HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 06172003 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
105457
Box: 34
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2003
Document: PL MINUTES 06172003
s
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
• PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 June 17, 2003
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 Council 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, Stromgren, and Tillman.
18 Absent: None.
19 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Hall.
20
21 IV. PUBLIC INPUT.
22 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda.
23
0 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
26 Motion by Commissioner Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting
27 agenda as presented.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
32 6.1 Review and Approval Planning Commission Minutes of May 20, 2003.
33 Motion by Commissioner Hanson, second by Commissioner Tillman, to approve the Planning
34 Commission meeting minutes of May 20, 2003.
35
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37
38 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
39 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the June 24, 2003 City Council Meeting.
40 Chair Melsha indicated that Commissioner Hoska was available to attend the next City Council
41 meeting on June 24, 2003.
42
43 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
44 8.1 Request for Side Yard Variance, Dave Stepan, 2813 36`h Avenue NE.
45 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
IR Susan Hall stated that Dave Stepan, property owner of the single-family residential lot at 2813
48 36`h Avenue NE, is requesting a side yard variance of 13 feet for a proposed distance of 32 feet
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 2
from the curb for proposed addition.
2
3 Ms. Hall noted that the City's single-family residential zoning code states that a side yard
4 adjacent to a street must be at least 30 feet wide. In addition, it is a standard city requirement to
5 allow for an additional setback of 15 feet for the easement. Given this, Mr. Stepan must be a total
6 of 45 feet allowance from curb to the new addition along Belden Drive. She advised that the
7 sketch plan from Mr. Stepan shows a proposed distance of 32'2" from the curb. He is asking for
8 a side yard variance of 13 feet. The proposed bedroom addition measures 16 feet by 16 feet.
9
10 Ms. Hall noted that Mr. Stepan points to the undue hardship as not having the accommodations
11 needed. The need, explained in a letter from the applicant, is that an addition will make for an
12 acceptable living situation for his family. He goes on to explain the corner lot City requirements
13 restrict him from adding on needed space and is asking for reprieve for his circumstances.
14
15 Dave Stepan, 2813 36`h Avenue NE, stated that he has the original drawings of his home as it was
16 originally built in 1951. He provided the Commission with an overview of the plans. Mr. Stepan
17 reviewed the original plans with Commission. He reviewed the location of the house on the lot
18 noting that the only logical location for an addition would be on the north side of the house. He
19 explained that he is requesting a variance for additional room and space for his family. He
20 reviewed the plans stating that he would like to add 16' x 16' room, to be located on the north
21 side of the house, closest to Belden Drive. He explained that he would need a total of 45-feet for
Ip the addition. He stated that currently it is 34-feet from the house to the curb noting that any
addition to the Belden side of house would require a variance.
24
25 Mr. Stepan reviewed his understanding of the variance and setback requirements and asked why
26 corner lots are treated differently than lots located in the middle of a block. He explained that
27 without the addition it would create hardship for his family. He reviewed the hardship with the
28 Commission stating that with three growing girls they would need an additional bathroom, which
29 can only done by freeing up one of the bedrooms for an additional bathroom. He stated that this
30 would allow for ample space for his family. He noted that one of the bathrooms is not heated nor
31 does it have hot water. He provided the Commission with a copy of the proposed pian for their
32 review noting that he is presently waiting for a bid from MVP Construction. He referenced a jog
33 needed in the bedroom area and reviewed with the Commission.
34
35 Chair Melsha asked Mr. Stepan to clarify the size of the existing jog. Mr. Stepan stated that the
36 jog is currently 6-inches. Chair Melsha noted that the house is currently within the setback
37 requirements noting that the home was built prior to the current code. He stated that based on
38 current code they are 11-feet out of conformance adding that the Commission would prefer
39 staying within the 11-feet. Mr. Stepan clarified that he does not need more than 10-inches adding
40 that he can accept the changes on the 3-feet. He stated that this would bring it out to the end of
41 the dining room window, which would provide enough space for the addition.
42
0
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 3
Chair Melsha clarified the proposed jog and asked, from an architectural standpoint, what would
2 be sufficient so as to not create a break in the stucco. Mr. Stepan explained that anything from
3 8-inches to a foot would be sufficient noting that the plan shows for an 8-inch jog. He noted that
4 he could go as low as 6-inches.
5
6 Commissioner Hanson asked if the red maple tree in their backyard would have to come down.
7 Mr. Stepan confirmed that the tree would stay adding that the gas line would have to be moved.
8 He clarified that he would discuss this issue with Minnegasco to determine how the gas line
9 could be moved.
