HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08202002Meeting Sheet
105528
Box: 34
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2002
Document: PL MINUTES 08202002
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 AUGUST 20, 2002
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Melsha invited the Commission 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,
17 Hoska, Steeves, Thomas, and Tillman.
18
19 Absent: None.
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Hall.
22
23
4 IV. PUBLIC INPUT.
Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda.
6
27 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
28 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda as
29 presented.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
34 6.1 Review and Approve of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 16, 2002.
35 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Steeves, to approve the
36 Planning Commission meeting minutes of July 16, 2002.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
41 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the City Council regular meeting of
42 August 27, 2002.
43 Chair Melsha indicated that he is available to attend the next City Council meeting on
44 August 27, 2002.
45
46 VIII. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
8.1 Review preliminary site plan for Business Data Record Services, 3015 37"' Avenue
8 NE. -
Page 2
Susan Hall presented the preliminary plans for Business Data Record Services at
2 3015 37th Avenue NE. She noted that their plans call for demolition of four existing
3 buildings and construction of a new 40,000 s.f. building. Although not marked on the
4 preliminary site plan, the applicants may need a variance as they have mentioned a
5 building height of 43-44 feet. Maximum building height in a Light Industrial zoning
6 district is 35 feet. A good example of what this will look like is Business Data Record
7 Services, which was recently constructed at 200 Old Highway 8 in New Brighton. That
8 building stands 42 feet in height. Mr. Cloutier stated his electronic storage business is
9 growing and hence the need for more space.
10
11 Hall said that the City Engineer has asked that drainage be addressed so that the runoff
12 from the site goes to a water retention pond. A new retention pond is shown on the
13 preliminary site plan.
14
15 Mark Murlowski, Chief Executive with Belair Excavating, reviewed a history of this
16 property and stated they would like feedback from the Planning Commission and
17 recommendations to proceed with the next step. He explained they are an affiliate of
18 Berger Transfer, the original and current owner of the property, and the largest Allied
19 agent for household and commercial goods in the nation. Their headquarters is in St.
20 Anthony and they have several other sites as well. The St. Anthony facility was built in
21 the late 1950s, early 1960s, and after that several additions have occurred.
22
Jim White, architect for the project, stated they have completed preliminary planning of
4 this site. He reviewed the uses and buildings that surround this site and stated the project
25 would involve the demolition of four single-story buildings (one being a walkout). He
26 stated Business Data Record Services has gradually been improving the appearance and
27 life/safety issues at the site. He reviewed several of those improvements which included
28 sprinkling the building and improving energy efficiency.
29
30 Mr. White noted the footprint of the new building, which would replace a 40-year-old
31 non-sprinkled building with a sprinkled, precast, maintenance-free building. He
32 displayed a picture of the building and photographs were handed out and reviewed by the
33 Planning Commissioners.
34
35 Mr. White stated the civil engineer has found the watershed criteria can be met and
36 preliminary discussions with them have occurred. He stated from grade to parapet it is
37 42 to 44 feet in height with the first four feet giving the truck dock height. Since the site
38 slopes from the south down 20 feet towards the railroad tracks on the north, the impact of
39 the building height from County Road D is minimal, probably four to six feet higher than
40 the current highest building on the site. Also, there is a small auto shop to the west that is
41 slightly higher than their highest building so this may be about the same height as that
42 building.
43
44 Mr. White stated the benefits to St. Anthony are to improve overall appearance,
maintenance free materials, upgrading fire protection and energy efficiency, they expect
X46 vehicle traffic will be dramatically reduced on Macalester Drive, and providing a new
47 detention pond to control run off. He stated they are requesting variances so they can
Page 3
•1 proceed and requested input from the Planning Commission.
2
3 Chair Melsha asked how much taller this building will be than those being removed. Mr.
4 White stated the buildings being demolished are about 25 feet in height.
5
6 Chair Melsha asked if the setback requirement is being met. Mr. Murlowski stated the
7 proposed setback allow this building to line up with the recently finished vault building
8 at five feet from Macalester Drive and County Road D.
