to be able to subdivide
5 the lot and meet the square footage requirements.
6
7 Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Martenson was going to build an additional
8 single family home or duplex on Parcel B. Mr. Martenson stated this was his original
9 plan as he is currently renting a home on Parcel A.
10
11 Chair Melsha asked if the proposed building on Parcel B could be smaller. Mr.
12 Martenson indicated this could be done,but noted the lot split was the first part of this
13 process. He noted a single family home or duplex could be proposed for this site.
14
15 Commissioner Tillman asked if Parcel A was in conformance as suggested by the
16 applicant. Henry stated Parcel A doesn't meet City code at this time with the rear yard
17 setback. Commissioner Tillman added that Parcel A was too small and the proposed
18 building on Parcel B did not meet the City setbacks.
19
20 Commissioner Steeves noted the layout of the building on Parcel B could be modified to
21 meet City specifications. He added that if the structure were more rectangular in shape it
P2 would fit on the lot with a driveway over the NSP easement.
3
24 Chair Melsha suggested Mr. Martenson work with City staff on a plan for this structure
25 before the lot split is approved to see if there is a compromise requiring fewer variances.
26
27 Mr. Martenson asked if he could create an irregular Parcel A to meet the 9,000 square
28 foot limit. Henry stated she would not recommend an irregular lot be created.
29
30 Commissioner Hanson asked if the existing single family home could be remodeled. Mr.
31 Martenson stated the existing structure was extremely old and would not be fit for an
32 addition. He indicated he would be more in favor of removing the existing home to build
33 one that suits his needs.
34
35 Vice Chair Stille recommend removing the existing structure on Parcel A to build a
36 single-family home or duplex that meets his needs on the entire lot. Mr. Martenson
37 indicated he would rethink his plan and visit with staff in the near future.
38
39 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
40
41 Commission Hanson agreed with Vice Chair Stille's comments to have the applicant
42 place a duplex or triplex on this lot with the removal of the existing structure.
43
4 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Commissioner Hoska, to recommend denial
45 of the lot subdivision because it does not meet minimum lot standards nor does it meet
46 the setbacks required by City ordinance and based on the rationale that by approving this
47 lot split, the City would be approving a substandard lot(Parcel A), remembering that the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 4
1 Commission would seek further input from this applicant in the future.
2
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4
5 8.2 Apache Animal Medicine, P.A.. 250137" Avenue NE: sign variance request for one
6 additional ground sign.
7 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
8
9 Susan Henry stated that Apache Animal Medicine, P.A., owner of the commercially
10 zoned property at 2501 37`h Avenue Northeast, is requesting a sign variance for an
11 additional ground sign. She noted that Apache Animal Medicine currently has one
12 ground sign that was installed earlier this year. They are asking for another ground sign
13 for identification purposes because of two distinct businesses located in one building.
14 This request requires a variance because City code states that one principal structure of a
15 parcel of land is allowed one ground sign, regardless of the number of tenants in the
16 building.
17
18 Henry explained that Apache Animal Medicine states an additional ground sign would
19 relieve an undue hardship and correct extraordinary circumstances. In particular, the
20 applicant points to preexisting setbacks and the railroad, forcing two entrances. Also the
21applicant mentions the need to maintain separation between healthy pets (Apache
02 Grooming and Boarding) and potentially ill pets (Apache Animal Hospital) with two
23 entrances. Finally, the applicant states they want to be able to clearly tell clients where
24 the entrances are with safety concerns regarding traffic on 37"' Avenue.
25
26 Henry advised that according to City code, ground signs must be affixed to the ground by
27 means of a base with no visibility between the bottom of the sign and the base on which
28 it is attached, and landscaped to enhance the appearance of the signage. The sign was
29 originally open, as drawn on the plans, and city staff asked the applicant to fill in the gap,
30 as code requires. Since that time the applicant has taken care of this.
31
32 Henry recommended approval of the variance request/additional ground sign on the
33 contingency that the current sign on the property be brought up to city code by filling in
34 the gap between the bottom of the sign and the base to which it is attached with agreed
35 upon materials. The second ground sign approved with this variance should be built
36 identically to the first sign. In addition, the applicant must meet all other code
37 requirements as it relates to ground signs.
38
39 Ray Ogrin, representative for Apache Animal Medicine, thanked Ms. Henry for her
40 presentation. He noted they are requesting these signs to present a clear separation
41 between the healthy and sick animals to this site. Mr. Ogrin stated this would help
42 resolve traffic issues along 37`"Avenue as well.
