Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 05172005 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 104944 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 05172005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MAY 17, 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 April 19, 2005 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VI.1 Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the May 24, 2005 City Council Meeting VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. VII.1 3217 — 31sTAVE. NE — PETITION OF VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE VII.2 ALDERWOODS GROUP -- PETITION FOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE VII.3 AMCON ST. ANTHONY, LLC - ST. ANTHONY MARKETPLACE A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— Restaurant within 250' of residential area. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— Drive-Thru Service - Outlot C. VARIANCE PETITION— Parking on Site D. VARIANCE PETITION — Building Setback — Outlot VIII. Concept Reviews. VIII.1. Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment — Rezoning, Section 1665.03 VIII.2. Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment— Conditional Use Permits, Section 1665.04 HAPlanning\PC Agendas\2005\051705 pc agenda.doc I IX. PUBLIC INPUT. Individuals 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. X.1. 2005 Proposed Planning & Zoning Ordinance Amendments -July/August X.2. Update on City Redevelopment Projects XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS. XII. ADJOURNMENT. HAPlanning\PC Agendas\2005\051705 pc agenda.doc I 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.' z 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 3605-29'h 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 291h 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 3605-291h 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 Chains 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 17`h 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 18 Respectfully submitted, 19 Bonnie Sullivan 20 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. t f STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager . op Date: May 17,2005 Subject: Petition of Variance for Lot Coverage;3217- 31St Avenue NE Property Address: 3217 -31St Avenue NE; Volna Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential; legal non-conforming Requested Action: Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the Petition of Variance for Lot Coverage submitted by Patrick J. Palan and Patricia J. Le Febvre, owners of 3217-31St Avenue NE. The owners are proposing to construct a 12' x 10' (120 SF) deck on the backside of their house. Based on the Findings of Fact from the public hearing on this request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the variance to lot coverage to the City Council. Background: Mr. Palan met with staff to review his plans to construct a deck on the back of the house. At that point, it was discovered that the structures on the site exceeded the allowable lot coverage percentage as stipulated by the City's Zoning Ordinance. Their lot is 68' x 134.6' (9,153 SF) and at 35% lot coverage, they would be allow 3,203 SF of lot coverage. Currently, the house, the detached garage,the driveway and the sidewalk and patio exceed the allowable lot coverage by 230 SF. These structures represent 3,433 SF in lot coverage. According to the documentation from Hennepin County and the City's address file, the house and garage were built in 1955. Staff assumes that a driveway was also constructed at the same time but the file does not indicate the materials used in its original construction. But in 1991, the current owners pulled a building permit from the City to replace the original driveway with asphalt. In their application for a variance to the lot coverage restriction, Palan and Le Febvre stated that the undue hardship that they have with this property is the length of the driveway required to access their detached garage, which is located deep into the lot. In order to build their proposed deck and comply with the City's lot coverage requirements, they would have to move their garage forward by about 10 feet. This would put the garage up against the house and seems a bit unreasonable. The extraordinary circumstance that they feel that this variance would help to alleviate is that because this property had already exceeds the allowable lot coverage they are not able to improve their property. Staff review of the documents in the property file shows that the difficulty or hardship was not created by the property owners but rather as the result of the original codification of the City's Zoning Ordinance, which occurred in 1976. HAPlanning\Staff Reports\2005\3217 31st lot cov variance Staff Report.doc Attachments: • Completed Application Requesting a Variance to the Lot Coverage • Copy of the Site Plan • Deck Documentation H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\3217 31 st lot cov variance Staff Report.doc Date: /^ Fee: R-1 . . . $ 60.00 Other . . . . 0 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance Applicant: PN--� PA (rtvt /J ur t-P �e bV r'e� Phone: Address: _ 302 f7 �I �s� /-W-P� 7(l� S/• ��-�1�J/h. m1V S' tg Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): t4jv\-e1` Legal Description of property proposed for variance: (aH = 1 ocx Z Street Address: 1,1L 31 rs4- At,e• Air-, S i. 4.1Aka.�, f wly Presently Zoned: Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as . distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. i u d�Gcu e. ('3o O Sq, fid- a�\ c��-et,� d��� r&: b<0-act(f o fr,..e lec�-� �'� o f 4V\-f Saras� ova o /o /oo bait bra -�►,,� S ^tee 4)Z4 woLL lc( req ui �-e m®c9 (nS au - c-A4i;-P aJ arq )e, anc� CC -►r tea( arVPat af(vw ��� 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. o,,�[( 1-evts - t dP '4j4ka �S11 - 6 w'1.f ne 4 �Peci <c�fl v(<-r L ke- Q1`•e_ Uwkr 4-rj .r( ��� � �psciv�•H�ri� rye Ccc� w�a �-� 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. -/-k6 P rap-cry[ Lutz > Io��LI.1�- l "1 t 4 S'S. �f C c itl o,-d(K 4 nC i- W a) 4T'1� �(w�-p w' atr-k-Cc,Pe �k-C P raple", [ kaue dS� s k7[ �✓e� -�-K-e a tLDWa`oc S' na of Applic t 04722 05 i * 60 . 00tK p lav% p oLf L c v 3A t7 � P GAR A&F � f C-rA2ac� 5Zg 5f; s i l J Total w c 3s 3 aw diem �s , At = � - I Lam- - 5t2 13� -{� 91Y l -!, 'h m N ! N � I r il 4eC.., 4-0 el + / 4 L9 �r 4A tie fire" - - STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager 1 _ Date: May 17,2005 IY Subject: Site Plan for St. Anthony Market Place,Outlot and Endcap, Conditional Use Permits,Setback Variances Property Address: 2900 Kenzie Terrace and 2702-2714 Highway 88 Zoning District: Commercial Requested Action: Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the proposed revised site plan and consider the various petition requests as listed below and presented by the representatives of AMCON. Based on the findings of facts from the public hearing on each of these requests,staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the revised site plan,conditional use permits and variances to the City Council. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Restaurant within 250' of residential area. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Drive-Thru Service-Out Lot C. VARIANCE PETITION- Building Setback-Out Lot D. VARIANCE PETITION-Parking on Site Background: Representatives from AMCON have met with staff to review their revised site plan for the remaining development of the former Stonehouse/SAV I/Fire Station property. On April 19, 2005,Mr. Paul Tucci, Oppidan, Inc.,came before the Planning Commission in a Concept Review to discuss the AMCON proposal for the remaining piece of the St. Anthony Marketplace. Mr. Dennis Cavanaugh,2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, spoke against the project. He stated that these proposed site plan showing commercial buildings situated at the City's gateway to the community was unacceptable. Mr. Robert Foster, attorney representing the restaurant and resident,indicated that the proposed site plan being proposed is certainly better than what was on the site previously. Each of these requests for a public hearing have been published in the City's local newspaper and neighboring properties have been notified by letter of the date and time of these public hearings. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Restaurant within 250' of Residential Area. AMCON is required to secure a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the proposed restaurant planned to be located in the end cap of the main commercial building at 2900 Kenzie Terrace. The City Ordinance,Chapter 16,Section 1635.03 (p) requires a CUP for a restaurant located within 250 feet of a residential area. A single family residential area (R-1) exists on the northeast side of Kenzie Terrace and north side of St. Anthony Boulevard. A resolution approved by the City Council in July 2003 granted AMCON a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed restaurant being closer than 250 H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\AMCON staff report 051705.doc feet of a residential zoning district. The conditions approved for this site in 2003 are listed below and pertained to a popular bar and grill that was interested in locating to this site: a. Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match buildings and must be located on the southwest corner. b. Lighting must be"down-spill",with no spillage to residential properties across Kenzie Terrace and conform to adjacent area (St. Anthony Boulevard). c. Hours for outdoor seating shall not exceed 10:00 p.m. 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 the Savage store. i. Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours. Because the current proposed tenant is not to be located in the out lot, some of the original conditions of the approved CUP may not be appropriate to the end cap location. For example, the restaurant will not have an outdoor seating area, the garbage area is enclosed within the building,no landscaping requirements, and the patio location would not apply. The proposed tenants have applied for a liquor license and are scheduled for Council review and approval at the May 24th City Council meeting. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- Drive-Thru Service-Out Lot. AMCON is proposing to construct a building on the Out Lot located at 2702 Highway 88 on the north end of the lot. One of the proposed tenants for this proposed building requires a drive-thru as part of their business. The City Ordinance at Section1635.03 (b) states this is a permitted use only with a Conditional Use Permit. C. VARIANCE PETITION- Building Setback-Out Lot. In revising the original site plan due to changes in proposed uses and the location of those uses, AMCON has presented a site plan that proposes a 4,500 SF building,which represents a reduction of the building footprint by 1,500 SF. This revised site plan also reduces the number of variances required for the construction of the building planned for the Out Lot. Originally, they required two variances as the northeast and northwest corners of the proposed building were in the building setbacks. The City Council granted those variances in 2003. Resolution 03-053,approved on July 15, 2003,identified the following findings of fact based on hardships that exist for this property: 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. c. These circumstances are not caused by the applicant or property owner. d. 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. e. 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. H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\AMCON staff report 051705.doc f. Economic considerations alone are not the basic [for this request]. g. The circumstances creating this hardship are unique to this oddly shaped property. h. 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. Since no construction occurred within the year of their approval, the variances expired. The applicant is now requesting a similar setback variance to the northwest corner of the proposed building as it does extend into the building setback 12 feet and coming within 5 feet of the property line. D. VARIANCE PETTrION- Parking on Site. Once again, AMCON received approval for a parking variance for their project. There is some discrepancy as to the number of parking spaces that were covered by the variance,but Resolution 03-053 referenced a variance of 27 spaces. Mr. Tucci suggests that the number of spaces that needed a variance was closer to 50. According to the revised site plan for this property and as the result of the reduction of building square footage,AMCON has concurrently and significantly reduced the number of parking spaces that they need to address with a variance. Section 1650.05,Subdivision 1, (6) states that Commercial properties are required to have one (1) space for each 300 SF of gross floor area. Mr.Tucci states in his letter that the 19,500 SF of retail space,a reduction of 1,500 SF from the original plan, requires 65 parking stalls. Section 1650.05, Subdivision 1, (3) requires that restaurants have parking spaces equal to the total seating capacity divided by 2.5,plus one space for each employee on the largest shift. That required number of parking spaces for the two restaurants is 71 spaces. The total parking spaces needed for this site is 136 parking spaces;the parking spaces provided by AMCON's site plan is 118,for a deficit of 18 parking spaces. Mr.Tucci further states that should the proposed restaurant decide on a maximum seating capacity of 100 seats, then the required parking spaces would be 118,which the same number of parking spaces that they are proposing to provide for their retail/commercial site. AMCON will also be before the City Council to amend the Developer's Agreement on May 24, 2005 to adjust the timeline as originally established to allow for the additional time required to complete the proposed AMCON project. Below is the proposed schedule for the City's processes regarding the AMCON project: May 24— Public Hearing with the City Council Liquor License Amendment to the Developer's Agreement Council Action on Planning Commission Recommendations Attachments: • Letter dated April 11,2005,Mr. Paul Tucci, OPPIDAN • Site Plan • Application Packet for CUP for Restaurant within 250 feet of a Residential area • Application Packet for CUP for Drive-Thru structure-Out Lot • E-mail dated April 27,2005 with elevations of the Out Lot building • Application Packet for Variance to the Setback Requirements-Out Lot • Application Packet for Variance to the Parking Requirements H:\PIanning\Staff Reports\2005\AMCON staff report 051705.doc ORPIDAN Budder of towns.Creator of value. ` 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353 FAX: 9"52/294-0151 '• WEB:www.oppidan.com 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.'Arithony 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 beenreduced 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-duu 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). Sincerel Paul J. cci CC: Gonzalo Medina . Jim Winkels Mike Monn _ . ' D Z rm rn COUN7Y ROADc J 8g 0 9! Ili ciLl f � eye M t PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER Sr AMTMOM'VR.LAOE WhNESOTA Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 MINNETONKA,MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353, Fax: 952/294-0151 • 'WEB: www.oppidan.com April 22, 2005 Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager City of St.Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony,MN 55418-1699 RE: Application-for Conditional Use Permit—Proximity of a Restaurant to Residential Uses St.Anthony Village Center Amcon St.Anthony LLC' Dear Kim: This shall serve as a brief narrative for the Application for Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the proximity of a Restaurant to Residential Uses for the development referenced., Per City of St Anthony Codes,a restaurant cannot be-located closer than 250 feet from a residential parcel. Previously,the City granted a CUP for the placement of a 6,000 s.f.restaurant'on the northern - point of the site,which was within 250 feet of residential properties(a copy is attached). The new site plans moves the restaurant location to,the east end of the existing retail center,-which requires the same CUP. Overall,there is-no change in the site planother than the end location of the restaurant use. This CUP was issued previously and needs to be re-issued given the timeframes of the deal. Please feel free to-contact me with any questions you may have on this Application for Conditional Use Permit. Sincerel - G``� Paul J cci. CC: Gonzalo Medina- Jim Winkels Mike Supina Date: Fee: $130.00 City of st.Anthony Application for Conditional Use Permit Applicant: 1.1c.00V 4-mirm, LL G Phone: 159-1 ' 70Z'3AO ST'. Address: '/o Status of Applicant: (Owner, Buyer, Renter, Agent, etc.)- ' / e oe Street Address and/or Legal Description of Subject Property: P100 Jaws eFTIiy AGE aA4.10 91fZ-27 4/ 144AMy 60 Zoning Designation of Subject Property: Reason for Conditional Use Permit Request: 122,5+4udAn + W t-A ,yV aSG t<eCt- -� o APPLICANTS, PLEASE NOTE: Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following criteria must be satisfied before a Conditional Use may be authorized. Please respond in writing to these criteria,using additional sheets, if necessary. 1.) The requested Conditional Use is one of the Permitted Conditional Uses specifically listed for the Zoning District in which the Conditional Use is to be located. 2.) Explain how the requested Conditional Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values of improvements in the area. 3.) Explain why the requested 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 neighborhood or community. 