9
10 Chair Melsha asked if that building needed a variance when it was constructed in 1972.
11 Mr. Murlowski stated it did not. Mr. White stated that building was upgraded about two
12 years ago and a variance was not required at that time since the building footprint was
13 not changed.
14
15 Chair Melsha explained the need to show a hardship in order to receive a variance. He
16 asked if there is a unique feature that would result in a hardship consideration.
17
18 Mr. White stated it will consolidate the business operation and provide space for storage
19 and aisles.
20
21 Mr. Murlowski stated the operation is media and record storage as well as fine arts
22 storage. Thus the layout is very important to maximize the volume that can be stored.
*4 Chair Melsha explained that both variance requests need to meet that finding as well as to
25 maintain the characteristics of the neighborhood, which don't appear to be impacted due
26 to the building height. He asked if there can be a reasonable use of this property without
27 the variance.
28
29 Thomas stated if the 35-foot setback from Macalester Drive was required, there would
30 not be enough room for parking and the truck turning radius He noted there are 50
31 parking spaces and asked if that is for employees or visitors.
32
33 Mr. White stated there are 40 parking spaces, primarily for employees since there are few
34 visitors to this site. He stated that is adequate parking for their needs.
35
36 Hall stated that level of parking complies with the City's requirements for this type of
37 facility.
38
39 Chair Melsha asked what would happen to the feasibility of the project should the
40 buildings be required to comply with the Macalester Drive setback.
41 Mr. Murlowski stated they don't know for sure but do know they could not make a
42 proposal with a setback at 25 to 30 feet since the building would not contain enough
43 storage.
44
Vice Chair Stille asked what kind of inside improvements are being made. Mr.
_6 Murlowski stated the buildings have steel rack storage, portions are climate
47 controlled (heated/cooled/moisture condition), and two dock areas for straight trucks
Page 4
are being proposed. He explained there are high bay lighting, gas fired unit heaters,
2 and very wide aisles. For this user, the rack storage system works very well.
3
4 Vice Chair Stille stated he visited the site and did not notice a retention pond. Mr.
5 White stated that would be added as part of the project.
6
7 Vice Chair Stille asked if there will be a common wall. Mr. White stated that is
8 correct and two buildings would be joined with a common wall.
9
10 Vice Chair Stille addressed the issue of finding a hardship and asked the applicant to
11 provide information about the characteristics of this site that would make it unique.
12
13 Steeves recommended they obtain an application form from City staff so they can
14 begin to work on those issues.
15
16 Mr. White noted the pie-shaped corner, which restricts the area to the north.
17
18 Thomas asked if there will be vegetation around the retainage ponds. Mr. Murlowski
19 stated there is not much space but they will be presenting a landscaping plan that
20 provides some plantings. Mr. White noted that area will also be fenced off.
21
�22 Chair Melsha thanked the applicants for providing this information in advance.
�l4 Mr. Murlowski stated they also appreciate the opportunity to present these
25 preliminary plans and will submit a formal application for the September Planning
26 Commission meeting.
27
28 8.2 Review survey information and make recommendation to City Council re:
29 amendment to City ordinance relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory
30 building" and to regulate the size of garages in relation to the floor area ration
31 (FAR) in residential districts.
32 Susan Hall explained this is continuation of a discussion regarding the amendment
33 relating to the definition of"garage" and "accessory building" and to regulate the size of
34 garages in relation to the floor area ratio (FAR) in residential districts. City staff has
35 researched area metropolitan municipalities, with the help of e-mail, on the subject and
36 provided that report for the Commission's review.
37
38 Hall explained the issues she researched and stated that staff found cities handle the
39 "mass" issue in a number of ways. A couple of cities contacted use FAR, like St.
40 Anthony. Arden Hills has a FAR of 30%; Roseville has a 30% FAR in R-1 and 40%
41 FAR in R-2. Most cities contacted do not have FAR, but rather use lot coverage,
42 setbacks, height, maximum garage square footages, to regulate building size. Lot
43 coverage of 25-35% and building height of 25-30 feet are common among the cities
44 surveyed. Some cities surveyed have gone through a similar dialogue as St. Anthony.