43
0,4 Commissioner Steeves asked how much sign area was allowed for a building this size.
45 Henry stated up to 64 square feet was allowed on this site and noted they were requesting
46 a 48 square foot sign as a part of the per ground additional sign/variance.
47
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 5
1 Chair Melsha questioned the distance between the two signs. Mr. Ogrin indicated there
2 would be approximately 370 feet between the signs as proposed.
3
4 Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this was a reasonable request to have signage at
5 each parking lot entrance.
6
7 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
8
9 Chair Melsha agreed that this was a reasonable request. Vice Chair Stille stated the two
10 entrances to the building and two separate parking lots creates a uniqueness on this lot.
11
12 Commissioner Thomas stated this was also for the safety of the animals and traffic along
13 37`h Avenue.
14
15 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Tillman, to recommend
16 approval of the variance request/additional ground sign on the contingency that the
17 second ground sign approved with this variance should be built identically to the first
18 sign. In addition, the applicant must meet all other code requirements as it relates to
19 ground signs, with the second sign to be the same dimensions and color as the first.
20
1 Motion carried unanimously.
3 IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
24 9.1 Preliminary Site Plan for Culvers Restaurant, 4000 Block of Silver Lake Road.
25 Susan Henry indicated that the City has been working on an agreement with the owners
26 of Culvers Restaurant in Vadnais Heights to develop the former Hardees site, now City-
27 owned, at 4004 Silver Lake Road into a Culvers Restaurant for St. Anthony. Culvers
28 representatives have been negotiating with Exhaust Pros for their site at 4002 Silver Lake
29 Road. Their plan is to eventually combine the two parcels into one once they close on the
30 Exhaust Pros property in mid May. She noted Steve Sparks would be presenting a plan
31 to the Commissioners.
32
33 The restaurant seating is planned for 160 people. The proposed hours of operation are
34 from 10:30 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. Culvers representatives are aware of the Northwest
35 Quadrant Redevelopment Plan and have been in communication with Len Pratt. Both
36 parties agree it is imperative to tie the new Culvers Restaurant to the Apache
37 area redevelopment effort.
38
39 Henry explained that at this point, Culvers representatives want to share their preliminary
40 plans for the 4000 Block of Silver Lake Road with the Planning Commission. Culvers
41 representatives are planning to be back to the May or June Planning Commission meeting
42 with final development plans and the public hearing.
43
Steve Sparks, representing Culvers Restaurant, introduced himself and handed out menus
5 to each of the Commissioners. He explained all Culvers Restaurants are owner/operator
46 concepts except for five locations, which are used primarily for training. He noted this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 6
1 assists in keeping the stores flourishing. Mr. Sparks noted Culvers is a family-style
2 restaurant with a great menu.
3
4 Chair Melsha asked how Culvers differed from other fast food stores. Mr. Sparks stated
5 it is a quick-style family restaurant. He noted all orders were made to order with drive
6 through orders being met in four minutes or less.
7
8 Mr. Sparks explained that when orders are placed inside, people are able to sit and their
9 food is brought out to them. He noted this restaurant is much more home-like, falling
10 somewhere between McDonalds and Applebee's, with no tip. Mr. Sparks explained it
11 would meet a need in this area for a family style restaurant other than Champ's. He
12 stated the menu is not trendy, it offers a wide variety of food with frozen custard to round
13 out the concept and add depth to the menu. Mr. Sparks indicated this wide variety assists
14 in keeping Culvers viable.
15
16 Commissioner Thomas questioned how the typical seating was in a Culvers Restaurant.
17 Mr. Sparks stated 120 people is the norm for a Culvers Restaurants, where he is
18 proposing 160 seats. He noted in speaking with City staff about the Hardees site,there
19 would be adequate parking for this building if the seating were bumped up to 160. Mr.
20 Sparks stated the additional seating could be used for business meetings,birthday parties,
21 etc.
2
3 Commissioner Thomas indicated the site is in a planned unit development and will have
24 some similar design standards that will have to be met. He questioned if Culvers was
25 willing to meet these design standards,or even to eliminate the blue roof. Mr. Sparks
26 stated this may be possible, but would take time to gain approval, as this has become a
27 trademark to the franchise. He stated he would be willing to work on it though to meet
28 the standards of this planned unit development the City has been working on. Mr. Sparks
29 noted he met with Len Pratt and noted his architect would be working to comply with all
30 City standards.
31
32 Chair Melsha asked what the timeframe was for this project. Mr. Sparks indicated he
33 would like to be in the ground by July I". He noted all final plans would be to the City
34 by Monday, with the total construction taking approximately 16 weeks.