04 -25 -05 * 130 o00N EXHIBIT A Legal Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1" and of the unplatted portion of the North Half of Section 7, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter comer of said Section 7; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 05 seconds East, along the North and South quarter line of said Section 7, a distance of 1227.04 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 31 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 92.51 feet; thence southeasterly and southerly, along said southwesterly right-of- way line and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 88, on a tangential curve concave to the West, having a radius of 150 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds, a distance of 147.32 feet; thence South 24 degrees 36 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to said curve, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 144.95 feet to the intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1;" thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said southeasterly extension, a distance of 73.41 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence South 24 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds West, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 35.06 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the southwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 343.75 feet to the southeasterly right-of-way line of Kenzie Terrace (also known as County Road No. 153); thence North 50 degrees 48 minutes 12 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 98.21 feet; thence North 55 degrees 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 143.73 feet; thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of- way line, a distance of 54.36 feet; thence North 57 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 123.62 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard; thence South 43 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 71.91 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 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 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. 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 ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: ity Ma er Saint Anthony Bldg. 2 Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Paul Tucci [Paul@oppidan.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:29 AM To: kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; mmornson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Cc: gmedinakami@comcast.net Subject: FW: Saint Anthony Bldg. 2 Kim & Mike Here are the elevations we are completing From: Mike Supina [mailto:msupina@amconconstruction.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:15 AM To: Paul Tucci Subject: Saint Anthony Bldg. 2 Good Morning Paul: Attached are the four elevations I plan to submit to the City. Main changes are: North Elevation (rear) -consolidated the egress doors as we discussed - put them in aluminum frames with opaque glass to simulate a storefront on the back side of the building. Did the same with alum windows at end bays. Added sconce lights. West Elevation -removed signage. East Elevation -added window near drive-thru window. South Elevation (front) -added sconce lights. I will follow up identifying the corresponding bays from the first building so you can photograph them. Please let me know if these elevations are what you were envisioning, thanks. «SAR-G2-NORTH.pdf>> «SAR-G2-WEST.pdf>> «SAR-G2-EAST.pdf>> «SAR-G2-SOUTH.pdf>> Mike Supina AIA Project Architect Amcon Construction Co., LLC 1715 Yankee Doodle Road, Suite 200 Eagan, MN 55121-1698 Direct: 651-379-9017 Main: 651-379-9090 Fax: 651-379-9091 Email: msupina@amconconstruction.com Visit our website at: http://www.amconconstruction.com 4/27/2005 PREFINISHED METAL COPING OPAQUE GLASS- TINTED INSULATING GLASS IN SHOWN HATCHED CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FABRIC AWNING, TYP. FRAMING SYSTEM DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL CUTOFF SCONCE LIGHT, TYP. EIFS- COLOR 3 EIFS- COLOR 3 /-E�FS- COLOR 2EFS- COLOR 1 _TOP OF MT" STUD ®® ®® EL. 117'-4" IGNAGE i R 12' CLEAR HEIGHT 10 1 HHu BELOW BAR JOISTS TOP OF SLAB Ejol - EL 100'-0" SOUTH ELEVAMN 1/8" = V-O" FACE BRICK - COLOR 1 EIFS- COLOR 3 FACE BRICK - COLOR 2 EIFS- COLOR 2 FACE BRICK - COLOR 3 EIFS- COLOR 1 WEST ELEVATION FACE BRICK - COLOR 1 EIFS- COLOR 3 EIFS- COLOR 2 FACE BRICK - COLOR 2 FACE BRICK - COLOR 3 EIFS- COLOR 1 FF MH En ' 111 , ............. 00 EAST ELEVATION 1/8" = V-0" DECORATIVE ARCHITECTURAL CUTOFF SCONCE LIGHT, TYP. ALUM. STOREFRONT FACE BRICK - COLOR 1 EIFS- COLOR 3 W/ OPAQUE GLASS- FACE BRICK - COLOR 2 SHOWN HATCHED EIFS- COLOR 1 FACE BRICK - COLOR 3 FABRIC AWNING, TYP. NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" Builder of towns.'Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 MINNETONKA,MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294.0353 Fax: 952/294-0151 •.WEB: www.oppidan.com April 22,2005" Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City"Manager ; City of St.Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St,Anthony, MN 55418-1699 `RE: Application for Conditional-Use Permit—Drive Thai Facility St.'Anthony Village Center Amcon St. Anthony LLC, Dear Kim: This'shall serve as-a brief narrative for the Application for Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the installation of a Drive-Thru lane on the'east side of the newly proposed retail building on the northern point of the site. The previously approved site plan had a 6,000 s.f.restaurant on the northern point of the site and 20,000 s.f.of retail in the main building. The site has been modified due to interest by restaurants to place the sit down restaurant in the existing retail center on the west side and add a new, smaller building on the northern point. In adding that building,we have interest from a Coffee operator•for the eastern end of the new building. They are requiring a drive-thru window to allow them to effective-Compete in the market. We have designed the site to allow for a drive-thru on the site. We feel that the amount of use of the drive-thru and the stacking provided are adequate for this users. This request is limited to this type of user. If a user who was deemed a"Restaurant"wanted to - take this space in the future,we would need to modify the parking variance with the City due to the higher parking required. Please-,feel free to contact me with any questions you may have on this Application"for Conditional Use Permit. Sincerel - aul J.T ci - CC: Gonzalo Medina _ Jim.Winkels. ' Mike Supina Date: Fee: $130.00 City of St.Anthony Application for Conditional Use Permit Applicant: AMCoN s'- 4-E`10Ad LLQ Phone: AqC-) - 702,'39ilo Address: Zk /,0 Status of Applicant: (Owner, Buyer, Renter, Agent, etc.) Street Address and/or Legal Description of Subject Property: ;)*Q An 5/,T,FAdeAGE AAa 91fZ--Z7W lkakay 80 Zoning Designation of Subject Property: Reason for Conditional Use Permit Request: 04 t rr -rAdy S.¢,2ui cc e4 *AR too,,Y • io e-Ay, --�tA /9o/L't Q-jp,- 01 d-f -&if 5 APPLICANTS, PLEASE NOTE: P J Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following criteria must be satisfied before a Conditional Use may be authorized. Please respond in writing to these criteria, using additional sheets, if necessary. 1.) The requested Conditional Use is one of the Permitted Conditional Uses specifically listed for the Zoning District in which the Conditional Use is to be located. 2.) Explain how the requested Conditional Use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values of improvements in the area. 3.) Explain why the requested 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 neighborhood or community. 04 -25 —, 05 * 130 o00CK EXHIBIT A Legal Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1" and of the unplatted portion of the North Half of Section 7, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter comer of said Section 7; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 05 seconds East, along the North and South quarter line of said Section 7, a distance of 1227.04 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 31 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 92.51 feet; thence southeasterly and southerly, along said southwesterly right-of- way line and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 88, on a tangential curve concave to the West, having a radius of 150 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds, a distance of 147.32 feet; thence South 24 degrees 36 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to said curve, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 144.95 feet to the intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1;" thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said southeasterly extension, a distance of 73.41 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence South 24 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds West, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 35.06 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the southwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 343.75 feet to the southeasterly right-of-way line of Kenzie Terrace (also known as County Road No. 153); thence North 50 degrees 48 minutes 12 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 98.21 feet; thence North 55 degrees 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 143.73 feet; thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of- way line, a distance of 54.36 feet; thence North 57 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 123.62 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard; thence South 43 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 71.91 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 OPPIDAN Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 M[NNETONKA,MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353 'Fnxi 952/29,4-0151 •. WEB:-www.oppidan.com April 22, 2005 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes,-Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony . 3301 Silver'Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 RE: Petition for Variance—Building Setback New Building—North Side of Site—St. Anthony Village Center Amcon St. Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shall serve as a brief narrative for the Petition for Variance for a Building Setback Variance for the new building proposed on the northern"point"of the referenced site. . The new Site Plan lays out a 4,500 s.f building in the point of this property. The building is designed to hold 24 and is generally in the same location as the building that was previously approved;with the except that the new building is approximately 1,500 s.f. smaller than before. The placement of this building requires a setback variance. The building is placed in a manner that on the northwest side is encroaches to within 5 feet of the property line and on the northeast comer, the encroachment is 12 feet. On July 15, 2003, the City approved a Variance_for Building Setbacks that allowed.for " the building to encroach to within 5-feet of the property lines on both the northeast and, . northwest comers (a copy of the Resolution is attached) This new plan has less encroachment than the previously approved building and variance., Th' e. location 's that of what was approved. Please feel free to contact.me with any questions you may have on this Petition for Variance. . - Sincerely aul J. ci - CC: Gonzalo Medina - Jim Winkels Mike Supina 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 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. 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 TT 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 a a day of ayor ATTEST: / City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Date: Fee: R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . . . 100.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance g.,,id j no 5erk&Ck Applicant: on LGG Phone: GSI •702. 3$liD Address: Z Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Legal Description of property proposed for variance: Ue cAa Street Address: 290V Ka,qsic TaAAcF Presently Zoned: Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary. .5.e 141,1A c iv 6p 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused hythe City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signature/of Applicant 04 -25 -05 * 100 o00CK EXHIBIT A Legal Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. l" and of the unplatted portion of the North Half of Section 7, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section 7; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 05 seconds East, along the North and South quarter line of said Section 7, a distance of 1227.04 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 31 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 92.51 feet; thence southeasterly and southerly, along said southwesterly right-of- way line and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 88, on a tangential curve concave to the West, having a radius of 150 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds, a distance of 147.32 feet; thence South 24 degrees 36 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to said curve, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 144.95 feet to the intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1;" thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said southeasterly extension, a distance of 73.41 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence South 24 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds West, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 35.06 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the southwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 343.75 feet to the southeasterly right-of-way line of Kenzie Terrace (also known as County Road No. 153); thence North 50 degrees 48 minutes 12 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 98.21 feet; thence North 55 degrees 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 143.73 feet, thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of- way line, a distance of 54.36 feet; thence North 57 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 123.62 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard; thence South 43 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 71.91 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 0FF'IDAN Builder of towns.Creator of value. .5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 4100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353 FAX:,952/294-0151 WEB: www.opoidan.com April 22,2005 . Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,,Assistant City Manager City of St.Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony,MN 55418-1699 ; RE: Petition for Variance—Parking St.Anthony Village Center Amcon St. Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shall serve as a brief narrative for the Petition for Variance for a Parking Variance for the entire site, including the new building proposed on the-northem"point"of the referenced site. Per City of St Anthony'Codes,parking for a commercial development and the uses this site has are as follows: " • Retail Centers: 1 stall for every 300 gross square feet of Building Area, • Restaurants: 1 stall for every 2.5 seats plus 1 stall for every employee on the largest shift. With that as the base,we have calculatedthe parking needs of the site as follows: Retails Space: 19,500 square feet total requires 65 parking stalls Restaurants: Jersey Mike's(Seats 25) = 10 stalls plus 3 for employees= 13 stalls Sit Down Restaurant: (100-125 seats)use 125 seats: 125/2.5 =:50 stalls plus 8"stalls for,employees=58 total stalls Grand Total-Site Required: 136 stalls Parking Provided: 118 stalls Please note that a Coffee Shop,as defined in the City Code; does not constitute A restaurant. Also,we have been told that the"restaurant,will have 100-125 seats. If there are only 100 seats, the total required parking stalls would be 118,the same as what is provided. The previous plan that was approved had 20,000 st of General retail and 6,000 s,f. of Sit Down Restaurant'that would have 225 seats. The required parking for the previous approved plan was as follows: Retails Space: 20,000 square feet total requires 67 parking stalls Sit Down Restaurant: 225 seats: - 225/2.5=90 stalls plus_l4 stalls for employees= 104 total stalls - Grand Total Site Required: 171 stalls Parking Provided: 120 stalls As you can see,the parking variance required has diminished dramatically with the new-proposed site plan. We are short only 18 stalls from what is required. Furthermore,-the tenants in the main retail building and the outlot will provide a mix of uses that will allow parking needs to be spread evenly over the course of a day, allowing for more stalls to be open at night for the restaurant user. The previous approval stated that the variance was-27 stalls(see attached). Since I was not part of that process,I cannot tell you how the determination of only 27 stalls was made. However, based on the size of the former building,the size of the current restaurant proposed and its seating and our history with restaurant tenants,the 225 seats for a 6,000 s.f.restaurant is conservative. Based on using 225 seats,the variance previously would have been 49 stalls., Overall,we think the new plan is much friendlier forthe customers of the center and the- neighboring property owners. There will not be an outdoorpatio in this restaurant and the size is more of a neighborhood scale. Please feel free to contact,me with any questions you may have on this Petition for Variance. Sincerely, Paul J.T ci CC: Gonzalo Medina -Jim Winkels Mike Supina - rj 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 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. 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 TT 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 Date: Fee: R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . . 00.0 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance PA2k1Av?' Applicant: AmcoAl / -v-&4 Phone: • 7PZ.3&99 Address: Gl Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): I)Aw-94 Legal Description of property proposed for variance: Sge d-tfi a c Aod Street Address: 29&a ,�,,r��F?�o.ZQr4c� * �?7oz • 27/x! Aka'hal" 019 Presently Zoned: Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary. '5� e A-"A CPA),W,0A-ti vE 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signature kf Applicant 04 -25-05 £ * 100 . 