Hall explained that generally, it was found that most cities limit the size of accessory
0 buildings and garages in some way.
47
Page 5
Chair Melsha thanked Ms. Hall for her work to research these issues. He noted that St.
2 Anthony does not limit the size of detached accessory buildings except by setback and
3 FAR.
4
5 Thomas asked if the Council received a recommendation from Dahlgren Shardlow Uban
6 (DSU).
7
8 Hoska stated the Council wanted to go from the DSU ideas and asked the Planning
9 Commission to review staff research information so an informed recommendation could
10 be made. He advised that the Mayor also mentioned the information provided by the
11 League of Minnesota Cities. Hoska thanked Ms. Hall for her work as well.
12
13 Hall reviewed how she conducted this research and stated she can do additional research
14 if so directed.
15
16 Chair Melsha stated it seems there are two issues to address: 1) does FAR need to be
17 adjusted; and, 2) should St. Anthony have a design review board. He suggested the
18 Planning Commission come to a recommendation on whether the proposed ordinance
19 should be amended and if there is interest to research whether a design review board
20 should be formed in the future. Chair Melsha suggested the issue of the design review
21 board not delay the third reading of the ordinance.
22
Vice Chair Stille concurred and suggested that a subcommittee be established to address
44 the issues related to a design review board. He noted the amendment to the ordinance is
25 due to the ambiguity in the way the current ordinance is written. He stated he does not
26 know if the FAR is right but it at least corrects the issue of the ordinance not being clear.
27 Vice Chair Stille noted he and Hanson have been on the Planning Commission for four
28 years and this is the first time this issue has been raised.
29
30 Chair Melsha agreed this is not an epidemic and the Planning Commission needs to keep
31 the focus on the issue.
32
33 Vice Chair Stille stated he supports recommending the Council move forward with the
34 third reading.
35
36 Chair Melsha stated garages of up to 1,000 square feet are now going to be excluded in
37 the FAR whether attached or detached. If over that size, it would be included in the FAR
38 calculation.
39
40 Tillman noted that the FAR will limit the amount of second-story space and commented
41 on the impact to the floor area ratio.
42 Thomas stated a speaker at the last meeting made a good point that if you exclude living
43 space above an attached garage, it allows people to build a saltbox on top of their garage,
44 which may not be very aesthetically pleasing or acceptable to the neighbors. He stated he
supports allowing living space above attached garages and attics to allow homeowners
0 the ability to increase their living space without having to move, consider demolishing
47 the home, or covering more of the lot. He agreed with the need for further study since it
Page 6
could be more sophisticated and address smaller lot uses without penalizing them since
2 they may have reached their maximum floor ratio.
3
4 Chair Melsha asked the Planning Commissioners whether they are comfortable with
5 recommending the Council move forward with third reading.
6
7 Thomas asked if the current proposal excludes living spaces above garages.
8
9 Chair Melsha explained that garages of up to 1,000 square feet are now going to be
10 excluded in the FAR whether attached or detached. If over that size, it would be included
11 in the FAR calculation.
12
13 Hall stated it will add more square footage to the FAR.
14
15 Thomas stated the Council minutes mention language recommended by the Building
16 Inspector. Hall stated she has not seen that language.
17
18 Chair Melsha noted the proposed language is not inconsistent with what other cities are
19 doing.
20
21 Hall stated if this is approved, the Brama case would be conforming. She advised that
22 building permit is on hold until the ordinance readings are completed and the ordinance
approved.
4
25 Tillman stated she agrees with recommending the Council move ahead with the third
26 reading since having to count detached but not attached square footage does not seem to
27 be fair.
28
29 Chair Melsha stated he would also be comfortable with recommending the City Council
30 approve third reading with no other changes to the ordinance.
31
32 Thomas stated he would not mind seeing the recommendation of the Building Inspector.
33 Hall stated the Building Inspector did not want to see any changes made to the existing
34 language.
