Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 04192005 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 104943 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 04192005 0 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA APRIL 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. III. ROLL CALL. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. V. MEETING MINUTES. V.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2005 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VI.1 Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the April 26, 2005 City Council Meeting VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. VIIA 3605 — 29"' Avenue N. (Industrial) Conditional Use -- Proposed Car Sales VIII. Concept Reviews. VIII.1. Sunset Memorial Park — Proposed Text Amendment to the City Zoning Code VIII.2. Amcon — Site Plan Review, St. Anthony Marketplace IX. PUBLIC INPUT. Individua/s may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the City Clerks record and limit their remarks to five (5) minutes. X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. XI.1. 2005 Proposed Planning & Zoning Ordinance Amendments XI.2. Update on City Redevelopment Projects XI.3. Code Enforcement Report HAPlanning\PC Agendas\2005\041905 pc agenda.doc XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS. XII.1. Land Use Planning Workshops XII. ADJOURNMENT. HAPlanning\PC Agendas\2005\041905 pc agenda.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 March 15, 2005 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER 10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 11 12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 14 15 III. ROLL CALL. 16 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners Galyon, 17 Jensen, Jenson, and Young. 18 19 Absent: Commissioner Hoska' 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the meeting 26 agenda as presented. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously 29 30 V. MEETING MINUTES. 31 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 18 2005 32 Commissioner Jensen noted the differences between his last name as Jensen and Commissioner 33 Jan Jenson. 34 35 Commissioner Young referenced page 3, line 23: 36 Reads: Mr. `Theisen' explained... 37 Should read: Mr. `Tyson' explained... 38 39 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Young, to approve the meeting minutes 40 of the Planning Commission of January 18, 2005 as amended. 41 42 Motion carried unanimously 43 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 2 1 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 2 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the March 22 2005 Ci1y Council 3 Meeting. 4 5 Chair Stromgren stated that Commissioner Young would attend the City Council Meeting on 6 March 22, 2005. 7 8 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 9 NONE 10 11 VIII. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 12 8.1 Presentation of Sunset Memorial Park Administration Buildin • A Preliminga National 13 Register and Condition Assessment— Charlene Roise and Todd Grover. 14 15 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Sunset Memorial has met with Staff and a subcommittee of the 16 Planning Commission to review and discuss revisions that they are proposing to Sunset 17 Memorial Park. She stated that the Sunset Group also held an Open House on January 11, 2005 18 noting that since then the City Council has approved the contracting with Hess, Roise and 19 Company, historical preservationists, to assess the condition of the Administration Building and 20 report back to the Planning Commission and City Council with their findings. She stated that 21 Ms. Roise and Mr. Grover have completed their assessment and are present to report their 22 findings to the Commission. 23 24 Charlene Roise stated that she is an Architectural historian with Hess, Roise and Company 25 noting that the company has been around since 1990 working across the country on a variety of 26 projects. 27 28 Todd Grover, McDonald &Mack stated that he specializes in historic preservation noting that 29 his organization has been in existence since 1976. 30 31 Ms. Roise explained that she and Mr. Grover were hired to take a look at the Administration 32 Building located at Sunset Memorial to determine eligibility for national historic designation 33 potential. She stated that upon visiting the park they determined that the entire park area had to 34 be included in the review along with the Administration Building. She stated that they 35 determined that the park itself appears to be eligible for the national register noting that many are 36 determined eligible but not formally nominated. She provided the Commission with a brief 37 history of the park stating that she reviewed the history in the context of cemeteries in general. 38 She stated that the park plan was originally designed by Allen and Nichols, a prominent local 39 architectural firm and the first real firm of its' kind in Minnesota. She noted that Mr. Nichols, 40 who died in Rochester, Minnesota, appreciated the design enough to be buried at Sunset 41 Memorial Park. 42 43 Mr. Grover stated that his focus was the structural analysis of the building noting that a synopsis 44 of the suggested reuse of the building is detailed in the report provided in the Commissioners 45 packets. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 3 1 2 Commissioner Jenson asked who compiled the conclusions and recommendations. Ms. Roise 3 stated that she was basically responsible for the report. She explained that she and Mr. Grover 4 each prepared a report, with their own conclusions and she consolidated the information for the 5 final conclusions and recommendations. 6 7 Commissioner Jenson asked Ms. Roise to expand on the two main points identified in the report. 8 Ms. Roise noted that the conclusions are included on the last page of the report. She explained 9 that because they were looking at the property as a whole and restrained from the use of historic 10 district. 11 12 Ms. Roise explained that a cemetery is known as a site, but is also basically known as district, as 13 it is an accumulation of different components including the landscaping and building 14 components. She stated that the landscaping in the overall scope is historically significant but is 15 also a contributing factor for the district. She noted that many properties can be individually 16 eligible but can also be part of a district as a whole, which is the case with the Administration 17 Building. She explained that as a result it is possible that the Administration Building could be 18 replaced, if done appropriately and does not damage the national historic significance. She 19 further explained that sometimes the changes that are made could detract from the property and 20 in turn, make it ineligible for the National Historical Register. She indicated that her preference 21 would be to see the historic Administration Building remain noting that she does understand that 22 one cannot freeze time. 23 24 Ms. Roise stated that if Sunset Memorial can provide an appropriate design for a new 25 construction on the site the Commission could give it consideration. She urged the Commission 26 to carefully consider the proposed designs to ensure the historic significance of the site. She 27 referenced the landscaping and emphasized to the Commission that the landscaped features on 28 this site are very, very important. She urged the Commission noting that the landscaping is an 29 important part of the consideration and tends to be under recognized. 30 31 Commissioner Jenson referenced the definition and requirements to meet eligibility for the 32 National Registry and asked Ms. Roise to further clarify what is meant by the term `If and only 33 if . Ms. Roise explained that the National Parks Program and the Department of the Interior runs 34 the entire program. She further explained that the Secretary of Standards delineates what can and 35 cannot happen on a historical property. She provided the Commission with an overview of the 36 set of standards stating that there is a general consensus as to what meets standards or not. She 37 noted that they are subject to interpretation and debate. 38 39 Commissioner Jenson asked if there is anything included in the designation that would or could 10 prevent the new owners from tearing down the current building and rebuilding. Ms. Roise 11 confirmed that there are no restrictions unless they are using federal funds or if it requires a G2 historic permit. She indicated that local historical organizations could possibly have the ability to �3 help enforce meeting historic standards or requirements. G4 1 L Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 4 1 Mr. Grover explained that the Secretary of Interior Standards is written in such a way that it 2 allows for interpretation based on each individual situation. 3 4 Commissioner Young asked who would interpret the standards if the owners decide to rebuild 5 the Administration Building. Ms Roise indicated that a local group of consultants would work 6 with the structure. 7 8 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced the arborist's report regarding the red cedars and asked if it would 9 be advisable to replace the trees with the same species to protect the integrity of the site. Ms. 10 Roise stated that she would have to review the landscape design of the area adding that she is not 11 a horticulturalist. She agreed that it is important to consider what type of tree is being planted 12 noting that it is very difficult to freeze landscapes adding that trees do have a limited life. 13 14 IX. CONCEPT REVIEW 15 9.1 3605 —29`x' Avenue North (Industrial) Conditional Use—Proposed Car Sales 16 17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Mr. Patrick O'Connor met with Staff regarding his plan to purchase 18 the property located at 3605 —29t' Avenue Northeast and his proposal to use the property for an 19 auto sales business for specialty cars, classics and custom models. She referenced a letter of 20 explanation submitted by Mr. O'Connor stating that his plan is to keep 15 to 25 vehicles on site 21 for sale either in the show room or parked on the west side of the property during business hours. 22 She explained that the vehicles would be ready for sale and not junked vehicles. She indicated 23 that it is Mr. O'Connor's intent to manage his inventory similarly to the Hitching Post where he 24 would display the vehicles outside during business hours and store them inside during off hours. 25 She stated that a public hearing has been scheduled for the April 19`"meeting to discuss his 26 request noting that Mr. O'Connor is available to answer any questions the Commission might 27 have. 28 29 Patrick O'Connor stated that he spoke with Mr. Sanders, the owner of the property and believes 30 this would be a good location for the proposed dealership. He explained that he has been in the 31 business for over twenty years and would like to branch out now on his own. He provided the 32 Commission with a brief overview of the proposal stating that he plans on stocking the 33 dealership with late model cars and includes financing options. 34 35 Chair Stromgren asked if there are any improvements needed to the building or is this request 36 strictly a CUP. Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the request is a CUP with commercial use. She 37 indicated that the ordinance could be changed, if allowed, to reflect an automotive service with 38 the requirement that junk cars are to be kept out of sight. She indicated that changing the 39 ordinance would be a lengthy process and reviewed. 40 41 Commissioner Jensen clarified his understanding for conditional uses stating that the definitions 42 are relatively broad. He asked if the CUP is being used as a catch all for this request. Ms. 43 Moore-Sykes confirmed and reviewed with Commission. 44 45 Commissioner Galyon asked Mr. O'Connor how he determined the maximum number of cars to 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 5 1 be kept on the site. Mr. O'Connor explained that was the max number he figured he would be 2 able to manage on the site. 3 4 Commissioner Jenson noted that the summary page mentions the intent to handle the inventory in 5 a similar fashion to the Hitching Post. He referenced the auto detail application, dated March 10, 6 and asked if the fourth paragraph indicates that the intent is to keep fully restored vehicles 7 outside, along the west wall. Mr. O'Connor stated that he would like to be able to display the 8 fully restored vehicles outside during the day and store them inside at night. He assured the 9 Commission that he would not be managing any junk vehicles. He stated that he is willing to 10 work the vehicle storage either way noting that he would like to be able to leave a few of the 11 restored vehicles outside as a form of advertising. 12 13 Mr. O'Connor stated that his first and foremost goal for this evening is to gain initial approval 14 from the Commission to be able to move forward with the design. He stated that he is willing to 15 comply with special requirements if the vehicles are to be kept inside at all times. 16 17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the current ordinance requires that all vehicles kept outside are to be 18 kept on a bituminous surface, with current licensing and in operating condition. 19 20 Mr. O'Connor assured the Commission that he intends to maintain an upstanding looking 21 business adding that he is not there to open a salvage yard. 22 23 Commissioner Young asked if any thought had been given to additional lighting or signage. Mr. 24 O'Connor stated that he is currently considering an awning on two sides of building along with 25 some additional lighting and signage in the front. 26 27 9.2 3621 Roosevelt Avenue Northeast Lot Split; Rezoning from R-1 to R-2; Lot Width 28 Variance 29 30 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she recently met with Mr. Tom Walek, owner of 3621 Roosevelt Street 31 Northeast to discuss the possibility of splitting his lot, creating two R-1, Single-Family lots. She 32 stated that upon reviewing the square footage of the lot she advised Mr. Walek that the proposed 33 splitting of his lot would result in two non-conforming residential lots. She stated that they also 34 discussed the possibility of obtaining a lot split variance noting that Mr. Walek also asked if it 35 would be possible to build a twin home unit on his property. She stated that she reviewed the 36 ordinance requirements for R-2 use with Mr. Walek and advised him that he would have to apply 37 to have the property re-zoned to R-2. She stated that she also advised him that this request could 38 be construed as spot zoning,which is not an acceptable practice in the City. She noted the map 39 included was pulled from the County website. 40 41 Mr. Tom Walek stated that he and his family have lived at 3621 Roosevelt for the past twenty- 42 five years. He explained that he is asking approval for a variance to split his current lot and build 43 an additional single-family home on the second lot. 44 45 Chair Stromgren asked where the current house is positioned on the lot. Mr. Walek stated that h Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15,2005 Page 6 1 the house is currently located in the north corner of the lot. 2 3 Commissioner Jensen noted that the Hennepin County Map is not adding up to the total area of 4 land in discussion. He stated that it appears, from an area point of view, that they do have more 5 than enough space. He suggested confirming all of the areas on the map noting that they would 6 have to do a formal survey. Ms. Moore-Sykes agreed adding that they currently do not have a 7 survey on file. 8 9 Commissioner Jensen noted that on the map there is a house that is located on one of the interior 10 pieces with no access to roadways and asked if this is accurate. Mr. Walek confinned that there 11 is only one house on the lot and is located on the street side. 12 13 Commissioner Jensen stated that the house is far enough north adding that it would depend on 14 how the code deals with restrictions. He clarified that the house must be at least 30 to 35-feet 15 from the street adding that there is a possibility that the second structure could exist deeper on the 16 lot. Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed that they would have to be 30-feet back and the look of the 17 house should be basically in line with the other homes down the street. 18 19 Commissioner Galyon asked if they are considering it as potential rental income or as a `for sale' 20 property. Mr. Walek explained that he plans to build the new home,move into the new home 21 and tear down the current home, rebuild and sell the second home upon completion. 22 23 9.3 Lot South of Tires Plus—Proposed Drive-Through for Restaurant 24 25 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she recently received a call from a realtor who has a client 26 interested in locating a Dairy Queen Restaurant on the lot south of the new Tires Plus. She 27 explained that they are interested in having a drive-through window for customer convenience 28 adding that she has advised the realtor about the City's restrictions on drive-through facilities. 29 She stated that the realtor has indicated a willingness to discuss the project with the Planning 30 Commission. She noted that she has not received any further inquiries and the realtor is not 31 present this evening to discuss this request. 32 33 Vice Chair Hanson stated that there are several Dairy Queens located throughout the area and 34 questioned whether a Dairy Queen at this location would comply with Dairy Queen's 35 requirements for franchise locations. 36 37 X. PUBLIC INPUT 38 39 NONE 40 41 XI. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 42 11.1 Update on City Redevelopment Projects and 2005 Strategic Plans and Goals 43 44 Ms. Moore-Sykes provided the Commission with the following updates: a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 7 1 • City Administrator has reviewed the upcoming City Council schedule of meetings and 2 agenda items with Department Heads. 3 • March 8h Council Meeting will have the 2005 Street Reconstruction Bond Sale award on 4 agenda for Council approval. 5 • Summary of the 2005 Goals will be included on Council agenda 6 • Silver Lake Village Phase H update 7 • Silver Lake Village Phase I—Several businesses are scheduled to open or have opened 8 including: Papa Murphy's, Wendy's, Wal-Mart, Applebee's, Caribou Coffee, Cold Stone 9 Creamery, World Wireless,Noodle's & Company,Ficocello's, and Chipolte. Landscaping 10 will begin again in mid-May. 11 • St. Anthony Marketplace—AMCON is proposing to construct a 4,500 square foot building 12 on the Outlot with possibly a coffee shop as an anchor. They plan to put a restaurant on the 13 west end of the main building. Several public hearings and Council approval is necessary. 14 15 XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS 16 12.1 New Planning Commissioner 17 18 Chair Stromgren welcomed Heath Galyon as the newest member of the St. Anthony Planning 19 Commission. 20 21 12.2 Land Use Planning_Workshops 22 23 Ms. Moore-Sykes reviewed the Land Use Planning Workshops with the Commission. She 24 explained that the training is put on by a Government Training organization and includes 25 workshops that cover zoning and land use applications. She stated that they offer a variety of 26 workshops throughout the year that provide a very good opportunity especially if an individual is 27 new. She noted that it is nice to be able to get a feel as to how things are handled by law at a 28 local level. She stated that anyone interested in registering should contact her for further 29 information. 30 31 Commissioner Jenson asked what kind of notice would she need for the registration and does the 32 City cover the costs for registration. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would need a two-week 33 notice for registration and confirmed that the City would cover the expenses to attend the 34 workshops. 35 36 12.3 Planning`Commission By-Law Changes; Compensation 37 38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that several changes have been made and updated to the current by-laws 39 noting that a$25.00 stipend has been approved as compensation for each Planning Commission 40 meeting that is attended by the Commissioners. 41 42 Comments 43 Commissioner Jensen referenced Mr. Walek's request and asked if a timeframe has been 44 determined as to how Staff would interact with Mr. Walek in working through the details on the 45 narrow lots. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 8 1 2 Chair Stromgren stated that they plan to review and clean up the outdated portions of the City 3 Ordinances. He explained that one issue that has come before the Commission, on several 4 occasions, is proposals for an addition to a home and the residents are denied due to lot coverage 5 requirements. He asked if the review would be completed in time to have an impact for Mr. 6 Walek. 7 8 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that what they are referencing would be a change in the ordinance. 9 She further explained that the process would involve three readings before final approval, which 10 is a time consuming process that could easily take up to two months or more to complete. 11 12 Chair Stromgren asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to provide the Commission with a memo, prior to the 13 next Planning Commission meeting, that itemizes all of the proposed ordinance changes. He 14 asked to include the review as an agenda item for the March Planning Commission meeting and 15 asked the Commissioners to review the proposed changes and contact Ms. Moore-Sykes with any 16 additional feedback. 17 18 Commissioner Jensen stated that he would like an interpretation of the variance from the City 19 Attorney. Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that it is her understanding that in the past the City has had 20 the authority to grant this type of variance and acknowledged his concerns noting a good point 21 raised is to whether the City would be able to defend the approval legally. 22 23 Commissioner Jenson welcomed Commissioner Heath Galyon to the Planning Commission. 24 25 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he would like an update on where the City is at with Sunset 26 Memorial Park. He asked if they are planning a public hearing for next month. Ms. Moore- 27 Sykes stated that it could be possible if Sunset Memorial is ready to move forward with their 28 plans. 29 30 XIII. ADJOURNMENT 31 32 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Jensen, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 33 p.m. 34 35 Motion carried unanimously. 36 37 Respectfully submitted, 38 Bonnie Sullivan 39 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. J /-1 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission J Report No.: VI1.1. From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager//W6 Date: April 19, 2005 Subject: Conditional Use Permit Request for 3605 - 29th Avenue NE Requested Action: Patrick O'Connor,the applicant,-is requesting that he be granted a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed auto dealership for specialized,classics and custom cars that he wants to locate at 3605- 29th Avenue NE. This property is located in the Light Industrial Zoning District. Background: Mr. Patrick O'Connor met with Staff regarding his plan to purchase the property at 3605-29th Avenue NE and his proposal to use the property for auto sales business for specialty cars,classics and custom models. As he states in the attached letter,he plans to keep 15 to 25 vehicles on site for sale either in the show room or parked on the west side of the property during business hours. These vehicles would be ready for sale and not junked vehicles. He explained that he is planning to handle his inventory similarly to the Hitching Post,whereby he would display his vehicles outside during business hours and then store them inside during the off hours. Mr. O'Connor was before the Planning Commission at the March 15th Planning Commission for a concept review to more fully discuss his plans for this property and to answer any questions or concerns the Commission may have with his proposal. In reviewing the Zoning Code,Section 1640-Light Industrial, 1640.02 lists the permitted uses and one of those is (a) Automotive service and repair provided no junked autos are kept on the property. Based on the information provided by Mr. O'Connor, there was an indication that part of his proposed business would include the"reconditioning" of classic or collectable cars. That would infer that Mr. O'Connor does propose to do auto repair and service in order to bring an automobile to a saleable condition. Further review of this Section,however,finds that only offices for administrative purposes and non-retail business are permitted (Section 1640.02 (h)). It appears from the information submitted by the applicant that a major portion of the proposed use will be devoted to retail. Staff did receive a phone call from Glen Ward of Walter R. Hammond Company,at 3601 29th Avenue, which is the property adjacent and directly to the west of the subject property. Mr. Ward was concerned that due to the concrete boulevard on 29th,prospective car buyers would turn onto 29th Avenue and use his driveway and parking lot to get to Mr. O'Connor's business rather than go further down the block to the light,take a'U' turn and turn into the subject property's driveway. He was also concerned that parking may become an issue as well,with the potential of these same buyers using his lot to park in, thereby limiting parking for their customers. Finally, Mr. Ward felt that having a car lot next door would diminish their property value. 3605 29th Avenue NE CUP 041905 j f. Attachments: • Conditional Use Permit Application • Letter supporting his Conditional Use Permit Application • Sketch Plan of Building • City Attorney's Letter • Hennepin County Property Information Staff's Recommendation: Based on the information presented by Mr. O'Connor,adjacent property owners and the City Attorney, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that Mr. O'Connor's request be denied. 3605 29th Avenue NE CUP 041905 e Date: 0-3/to o� .. Fee: S 130.00 CITY OF'ST. ANTHONY APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Applicant: pvmC,� - X02 Phone: C� . o0 Address: -3605- WL- N f-- 554163 Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): �-e-AkS Iql Street address and/or legal description of property in question: Zoning district in which property is located:_ L U G fAT- /i�I[�Q S Tf-t Ok �- Conditional use proposed: PA0Tx1P, yf-44 ( &-f— SAV-S t �jN"cim Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions be satisfied before a conditional use may be authorized. Please respond to these conditions, using additional sheets, if necessary. 1) The proposed conditional use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the zoning district in which it is to be located. 2) The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to proper-tv'values or improvements in the vicinity. 3) The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neig b rhood qmmunity. Signature of applicant: 073' T1 -05 * 30 . 00V - March 10'h,2005 Application for Special Use Permit for the city of St. Anthony Village Thank you for taking the time to review my request to do business in the city of St. Anthony Village. I have been a homeowner and resident of this town since 1992. My work background has been in the retail automotive industry, working for large Franchises within the metropolitan area of the Twin Cities, with an emphasis on Finance. My overall plan for the property at 3605 29`h Ave N.E., would be to operate a small Dealership which would sell 15 to 25 vehicles per month. The physical building itself Would not be changed,but I would make improvements to the exterior of the property That would include additional lighting, awnings across the front and west sides, signage On the south and west sides, and sandblasting and painting the entire building. The interior would be altered only minimally to divide off a prep area in the back, with a Garage type door which would give me the opportunity to pull vehicles on to the show Floor. Additionally,there would be a partition in the front to create a business and _ Finance office. I would keep vehicles parked outside, along the west wall, but only vehicles that have been reconditioned and are ready to sell. No junked or wrecked vehicles will be kept on the premises. In the event the dealership would take an unsightly trade-in,that vehicle will be parked inside the prep area until it is taken to auction or reconditioned for sale. The majority of inventory will be kept inside and only brought out during business hours For display purposes only. Hours of operation would be from 9am thru 7pm Monday thru Thursday, and loam Thru 4pm Friday and Saturday. Initially there would only be one employee, and the entire Business could be run with just one employee. Thanks again for your consideration,I am looking forword to working with the the community,the St. Anthony Village Chamber of Commerce and its residents. Patrick O'Connor tom- Oooq- D�M i i✓ A4Z-,EA t t t b - awe, • t -1� •�Ko�►rrt,�aZ t ' t i- fes- i MSN 04/15/05 FRI 09:24 FAX 6123402643 0 002 ® ® FRaeY i:r)i.•,i Y .,,. kviIiliII 1. 111, JERO!ME P.GILLIGAN (612)340-2952 FAX(612)340-2643 gilliganlaromo@dorsey.com April 15, 2005 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 Re: Conditional Use Permit Application for 3605 29th Avenue N.E. Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes: You have advised me that the City has received an application for a conditional use permit with respect to 3605 29'^Avenue N.E. The applicant is proposed to operate a motor vehicle sales and financing business on the subject property which is located in the Light Industrial District(the"LI District')of the City. The proposed use of the property is not a permitted use in the LI District nor is it permitted as a conditional use in the LI District. Consequently, the proposed use is not properly the subject of a conditional use application and the City does not have the authority to approve a conditional use permit with respect to such use_ You should advise the applicant that the proposed use is not permitted and request that the applicant withdraw the application. If the applicant does not withdraw the application the City should deny it. Should you have any questions please call, Yours Truly, J ro P. Gil igan JPG/pmh DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP - WWW.DORSEY.COM • T 612 340.2600 • F 612.340.2868 SUITE 1500 • 50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 USA CANADA V-UROPE ^94^ Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Hennepin County � MN Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value &tax into 2 ZOM Led= Ab 4 p PAN •� M (36) FM E (35) 333.95 100 200 Inst update:3/03/2005 at 1:00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID Approximate Approximate Property Perimeter Property Area 06-029-23-44-0035 579 ft. 18,908 sq.ft. = 0.434 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2005) 3605 29TH AVE N E ST. ANTHONY, MN 55418 $ 300,000 $ 9,873.22 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected n a• s• •i r •i. �• u t The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder(Hennepin County Survey Division) at(612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob.MoulderO-)co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. . � Walter IMMMIM Immameng 3601 -29 Avenue N.E. Minneapolis,Minnesota 55418 (612) 781-7441 Fax(612)781-6105 MN WATS(800) 842-2679 Outstate WATS (800)328-2524 City of St. Anthony April 11t , 2005 Attn: Planning Commission This letter is in response to your notice pertaining to Mr. Patrick O'Connor's request for a special permit, to allow his request for a motor vehicle sales and finance business. We strongly oppose this request as we feel a used car lot will decrease the value of this property and all surrounding properties. Also if a conditional permit is needed to change the original zoning for this area evidently used car lots were not intended for this area. The only access to that property is from 29' Ave NE. We do not intend to let vehicles use our Anthony lane driveway, or our parking lot as a public access to their property. Mr. O'Connor said he would have 15 to 18 vehicles and he would put them inside at nights. We feel the building at that location cannot accommodate that many vehicles and some would be left outside and that property would look like a used car lot 24 hours a day. Again we strongly appose this request. Thank You, alter D. ond President STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: April 19,2005 Subject: Concept Review of the Proposed Text Amendment as Requested by Alderwoods Group, Sunset Memorial Park, 2250 St. Anthony Boulevard Requested Action: Concept Review None;information only. Background: Representatives from Sunset Memorial Park requested that they be placed on the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting agenda for a Concept Review of a proposed text amendment that they have drafted to allow cemeteries in the R-1 Zoning District and allow funeral homes to operate in the R-1 Zoning District as a permitted conditional use. Currently,Sunset Memorial Park exists as a legal non-conforming use in the R-1 Zoning District. The impetus for this proposed amendment is Alderwoods' desire to reconstruct the Administration building. Below is the proposed schedule for the City's processes regarding the Sunset Memorial Park project: April 19— Concept Review May 17— Public Hearing with the Planning Commission re: text amendment May 24— Second Reading for the text amendment with the City Council June 14— Final Reading for the text amendment with the City Council June 21 — Public Hearing with the Planning Commission for: Site Plan Approval Conditional Use Permit Variances? Unknown if needed Attachments: • Draft of the proposed text amendment. Sunset Concept staff report 041905 Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: matthew.duggan@mekusstudios.