00EK r EXHIBIT A Le?al Description That part of Lot 1, Block I, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1" and of the unplatted portion of the North Half of Section 7, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section 7; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 05 seconds East, along the North and South quarter line of said Section 7, a distance of 1227.04 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 31 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 92.51 feet; thence southeasterly and southerly, along said southwesterly right-of- way line and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 88, on a tangential curve concave to the West, having a radius of 150 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds, a distance of 147.32 feet; thence South 24 degrees 36 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to said curve, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 144.95 feet to the intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. l;" thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said southeasterly extension, a distance of 73.41 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence South 24 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds West, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 35.06 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the southwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 343.75 feet to the southeasterly right-of-way line of Kenzie Terrace (also known as County Road No. 153); thence North 50 degrees 48 minutes 12 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 98.21 feet; thence North 55 degrees 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 143.73 feet; thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of- way line, a distance of 54.36 feet; thence North 57 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 123.62 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard; thence South 43 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 71.91 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager ob Date: May 17,2005 Subject: Alderwoods Group -- Petition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Property Address: Sunset Memorial Park,2250 St. Anthony Boulevard Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residential;legal non-conforming Requested Action: Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the proposed text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance whereby Chapter 16,Section 1615.02 is amended to permit cemeteries, mausoleums,crypts,vaults,crematoriums,columbarium,and scattering grounds in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. Additionally,the text amendment would also include a change to Section 1615.03 whereby funeral homes are allowed in the R-1 Zoning District as a permitted conditional use. The proposed text amendment is as presented in Section#6 of the Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery Concept Review Submission dated April 19,2005 and as follows with proposed changes indicated by strikethroughs and underlines: 1605.01 Definitions. For the purpose of the Zoning Code,the following terms and words have the following meaning: Subd. 32. Funeral Home. An establishment used for undertaking services such as preparing human deceased for burial, display of the deceased and performing human funeral services, sales and storage of funeral-related supplies and vehicles. 1615.02 Permitted Uses. Within an R-1 District, only the following uses are permitted: (e) cemeteries,mausoleums,crypts,vaults, and columbarium,; 1615.03 Permitted Conditional Uses. Within a R-1 District,the following uses are permitted only if a conditional use permit has been issued by the City Council: (d) funeral homes Staff recommends that the proposed language be modified to remove crematoriums as a permitted use in the R-1 District. Staff has also recommended a definition of funeral homes be added to the proposed text amendment. The Alderwoods Group indicated that they are also interested in defining the minimum acreage required for a designation of funeral home as part of the proposed language. If the proposed changes to Sections 1615.03 and 1615.02 are agreed to, and based on the Findings of Fact from the public hearing on this request Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to the City Council. H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\Alderwoods Amendment to Ord Staff Report.doc Background: The representatives from Alderwoods Group initially came before the Planning Commission on September 21,2004 for a concept review to present their proposed design for the reconstruction of the Administration Building at Sunset Memorial Park. Because the Park is a legal non-conforming use in the R- 1 Zoning District, Alderwoods Group requested that they be rezoned to Recreational/Open Space and to approve a text amendment to the Recreational/Open Space to allow funeral homes as a permitted conditional use. At the October 19, 2004 Planning Commission, the Alderwoods Group's request for rezoning was on the agenda as a public hearing. During the course of the public hearing, it was agreed to and voted on to recommend to the City Council to continue the matter for 60 days. At their Council meeting on October 26, 2004, the City Council did not grant the 60-day continuance and voted to deny Alderwoods Group's rezoning petition based on the fact that they felt there was not enough information to make a responsible decision. The Council advised that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission and staff be established to continue working with the Alderwoods Group on their project. Alderwoods Group met with the Planning Commission subcommittee in December 2004. After many months of working with City staff, Alderwoods Group was before the Planning Commission at their April 19, 2005 meeting for a concept review of their proposed text amendment to the R-1 Zoning District to allow cemeteries, etc. as a permitted use and to allow funeral homes as a permitted conditional use. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed text amendment and has worked with staff in its review. Attachments: • Letter dated April 26, 2005 and Application Requesting Ordinance Amendment • Copy of the draft of proposed text amendment • Site Map • Sunset Funeral Home&Cemetery Concept Review Submission dated April 19,2005 • Hess-Boise Report, March 2005 H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\Alderwoods Amendment to Ord Staff Report.doc OP'PENHEIMER �OPPENHEIMER WOLFF&DONNELLY LLP Plaza VII,Suite 3300 45 South Seventh Street Minneapolis,MN 55402-1609 Main Line 612 607.7000 Direct Dial 612 607 7377 Direct Fax 612 607.7100 E-Mail dtysonC@oppenheimer.com April 26, 2005 VIA MESSENGER Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Re: Alderwoods Group—Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes: Enclosed herewith is a Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance sent on behalf of Alderwoods Group (Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery, Sunset Memorial Park) along with a check in the amount of$100.00 to cover same. Very truly yours, OPPENHERAEP WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP Daniel son DRT:cb Enclosure OPPENHEIMER 2324838 v01 04/26/2005 A( v'l 1 2,&, Date: April 25, 2005 Fee: $100.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Applicant: Alderwoods Group Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery, Sunset Memorial Park Address: c/o Oppenheimer Wolff& Donnelly LLP, Plaza VII, Suite 3300, 45 South Seventh St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-1609 Phone: (612) 607-7000 Request for change regarding: (check appropriate item(s)) Restrictions upon buildings, structures, or amenities _Permitted uses Conditional uses Affected zoning district: R-1 at 2250 St. Anthony Boulevard, St. Anthony, Minnesota Proposed change(s) and reason(s) therefore: Modify the provisions of Chapter 1615 of the City Ordinances relating to Single Facility District, to (a)provide cemetery mausoleums, crypts, vaults, crematoriums, columbarium and scattering_grounds as permitted uses, and (b) provide funeral homes as a permitted conditional use. The Petitioner currently operates the cemetery at the property and is legally non-conforming. Petitioner desires to have the use designated as conforming. Petitioner desires, through the conditional use-procedure (with any necessary variances) to remove an existing administrative building and construct and operate a funeral home and administrative building at the Property. Signature of pplicaW OPPENHEIMER:2324461 v0i 04/26/2005 04 -274@5 *100 . 00t9 :I-W Z7G&ULEIaUAIY raUaua;vdru inneaipoU3,Minnesota 5MI8 6 RIGHMOUSNESS 18--- — HOMEWARD phone.789-3596 7A- RDELITY 19-----' gOM MMORAT[ON 7B -_HZTMA,N" 2D _ENDURING FAITH 7C -RARMONY 21 ETEMALFArM convenience, this ump is marked to show -------- --2D DEV0110N zz HOLY BIBLE adamte location of 8-—KVM M�*�C LOVE 23---MMPANION 9- --- VE5,F 6rJANlJ 2: J:tRA art\ 10 C ACELAM 25 MEDPPA'ITON m Secdan --- 11 01 ln,mnnTi..— -a+varaut;a�L..LI r1.1 theinteunMf diteof a w ' _ z D z 0 orfs]remains vmte Laid to rest on __ 19 K z City of Minneapolis 11 ✓� ity of St.Anthfny v \ \ U D T•a /•t ' � . It t� � Final Gift r t J ✓�' Q�� Co G r rrm not to rea-Voss zoinrrs rs my ashes to tine sea .bernowfhoseyears gone by oauiggrfts Ig:toe to thee. HAP Eb OF N EACB HA SOLE bercrowthe happy times u, rfy fiea:veshare(I ti l !ave my mating place unmarked Igh you never Wred. w not ojw finalgift who come to see F lastillgpr'oof thatsays ku nse ...alyd you foxed me. 4. MENORML PARK 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 mdug-ganCEDmekusstudios.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 SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY St. Anthony, Minnesota Concept Review Submission April 19, 2005 - Planning Commission ALDERWCX:)DS­ GROUP ' A 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. EXISTINGSITE........................................................................................................_........................__..._................._.......__......................_............................................__..........._..................__........._..............................................__......._.._......._........................_......6 5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN...........................................................................................................................................................