10
11 Commissioner Stromgren asked if this would create issues with the location of the air
12 conditioner. Mr. Stepan clarified that the addition would not affect the air conditioner.
13
14 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
15
16 Commissioner Stromgren asked if the application should state the distance from the lot line
17 versus the distance from the curb. He reviewed stating that the existing house is 19-feet from the
18 lot line noting that this is where the setback comes in. Chair Melsha clarified that as long as they
19 are clear in what they are measuring that it should not be an issue. Ms. Hall stated that many
20 people are not familiar with where the lot line is located and assured the Commission that several
21 Staff members reviewed the proposal.
9 Commissioner Tillman acknowledged Mr. Stepan's concerns with respect to matching the
24 current stucco and agreed that the jog would make sense. Vice Chair Stille agreed stating that he
25 reviewed stucco homes in the area that do not have the jog noting that you could see the line in
26 the stucco where the addition meets with the current home. He stated that six inches for the jog
27 is very reasonable.
28
29 Commissioner Stromgren suggested allowing 1 foot to ensure proper blocking of house. Vice
30 Chair Stille agreed.
31
32 Motion by Commissioner Tillman, seconded by Commissioner Stromgren, to recommend
33 approval of the request by Dave Stepan, 2813 36`h Avenue NE, for a side yard variance of 11 feet
34 based on the rationale that hardship is street placed after house is built and existing house is
35 already in setback and house would be put to better use with the extra space.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 IX. CONCEPT PLAN REVIEWS.
40 9.1 Concept Design Review of Stonehouse Redevelopment Plan.
41 Susan Hall indicated that the City has entered into a predevelopment agreement with Amcon
42 Construction to redevelop the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88, also known as the
Stonehouse corner. Amcon has submitted preliminary site and building plans for review. She
46 noted that Stacie Kvilvang is here representing Amcon representatives for Planning
45 Commissioners to comment and ask questions of the preliminary site and building plans. Amcon
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 4
will likely return to the Planning Commission on July 15 for related public hearing requests with
2 final plans.
3
4 Stacie Kvilvang, Project Manager for the Stonehouse Redevelopment Project, provided the
5 Commission with an overview of the proposed redevelopment plan for the Stonehouse property
6 location and the new Fire station. She pointed out that this location is at a key entrance into the
7 City and they would like to base their design on this key point.
8
9 Ms. Kvilvang explained that the current redevelopment plans show 26,000 total square feet of
10 retail in two buildings, 20,000 square feet in the retail portion and 6,000 square feet for the
11 restaurant pad. She stated that the two buildings would include a new municipal liquor store, a
12 new sports bar/restaurant as well as other tenants. She reviewed the location of the building with
13 the Commission noting that one building would be located on the northern portion of the
14 property, at the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88, and the other new building would be
15 situated where the existing strip mall is located. She stated that construction at the Stonehouse
16 site would begin in September 2003 and be completed in March 2004.
17
18 Ms. Kvilvang advised that Amcon is in the process of reviewing the City's commercial zoning
19 code. She stated that presently Amcon would be requesting two conditional use permits, one for
20 the restaurant, as the restaurant is located less than 250 feet from a residential structure or
21 district, which is a permitted conditional use in commercial districts, and one is for the on-sale
9 liquor store, which is also a permitted conditional use in a commercial zoning district.
24 Ms. Hall noted that according to the Amcon representatives, it is likely that several variances
25 would be necessary. She reviewed with the Commission noting that, as a backdrop, it is helpful
26 to know that when looking at the site map, Amcon is considering the restaurant corner to the
27 north as the front yard and rear yard would be behind the retail center and the liquor store, to the
28 south. She explained that currently Amcon would be looking for one variance for the rear yard
29 setback and two variances for the front yard setback. She stated that Amcon Construction has
30 prepared a memorandum related to the preliminary site and building plans and that they would be
31 highlighting these in more detail at the next Planning Commission meeting.
32
33 Ms Hall referenced the parking requirements for the restaurant and explained that the amount of
34 parking needed must be no less than the total designed seating capacity of the structure, divided
35 by 2.5, plus one parking space for each employee on the largest shift. She stated that the design
36 of the restaurant has yet to be determined, so the numbers of seats are unknown at this time. She
37 noted that the developer currently shows 40 stalls for the restaurant. She reviewed the retail
38 component stating that there must be at least one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross
39 floor area.
40
41 Commissioner Tillman asked for further clarification for the location of the outdoor dining and
42 seating. Ms. Kvilvang reviewed the location for outdoor dining with the Commission.