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 4:42 PM To: kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Cc: Ann.Watson@alderwoods.com; Dave.Vanrite@alderwoods.com; dtyson@oppenheimer.com; Mike.Lyons@alderwoods.com; JHerman@faegre.com; cmekus@mekusstudios.com; James.MacQueen@alderwoods.com Subject: 04-14-05-CSAV-Concept Review Booklet Hello Kim, Please find attached our'Concept Review Submission April 19, 2005' for Sunset Memorial Park in St. Anthony, Minnesota. This booklet is separated into six sections. The first(Section 1.) is a recap on the project and the process that we have completed to date. This is for any new Commissioners that may have come on board since last September. Sections 2 and 3 provide an update on the reviews by Hess-Roise and Mr. Charles Nelson. Section 4 provides photos of the existing administration building. Section 5 includes the preliminary design for the proposed funeral home. This has not change much since the last issuance. It includes some of the recommendations from our historical consultant. Section 6 provides a draft for the zoning ordinance text amendment. Section 7 is the anticipated schedule for zoning reviews and approvals. Please let me know if there is any additional items your or the commission required. I look forward to seeing you on April 19, 2005. Thank you, -------------------------------------- Matthew Duggan,AIA Mekus Studios Ltd. 401 East Illinois Street, Suite 401 Chicago, Illinois 60611 312-661-0778 VOICE 312-661-0980 FAX mduggan mekusstudios.com www.mekusstudios com The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.Any review,retransmission,dissemination or other use of,or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited If you received this in error,please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 4/15/2005 •� r• b SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY St. Anthony, Minnesota Concept Review Submission April 19, 2005 - Planning Commission ALDERWOODS"' GROUP MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT UPDATE.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 2. REVIEW BY HISTORICAL CONSULTANT.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 3. MEMORANDUM FROM CHARLES NELSON...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................5 4 EXISTING SITE......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._...............................................................................................................................6 5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._.............................................._....................................................8 SitePlan..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 FloorPlans...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 EastElevation.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 EastElevation—Rendering...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................11 6. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................_............................................12 7. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 PROJECT NO.20425 Page-2 Apnl 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PROJECT UPDATE PROJECT UPDATE September 21,2004,the Alderwoods Team first presented to the City of St.Anthony Planning Commission their proposed design for a new funeral home and administration building at Sunset Memorial Park.This presentation was a'Concept Review`to introduce the City to Alderwood's desire to build and new funeral home in the location of the existing cemetery administration building.In order to achieve this, a few revisions were required to the current zoning designation and zoning code.The property is currently a legal non-conforming R-1 district.We asked the Planning Commission to rezone the property to R/OS(Recreation Open Space).In addition,we requested a text amendment be made to the R/OS district to allow Funeral Homes as a conditional use.Finally,we presented the proposed new funeral home preliminary drawings. The Commission expressed concern on the proposed demolition of the existing Administration Building in order to construct the new Funeral Home.The Chairman asked if we had considered other locations within the cemetery for the budding or if we had studied the feasibility of expanding the existing administration building. Also,MSL was asked to investigate possible other source for Historical Building Registries to see if this building Is listed. (Our investigation that followed the meeting did not discover any other sources that identified this building as a historic building.) October 19,2004,Sunset Memorial Park was on the agenda for a Public Hearing requesting a rezoning from R-1 to R/OS.The Asst.City Manager(Ms.Hall)made clear that this was the only topic of the Public Hearing. (She did go on to explain that we presented last month a Concept Review for a new Funeral Home and text amendment. We were initially on the agenda but asked to be pulled off the October Agenda.She informed the audience that future Concept Review presentations and Public Hearings would be required by Sunset if the Funeral Home were pursued.) OWD presented our request to rezone the property from the current non-conforming R-1 to R/OS.This is in keeping with the intent and the language of the current City Code and within Minnesota Statutes. The Chairman suggested to the commission that he would like them to entertain the idea of recommending to the City Council that the request be extended by 60 days.They voted and all agreed to recommend the extension. October 26,2004,The St.Anthony Planning Commission presented to the City Council a request for extension to the petition to rezone the property from R-1 to R/OS.The extension would be for 60 days from the application date.The City Council did not grant the 60 day extension and voted to DENY the rezoning request.The reasons stated for the denial was a lack of information regarding the impact of the zoning change on the future of Sunset and impact on the other cemetery within the City boundary that Is also zoned R-1. Although denied,the Council did not indicate this was to constitute closure to the issue of the zoning request or a proposed funeral home at Sunset.They felt there was not adequate information on this issue and that an extension would overlap an election with potentially new Commissioners and Council members replacing the current sitting members. November 2004,The City of St.Anthony formed a Planning Commission Subcommittee made up of two Interested members of the Commission.The subcommittee requested that we present our previous site studies and existing building expansion studies for their review.The subcommittee also requested that we study an alternate parking arrangement that would preserve the center mall landscaping. December 14,2004,a group from the Alderwoods team met with the St.Anthony subcommittee and City attorney to review the above requested information. During this time,Alderwoods discussed having an Open House at the existing cemetery administration building to present the new building.This would allow the nearby residents and Council Members/Commissioners to learn more about the proposed building. January 11,2005,Alderwoods held an Open House at the existing administration building.This event was well attended by both local residents and council members.Constructive and favorable comments were given to the team about the project. At this time,the City retained the services of Hess-Roise a local historical consultant. They were asked to be a"third-party consultant'to our issue. Their scope included researching the budding for any historical significance and for reasons why or if it should be considered for Historical Registry.They were asked to determine through their findings if the budding should be considered for refurbishment or it could be replaced. March 2,2005,Hess-Roise issued their findings in the form of a report This report was presented to the Planning Commission by Ms.Charlene Rolse on March 15,2005 at a special session. April 2005,The Alderwoods Team retains the services of Mr.Charles Nelson to assist with the design and with the State Historical Preservation Office review PROJECT NO.20425 Page-3 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA REVIEW BY HISTORICAL CONSULTANT REVIEW BY HISTORICAL CONSULTANT A thorough report was prepared by Hess-Roise a local historical consultant retained by the City of St.Anthony.This report was a preliminary evaluation of the historical significance and condition of the administration building. The report provided a historical context for the Sunset Memorial Park from its origination to the construction of the three buildings along the main mall.A recap of National Register criteria for eligibility of properties was defined. Also included in the report was a recap of the existing building's structural condition and renovation feasibility. Based on the report issued by Hess-Roise,Sunset Memorial Park itself as a whole appears to be eligible for the National Register. However,regarding the Administration Building, the building does not appear to be individually eligible for the National Register,it could be replaced without damaging the National Register eligibility of Sunset Memorial Park.' (This is a brief recap of this author's interpretation of the results from"Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building:A Preliminary National Registry and Condition Assessment",prepared by Charlene Roise/Hess Roise and Company,March 2005. Please review the report in its entirety.) PROJECT NO.20425 Page-4 Apr 1119,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM FROM CHARLES NELSON MEMORANDUM FROM CHARLES NELSON In April,the Alderwoods team began working with Mr.Charles Nelson an Independent consultant Mr.Nelson is the retired State Historical Preservation Architect with over 30 years of experience In the field. Mr.Nelson surveyed the existing administration building and reviewed the designs for the proposed new funeral home. Mr.Nelson has provided valuable suggestions on the project and feels the project could be a successful replacement for the existing administration building. Some of the comments Mr.Nelson highlighted' Memorandum TO Alderwoods Group FROM Charles W Nelson,Historical Architect DATE 14 April 2005 SUWECr Preliminary Design Review Sunil Funeral Home and Cemetery Thank you for the opportunity to review preliminary reports,plans and specifications abemt ions,now of which has been deemed to be satisfactory Therefore,it has relative to proposed work for the Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery.This property, been concluded that the current structure will be replaced by a new seniawe of established in 1971,is a significant example of landscape design applied to cemeteries in compatible design This budding will be situated in the soma position as the the early twentieth cemury,the result being a memorial park consisting of broad expanses existing,fanning a gateway to the park and an architectural anchor to the cast end of lawn,wmdmg drives,and a dastmctrve central boulevard anchored at either end by a of the mill. chapel and gmehoase/admmistimron building.The principal monument ofthe park is the • The design of the proposed strrrctare aspects the existing architectural palate by Tower of Memories,erected at the midpoint of the boulevard,in perfect balance with the incorporating the flavor of the English Jacobean Revival in roof and gable Innes, , flanking rows of cedar trees.Cmicerred by noted landscape architects Morell and fenestration,and extenor materials. I would, however,suggest that further Nichols,the park represents a significant example of this Minnesota firm's design investigation be made as to the pane arrangement for the proposed windows to expertise As such,the property appears to men the criteria for niommataon to the incorporate either a diamond or smaller rectangle mumm penin The design is National Register of Historic Places not a replica of the existing building,nor almuld it be It is both honest and respectful With the above considerations in mind,i visited the site and now offer the following • Suggestions for conservation and integration of uistmg historical features into comments the new building mclude reincorporation of the distinctive fireplace mantle and • The central boul—rd/mall is a most significant design feature.Alteration of this mural into the reception arta of the new structure and conservation of the three feature would certainly adversely impact the eligibility of the property for any prominent leaded glass window panels from the out facade Although salvo of future consideration for historic atams.The wmpooents mqunruig preservation the oak paneling in the reception twin of the existing building tray nes be include the continual Ime of cedar trees and the central green.Removal of trees to practical,it a strongly advised to provide a similar paneling in the new reception provide parking would present a negative impact by interrupting the continuity of errs. planting.Removal of the central green fir parking would have a similar unpnet. • Overall,I am quite Impressed with the efforts that hale gone into making this As a compromise measure,1 suggest that the existing green be reduced to the project successful.The proposed design is sensitive to the significant historic minimum allowable in width to provide for parallel parking along the boulevard chanscs r of Sunset Memorial Park whale addressing the reads of the cemetery when needed This measure would provide parking and ma ntam the original long coo tho future. design intent Whcn vowed from various points along the=14 the impact would be negligible. • The wrreu gatehouse/administration building is a contributing element to the design of the park.It is executed in a variant of the English Jacobean Revival style,and is faced in a gmy gramte similar to that used in the chapel and town,as well as gateposts It is extremely limned in available space and,as such,has become fowmaraRy obsolete to mirrena needs.The architects have investigated alternatives to removal of this structure that include various addniore and PROJECT NO.20425 Page-5 Apr 1119,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA EXISTING SITE EXISTING SITE The proposed site is located at the main cemetery entrance on the east side of the property along St.Anthony Boulevard.The project would replace the existing cemetery office building with a new multifunction building housing the cemetery offices and a new funeral home facility with ADA accessibility.Care needs to be taken to locate the existing ground burials in the adjacent cemetery sections near the entrance gate. Note: Historical Building Research Mekus Studios Ltd searched the Minnesota-National Registry of Historical Places to see if the existing administration building was a protected building on the registry.httpY1nrhp mnhsorg/NRSearch.cfm Mekus Studios searched under Hennepin County,there were+/-1400 listings in the County.No listing came up under Sunset Memorial Mekus Studios contacted the Village of St Anthony Zoning Administrator to inquire if there was a local list.The ZA was not aware of a Village protected building list but would verify with others at the Village(07/13/04). The following are photographs of the existing cemetery Administration Building,proposed to be removed and replaced with a new Funeral home,and photographs of the main cemetery boulevard road where the funeral home parking is located. PROJECT NO.20425 Page-6 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA EXISTING SITE 1 $ Enum"Bmkvudjpg Existing Admin Budding-ljpg Existing Admin Building-ZJPg a., 1 l Exhsting Admin Building•3 Jpg Existing Admin Building-4.jpg PROJECT NO.20425 Page-7 April 19,2005 V ^I ��I Oa yy�r r �y� jrI f a v. J�ah �;� Ti t fi , rv'1r"ss h�4r yr I+ry' �y 1ML k }a � rl .A J3J'rY t1 r10 d +,�H'�t ffT�� �I�4 �� �i p �,j drfv3 gm il�` f s J „! r Ill J t f o a ]rat tL,:� tltr �'3i ^1Yk ` miry”{j nT r t,.t d + vjtRr�s�-t _ I r 1 I <(I n J r a I N k <�1 �-..