__........._.....................................................__............................................_.......................................__................._.................8 SitePlan..........................................................................__................................................................................................................__........... .......___.......................................................................................................................8 FloorPlans......................................................................................._................................._................................._.........................._......._......................_._....._..........._...........__.......___.......__......._........................__..............................9 EastElevation.................................................................................................................................................._.................._..............................................__.........................................................................._......... ..................._............._...10 EastElevation—Rendering.................................................................................. 6. PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE.........................................................................................................................................................._..........._.................._..................................................................._......................_.................._........................._................12 7. IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE_.............................................................................................................................................._...................................._.............................................................................................._....................................._........... -...........13 PROJECT NO.20425 Page 2 April 19,2005 a 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 Reviev/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 newfuneral 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 building or if we had studied the feasibility of expanding the existing administration budding. 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.) 0 WD 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-Rolle a local historical consultant. They were asked to be a"third-parry consultant"to our Issue. Their scope Included researching the building 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 building 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 Apr 1119,2005 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 feasibil Ity. Based on the report Issued by Hess-Raise,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 Raise and Company,March 2005. Please review the report in its entirety.) PROJECT NO.20425 Page-4 April 19,2005 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 Apnl 2005 SUBJECT* Preliminary Design Review Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery Thank you for the opportunity to review preliminary reports,plans and specification, alterations,as of which ties been d—iod to be satisfactory,Therefore,it has relative to proposed work for the Sunset Funeral Home and Csmetery This property, been concluded Clint the current structure will be replaced by a now structure of established in 1927,is a significant example of landscape design opplted to mrmrcrtes in compatible design This building will be situated in the same position as the the early twentieth century,the retail being a memorial park consisting of brand expanses misting,forming a gateway to the park and an architectural anchor to the®rt end of lawn,winding drives,and a distinctive central boulevard anchored at either end by a of the mall. chapel and gotehouse/admmissmtsn building.The principal monument of the park is the • The design of the proposed structure respects the existing architectural palate by Tower of Memoras,created at the midpoint of the boulevard,in perfect balance wah the incorporating the flavor of the English Jacobean Revival in roof and gable lines, flanking rows of cedar trees.Conceived by noted landscape architects Morell and fenestration.and aderior materials. I would,however,suggest ggee dart farther Nichols,the park represents a significant example of this Minnesota firm's design investigation be made as to the pone arrangement for the proposed windows to expenise.As such,the property appears to meet the crnarra for nomination to the incorporate either a diamond or stnaller rectangle muntin pattern.The design is National Register of Holum Places. ar a replica of the existing building,nor should it be.It is both honest and respectful. With the above coreiderstsns in msnd,1 visaed the site and now offer the Iblbwmg Suggestion for conservation and mtegmton of misting historical features into comments" the new building Include reincorporation of the destfative fireplace mantle and • The central boulevard/mall is e most significant design feature.Alteration of this muralinto the tecen'n arta of the new stsuetme std conservation of the three feature would cenimpact adversely ryect the eligibility of the property for any prom. leaded glaze window panels from the east 0pde.Although selvage of furore conmdemtion for historic status.The components requiring preservation the Oak paneling in the reception mom of the misting building Cay at be include the cuntinnal line of cedar trees and the antral green Removal of treat to practical.it is strongly advised to provide a similar paneling in the now,reception pmvde parking would present a negative impact by interrupting the continuity of area. planting_Removal of the moral green for parking would have a similar impact . Overall,I am quite Impressed with the allures that have gone into making thus As a compromise measure,I suggest that the misting green be reduced to the protea successful Swim The proposed design is densldve h the ds o significant history minimum allowable in width ro provide for Parallel patkmg along the boulevard chanMtt of Suri,,Memorial Park while addressing the weds of the e:ettrnwy when needed TMs measure would provide parking and maintain the original long into the future design totem When viewed from various points along the mall,the impact would be negligible. • The current getehouse/admmutmtfon budding is a contributing element to the design of the park.It is executed in a variant of the English Jacobean Revival style,and is f ked in gray granite similar to that used m the chapel and tower,a well as gatepost- It Is extremely limited in available space end,as such,has brume fimcnonally obsolete to current weds.The architects have Investigated alternatives to removal of this structure that Include various additions and PROJECT NO.20425 Page-5 April 19,2005 J 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 Studias Ltd searched the Minnesota-National Registry of Historical Places to see if the existing administration budding was a protected building on the registry.http//nrhµmnhs.org/NRSearch.cfm Mekus Studias searched under Hennepin County,there were+/-1400 listings in the County.No fisting 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 k, EnQanooBoakvudJpg g Adm1n Bufldtng•LJPg Existing Admin Butldmg'ZJPg J Fslsnng Admin Building-Ift L.xisdng Admin Budding-4apg • PROJECT N0.20425 Page-7 April 19,2Q05 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN PRELIMINARY DESIGN Site Plan gm''vg' et:- .ray ,jx� 7 `J x� �`t rr ^,,q'rr ya.,tY'('nxt•7xa 1+--• ye^gr s; •..s m• m at - a e �: „�� �nAp -?l-`;c# i� Not }'Y"'.x Yf1r�� �d1,3t' r.$j. `��- � 1 � a• • .iF'" ' �9��i,j"�r•TMr�tlYi"���` ��#,F�P�4�„' 'r�° ����s. Y .. r^`! 6 �y a fi'6 ct; k�Y4 ^� 4.7`.9 � ,'r�.�•„ $. �.`` ti .� i •yam-.', �.YAhi" t*�.y4yx ''�S`�i'aa`"���f� .Cs`..}�'��� rvn j �'•T �o�'�k"`9..� �3(. � r� -3s•`�if'• j ...,; .�41R.34^ "Y r � ' �y hi WR 'iW cr•9#:?..,5 5.��+.su?�>rs�xlF�43+..?,._,� �, ?r'�5�.;...:2�C{iy:'s�'�.x?rh..'�'S'v,;.�'�4;;dc�E'. ..�.,� �v.���o.y�::'3!r����.:. t 'F� r �` R .n PROJECT NO.20425 Page-8 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN Floor Plans "r') dM JL w "Nie` ME ® y 1. .J —1 0 10 um 0 First Floor Second Floor PROJECT NO.20425 Page 9 April 19,2005 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION STANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN East Elevation �1 mr-.• S4VbM'9'Iu,19TN 9'Ja 919)0Y TO®1 901 41Y1Y,IM G.N SON 9fIEOTB • 0' R00 P901 mTcn,m YSOA Bn9i PROJECT NO.20425 Page-10 April 19,2005 owz ��: �—--- iVMSR+�x�sGE' �f�4sRl�v � 1��r�l�s�ub LL ��yy g. ��q�+� �1�.9Yf�yy�r, t2lkk ®��'r ��� � '..{✓� I� y p3 ' e A4Bi6S. V' I 11 '�, WG� E'�1c"YFIiNAA, �1 q� _ b K��+:.� � ip�� ,y �'"��dd,•��aa"� �,.>��a..N`s"�. [[.��. i 4q�n`� "�f� ��•... `.E 1 I� 1 tf't`�In4.�"`(,.i{' E➢i �M 4L..$`ib �._-"� Ra_�6A1 Ij7� 4<�I�Uii2' ® I� - Y�L }.,'i�y ��'✓ �d i�'.^4f Fk�t.i:lEhiQl� � '' S Ci �� � � C k't� �[ i1y.i�� f-ki' F=x'a «•. K M - . •q>��t •"� � �-* Baa` yF� u .���� i� ,�,�,tl�r�`n�. F:1R®F 6'°+ R4��1�': f�lt� I amu, '', vae'�-' 'y�,mte N � �-. � � r,�5,:��.l:w 14E9 F6,�i. 1��1 �E�`x �'�� '� k;'"`•�� � �5 a�i{� �$"t�l��' �� 1� '✓�� x �nG'_ /-�¢'. ") , _ � - - si'�� _ , )tf t�? ''� F•) .a• ,�� .., . _....