35
36 Commissioner Thomas questioned if there would be a bike rack on this site. Mr. Sparks
37 stated there would be a 20-space bike rack.
38
39 Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a moratorium on this site. Henry stated she
40 didn't know if this is still in place and noted she would bring this to the City Manager's
41 attention.
42
43 Chair Melsha asked if there was any evidence of contamination on the Exhaust Pros site.
04 Mr. Sparks stated he would be completing a Phase I and Phase II. He noted that he
45 would not be constructing a building with a basement and would therefore not be
46 impacting the groundwater. He stated his structure would be slab on grade as the current
47 structures sit today.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 7
1 Mr. Sparks reviewed several photos of the proposed Culvers. He indicated the dining
2 room was the major difference between Culvers and other fast food restaurants. Mr.
3 Sparks noted the blue and white color scheme has become the trademark and indicated
4 approximately$30,000 would be spent on the landscape plan for the green space. He
5 indicated there would be roughly 8-10 out door patio settees.
6
7 Chair Melsha questioned if the traffic gets backed up often in the drive through,with
8 customers having to wait for their orders. Mr. Sparks noted this becomes a minimal
9 problem and is addressed at a staffing level to maximize staff at peak times. He
10 explained drive-through orders are stressed to be complete within 4-5 minutes. Mr.
11 Sparks noted the layout of the drive-through as it exists does allow for some stacking.
12 He explained that at Culvers, 30%of the orders are drive-through with 70%of the orders
13 are in house. Mr. Sparks indicated Culvers is seen as a destination restaurant as opposed
14 to other fast food restaurants.
15
16 Commissioner Hanson asked how many people would be hired for this restaurant. Mr.
17 Sparks indicated there were roughly 60 positions. He noted 14 employees would be full-
18 time with all others maintaining part-time employment, the majority being teens. Mr.
19 Sparks noted Culvers has a very low turnover rate in comparison to other fast food
20 establishments. He indicated this has much to do with the philosophy behind Culvers
�21 and their community involvement.
`�3 Chair Melsha thanked Mr. Sparks for his presentation and stated he looked forward to
24 seeing him again in May or June.
25
26 9.2 Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Update.
27 Henry stated the Commissioners could review the business newsletter enclosed in their
28 packets which was mailed out recently and noted Len Pratt is working with a group to
29 structure his conversations as he moves forward to addressing the surrounding businesses
30 and property owners.
31
32 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
33 Commissioner Hanson noted some of the plywood has been taking down on the library at
34 Apache, he noted they are making progress and that the library will be open within a month. He
35 noted there were still several vacant spots within the mall.
36
37 Commissioner Thomas handed out information on the Living Green Expo and invited the
38 Commissioners to attend. He cautioned the Commissioners that Culvers not be moved through
39 the Planning Commission process too quickly. Commissioner Thomas stated he wanted to make
40 sure this project met the design standards of the PUD. Henry stated she would be forwarding
41 plans to the design team so they are able to offer comments.
42
43 Chair Melsha asked how they felt about Culvers at this time. Commissioner Hanson stated this
Qsite also is outside of the main square, which may leave the design standards more open.
5
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
• Page 8
1 Commissioner Thomas stated the development process for a PUD was created and should be
2 followed. Henry indicated there really was not a PUD at this time because it went away with the
3 Hillcrest development proposal,when that fell through.
4
5 Commissioner Hoska noted he attended a conference for new Planning Commissioners and
6 stated this was very informative and interesting.
7
8 Vice Chair Stille agreed with Commissioner Thomas at this time and noted the Commission
9 should be patient to make sure this design was well thought through and planned. He noted the
10 volunteer dinner was planned for April 26`h. He explained invitations have been sent out and
11 noted it was a nice event in the past to attend.
12
13 Henry requested input from the Commission about the candle amendment, based on what is now
14 known. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this should be revised. Henry noted she would
15 speak with the City Attorney and bring this back to the Commission at the next meeting.
16
17 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
18 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Chair Melsha, to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
Respectfully submitted,
3
24
25 Heidi Guenther
26 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
27
•