�#�1 ssr�'�5} �'�'� s �'• cg t ZiSz �,' r.Ip�. i<kISY.�iL.fy!R �.�i"a nTr.-�'(.�t tT\��'A" rte,"e ti l �' Lb{ J Y y�'ti�L.�1\ �L !1• ~{ ,1S' A; 5 2 .�� �rm+$'�.w+��ah 1LyN3.Eir.:st+�� f 4�'+� -7I<!'1 s � Ff �stt'•r x �a�" \t!r Jui'j3 x Y r r -rv''' aU t'k E 4 � r "°'.:� k)� r' rw�zmaM �„1ia �lt,�i "' Vi �Ak k41+� }9ilfuc3}5 GF',1 v7 s1 s7v ,s p 1=. S ry�� G+t +^!-st'k _1l ekSi1 7 x a9 Im v1 "-E r'�B..N'�b t+i 4� :'Si ti�i,'• +`S a �} ( tit I y - r�'�' r7.YnfN�^r t� 'w„..wr �`2 "'” ar�rY "F��. sem,t a� � s� }[ Lr'i +S'Rf 1. riii 1x J 4 ��E s' Vic{ - "r����f�"''ee'{ ���;�t, fid_ ,.5rttg�JtY" k" ��'vd r,Il ,w ''� fi'f^. "`� ? ,�7`F '. 1i"ir_:'� af,.�.`� "b�.`}s �t r1}}Y^^kF, k'�tEl" }d ..:Srr�,:.n_,3t.•ttil'"T,�._..t;3.zti_�.. .y.�.€.ti ' fl- 'y� ` .,1•,x' -'fxt 'yy�Iu t ti c. }w' ktr't. w--' ---A" rx q1 yam,. tk � 3aa2ulel+ r �(tilr N1, 7'x�r`�ti��,�?h�+fr�13���i�"l�r� - �! +ils% 1 e "�'F'4�,�•'T.yi'Tv ��g.,yd r!(�i ty��jjrl, why�k,lc cr'�FE �S1'i� �� ! '„i;, 'HCl l+�,`.r�yl i Ht t }I 11' J th 4y�.;''} ill.NEW.?<� 1" !x 'I a3'Ne'A n 9 7 s �e i 7s� Y? f hl F t nx i M (< a r t r Ad f` @ N�{r, 41 r Jnl3• a 4 jf F t t 4 ? M,,`M $ �313'.hr ;r 0Js!h�t, ��`� ',fir' �"•� ,�+.r l� .nl uy y k;,..� t'ql� �>al t y,r t+F a.� t v a�} '�"N�`T�Xsrs�as�ns T,"' d I YY• .�ry s ',a �A:"°;S 'Ka tl f4 myth IN iiy°� nix ,� r£ Y9. rls t,}d i rtr - 1r , s i`, k� f�+;Dr �yjd�' �,� S�.rv'•, S, 9 gI�MJ,� .� �'� I„Ats} y9YYlE+k.✓+,y MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN Floor Plans 12 e I Ll 1 11 'l O _ O IMP Tir an F I _ (Q O• o First Floor Second Floor PROJECT NO.20425 Page-9 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN East Elevation i .1 N—J I rt— T-1-1 I I zurmxc a[xr w[va aon w,swzr urcrn sra wuu,w nno Mom.viovz AI/HNiO 11001 X1.1 Y-C w'-P rt0T NKllfi.,F�un10,11,MY PROJECT NO.20425 Page-10 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPTSUBMISSION ANTHONY,ST • East Elevation—Rendering fa; ' PROJECT • 20425 Page-11 Apr i 119,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE Petition: Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery Suns"Memorial Park Section 2 That this ordinance shall become effective upon as adoption. 2250 St.Anthony Boulevard,St.Anthony.MN Petitioner Alderwoods Group Approved as to form: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE CITY CODE City Attorney ZONING CODE ORDINANCE NO._ 1, ,Cay Clerk of the City of St.Anthony,Minnesota,DO HEREBY BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.ANTHONY: CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and ewct copy of an Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of St Anthony,Minnesota,in regular session convened on the_day of ,2005, Section 1. Chapter 16.Zonme and Lend Use of the Code of the City of St Anthony Is hereby amended the reference having been made in and recorded in full in the Ordinance Book as follows _,Page(s) A. Chapter 16,Section 1615—R-I Single-Family District WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of the City of St.Anthony,Minnesota,this_day of 2005. Amend Section 1615.02 by adding the following new permuted uses, 1615 02 Pemtirted Uses. Within an R-I Dmnct,only the following uses are permitted (e) cemeteries,mausoleums,crypts,vaults,crematoriums,columbarium,and scattering grounds B. Chapter 16,Section 1615—R-1 Smgle Family District Amend Section 1615.03 by adding the following new permitted conditional use: 1615 03 Permitted Conditional Uses Within a R.I District,the following uses ate permitted only if a conditional use permit hes been issued by the City Council: (d) Funeral homes I 2 01WeNtIMMHR,nff2av art-*= PROJECT NO.20425 Page-12 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Based on conversations with the City Staff,the below are meeting dates and a preliminary schedule based on successfully obtaining zoning revisions that we are pursuing. Implementation Item Description Start Date/Meeting Date 1. Concept Review with Planning Commission of proposed text amendment................................._..........._..........................................................................................................................................................__..................April 19,2005 2. Public Hearing with Planning Commission re:proposed text amendment......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................May 17,2005 i. Change ordinance to allow cemeteries and funeral homes in R-1(Conditional Use) ii. Concept Review of Site Plan. 3. City Council Text Amendment Reading(2"d Reading)........................ ....May 24,2005 4. City Council Text Amendment Reading(3rd Reading)............................................................................................_................................................................................._..................................._.....................................................June 14,2005 5. Public Hearing at Planning Commission......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................June 21,2005 i. Site Plan Approval ii. Conditional Use Permit iii. Variances If needed(height restrictions of R-1 district,parking restrictions) 6. Council action on Planning Commission recommendations.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................June 28,2005. PROJECT NO.20425 Page-13 OPPENHEIMER 22692000310nV2004 April 19,2005 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: April 19,2005 Subject: Concept Review of the Proposed Site Plan for St. Anthony Market Place,Outlot and Endcap, Conditional Use Permits,Setback Variances Requested Action: Concept Review None;information only. Back ound: Representatives from AMCON have met with staff to review their proposed plans for the remaining development of the former Stonehouse/SAV I/Fire Station property. Below is the proposed schedule for the City's processes regarding the Sunset Memorial Park project: April 19-- Concept Review May 17— Public Hearing with the Planning Commission re: Site Plan Approval Conditional Use Permits: Within 250' of R-1 Zoning District(2) Drive-thru Window Setback Variance: NW Corner of the proposed building Driveway from Drive-thru May 24— Public Hearing with the City Council Liquor License Developer's Agreement Council Action on Planning Commission Recommendations Attachments: • Site Plan. • Letter from Mr. Paul Tucci (4/11/05) • Background Information 7/16/03 Memo from Sue Hall Resolution 03-052 Resolution 03-053 AMCON staff report 041905 April 11, 2005 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 RE: Revised Site Plan- St. Anthony Village Center Amcon St. Anthony LLC Dear Kim: As part of our request to have the revised Site Plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on April 19, I am writing a brief narrative outlining the new Site plan and the modifications from the old plan. Pertinent facts and comparisons of the new and old plan are as follow: • The City of St. Anthony Liquor Store and the Retail Building connect on the west side remain unchanged in design and size. • The building area on the north end of the site has been modified from a 6,000 s.f. Restaurant to a 4,500 s.f. multi-tenant building. • Negotiations on a final lease have begun with a restaurant to take 3,500 s.f. on the west end of the existing retail building. It is anticipated that as of the meeting date (April 19), the restaurant tenant will have made application for a liquor license. • Total building areas have been reduced by 1,500 s.f. • Total greenspace has been reduced by I%. This is due to the addition of a drive- thru on the east side of the new 4,500 s.f. building. • Paved area has increase 3%. This is due to the addition of a drive-thru on the east side of the new 4,500 s.f. building. • There are two less parking stalls provided now than originally planned. • The new building will still need a variance from the setback, however, the new building encroaches far less than the original building. There is only one place where the building was kept 5 feet from the property line. Overall, we feel this plan allows for a better, more integrated and less congested center. In the original approval, there was a variance granted for parking in the restaurant of approximately 40 stalls. Using the same parking rations, that variance would all be eliminated. Additionally, with the smaller restaurant on the site and given the tenants in place,the site will be better able to park at all times of the day. We have placed the drive-thru on the east side of the new building to limit or eliminate noise from the ordering system to spill into the neighboring residences. It is the intent to place a coffee shop on that east end. We look forward to meeting with you and the Planning Commission to discuss this modification to the Site Plan. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please feel free to call me at(952-294-1243) Sincerely, Paul J. Tucci CC: Gonzalo Medina Jim Winkels Mike Morin MEMORANDUM DATE: 07/16/03 MEETING DATE: 07/22/03 TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Amcon Construction/Stonehouse Redevelopment Requested Action: The City has entered into a predevelopment agreement with Amcon Construction to redevelop the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88, also known as the Stonehouse and/or Fire Station sites. Amcon has submitted the formal applications for public hearings associated with their final plans. July 15 was the public hearing for the following: (a) A conditional use permit for a proposed restaurant, which is less than 250 feet from a residential structure or district; (b) A conditional use permit for a proposed on-sale liquor store; (c) Two front yard setback variances of 30 feet each for a proposed setback of 5 feet at the building corners; (d) One rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for a proposed setback of 10 feet at the southeast corner property line jog; and (e) Parking variance of 40 stalls for a proposed 40 parking stalls for a sit-down restaurant (petitioner at the Planning Commission meeting changed the request to a parking variance of 27 stalls for a proposed 120 stalls for a sit- down restaurant and adjacent retail—shared parking stalls). In addition to the above, the applicant requests an administrative subdivision. Although a public hearing is not required at the Planning Commission level, the item was discussed and referred onto the City Council with a recommendation (see Dorsey and Whitney memorandum attached). Background: Redevelopment plans show 26,000 square feet of retail in two buildings. The development will include a new municipal liquor store of 9,000 square feet, a new restaurant Spectators at 6,000 square feet, and some other tenants, yet to be named, in the remaining 11,000 square feet. The site area is 2.39 acres. The development will encompass two buildings. One building would be located on the northern portion of the property, located at the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88, and the other new building would be situated where the existing strip center (see site and building plans attached). The subject properties at 2900 Kenzie Terrace and 2700 Highway 88 are zoned commercial. Amcon is requesting two conditional use permits. The first one for the restaurant, as restaurants located less than 250 feet from a residential structure or district is a permitted conditional use in commercial districts. The condition items to consider here Page 2—Amcon Construction/Stonehouse Redevelopment might be noise (especially with the outdoor patio), traffic, trash removal, lighting, and hours of operation. It is unknown at this time if the restaurant going in, Spectators, is interested in having music piped out to the outdoor patio. The other conditional use permit is for the on-sale liquor store, which is also a permitted conditional use in a commercial zoning district. Again, conditions can be placed on the store, depending on what is appropriate. Two front yard setback variances are being requested. The variance request consists of two front yard setback variances of 30 feet each for a proposed setback of 5 feet at the building corners. Due to the triangular shape of the parcel, the natural tendency is to develop the site similar to its current layout with the building to the south side and a sea of parking out to the corner. One of the strengths of the design concept, according to the developer, is to reduce the impact of the parking lot and to reinforce the street edge by using the restaurant to wrap around and create a corner. This keeps the parking central within the site to allow shared use of the parking due to the shifting peak times of the businesses. Amcon has stated they will make an attractive gateway at the "front yard" entrance to the development. One rear yard setback variance of 10 feet is being requested for a proposed setback of 10 feet at the southeast corner property line jog. According to the developer, due to a jog in the property line at the southeast corner of the site, the rear yard setback is greatly reduced (by approximately 35 feet). The triangular shape of the site creates a natural siting of the retail building to the south property line. This property line jog reduces a comfortable building to property line dimension from 45' to 10'. The final variance request from Amcon is related to parking. The developer is requesting a parking variance of 27 stalls for a proposed 120 parking stalls for a sit- down restaurant and adjacent retail area. The developer says the proposed parking assumes a lower total requirement than the city code requires. City code states the amount of parking needed must be no less than the total seating capacity of the structure divided by 2.5, plus one parking space for each employee on the largest shift. The proposed restaurant will have 170 seats. Due to staggered peak business times for retail/liquor store and the restaurant, the centralized parking will maximize the efficiency of the development, according to the developer. There is a commercial shopping center to the south of the site. The owner of the St. Anthony Shopping Center has stated to staff that he does not want to be the spillover parking spot, which is a concern. In the past, staff has conducted research on parking requirements in neighboring cities. Attached find the memo summarizing area parking requirements. In terms of signage, the developer has told staff they will keep within the limits of the City's sign ordinance. It will all be building/wall signage. The developer has mentioned the wall signage will consist of backlit logo signs. There will not be a glow to affect the residential area. The developer has mentioned the same goes for the lighting on the site. There should be no spillage to the neighborhood. The intensity should measure one foot candle or less at the property line. e Page 3—Amcon Construction/Stonehouse Redevelopment One other item of note that has come up is sidewalks. The City will be reconstructing the sidewalk along Kenzie Terrace this year as a part of a planned stormwater project, so the sidewalk will remain. Within the development, Amcon said they intend to connect the sidewalks to the buildings. Attached find the final plans submitted by Amcon Construction. They include a site plan, grading plan, utility plan, landscape plan, floor plan, and exterior elevations. According to the developer, it is anticipated construction at the site will begin in September and be completed in March 2004. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the above requests, keeping in mind the impact on the adjacent/nearby residential neighborhoods and commercial property. CITY OF ST.ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 03 -052 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER OF KENZIE TERRACE AND HIGHWAY 88 WHEREAS, two conditional use requests from Amcon Construction for the redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88(Stonehouse/Fire Department properties)were presented to the St.Anthony Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 15,2003: 1. Restaurant location.This is a permitted conditional use for a commercial district. The request is for a location less than 250 feet from a residential district. Following are the conditions the Planning Commission recommended for Council approval: a. Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match buildings and must be located on the southwest comer. b. Lighting must be"down-spill",with no spillage to residential properties across Kenzie Terrace and conform with adjacent area(St.Anthony Boulevard) C. Hours for outdoor seating shall not exceed 10:00 pm d. No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from any residential district e. City engineers must approve the plan, including a determination that the proposed plan will not have an adverse impact on the current water run- of situation f. The patio will be on the east side of the building g. Break up mass and improve the landscape to the north side of the building h. The design of the building shall conform to Savage Store i. Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours 2. On-sale liquor store.This is a permitted conditional use for a commercial district and no conditions were added for Council approval. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.Anthony hereby approves the conditional use requests from Amcon Construction for redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88,as recommended by the Planning Commission at their July 15,2003 meeting,and with Amcon's conformity to the conditions stated above. Adopted this day of Mayor f ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: /dity, M- anKer CITY OF ST.ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 03 -053 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER OF KENZIE TERRACE AND HIGHWAY 88 WHEREAS, variance requests from Amcon Construction for the redevelopment of the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88(Stonehouse/Fire Department properties)were presented to the St.Anthony Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 15,2003: 1. Two front yard setback variances of 30 feet each for a proposed setback of 5 feet at the building comers.Following are the findings by the Planning Commission: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area b. Undue hardship exists and is a result of an oddly shaped parcel that is generally triangular in shape with a rounded side 1) These circumstances are not caused by the applicant or property owner 2) The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the locality,but would essentially replace existing blighted structures with new,more aesthetically pleasing buildings 3) The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the requested variance because even reconstructing the existing blighted buildings on their same footprints would require setback variances 4) Economic considerations alone are not the basis C. The circumstances creating this hardship are unique to this oddly- shaped property d. Granting of the variance will keep within the spirit and intention of the zoning code and further, it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. One rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for a proposed setback of 10 feet at the southeast comer property line job.Planning Commission findings are: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area b. Undue hardship exists based on the following: 1) Circumstances creating the hardship is an irregular parcel with a jog,not the result of the owner/applicant 2) The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the locality as there is sufficient room at the property line and adjacent buildings and streets.In addition,the project improves the rear yard setback condition as compared to the existing blighted buildings 3) Economic consideration alone is not the reason for the variance request 4) Because of the overall shape of the parcel,the property cannot be put to reasonable use without the need for variances C. The variance will maintain the spirit and intent of the zoning code d. The circumstances creating the need for the variance are unique to this property because of its odd shape 3. A parking variance of 27 stalls for a proposed 120 parking stalls for a sit down restaurant and adjacent retail(147 required) a. The property is currently blighted,is poorly planned and is overall a detriment to the locale b. An undue hardship would result if strict adherence to the ordinance is required,based on the following: 1) The hardship results from the odd shape of the parcel,and was not created by the owner/applicant 2) The variance would not alter the essential character of the locale,but would represent an improvement to the area 3) The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the variance because of its odd configuration 4. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship C. The circumstances creating the hardship are unique to this property d. The granting of this variance will maintain the spirit of the zoning code because of the staggered peak business times for the proposed uses of the property,which will allow for adequate parking for all the uses at any given time of day. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.Anthony hereby approves the above variance requests from Amcon Construction for redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88,as recommended by the Planning Commission at their July 15,2003 meeting,. Adopted this day of ayor ATTEST: ' City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: City Manager ` Planding Commission Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Stromgren, Joel T[JStromgren@millerdunwiddie.com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 9:12 AM To: Kim Moore-Sykes Subject: Planning Commission Kim- Here is the list I have to date of ordinance issues to discuss. Of course now that I am actually looking for them, I cannot find the reference prohibiting basketball hoops and clothesline poles in the code. Maybe Sue left you her list? Joel Stromgren, AIA, NCARB Miller Dunwiddie Architects Direct: 612.278.7690 email:jstromgren(omillerdunwiddie.com www.millerdunwiddie.com «2005 Planning Clean-up.doc>> 3/31/2005 r � 2005 Planning & Zoning Ordinance Clean Up 1. 1335.17, subd. 2: All references to state building & fire code should reference the International Building Code and International Fire Code. 2. 1315: create separate definition for hot tub from pools, allowing for a locking cover in lieu of the 6' fence. Edina has a similar provision with ANSI standards for the locking cover. Could also look at the 4' vs. 6' fence requirement, which is more than most other communities. 3. 1615.05: Side yard at corner lot—modify similar to standard front yard language, allowing setback at side yard to be the average of the setbacks (from the same street) of the 2 adjacent properties. 4. 1615.05, subd. 2: Add language to this section, something to the effect of: "New construction, remodeling and/or additions to existing residences, on existing parcels that are smaller than the minimum width or area, shall be permitted." This may also require additional text for 1500.05, subd. 4 (2). 5. 1400.12, subd. 4 (1): Delete the second sentence allowing larger that normal signs, thereby allowing the standard criteria in 1400.10 to be the maximum. 6. 810.03 & 1335.17, subd. 11: The issue of an ordinance change to allow native plantings came up in the Sept 2004 meeting, and needs to be addressed. There was quite a packet of info for this one, and moreiInfo on the EPA website at: http://www.epa.gov/grtlakes/weenacres/weedl aws/JMLR.html#A%20HIS TO RY. Examples: http://www.ci.rochester.mn.us/attorney/ordedt/ord48.txt http://www.ci.bloominjzton.nin.us/code/CodelO 4.html#b10 37 Roseville simply added a line stating that nuisance weeds did not include prairie restorations. 7. a Kim Moore-Sykes From: John Malenick Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 11:22 AM To: Kim Moore-Sykes Subject: RE: Hi ! I am sending the first Quarter summary of 2005 and the last half of 2004. Let me know if that is sufficient. I am sorry I can't make the April 19 meeting. I will be bringing my parents home from Florida. I would love to attend the May 17 meeting and could arrange to bring Rick Lundeen (official Housing Code guy) along for input/experience. See ya, John 3RD&4th 1st QT.05.xis QT.04.xls 1 ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY THIRD & FOURTH QUARTER 2004 ' CASE # DATE VIOLATION ADDRESS COMPLAINT OFFICER 43 7/9/2004 3400 BLOCK SILVER LANE LOUD NOISE AFTER HRS. J.M. 44 7/16/2004 3636 PENROD GARBAGE/DUMPSTER C.F. 45 7/22/2004 3101 36TH AVE. GARBAGE CAN LEFT OUT J.M. 46 7/24/2004 3404 CROFT DRV. COMPOST PILE NOT CONTAINED J.M. 47 7/26/2004 2804 PAHL AVE. CAR ON GRASS J.M. 48 7/27/2004 2608 37TH LONG GRASSIWEEDS M.S. 49 7/27/2004 2610 37TH LONG GRASS/WEEDS M.S. 50 7/27/2004 2816 ROOSEVELT LONG GRASS/WEEDS M.S. 51 7/27/2004 2820 ROOSEVELT LONG GRASSIWEEDS M.S. 52 7/27/2004 2513 ST. ANTHONY BLV. LONG GRASSIWEEDS M.S. 53 7/27/2004 2505 PAHL AVE. LONG GRASSIWEEDS M.S. 54 7/27/2004 2501 PAHL AVE. LONG GRASS/WEEDS M.S. 55 7/28/2004 3821 FOSS RD. GARBAGE CAN LEFT OUT C.F. 56 7/29/2004 2813 SILVER LAKE RD. LONG GRASS/WEEDS M.S. 57 8/10/2004 2517 30TH AVE. WEEDS J.M. 58 8/10/2004 3606 ROOSEVELT VEHICLES PARKED ON GRASS J.M. 59 8/15/2004 3524 SILVER LAKE RD. LONG GRASS/WEEDS J.M. 60 8/20/2004 3424 HIGHCREST RODENT HARBORAGE J.M. 61 8/23/2004 3929 PENROD OPEN POOL OF WATER C.F. 62 8/31/2004 3101 EDGEMERE REFUSE ACCUMULATION D.D. 63 9/12/2004 2916 33RD AVE. WEEDS/BRUSH J.M. 64 9/28/2004 2508 ST. ANTHONY BLV. LONG GRASSIWEEDS J.M. 65 10/25/04 MULTI LOCATION SIGN ORD. VIOLATIONS J.M. 66 10/27/04 3631 STINSON ACC. BUILD. IN FRONT YARD J.M. 67 10/28/04 37TH @ COOLIDGE & BELDON VEG. OBSTRUCTING, IN R.O.W. J.M. 68 11/18/04 3515 HARDING EXPIRED TABS R.A. 69 11/18/04 3512 HARDING EXPIRED TABS R.A. 70 11/18/04 3523 HARDING EXPIRED TABS R.A. 71 11/30/04 3408 BELDON CAR ON GRASS R.L. 72 12/14/04 3202 39TH CAR ON GRASS/JUNK R.L. 73 12/14/04 3206 39TH CAR ON GRASS/JUNK R.L. 74 12/14/04 3208 39TH NO HOUSE#'S/JUNK R.L. 75 12/14/04 3300 39TH MOTORCYCLE ON GRASS/JUNK R.L. 76 12/14/04 3306 39TH TRUCK ON GRASS R.L. 77 12/15/04 3500 COOLIDGE REFUSE ACCUMULATION R.L. ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY FIRST QUARTER 2005 ' CASE # DATE VIOLATION ADDRESS COMPLAINT OFFICER 1 1/4/2005 3208 SKYCROFT VEHICLES-REFUSE IN YARD R.L. 2 1/10/2005 3108 EDGEMERE GARBAGE RECEPTACLE IN FRONT R.L. 3 1/13/2005 PENTAGON DR. CAR FOR SALE R.L. 4 1/28/2005 3149 STINSON REFUSE ACCUMULATION R.L. 5 2/1/2005 3609 33RD. VEHICLE PARKED ON GRASS R.L. 6 2/9/2005 2900 ST. ANTHONY BLV. DOG DROPPINGS R.L. 7 2/15/2005 33 RD & STINSON SIGNS J.M. 8 2/25/2005 2700 HWY 88 REFUSE IN ALLEY R.L. 9 2/25/2025 2609 ST.ANTHONY BLV. OVER WEIGHT TRUCK R.L. 10 3/9/2005 3902 SILVER LAKE RD. SIGN INFORMATION J.M. 11 3/9/2005 AREA SIGN INFORMATION R.L. 12 3/9/2005 OLD HWY 8 VEHICLES FOR SALE R.L. 13 2/28/2005 2550 HWY 88 SIGN INFORMATION R.L. 14 3/10/2005 3212 39 TH TRAILER ON GRASS R.L. 15 3/18/2005 2550 HWY 88 SIGNS R.L. 16 3/21/2005 4004 SILVER LAKE RD VEHICLE PARKED ON GRASS R.L. 17 3/22/2005 2550 HWY 88 SIGN R.L. 18 3/22/2005 2612 HWY 88 VEHICLE FOR SALE R.L. c' Land Use Planning 8t Zoning In the City of St. Anthony (Different for each City) The City has nine (9) Zoning Districts and each district allows only certain land uses. Definitions and descriptions of these districts can be found in Chapter 16 of the City Code. According to land use planning philosophy, the R-1 designation is considered the highest in the hierarchy of land use, with the rest of the designations following in appropriate order. The Zoning designations/districts in St. Anthony are: a. R-1, Single Family District. PURPOSE: To create and maintain areas that are the most conducive to single family detached homes: low traffic volumes, natural land amenities (trees, hills, water) and historically developed as R-1. b. R-1A, Single Family - Lakeshore District. (Subset of R-1) PURPOSE: To create and maintain lakeshore areas for single family detached homes and provides zoning regulations which are different from R-1 and are intended for the preservation of the natural areas of the lake. C. R-2, Two-Family (aka as Twin Home) District. PURPOSE: To provide areas best suited for higher density and that serve as a "transitional use" between R-1, R-1A and other zoning districts. Generally considered to be lower High Density housing. d. R-3. Townhouse District. PURPOSE: To provide areas that: 1. Preserve the natural amenities, such as trees, hills and bodies of water by encouraging the development of medium density housing surrounded by common open space; 2. Serve as a transitional use between less dense residential districts and other districts; and 3. Provide for alternatives to one and two family dwellings. e. R-4, Multiple Family District. PURPOSE: To provide areas for housing other than one and two family dwellings and townhouses, and which may serve as a transitional use between less dense residential uses and nonresidential uses. Allows highest density housing, i.e. apartments, condominiums. f. C. General Commercial District. PURPOSE: To Provide areas for retail sales and services located and regulated so as to minimize adverse effects on neighboring residential districts and congestion of public streets. HAPlanningNisc. InformationTlammng Zoning Info Sheet 2005.doc 1 -J g. LI, Light Industrial District. PURPOSE: To provide areas for the development and regulation of light industry. Generally, light industrial areas are located in close proximity of high capacity roadways or rail facilities and existing development. Regulated to enhance the compatibility of light industrial uses within the Commercial and Residential districts. h. R/0, Recreational/Open Space District. PURPOSE: To regulate development in those areas that have significant natural amenities such as trees, terrain, and water resources, and to regulate development for recreational purposes in areas which have significant public or private recreational potential. i. PUD, Planned Unit Development District. PURPOSE: To provide an area where a development plan may include single or mixed uses and which is intended to create a more flexible, innovative and efficient approach to land use planning and the use of the parcel. The lot or parcel must be, at a minimum, 3 acres in size to qualify to be designated as a PUD. Examples: Apache Medical Building Et Silver Lake Village (formerly Apache Plaza). With the exception of the PUD Zoning District, all the zoning districts have and include the following sections: PERMITTED USES: These are uses that are specific to that zoning district and are only allowed in this district. PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES: This section provides information on those uses that are allowed ONLY under certain conditions in the district as recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council in a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: Accessory uses are those uses that are subordinate to the main use of the zoning district on the parcel and which is customarily incidental to the main use. DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS: This section describes the height, lot area and width, floor area ratio, minimum floor area, front yard, side yard and rear yard setbacks, lot coverage and building to land ratio. Each Zoning District has different and varying restrictions or requirements for each of the above-listed sections. Refer to the Definitions section of Chapter 16 for additional information. Often times, important information can be found in these definitions. Additional information on dimensional or zoning requirements may be stated in Section 1650, GENERAL REGULATIONS. The Index is another place to locate additional information in the Code, but be advised that some of the page numbers are not correct. Generally, though, the Index takes you to the general area of where the information may be found. HAPlanningNisc.InformationTlanning Zoning Info Sheet 2005.doc 2 r J_ But One Size Doesn't Fit All . . . For a variety of reasons, the City's Zoning Code and Comprehensive Land Use Plan doesn't adequately represent or apply to all the properties in town. Historically, St. Anthony started its development in earnest after WWII, with the platting of residential lots on south end of town first. These lots are generally between 45' and 60' wide, to accommodate affordability for first time homebuyers in the mid 1940's. As the economy prospered and the popularity of the community increased, lots were platted larger. In August 1976, the presiding City Council approved the codification of the City's Code. Included as a part of the new City Code, was the Zoning and Land Use Code, which stipulated land use, lot size, setbacks, rights-of-way, etc. This new Zoning and Land Use Code made many of these previously platted lots non-conforming but "grandfathered in". Section 1660 - NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES of the Zoning Code (Chap. 16) discusses non-conforming uses and provides information on the lawful continuation of these uses and structures. Currently, the City continues to enjoy great popularity as a place to live, work and play but this popularity on occasion brings desired property usage in conflict with the City's Zoning and Land Use Code. Property owners want larger homes, garages, decks, swimming pools, etc. on these smaller lots. Or they want to expand the use or add uses to properties that are not adequately or properly zoned to accommodate how the property owner wants to use his/her land. Planning Tools to Fit Square Pegs in Round Holes: The Minnesota Statutes do give municipalities the authority and ability to make changes to land use and/or zoning to try to accommodate the wishes of the property owner. Section 1665 - ADMINISTRATION describes the process by which a property owner may apply to make the desired changes to land or use. Each of these processes requires the payment of an application fee, which is non-refundable and can be found in the Fee Schedule, Section 615.07. 1. Rezoning. While requests to rezone property are becoming rare, the rezoning process has been used extensively for the City's redevelopment efforts on the former Apache Plaza site. 2. Variance. Applications for variances to the Zoning Code are the most requested actions that the City receives. This doesn't mean though, that the request will be granted. The Planning Commission and the City Council takes these requests very seriously and on a case-by-case basis. Variances are sought when the property owner feels that he/she is prevented by the Zoning Code from using their property to its best and greatest use(s). As part of the application, the property owner is required to write why he/she is requesting the variance, to describe what the hardship is, that the request is not solely economically based, that the use/improvement with not change the character of the neighborhood and the use/improvement won't present a public safety issue for the neighborhood or community. 3. Conditional Use Permit. This is a permit that is given to a property owner who is proposes to use his/her property in a manner that is allowed ONLY under certain conditions in the district as recommended by the Planning Commission HAPlannmgNisc. InfonnationTlanning Zoning Info Sheet 2005.doc 3 I and approved by the City Council in a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). These conditions are listed as a part of their CUP and must be approved by the City Council. Some examples of what the conditions might be include: Establishing restricted hours of operation Maximum lighting - illumination and hours Establishing noise limits 4. Lot Splits/Lot Combinations/Replats. Lot Split: Process by which large lots are split to make two or more lots. These splits must conform to the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Code. No process may make a conforming use non- conforming! Lot Combination: Process by which two or more lots are combined to form one lot. Both of these actions, once approved, are to be replatted with the appropriate county (Hennepin or Ramsey) and it is the responsibility of the property owner to replat. All of these processes require a public hearing so that the residents and property owners that may be affected by the proposed changes might have an opportunity to voice either their opposition or their support for the project. Public hearings are almost always conducted by the Planning Commission under the authority provided by the City Council and the State of Minnesota. The Planning Commission then sends their recommendation to the City Council for approval. The Planning Commission is appointed by the City Council; they are not elected to the Commission. As such, this Commission is advisory to the City Council and cannot take action on any questions before them. The City Council is the only body that is authorized to take action on questions before them. The Planning Commissions sends recommendations for action but the City Council does not have to follow their recommendation. JFYI: 1. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. In addition to Chapter 16 of the City's Zoning Code, the City is also required by the State to have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, which is the overall, grand land use plan of the City. Basically, it guides the planning and development of a City, not the Zoning Code. Prior to 1993, a city's comprehensive land use plan was not required and few had them. But because the Zoning Code was the document that most cities used, cities rarely paid any attention to the land use plan; they were simply nice to have on the shelf. The State became concerned that cities were developing their communities with little regard to the planning process, causing disjointed development and redevelopment to occur. So, in 1993, legislation was passed that required all Minnesota cities to develop and approve a Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Other governmental jurisdictions were also to receive a copy for review and comment. The legislation also provided that these land use planning documents are to be updated every 10 years in addition to the minor adjustments that are required to be done as they occur, i.e. rezoning. Copies of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan is to be available to the public upon demand for their review. 2. Livable Communities Act. Legislation that was enacted c. 1995 in an attempt to provide residents with a choice of housing, depending on their socio-economic situation. The following terms are a part of that legislation and based on benchmarks that were established HAPlanningWlisc.InformationTlanning Zoning Info Sheet 2005.doc 4 for each community for each category, a city would be eligible for grants and/or loans to assist qualifying residents in the purchasing or repairing of homes. Low-Income Housing - Income based housing specifically for those that meet the poverty definition. Affordable Housing - Housing that is deemed affordable based on various factors related to income. Life Cycle Housing - Housing that is specifically designed for various stages of life. This is usually a term that generally and broadly describes the housing stock of a community that can accommodate young families just "starting out", larger families with school-aged children, empty-nesters and seniors. Livable Communities - A designation given to a community that provides a variety of housing that meets the needs of all its residents. Housing Stock - All of a community's available residences. Zoning Maps - Maps that show the various zoning districts in the City. This map is different for every City as are the names and requirements for each Zoning Districts. 60-Day Rule - Minnesota Statute that requires all land use and zoning applications to be decided within 60 days of the filing of a complete application. This means that the public hearing and Council decision on the application has to be done within 2 months. Under certain circumstances, the City is allowed to request an extension from the applicant. If the City takes no action within the 60 days, the request is automatically granted. The City has no recourse to change or affect the decision if this happens. As a result, we take land use and zoning applications very seriously. It is imperative that the Zoning Administrator (me) reviews the application before it is accepted. Once the application is accepted, the 60-day clock begins. HAPlanning\Misc. InformationTlanning Zoning Info Sheet 2005 doc 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 April 19, 2005 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER. 10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 11 12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of 14 Allegiance. 15 16 III. ROLL CALL. 17 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners 18 Hoska, Jensen, Jenson, and Young. 19 20 Absent: Commissioner Galyon 21 22 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 23 24 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 25 26 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that an additional staff report was included for the AMCON 27 Concept Review. She noted that a revision\correction was also made, the original 28 referenced Sunset Memorial and it should be changed to AMCON. 29 30 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting 31 agenda as amended. 32 33 Motion carried unanimously 34 35 V. MEETING MINUTES. 36 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2005. 37 38 Chair Stromgren stated that he had the following corrections: 39 Page 2, Line 39: States 'architectural firm'; Should state 'landscape architectural 40 firm' 41 Page 3, Line 34: States 'Secretary of Standards'; Should state 'Secretary of Interior 42 Standards' 43 Page 4, Line 5-6: States "Ms Roise indicated that a local group of consultants would 44 work with the structure.' 45 Should State 'Ms Roise indicated that the State Historic 46 Preservation Society would work with the design team.' Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 2 1 2 Commissioner Young stated that she had the following correction: 3 Page 2, Line 38: States 'park plan was originally designed by Allen and Nichols' 4 Should State 'park plan was originally designed by Morrell and 5 Nichols' 6 7 Commissioner Jensen stated that he had the following corrections: 8 Page 3, Paragraph 3, Lines 13, 14 States 'landscaping', should state 9 'landscape' 10 Page 3, Paragraph 4, Line 27, 28, States 'landscaping', should state 11 'landscape' 12 13 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Jensen to approve the meeting 14 minutes of the Planning Commission of March 15, 2005 as amended. 15 16 Motion carried unanimously 17 18 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 19 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the April 26, 2005 City Council 20 Meeting. 21 22 Chair Stromgren stated that Commissioner Young would attend the City Council 23 Meeting on April 26, 2005. 24 25 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 26 7.1 3605-291h Avenue North (Industrial) Conditional Use Permit-Proposed Car Sales 27 28 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the applicant is not present this evening. She stated that 29 they should still hold the public hearing and make a recommendation to City Council. 30 31 Chair Stromgren opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. 32 33 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the applicant, Patrick O'Connor is requesting approval of a 34 conditional use permit for 3605 — 29th Avenue Northeast. She stated that the applicant 35 is proposing an auto dealership for specialized classics and custom cars business on a 36 property that is located in the Light Industrial Zoning District. She stated that Mr. 37 O'Connor met with Staff regarding his plans to purchase the property and his proposal 38 for use. She referenced a letter from Mr. O'Connor dated March 10, 2005 that outlines 39 his plan to keep 15 to 25 vehicles on site for sale either in the showroom or parked on 40 the west side of the property. She stated that Mr. O'Connor met with the Planning 41 Commission on March 15, 2005 for a Concept Review to fully discuss his plans for the 42 property. She stated that in reviewing the Zoning Code, Section 1640 — Light Industrial, 43 section 1640.02 lists the permitted uses and one of those is an automotive service and 44 repair, provided no junk vehicles are kept on the property. She stated that based on 45 information provided by Mr. O'Connor there was indication that part of the business 46 would include reconditioning of classic and or collectible vehicles. She stated that on Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 3 1 further review of the section it was found that only administrative offices and non-retail 2 business are actually permitted. She stated that it appears the information submitted 3 by the applicant shows that a majority of the proposed use would be devoted to retail. 4 5 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff received a telephone call from Mr. Glen Ward of 6 Walter R. Hammond Company and owner of the adjacent property. She explained that 7 Mr. Ward expressed concerns regarding access to the subject property. His immediate 8 concern is the concrete boulevard on 29th noting that prospective customers could turn 9 onto 29th Avenue and use his driveway and parking lot to get to Mr. O'Connor's 10 business rather than go further down the block to the light, make a U-Turn and turn into 11 the subject property's driveway. Mr. Ward also expressed concerns that parking could 12 become an issue with the potential of the same buyers using his lot to park in, which 13 would limit parking for their customers. Mr. Ward also felt a car lot next door would also 14 diminish their property values. 15 16 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she also received a letter from City Attorney Gilligan that 17 explains that the proposed use of the property is not permitted in the L1 District nor is a 18 conditional use permit. She stated that the City Attorney went on to explain that the 19 City does not have the authority to approve the request. She stated that the City 20 Attorney and Staff are recommending that the request be denied. 21 22 Chair Stromgren acknowledged that the applicant, Patrick O'Connor, was not present. 23 24 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, stated that because the applicant did 25 not withdraw the application it should be stated, for the record, that a resident supports 26 the letters of recommendation noting the incompatibility of the proposed commercial 27 business in a light industrial zone. 28 29 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. 30 31 Commissioner D. Jensen noted that the applicant appears to have met a portion of the 32 code requirements and questioned whether this could be a situation where the 33 applicant went in believing he had met all of the zoning labels and found, after money 34 was collected for permits, that the proposed application was not in compliance with the 35 zoning code. He asked if the dollars paid would be refunded or prorated back to Mr. 36 O'Connor. 