46 Commissioner Tillman noted that the plan shows an area for trash and asked if this would be for
45 public use or for the restaurant. Ms. Kvilvang clarified that it would be for the restaurant.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 5
2 Commissioner Hanson noted that they would be building a new alley way and asked if this would
3 push things forward in order to accommodate the truck loading area. Ms. Kvilvang confirmed.
4
5 Vice Chair Stille asked if the architecture would be integrated amongst the buildings so that the
6 entire corner flows and is compatible with the rest of the area, like the Hitching Post. Ms.
7 Kvilvang confirmed that the two new buildings would match, but that she would have to verify
8 the colors.
9
10 Commissioner Hanson referenced seven additional retail sites on the blueprint and asked for
11 further clarification. Ms. Kvilvang explained that the additional retail would be ancillary
12 businesses and reviewed with the Commission.
13
14 Chair Melsha asked if there were any lighting plans such as fixtures and parking lot lighting
15 available for review. Ms. Kvilvang stated that the lighting plans would be available for review at
16 the next Planning Commission meeting.
17
18 Vice Chair Stille asked if there would be a landscaping plan. Ms. Kvilvang confirmed that there
19 would be extensive landscaping and reviewed with the Commission at the next meeting.
20
21 Vice Chair Stille asked if a sidewalk along the street would be integrated into the plan. Ms.
Kvilvang stated she would check with the developer if they could accommodate the sidewalks
fo along 88`h and Kenzie Terrace.
24
25 Commissioner Hanson asked where the trucks to the liquor store would be able to access. Ms.
26 Kvilvang explained that the trucks would access from the back of the retail area.
27
28 9.2 Concept Design Review of Proposed Public Works Facility Plan.
29 Susan Hall advised that the City is moving forward with the reconstruction of the Public Works
30 Facility. To this end, Oertel Architects has prepared the site plan. It is anticipated the final plans
31 will be presented at the July 15 Planning Commission meeting with the associated public
32 hearings.
33
34 Jeff Oertel, Oertel Architects, stated that the project has been very fluid in last few weeks. He
35 provided the Commission with a revised site plan for their review. He explained that Public
36 Works has several components. He stated that in addition to the new building they would also
37 build a salt stand and storage building. He explained that regulations require that all salt be
38 covered noting that this is included in the current plan. He stated that they decided, as a team, to
39 save the latter half of the existing building in order to reduce the overall costs while retaining the
40 highest level of square footage. He stated that they have determined that there is a need to
41 include a holding pond. He noted that they are not required to do so by the Watershed District,
42 adding that it would be good policy for the drainage.
16 Mr. Oertel reviewed the variance requests with the Commission noting that two curb cuts are
45 being proposed. He also reviewed the curb cuts noting that one cut would provide in and out
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 6
access to the south and a wider curb cut that would be exclusively for entering the building. He
2 stated that they are going to try to cut the grade back in order to provide a better view of the
3 building. He reviewed the main entrance to the site with the Commission noting it would be
4 located on the south side of the building. He explained that they are also proposing 20 vehicle
5 spaces and reviewed the parking with the Commission. He reviewed the building materials
6 noting that the main body of the building would be a precast concrete panel both inside and out.
7 He stated that at the most visible part of the building they would use burnished block and for a
8 decorative element they are proposing metal panels along the top of the building and along the
9 sides noting that it would match with the rear portion of the building. He stated that
10 approximately 80% of the building is a flat roof and 15-20% is pitched.
11
12 Chair Melsha clarified that there is only one variance. Mr. Oertel reviewed the variance requests
13 and explained that the variance would be for the front of the building at the northwest corner,
14 providing that the existing building can be grandfathered. He reviewed the existing fueling
15 system stating that they are proposing to set it back further on the site.
16
17 Chair Melsha asked if the gas island would remain at its' current location. Mr. Oertel explained
18 that they are trying to keep it in the current location for cost reasons noting that there is a
19 possibility that they might be asked to move it.
20
Commissioner Hanson asked if there are any concerns for fire protection if they were to move the
46 existing gas line closer to the lot line. Mr. Oertel explained that the decision to move the gas line
23 occurred over the last couple days adding that the Fire Chief would have to approve the
24 conditions and provide guidelines.
25
26 Chair Melsha asked what is located to the east of the building. Mr. Oertel explained that to the
27 east is residential and garages for the apartments.
28
29 Chair Melsha asked how close the garage structures from the adjacent property would be to the
30 proposed gas line. Mr. Oertel stated that he would have to review the area.
31
32 Chair Melsha asked if fencing is included in the proposal. Mr. Oertel explained that fencing has
33 not been decided yet due to the budget. He explained that the fencing would probably be a
34 combination and that they would have it ready for their review at the next Planning Commission
35 meeting.