� i i;l:. ...;iit3 k Asa . ��;•' ._G^'"r�Y ... ... - � f•,�( , 11 MEKUS STUDIOS LTD SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK CONCEPT REVIEW SUBMISSION STANTHONY,MINNESOTA PROPOSED ZONING TEXTCHANGE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE Petition. Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery Sunni Manwrial Park Scetion 2 That this ordinarwo shall become cffoetiw upon its 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._ I, ,City Clerk of the City of Sl.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 ams 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 I.Chapter 16 Zoning and Land 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 DS follows• Page(s) A. Chapter 16,Section 1615—R-1 Single-Family District: WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of the City of St Anthony,Mmnesom this_day of 2005. Amend Section 1615.02 by adding the following new permitted uses: 1615.02 Permitted Uses. Within an R-1 District,only the following uses me permitted: (e) cemeteries,mauvoleumsv crypts,vaults,crematoriums,columbanum,and scattering grounds. B. Chapter 16,Section 1615—R-1 Single Family District Amend Section 1615.03 by adding the following new permitted conditional use: 1615.03 Permitted Conditional Uses.Within a R-1 District,the following tines are permitted only if a conditions]use permit has been issued by the City Council: (d) Funeral homes. 1 2 OPPeNgtlMaW 3]6910a gr041NW5 PROJECT NO.20425 Page-12 Apr!119,2005 MEWS 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................................._.................................................................__..........._......._.._......................................................__..........................Apr,l 19,2005 2. Public Hearing with Planning Commission re:proposed text amendment............................................................................_.................................................._........._......................_..............................................__...............May 17,2005 1. 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'Reading).................................................................................................................__......._.._......._............................. ...............May 24,2005 4. City Council Text Amendment Reading(3'a Reading)......_...................................................................................................................................................................................................__...............................................June 14,2005 5. Public Hearing at Planning Commission............................._....................................._........._.......___......._............._......._.._........._..................._....................................................................................................................................June 21,2005 1. Site Plan Approval fl. Conditional Use Permit iii. Variances if needed(height restrictions of R-1 district,parking restrictions) 6. Council action on Planning Commission recommendations......................._..........._....................................................................__......._..................................._......................_.............................................................................June 26,2005. PROJECT NO.20425 Page-13 April 19,2005 OPPEN HE IMER 226920043 1M V2004 Historical Consultants The Foster House 100 North First Street Minneapolis MN 55401 March 1, 2005 612 338-1987 phone 612 338-2668 fax www.hessroise.com Kim Moore-Sykes Hess Ro i s e Saint Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road Saint Anthony, Minnesota 55418 Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes: Please find enclosed our Phase 1-report for the Sunset Memorial Park administration building. I have included one bound and one unbound copy. Let me know if you would like a digital version and I will be happy to e-mail it to you. I enjoyed working with you on this project. Please let me know if you have any questions about our methodology or conclusions. Sincerely, Charlene K. Roise f R. �y k I M1.11111-1 jj N� �Il qx� 5 ZIP".y° r dye�cr ar' 'Fibs r t;. �1 � w�+d 4 M• 1 f N S•,f��rro� Yh. � - ro �•r2Vn 'Y r.A ra �X��► ? rG',a+�`� �. r �r aw .n AFL • f v•� a rYa� mr 1r' �> i•. A +a'S� � °b�u �x 7� t a 3,1`ro ".q + �� �Trs l4" 'Mit Itr"'wr'� -.- ''�'► 10��y w� �.,m i o�r o�- LflF�m•JTr-Y ,.a _o-A°iYn'`�-rr +w °`'yaw `� r �`•. ►��''.+4°.q� � y >�'�, i of -Y ,• �ruu( .�c ��y'" ;40 0 �i�"s. '" 'r'n'y'�' °.'"T1�"�``t°R° � ' v> 4. &2.��" r r• y�*a �{� ice- -r.,i�i u T i-,• p`y.S l""�'r"�f�A?'i y� .�n 'rn, I �O�Fg•�J�l" uo� R t 3 .,`�c�``gib 1� �a - "` ti .3x� • � iP . Yt vel s:' a �T�`- �'-aL'�`3w� I �7"''��ii+7t°������^•.q�ut� � :u'�itn�1 4y.�`'_r-.��' ��inc�-=r s.- ? • I e.• fl W ,g �y�''S'•. JI �o -u 4 "Nln Ns�- 11e- ,,aa'+ .ter.•u.as �. r ��`tic" �,_ �A ■9,�11 ,p as m.l.N N Ob 1 r�'► ��'f,J�I GJ♦a ,n S. 1 L^_` � �?"� Y fT��� �65 rL� ./� •�� gS}S+� Fta I It�, � _ -7J • ���`f; sn �'� W> a ■a �+'+.. r vy ar r 'v p ' z _ ; ,.,v. m t� �fieeu47 '-��w•,'� oc,? ys.. ,d f!�Ism a y` �..-' �.•u _ ,.� vL "�- —�-=•+y 2 '�tS+ d� .-1 N�y� an ti� I7�' n �d'� ' `�I So z 'w�i _'��"S' ���-� ►,mfn '�'• 3 rl��' M `��2 ��c1A �r. +o• -{r-� mi R,�i a•at int a Sz,> h ���°.Yr Q.a``.�a �¢�•,;Nlr j".� •�� o kr/�titi t'sc �A rW 'X14 Ce J•p��� A J�JJhI d e, • ,�+', • r. �'iA y nh! .,,Nf�i�y� ^1 •'at M R- P 3J...�O'7� 4 sN'ar J m",M a 1 • f 4 1 a A7.r;+ +C'•'4u -{ a qrC ,r �Gti -ri��T'.. ->r s 7* s rrs sn'W'N rL I�r�e �r+1 c,�' 7" I d'► S t �. `.��. Y 1 e b ry V -dY y I ♦ c N +w z, w �� yr'�► �n N m A� •�-r .� til n .rj• u��a9*•x 1.Z-�hSm+, `Ti��Cyt u^' r�nrti�. 9�3�a� ti N wN±u vo-r- •} �,. � r� �i�" - • A p h• ?tr N %s? 4 -I..i �r"��. S• i- aw 4 br�'- •••5^C,.� • � "'"iw "r+a � I o b �. �'/' e^':. Egg Y y .4, A � -4f � ll,(r }1�• _d Ai 4iJq ` �cE x`Yy�i�`�tr,.�•`^9�a � ps y£ r��i' s✓+ rnd �„'� � 1 F4,- ++..-�r•`�� "'a�'•��°'�.+''� >w � ..L req tr.-�--�-c+ill a 1�YI �L. -...a no• _ w'-��-�+_'���•�-s���.:._c_�. A'-i:�n°moo� -°rte`a:..�+ j A , I , • an ► 9 INTRODUCTION Alderwoods Incorporated, the owner of Sunset Memorial Park,has proposed to demolish the cemetery's administration building to allow for the construction of a new administration building and funeral home on that site. The company considered other areas in the cemetery for the new construction and concluded that no other location was feasible due to intense land use and access issues. The community of Saint Anthony, where the administration building is situated, felt that the structure might be historic and was concerned about the proposed demolition. In January 2005, Saint Anthony retained Hess, Roise and Company, historical consultants, and MacDonald and Mack, architects, to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the historic significance and condition of the administration building. This report considers the following issues: ■ Whether the property appears to be historically significant and has potential for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; ■ If so,under what criteria, and what additional research is needed to verify the preliminary finding; ■ A basic analysis of the building's structural condition and the feasibility of renovating it; and ■ What additional studies are required to develop a renovation plan. Charlene Roise, a principal of Hess Roise, served as the historian and architectural historian for this project and wrote the "Preliminary Determination of Eligibility"and conclusion sections. Architect Todd Grover represented MacDonald and Mack, which served as a subcontractor to Hess Roise. Mr. Grover prepared the "Structural Condition and Renovation Potential" section. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 1 A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY The history and significance of the administration building is inextricably linked to the history and significance of Sunset Memorial Park. Hence, the building must be evaluated in the context of the cemetery as a whole. The Memorial Park: Historical Context The design of cemeteries, like other types of properties, has evolved over time in response to changes in social customs, aesthetic preferences, and technological advancements. Sunset Memorial Park was established in 1927, the first Midwestern example of a memorial park, a cemetery design that emerged in the early twentieth century. Predecessors to the memorial park were the picturesque mid-nineteenth-century"rural" cemeteries, such as Mount Auburn in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the mid-nineteenth- to early twentieth-century"lawn-park" cemeteries, locally exemplified by late nineteenth-century sections of Lakewood in Minneapolis. Both reflected the ascendancy of secular,privately owned,professionally designed and managed cemeteries over family plots and churchyards.' Memorial parks began appearing in the early twentieth century. They represented not only a new landscape aesthetic but also a major shift in America's attitudes towards death and the rituals surrounding it. As one historian observed: The twentieth-century cemetery was renamed the memorial park by founders who wished to obscure the morbid connotations they believed the public perceived in the word cemetery. The memorial