37 38 Ms. Moore-Sykes acknowledged that there have been situations where dollars have 39 been refunded due to misunderstandings. She explained that in this case Mr. 40 O'Connor already had signed the purchase agreement and the project had already 41 started when he came in, as an afterthought, to the City to review his plan and 42 determine his options. She stated that Mr. O'Connor discussed variance options with 43 Staff and was told that possibly the only way he would be allowed to have his business 44 on this site was with a conditional use permit. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 4 1 Commissioner D. Jensen suggested that the Planning Commission move to deny the 2 request and recommend tabling at the City Council level. 3 4 Chair Stromgren clarified that a letter was received from the City Attorney that clearly 5 states the use is not compatible and does not fall within the requirements for a 6 Conditional Use Permit. 7 8 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to deny approval of 9 the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed auto dealership for specialized, classics, 10 and custom car sales to be located at 3605-29`h Avenue North. 11 12 Motion carried unanimously 13 14 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW 15 8.1 Sunset Memorial Park— Proposed Text Amendment to the City Zoning Code 16 17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that this is a Concept Review for the proposed Text 18 Amendment as requested by the Alderwoods Group. She explained that the request is 19 for a proposed text amendment for the R-1 Zoning District and to allow a funeral home 20 to operate in an R-1 Zoning District as a conditional use. She reviewed the proposed 21 schedule for the City's processes regarding the project noting that a public hearing with 22 the Planning Commission is scheduled for May 17, 2005 and advises only one reading 23 is required with a zoning text amendment to the city code. That reading is scheduled 24 with the City Council on May 24, 2005. She referenced Chapter two of the city code 25 that states that any text changes regarding zoning ordinances only requires one 26 reading. She stated that they could continue through to the third reading, if they so 27 desired. She explained that if they do three readings a waiver to the 60-day rule 28 would be needed and the applicant would have to request an extension. 29 30 Mr. Tyson stated that they want to follow through with all rules required by the City. He 31 stated that they are willing to proceed in the most efficient and diligent manner as they 32 want to be responsive to the City's needs and address any concerns, questions or 33 issues the Commission might have regarding the proposal. He explained that they are 34 here this evening to discuss and clarify their proposal for a text amendment change to 35 the City Zoning Code. He stated that they are approaching this in two parts, first to 36 obtain a relief or consistency with the current zoning, which is an R-1 zone. He 37 acknowledged that they are non-conforming and are requesting that the R-1 Zone 38 include cemeteries and funeral homes services under a conditional use. Secondly, 39 they want to bring in the funeral home. He stated that the plan would be to replace the 40 current with a new, state of the art facility that would include both the funeral home and 41 the administration building. He stated that they have worked closely with the City and 42 several members of the Community to ensure that all concerns were herd and 43 addressed. He stated that an Open House was held on January 11, 2005 and 44 indicated that several comments and suggestions were received from Council Members 45 along with members of the Community. He stated that they have also reviewed the 46 building from a historical perspective and it is their belief that they have been Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 5 1 responsive to the request that they design a beautiful building that would provide 2 continuity to the City in terms of structure and also be sensitive to the needs of the 3 community for this amenity. 4 5 Matt Duggan, Mekus Studios, Ltd, provided the Commission with a brief history of the 6 proposal noting that a subcommittee was formed to work through the issues and 7 concerns. He stated that they met in December 2004 and also held an Open House in 8 January 2005. He stated that the Open House was well attended adding that they 9 received a very good response from the Community. He stated that they recently 10 brought in a consultant, Charles Nelson, retired State Architect for the Historical 11 Preservation (SHPO), to assist with the design of the proposed building. He stated that 12 the Concept Review proposal has not changed too much since September noting that 13 the most significant change was within the site. First with parking, the first proposal 14 indicated angle parking along the center with the intent to avoid interfering with the line 15 of trees along the boulevard. He noted that the Planning Commission had raised 16 concerns regarding the parking and the potential loss of green space. He explained 17 that both sides of the boulevard are lined with Cedars and they have since learned from 18 an arborist that cedars have a shelf life and they were provided with replacement 19 recommendations of similar species and shape that would be a bit heartier. He stated 20 that they would utilize the list of recommended replacements as needed. He stated that 21 both Roise and Morrow-Nichols have reviewed the new proposal for the parking area. 22 He stated that minor changes have been made to the exterior of building noting that Mr. 23 Nelson suggested a diamond grill pad similar to the large window on the existing 24 building adding that this is a very important element of the building. He explained that 25 their intention is to reuse the stained glass window in the interior of building 26 incorporating the window into the current lobby space. He stated that another element 27 they want to reuse is the stone fireplace and mural currently located above the 28 fireplace. He indicated that they plan to incorporate both into the lobby or in one of the 29 visitation chapel rooms. He assured the Commission that they have been very 30 sensitive to the concerns expressed regarding the design of the building and reviewed 31 with the Commission. 32 33 Charles Nelson stated that for thirty-three years he served as the Chief State Historical 34 Preservationist Officer for the state Historical Preservationist Office (SHPO),ding that he 35 was asked to provide input on the design characteristics for this building. He explained 36 that he provided technical input and evaluation of the design in order to judge the 37 impact of the new design on historic properties. He explained that the first 38 determination was the impact the parking area and access points would have on the 39 landscape qualities of the park. The primary elements seen are an entrance, the Tower 40 of Memories and in the distance the Memorial Chapel. He stated that it is very 41 important to preserve the point of entry noting that if the building were located on any 42 other spot on the property the visual to the entrance would be compromised. 43 Historically, when entering the gate, visitors were introduced to the prominent and 44 important landscape. He noted that the parallel parking along the central mall would 45 take very little space adding that in his opinion the proposed parking solution has come 46 a very long way. He stated that the cedar trees are a very important piece of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 6 1 landscape and should not be removed under any circumstance. He explained that the 2 guidelines state that similar foliage and landscape treatments are acceptable for 3 change outs over time adding that this is what they would recommend. He explained 4 that the building must provide a function. He stated that the architect has reviewed 5 opportunities and alternatives to expand the existing structure noting that the proposal 6 is not acceptable, as it does not provide the utilities for long-term use. He stated that in 7 providing a new facility on this site it would provide a gateway entrance point to the 8 landscape that would go beyond and incorporate the design characteristics of the 9 historical architecture currently found. He reviewed the architectural history of the 10 design with the Commission noting that overall, the design has evolved in a very 11 satisfactory manner and currently, with the removal of the existing building, it addresses 12 and incorporates the functionality, it is sensitive and addresses concerns of the City and 13 Community and work, long-term, with the historical architectural of the park. 14 15 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the footprint and asked how much larger the proposed 16 footprint would be in comparison to the current. Mr. Tyson stated that the existing 17 footprint is approximately 2000 square feet and the new footprint would be 5500 square 18 feet with total of 11,000 square feet. 19 20 Commissioner D. Jensen noted it is assumed the parking area would probably be 21 asphalt and asked if they have considered any other alternatives and other colors that 22 would preserve the vista. Mr. Tyson stated that there could be issues due to the shape 23 of the roads. He agreed that a key part of the proposal is how they are keeping with the 24 layout. Mr. Nelson explained that there is a system used to install the pavers adding 25 that they are not noticeable when installed in the grass areas. 26 27 Commissioner J. Jenson referenced the elevation and asked how much higher from the 28 grade would the proposed building be in comparison to the existing. Mr. Duggan stated 29 that the existing is up 3.5 feet from the grade. He stated that the proposed building 30 would be smaller but similar in height. 31 32 Commissioner J. Jenson asked Mr. Duggan to review the floor plan. Mr. Duggan 33 provided the Commission with an overview of the floor plan. He stated that the layout 34 for the new building has two new fronts, one off St. Anthony Boulevard and the other 35 with the funeral home off the cemetery side to the west. The first floor incorporates a 36 chapel, a visitation room, a selection room and a lounge. The second floor would have 37 the administrative and sales offices. 38 39 Commissioner Young asked about materials for the new building noting that they are 40 trying to stay true to the intent. Mr. Duggan stated that it would be a cast stone product 41 in units similar to the granite blocks on the current building but slightly larger, with the 42 intent to replicate the masonry and coursing on existing building. The stone would be 43 similar to the color of the gray limestone used in the Tower of Memories and the 44 Mausoleum. The roof would be metal, similar to Mausoleum and Chapel. 45 46 Commissioner D. Jensen noted the procedural introduction and asked if it is important Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 7 1 for the applicant to consider waiving the 60-day rule and reapply. Ms. Moore-Sykes 2 stated that it is up to the applicant adding that technically, only one reading is required. 3 She stated that the applicant would not need an extension if they choose to move 4 forward with one reading and forgo the other two but, if they decide to move forward 5 with three readings they would need the 60-day waiver. 6 7 Commissioner D. Jensen referenced the text amendment and encouraged the 8 applicants and Staff to be sensitive when determining the definition. He suggested 9 giving recognition, in the verbiage, to the accessory rooms, as they do not want any 10 issues around non-complying uses. He suggested including verbiage within the text to 11 address the parking concerns. 12 13 Commissioner Young asked if crematoriums have been discussed. Mr. Tyson stated 14 that crematoriums have not been specifically discussed. He clarified the purpose for 15 the proposed text change was to get something to the Planning Commission in order to 16 begin the discussions. He explained that they plan to propose an ordinance that would 17 be organic enough for both. He assured the Commission that the would continue to 18 work with the City Attorney and Staff adding that the concept of a crematorium could be 19 one of the extended uses. He indicated that the national trend has been to try and 20 bring all services to one location. 21 22 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, stated that one of the concerns from 23 the beginning was signage and operation of a funeral home. He asked the applicants if 24 they feel they are operating in compliance with City zoning. John Herman stated that 25 the current funeral activities at the cemetery occur at the Chapel located at the end of 26 the mall, which is actually located in the City of Minneapolis and is grandfathered under 27 the Minneapolis zoning code. He stated that this is a permitted legal use in the City of 28 Minneapolis. He stated that the current Administration Building is not being used for 29 funerals. 30 31 Mr. Cavanaugh asked what it means by maintaining the ground burials by the entrance 32 gate. Mr. Tyson clarified that the text refers to their need, during the design process, to 33 be extremely sensitive to existing cemetery plots located on the property. 34 35 Mr. Cavanaugh asked if they are planning any disinterment and asked the applicant to 36 provide the Planning Commission with copies of the identified gravesite locations. Mr. 37 Tyson assured the Commission that they do not plan any disinterment and agreed to 38 provide copies of the gravesite locations. 39 40 Mr. Cavanaugh clarified that the new footprint would be larger than the existing and 41 asked if there would be any infringement on current gravesites. Mr. Tyson reviewed the 42 footprints and assured the Commission that there would be no infringement on any of 43 the gravesites. 44 45 Mr. Cavanaugh pointed out that the City's consultant stated that the current building is 46 in good condition. He stated that it does not make sense to remove the building as it is Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 8 1 still in good shape. He expressed concerns stating that they are introducing an 2 extraneous use to the cemetery that is not compatible and they are asking the 3 Community to accept this incompatibility. He stated that he is not happy with the 4 changes to the green space adding that he does not see this as a hardship. He 5 questioned whether this is spot zoning noting that he has not heard anything from the 6 Sunset Group that would convince him that the funeral home intrusion justifies the 7 changes they are requesting for the zoning. He stated that this plan is not compatible 8 with some of the values expressed by the Community. 9 10 Commissioner D. Jensen stated that it would be a good idea for staff to determine and 11 address any encroachment and construction issues. 12 13 8.2 AMCON — Site Plan Review, St. Anthony Marketplace 14 15 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that this is a Concept Review for the Outlot at St. Anthony 16 Market Place. She stated that representatives from AMCON have met with Staff to 17 review their proposed development plans. She provided the Commission with an 18 update of the proposed schedule for the City's processes regarding the AMCON project 19 20 Paul Tucci, Oppidan, Inc, provided the Commission with an overview of the original 21 proposal noting that currently three bays are vacant that comprise approximately 3500 22 square feet. They are currently negotiating with a potential tenant for approximately 23 2000 square feet. He stated that the original restaurant has now elected not to go into 24 this space and reviewed the general retail areas that would provide mixed use with the 25 Commission. He stated that when this was originally approved there was a variance 26 approved for the setbacks for overall parking. He stated that 40 parking spaces were 27 allocated for the restaurant and rest for retail businesses and with the new proposal it 28 would only require half of what was originally proposed. The building was redesigned 29 and was made smaller, from 6000 square feet to 4500 square feet. He reviewed the 30 parking and traffic patterns for the hair salon and fitness center stating that they are 31 working to set up the parking to be more evenly distributed throughout the day. He 32 reviewed the coffee shop deal drive-through stating that the drive-through would take 33 2000 of the 4500 feet, leaving 2200 feet for two additional bays. He referenced the 34 design of the building stating that they plan to pick a section of the building, use that as 35 a fagade and carry it throughout the rest of the building. He assured the Commission 36 that they would work to keep the look consistent front and back and they would do their 37 best to improve the quality of the view of the back of building. He reviewed the 38 landscape plan with Commission noting that they do not own the property all the way 39 out to the street. He explained that there is a right-of-way area that would be 40 maintained by the current owner. 