36
37 Commissioner Stromgren asked if a conditional use permit is required for the fuel lines. Ms.
38 Hall stated that she did not think so but would verify for the Commission.
39
40 Commissioner Stromgren referenced the cold storage and asked for further clarification. Mr.
41 Oertel explained that they are proposing to integrate and upgrade the current systems. He
42 explained that they are currently reviewing a salt/sand building that would be a self-supported
membrane structure. He stated that he would provide pictures for their review at the next
40 Planning Commission meeting. He reviewed the proposed materials with the Planning
45 Commission stating that the building is a half circle, arch structure that has a fabric that would be
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 7
supported by a steel frame. He stated that the appearance is similar to an old 1940's style
2 building that would be very linear. He explained that salt sand buildings are highly corrosive and
3 that it would be impossible to use metal or wood.
4
5 9.3 Concept Design Review of Proposed Fire Station Plan.
6 Susan Hall informed the Commission that the City is moving forward with building a new Fire
7 Station. To this end, Oertel Architects has prepared the site plan. She advised that it is likely one
8 front yard setback variance and a conditional use permit will be necessary. It is anticipated the
9 final plans will be presented at the July 15 Planning Commission meeting with the associated
10 public hearings.
11
12 The Fire Station would be constructed at 3501/3505 Silver Lake Road, which is zoned single-
13 family residential. City buildings, including fire stations, are allowed by permitted conditional
14 use. The Fire Department would be relocated to a temporary location while the new station is
15 being constructed.
16
17 Mr. Oertel reviewed the variance requirements with the Commission noting that the plan has not
18 changed too much from what the Commission had in their packets. He explained that there
19 would be a one-story building for all equipment and a two-story building for staff, dorm rooms,
20 conference and training. He noted that Silver Lake Road is very busy and that they are trying to
21 address safety issues by providing a single way to get in and out noting it would be cyclical flow,
4R primarily for safety. He explained that they chose the highest spot on street for the exit as it
provides the best visibility. He stated that the most current plan shows the existing trees and
24 vegetation noting that they would like to lower the vegetation for better visibility towards the
25 front of the building. He referenced the parking locations noting that the Staff parking would be
26 located on both sides of the building.
27
28 Mr. Oertel stated that the Mayor recently requested that they review the possibility of including a
29 community area in the building that would have a multi-functional purpose for the public. He
30 explained that the addition would require more space and bathrooms and reviewed the
31 requirements with the Commission.
32
33 Chair Melsha asked why the building could not be moved further east. Mr. Oertel explained that
34 they are trying to minimize the costs noting that it becomes more complicated as the move farther
35 down the hill. Additionally, with the amount of construction involved, the subcontractors would
36 require more room to work around the building.
37
38 Commissioner Tillman reviewed the line of trees along the parking lot and asked if this line of
39 trees would be kept intact. Mr. Oertel explained that they are trying to keep as much of the trees
40 and vegetation as is possible.
41
42 Commissioner Tillman asked where the pump house would be located. Mr. Oertel stated that the
pump house would be located approximately 150 feet south of the building. He noted that there
are a few mature trees at the center of the site that may have to be removed adding that they are
45 currently reviewing all options.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 8
0
2 Commissioner Hanson referenced the property value of the homes in the area and asked how if
3 the values would be affected. Mr. Oertel stated he does not believe that the fire station would
4 have a negative impact, but actually a positive impact as some people feel safer near a fire
5 station.
6
7 Chief Hewitt stated that they have scheduled a neighborhood meeting on July 9, 2003. He
8 explained that this would provide an opportunity for the residents to express their concerns and
9 discuss the impact it could have on the area. He stated that the fire station does not impact
10 neighborhoods negatively adding that they would do their best to be a good neighbor. He
11 acknowledged the noise levels noting that they are currently reviewing options for sirens and
12 traffic control.
13
14 Commissioner Hanson asked why they chose to face the building to the south versus the west and
15 suggested using the existing drive to pull the trucks around. He referenced the long brick wall
16 noting that it is rather boring to look at and asked if any other options had been considered to
17 enhance the appearance. Mr. Oertel stated that they are reviewing the possibility of coming
18 down from the park area.
19
20 Commissioner Stromgren agreed with Commissioner Hanson's concerns regarding the brick wall
21 stating that it appears blank along the face of the building. He suggested that they consider
4R something to break up the mass of brick on the one wall. Commissioner Tillman agreed and
suggested additional landscaping and vegetation. Mr. Oertel acknowledged their concerns
24 stating that they have had considerable discussion regarding the appearance of the building. He
25 explained that the discussions included using a pattern within the brick to give it a more
26 appealing look. He agreed that the current image is more service oriented and simple.