35
36 Tillman stated the current regulation, as written, is not very clear.
37
38 Chair Melsha stated it appears to be the consensus of the Planning Commission to
39 recommend the City Council move forward with third reading of the ordinance with no
40 further amendment.
41
42 Chair Melsha next addressed the issue of further study of a design review board. He
43 stated that he would support forming a subcommittee to address that issue.
44
Tillman stated that it makes her nervous to consider having a design review board since it
*6 is very difficult to regulate "taste" and while some may think the appearance is pleasing,
Page 7
•1 another may not. She stated that the regulations must be "black and white" so it is easily
2 understood if the proposal meets or does not meet the Code.
3
4 Steeves stated in the City of Minneapolis, a 45-day neighborhood review period is
5 required. He explained that often times staff attends the meetings and sees neighbors
6 trying to redesign the applicant's house on the spot. He commented on the problems that
7 can occur with a neighborhood review board.
8
9 Thomas noted that St. Anthony is made up of a whole array of housing styles and
10 different neighborhoods. He suggested that if someone tried to tear down one of the
11 tudors on St. Anthony Parkway, there would be objections from the neighborhood. He
12 noted that while he agrees it can get picky, neighborhood input may be considered the
13 price of democracy.
14
15 Steeves stated the difference comes when someone acquires and develops the lot
16 privately. Then to bring in a design review process seems to him to be somewhat
17 onerous or an exercise that is probably less than productive if not a requirement and just
18 a suggestion.
19
20 Tillman stated there are also market pressures that come to bear since it is not good to
21 have the largest and best house in the neighborhood since it sometimes does not retain its
22 value.
*4 Vice Chair Stille suggested the Planning Commission further study the information
25 provided by staff and discuss whether this process would be applicable in St. Anthony.
26 He noted the design review process may be an avenue to protect some of the
27 neighborhoods in St. Anthony.
28
29 Chair Melsha stated he is not at the point where he is comfortable telling a private
30 homeowner how their house should look and, perhaps, the recommendation to the City
31 Council should be to gather information about the process for review and discussion at
32 the next meeting about whether the Council should take that process further. He stated
33 the Council's meeting minutes do not make clear whether the Council supports the
34 formation of a design review board.
35
36 Thomas stated he thinks there is value in encouraging someone who is renovating a
37 property to talk to their neighbors to get their input. He noted that large renovation
38 projects can impact sunlight or be imposing to adjacent buildings. He stated he would
39 urge them to talk to their neighbors prior to a substantial rehab that impacts other
40 property values.
41
42 Chair Melsha concurred that would be the neighborly thing to do.
43 Planning Commission consensus was reached to further research a design review board
44 process.
*6 8.3 Northwest Quadrant/Apache Redevelopment Update.
Page 8
0 Susan Hall reviewed the report from Jim Prosser to update the City on what is happening
2 with the Apache redevelopment project. She stated this report is also posted on the City's
3 website. Hall advised they are identifying revenues sources and land activities. She
4 stated that there will be another public involvement process later in the year and work has
5 started on design guidelines. Hall stated she has heard they want to start this project in
6 2003 but to meet that timeline, the process needs to start in October or November of
7 2002.
8
9 Chair Melsha asked if Culvers Restaurant has purchased the Exhaust Pros property. Hall
10 stated they have not yet reached a purchase agreement but are still working on it. She
11 stated she has not seen final plans from Culvers.
12
13 IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
14 Commissioner Hanson advised that on September 14th, the St. Anthony Shopping Center
15 and Hitching Post area businesses will be having a Villager Appreciation Day from 10 a.m.
16 to 5 p.m. He advised of the activities that will take place. Hanson reviewed the
17 improvements and landscaping that has occurred to improve the appearance and reported
18 that a hair cutting business will be opening shortly.
19
20 Chair Melsha noted the information included in the meeting packet about the forum on first
21 ring suburbs scheduled for Monday, September 9, in Richfield. He stated he will attend that
22 symposium by Myron Orfield.
*4 X. ADJOURNMENT.
25 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Steeves, to adjourn the meeting
26 at 7:58 p.m.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 Respectfully submitted,
31
32 Carla Wirth
33 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
34
•