41 42 Commissioner Young asked Mr. Tucci to review the design of the building. Mr. Tucci 43 noted that glass is a big part of the design and reviewed the areas and locations of the 44 building where they plan to use glass. He stated that the front of the building would be 45 glass down to the grade adding that they would try to pick up the front elevation of that 46 piece. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 9 1 2 Commissioner Young stated that she would be interested to see what they are planning 3 to do with the backside of building. She noted that three of the corners are landscaped 4 very nicely and acknowledged the issues around the right-of-way. She stated that this 5 area is very important to the gateway of the City and encouraged the applicants to be 6 creative. Mr. Tucci stated that the design has not been completed yet and assured the 7 Commission that they intend to work with the appearance of the building. 8 9 Commissioner Young asked where the utilities are located. Mr. Tucci reviewed utilities 10 location with the Commission noting that there are utility mains located in that area that 11 would prevent them from planting any good-sized trees. 12 13 Chair Stromgren clarified that the original site plan does not reflect several of the 14 requirements outlined in the conditional use permit. He explained that several of the 15 requirements address the appearance of the building because it is a primary gateway 16 location. Mr. Tucci added that the architects are still working on the design and the final 17 building rendering is not available yet. 18 19 Chair Stromgren asked if they have any concerns with the location of the drive-through. 20 Mr. Tucci acknowledged that they did have some struggles with the location of the 21 drive-through noting that very few of the coffee shops have more than one or two 22 vehicles stacking out into the flow of traffic. He explained that the majority of their traffic 23 would likely occur prior to 8:30 a.m. He acknowledged the Chair's concerns and 24 assured the Commission that they worked hard to design the drive-though in such a 25 way that it would cause the least amount of impact to the flow of traffic. 26 27 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the landscape plans and asked what they plan to do with 28 the trees that are to be removed. He asked if any of the removed trees were in the 29 right-of-way. Mr. Tucci stated that they cannot plant any trees along the right-of-way 30 and reviewed the replacement process with the Commission. He stated that he would 31 research what areas the trees were removed from and update the Commission. 32 33 Commissioner J. Jenson asked if they have had any dialogue with the City. Mr. Tucci 34 stated that they plan to begin discussions with the City and assured the Commission 35 that they would work with Staff throughout the process. 36 37 Commissioner D. Jensen stated that he would like to see everything that is located in 38 the right-of-way. He stated that there are walking locations and he would not want to 39 see them miss any potential connections to the trail system. 40 41 Commissioner D. Jensen expressed concerns regarding the angles for the drive- 42 through and asked that this be reviewed further. Mr. Tucci stated that they have tried to 43 open the turn adding that he would review further options and update the Commission. 44 45 Mr. Cavanaugh 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard stated that he lives directly across from 46 this project. He stated that when he bought the house it was because he always felt it Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 10 1 was important to live in the gateway of a community. He stated that the longer he lives 2 there, the less he feels this way. He stated that he is not happy with this project or the 3 way it was executed. He urged the Commission and the applicant to slow down and 4 move forward with caution, to keep in mind that this is the gateway and they are 5 bumping up against residential areas. He asked that they keep the liquor operation, 6 signage and lighting as top considerations. He stated that this is a schlock for the 7 gateway entrance and is inappropriate. He would like to review the calculations used 8 for the parking area; would like to see the building staked out to see how close it is to 9 the sidewalks and residential areas; would like to know who the operator of restaurant 10 is and how they plan to run the business; would like to know more about the landscape 11 and signage; and expressed concerns that this project would negatively impact the 12 property values and taxes. 13 14 Robert Foster, City Resident and Attorney, stated that he represents the restaurant and 15 shopping center. He stated that he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Cavanaugh noting 16 that prior usage in this area was a very large bar, a part-time restaurant along with the 17 Fire Station. He stated that he would like to suggest to the Commissioners that the 18 proposed usage for this space is dramatically better than before. He referenced the 19 restaurant stating that originally it was approved for a 6000 square foot restaurant and 20 now are discussing a coffee shop, with significantly less traffic; a 3500 square foot end 21 cap restaurant noting that the proposed usage, as suggested by the developer, is 22 substantially better than what was originally approved. He noted that the current 23 suggestions would greatly improve the traffic flow and appearance. 24 25 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 26 None 27 28 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 29 10.1 2005 Proposed Planning and Zoning Ordinance Amendments 30 31 Chair Stromgren reviewed his list of suggestions with the Commission. 32 33 Commissioner D. Jensen referenced Item 3 stating that this is a good start for corner 34 visibility and triangles as it would help determine how the setbacks could work and it 35 would address the visibility issues. He stated that is only concern is when a decision is 36 made against an applicant because their home would fall out of line with the view of the 37 other homes in the area. He stated that improvements to a home should not be denied 38 just because the two adjacent structures did not do improvements. He stated that they 39 should help to set an example to lead versus follow. He referenced accessory units 40 stating that this could become an issue as the population ages. He stated that he 41 would prefer not o treat this issue through a city code and suggested considering a 42 CUP condition. He referenced Item 6, native plantings, stating that this could be a 43 sensitive concern and suggested writing something into the code that would allow an 44 individual to work with prairie plantings if they have a plan or design with the appropriate 45 planting as it could save resources with respect to watering and fertilization. 46 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 11 1 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that one of the concerns stated had to do with the potential for 2 fire hazards if they allow dry plantings to close to a structure. She stated that she could 3 provide more information on this subject noting that some plantings require fire to help 4 with future growth patterns. She indicated that the ordinance does include a list of 5 plants considered to be undesirable adding that the list could be improved and clarified. 6 7 Chair Stromgren agreed and suggested that Staff compile information on the varieties 8 of prairie grasses. He suggested including an educational component for the Fire 9 Department. 10 11 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff could begin putting together some of the language 12 and would also have the City Attorney review as they develop the draft. 13 14 10.2 Update on City Redevelopment Projects. 15 16 Ms. Moore-Sykes provided Commission with an update of the City redevelopment 17 projects. She stated that the most discussed project is Silver Lake Village noting that 18 an update would be included in the upcoming City newsletter. She stated that Wendy's 19 and Papa Murphy's are open and Wal-Mart had their grand opening in March. Cold 20 Stone Creamery and Vic's Hair Styling are expected to open in April. She stated that 21 City Staff and City Council members were invited to the Appleby's training session held 22 last Saturday for the cooks and wait staff. She stated that they had a great opening 23 noting that they incorporated pieces of St. Anthony history and exhibits within the 24 restaurant. 25 26 Chair Stromgren asked if there is an update on occupancy numbers for the housing in 27 the Silver Lake Project. Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that occupancy would be done in 28 stages with some scheduled to open this fall and others early next year. She stated 29 that the recruiting process for renters and buyers for the residential units was very 30 successful. She stated that several purchase agreements have been signed and 31 approximately twenty rental units have been leased. 32 33 10.3 Code Enforcement Report 34 35 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the Fire Chief expressed his regrets for not being able to 36 attend tonight's meeting. She stated that the Fire Chief and Rick Lundeen, Official 37 Housing Code Staff member would be present at the May 17th Planning Commission 38 meeting to introduce themselves to the Commission and provide an update on the 39 Code Enforcement Report. 40 41 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS 42 11.1 Land Use Planning Workshops 43 44 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that seats are still available. She stated that Commissioner 45 Galyon attended the Back to the Basics seminar in St. Paul and thought it was an 46 excellent seminar. Two staff members are also scheduled to attend this seminar. She Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 19, 2005 Page 12 1 stated that the class is a good introduction to the planning and zoning process adding 2 that anyone interested should contact her for registration information. 3 4 Commissioner D. Jensen asked who is responsible for the maintenance around Market 5 Place and if the center is required to take care of the right-of-way area. He asked if, 6 once the building is completed would the person responsible take the maintenance of 7 the area out to the curb. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would touch base with the 8 Public Works department for clarification and update the Commission at the next 9 meeting. 10 11 XII. ADJOURNMENT 12 13 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to adjourn the meeting 14 at 9:10 p.m. 15 16 Motion carried unanimously. 17 PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers a equested to come to the podium, clearly state their nam a d address,for the cretary's record Name: ,. Address: V or Ao%j Agenda Item Addressing: During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: kms HAForms0anningPublic Input Sheet.doc PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an Agenda item,please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are requested to come to the podium,clearly state their name and address four the City Clerk's record. Date: f / 'A l c) Name: V 1 C. 1,� l lqM 1 ® (--tv,� Address:,38-0 / e-,) C)L- l (,76 Agenda Item Addressing: -5,U lel �t PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their na e d address for the Secretary's record. Name: Address: m Agenda Item Addressing: During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the Secretary's record. Name: L-"rA F, Address: G MAZ 4- P, Agenda Item Addressing: During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: IPC�1'e�vc� yrs- iY�S' gzre- k??tt /X/Ir - A k4e r,�-qVTIP I f 4-71� P-✓al�a,��s` ����� dor ��W op AM- - PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the Secretary's record. 11 Name: C(1 K� \yll / S Address: d Z -7-6 PCP W crY t) �d fz tit ry Agenda Item Addressing: VTL-- a-- During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: kms HAForms\Planning\Public Input Sheet.doc PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address fortheSecretary's record. Name: S-7J9 1 Address:2 8",91 10A Agenda Item Addressing GD,V During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: kms HAFormsTlanningTublic Input Sheet.doc PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name 'and 11address for the Secretary's record. W Name: ►I 1 Address: Q h y 0 y r d S 1�pLS Agenda Item Addressing: sc- As d &44)�j During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five(5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT= ODesign Construction Construction Management 200 W. Hwy. 13 Bumsville, Minnesota 55337 Phone 952-890-1217 Fax 952-890-0064 INN 0 A REVISIONS ILLA M I A date ® 114, Y V A date date Adate A date Adate Adate A date �\ Ag date Adate © 2005 AMCON CONST. CO. All rights reserved THIS DOCUMENT IS AN INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND IS THE PROPERTY OF AMCON CORP. AND MAY NOT BE USED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT. S jam\ X / \ / \ \ / X \ a / RETAIL 'B' \\ ` TRASH / \ 4,450 s.f. \ (' &. ` / ,o / / \ A Ilk EXISTING / ENTRANCE ��`o• // ? / 1 *10 / Uj PROPOSED EXISTING Q� SITE DATA 2005 SITE DATA 2003 SITE DATA 1061/ EXISTING13 SITE AREA 2.39 ACRES — APPROX. 104,241 S.F. / PARKING ZONING C — GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT / I SETBACKS BUILDINGS FRONT YARD 35 feet REAR YARD 20 feet Q SIDE YARD 35 feet PARKING FRONT YARD 20 feetW ' REAR YARD 20 feet •• Z SIDE YARD 10 feetZ Z 24'—�6'° BUILDING COVERAGE BUILDINGS 24,450 S.F. (23%) 26,000 S.F. (25%) CWOMM PAVING 56,285 S.F. (54%) 53,250 S.F. (51%) L W EXISTING RETAIL 'B' GREENSPACE 23,506 S.F. (23%) 24,991 S.F. (24%) 0 0 v 0 0 / '� 20,000 s.f. W J \ / PARKING REQUIREMENTS RETAIL 20,950 S.F. ® 1/300 S.F. = 70 STALLS 67 STALLS ' J \ / / RESTAURANT 3,500 S.F. 48. STALLS 40 STALLS W TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED 118 STALLS 107 STALLS \ / / Z TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 118 STALLS 120 -STALLS -- O \ �� TRASH EXISTING // // VARIANCES 0 Z \ / 1. Two front yard building setbacks at the corner. 0 . The required setback is 30' The previous variance was granted for 5' each along (LUJI (n Kenzie Terrace and County road 88 The current request is for the some 5' along Kenzie Terrace and a 12' setback along County road 88. CERTIFICATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PIAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY 4iNF `� 2. Parking for a sit—down restaurant DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM 0 A DULY REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE ASTATERCHITECT OF The previous variance is for 40 parking stalls for a MINNESOTA. 6,000 s.f. sit down restaurant. NF � The proposed variance is for 48 parking stalls for a Michael Monn Reg. 21772 3,500 s.f. sit down restaurant. 3. Parking Setback DATE The request is for a varaince for the drive—thru lane to enroach on the side yard parking setback by 4' SITE PLAN DATE SITE PLAN \ \ 4/14/2005 � ��,/ a � 1„ = 201_0„ 0 PROJECT NO. 02804