27
28 Commissioner Stromgren referenced the roof forms noting that they are curved and appear
29 forced. He stated that the roof does not relate to the rest of the neighborhood architecture and
30 asked for further suggestions. Mr. Oertel agreed stating that this is in a state of flux right now.
31 He stated that they feel good about the elevation for the actual apparatus, that they are
32 comfortable with the sod and noted that the roof forms are changing. He stated that the final
33 product would probably change from the present plan.
34
35 Commissioner Hoska referenced the Mayor's request for a community area and asked for further
36 clarification. Mr. Oertel stated that they are sticking to the two-story theme noting that they plan
37 to extend further south to accommodate the training room and extend the kitchen.
38
39 Chief Hewitt referenced the gas line for the proposed location noting that moving the fueling to
40 the east side of the site would not cause a problem. He reviewed the location with the
41 Commission stating that he would refer their concerns to the Fire Marshall for a review of any
42 potential code violations.
16 Commissioner Hanson asked for update on the temporary location for the Fire Station. Chief
45 Hewitt reviewed the process they took to determine an interim location with the Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 9
He stated that it was important to locate a site that could be fully utilized without additional
2 costs. He stated that they have to vacate the current building by September 1, 2003 and relocate
3 to a temporary location where they would reside until the new fire station has been completed.
4 He stated that they plan to begin construction in May, with a plan to occupy the new site by May
5 31, 2004. He explained that there is also a need for enough space to store their apparatus and
6 they want to minimize any negative impact to the operations while maintaining quality service
7 and response time.
8
9 Chief Hewitt reviewed their options with the Commission stating that they reviewed each
10 location for ground level access, the cost to bring in a manufactured home for office and living
11 space, utility costs, and storage. He reviewed the costs for each option stating that they also
12 considered housing at other fire station locations. He stated that they considered both Columbia
13 Heights and New Brighton as options noting that both locations would greatly affect their
14 response times and it would also increase their viability exposure if something critical should
15 occur.
16
17 Chief Hewitt stated that they recently found the Construction 70 site located in the Industrial park
18 and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that the location has room for all three apparatus
19 in addition to adequate living quarters, office space and storage. He stated that it is their
20 preference to relocate at the Construction 70 site, as it would provide quality quarters for the
21 firefighters, eliminate the heating and weather concerns. He stated that they are requesting
approval for ten-month lease for the facility, offices, apparatus storage building and a punch-in
for an 11-foot by 14-foot door.
24
25 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
26
27 Ms. Hall reviewed the July agenda with the Commission. She stated that it would include a
28 proposed sign plan from Northgate shopping center; LaNel is coming forward with the Autumn
29 Villas with a Public Hearing scheduled in July for the PUD; the Fire Station and Public Works
30 plans would be on for public hearings in addition to the Stonehouse Redevelopment Project. A
31 TIF plan will be on for review. Finally, the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Vice Chair
32 Stille asked if the proposed sign plan is a review. Ms. Hall clarified that it is the real thing as
33 they are very anxious to move forward. Ms. Hall explained that they are considering a large
34 pylon sign noting that with their location they feel they need a higher, more visible sign. She
35 stated that the application was recently received and Staff is currently reviewing the application.
36 Ms. Hall explained that the City is moving away from the traditional ground sign and welcomed
37 any suggestions from Commission. She explained that based on the current assessment the sign
38 is too high proportionally and lacks landscaping. She stated that they would discuss these issues
39 with the applicant prior to the next Planning Commission meeting.
40
41 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
42 Chair Melsha asked Ms. Hall to contact the City Attorney to further clarify issues when altering
an existing structure. Ms. Hall clarified that there is a section in the ordinance that does address
16 this issue and reviewed this fact with the Commission. Chair Melsha noted that the ordinance
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 17, 2003
Page 10
would probably apply to the Public Works building but not to Mr. Stepan's. He asked Ms. Hall
2 to forward any comments to the Commission for their review.
3
4 Vice Chair Stille asked Ms. Hall to clarify the side yard and front yard differences with the City
5 Attorney with respect to Amcon.
6
7 XII. ADJOURNMENT.
8 Motion by Commissioner Stromgren, second by Commissioner Hoska, to adjourn the meeting at
9 8:40 p.m.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12
13
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16
17
18 Bonnie Sullivan
19 Timesaver Of,j`'Site Secretarial, Inc.
•