park was simpler and more accessible than the lawn-park cemetery. Society no longer desired a mysterious relationship with the grave. Customers wanted the cemetery to be comfortable and familiar, reflecting mainstream American practices such as the acceptance of the hospital as the place to die, the removal of the funeral from the home, and the purchase of the cemetery lot preneed as a simple business transaction. Thus, cemetery designers freely used the elements of the increasingly popular suburban landscape in developing the look and atmosphere of the memorial park.2 Unlike earlier cemeteries, where tall monuments regularly punctuated the landscape, memorial parks featured landmark monuments surrounded by a lawn with headstones set flush in the ground. Pinelawn Cemetery on Long Island, a memorial park designed by the prominent landscape architect Samuel Parsons Jr. in 1902, was a trendsetter for cemetery and landscape professionals. The memorial park that captured the attention of the American public, however, was Forest Lawn in Los Angeles, which entrepreneur Hubert Eaton rescued from failure and 1 David Sloane, The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History(Baltimore and London:The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991),2-5;Howard Colvin,Architecture and the After-Life(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991),368-373;Mame Osteen,Haven in the Heart of the City: The History of Lakewood Cemetery(Minneapolis:Lakewood Cemetery, 1992),44. 2 Sloan,Last Great Necessity,2. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 2 transformed into a highly profitable business in the 1910s and 1920s. Imitators quickly followed, spawning over six hundred memorial parks in America by 1935.3 Sunset Memorial Park Early in 1927, Armour and Company of Chicago announced plans to establish Sunset Memorial Park on a 100-acre parcel that the company had held for twenty years. The cemetery site was just across Saint Anthony Boulevard from a golf course that the company had developed and subsequently sold to the City of Minneapolis. The cemetery's total cost was estimated at one million dollars. At least thirty acres were to be developed immediately following plans prepared by Morell and Nichols, a Minneapolis landscape architectural and engineering firm. The nonsectarian cemetery"will be the only one in the northwest constructed on the park plan," the Minneapolis Tribune reported in April 1927. "There will be no individual monuments, each grave to be marked with a headstone which will be level with the ground. Monuments will be erected in each section, with a central monument dominating the entire park."4 By the end of October, the Minneapolis Tribune reported that"work has now been completed on the initial four sections of the park at the south end of the property. All of the streets have been paved, curbs built, lawn sprinkling systems installed, grading completed and the beginning made of landscaping."A newspaper advertisement in late November declared: "The officials of Sunset Memorial Park, `A Resting Place Beautiful,' wish you to know that on and after December 1, 1927, they are ready to accept interments."The facility was, the advertisement continued, "America's finest burial park. New, modern equipment. Competent supervision."The offices of the Memorial Park Association were at 808 LaSalle Avenue in downtown Minneapolis.5 The plan for the remainder of the park was ambitious. "At the entrance to the park the architects have called for the construction of an ornamental administration building and gateway of stone. In the building will be the offices of the superintendent of the park and restrooms. The entrance is at the head of a mall which runs from the east to the west end of the property and ends in an impressive chapel where burial services will be conducted."The chapel would be reflected in a "Roman pool" in the mall. A network of drives would"encircle every section and wind their way through this park of beautiful contour." Each section would be distinguished by a unique monument. A crowd of 2,000 witnessed the dedication of Sunset Memorial Park and its first four monuments in June 1928. Within a few years the "Tower of Memories,"the park's largest monument, had been erected midway down the mall.b Work on the chapel and mausoleum building was initiated in the early 1930s. The plans were drafted by Lovell and Lovell, architects based in Chicago. The first of three proposed phases created a 160-foot by 100-foot structure holding a 200-seat chapel and 1,000 to 2,000 crypts. Later phases called for increasing the building's dimensions to 350 feet by 150 feet, its height to 7 Sloane,Last Great Necessity,2, 139. 157. 4"Sunset Park Project Work to Be Started,"Minneapolis Tribune,April 3, 1927;"Armours Back Memorial Park Development,"Minneapolis Star,October 20, 1927. 5"Armours Back Memorial Park Development";"Announcement,"Minneapolis Tribune,November 27, 1927. 6"Armours Back Memorial Park Development";"Sunset Park Cemetery Dedication Rites Held,"Minneapolis Tribune,June 18, 1928. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 3 four stories, its capacity to 10,000 crypts, and its cost from $500,000 to $1.5 million. A contract for building the first phase was awarded to the Madsen(Mattson, in some accounts) Construction Company, a general contractor, in October 1932. This news was welcomed by laborers suffering from unemployment during the Depression. The chapel was dedicated in January 1934. Plans for substantially expanding the structure were never carried out.' A preliminary review of historical information offered conflicting information on the construction date of the administration building. A June 1927 newspaper reported that"roads have been laid out and locations made for the $250,000 chapel and a$100,000 entrance building. Construction of the latter will start this summer, officials of the park association said." A sketch of the building appearing in a newspaper advertisement in August showed a small, single-story structure with a pyramidal hipped roof topped by a cupola, quite a different design from what was ultimately built. A newspaper article in October indicated that the building was not yet erected. The administration building appears to be in place in a 1932 photograph of the mall that was taken from the site of the chapel, although other photographs suggest that it was not built until the mid-1930s. In any event, the administration building is certainly more that fifty years old and its construction falls within the cemetery's period of significance.8 Morell and Nichols, ]Landscape Architects Morell and Nichols, a Minneapolis landscape architecture firm, was responsible for the design of Sunset Memorial Park. Anthony Urbanski Morell was born in France in 1875, was educated in that country, and moved to the United States around 1902. During the same period, Arthur Richardson Nichols, a Massachusetts native born in 1880, was the first graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's landscape architecture program. Both men were undoubtedly familiar with Parsons's Pinelawn Cemetery design. In the first decade of the twentieth century, they worked for New York landscape architect/engineer Charles W. Leavitt Jr.,becoming acquainted with Minnesota while working on plans for the Chester Congdon estate in Duluth.9 Morell and Nichols relocated to Minneapolis in 1909 and established their own firm. They soon had an impressive list of institutional and business clients including the University of Minnesota, Carleton College in Northfield, and other schools through North America; the Minneapolis and Duluth park systems; the National Park Service; and the Minnesota Steel Company(producing the plan for Morgan Park). They also designed private estates for wealthy clients in the United 7"Construction to Start on Mausoleum and Chapel,"Minneapolis Journal,September 4, 1932;"$500,000 Chapel to Be Erected at Sunset Park,"Minneapolis Tribune, September 4, 1932;"Chapel Mausoleum Contracts Awarded," Minneapolis Tribune,October 2, 1932;"$500,000 Chapel Project Launched,"Minneapolis Tribune,October 20, 1932;"Three Pastors Aid in Dedicating Sunset Chapel,"Minneapolis Tribune,January 9, 1934. 8"`Sunset Park'Cemetery Co.Extends Work,"Minneapolis Tribune,June 19, 1927;"Beauty Preserved Inviolable," advertisement from unattributed newspaper in Minneapolis History Collection,Minneapolis Public Library,August 28, 1927;"Armours Back Memorial Park Development";"Architect's Drawing of$1,500,000 Mausoleum-Chapel," Minneapolis Tribune, September 4, 1932. 9 Information on Morell and Nichols is taken from entries on the firm and on Morell and Nichols individually by Gregory Kopsichke in Pioneers of American Landscape Design,ed.Charles A.Birnbaum and Robin Karson,253- 257(New York: McGraw-Hill,2000). Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 4 States and Canada including Frank Hefflefinger(Lake Minnetonka), A. M. Chisholm(Duluth), and William O'Brien(Marine on Saint Croix). Morell passed away in 1924. Nichols survived until 1970, remaining active as a landscape architect into the 1950s. He continued to use the firm's name long after Morell's death, although he teamed up with other landscape architects.10 A biographer notes that Nichols "became well known in the field of cemetery planning. Two important examples of his work include Sunset Memorial Park and the northeast area of Lakewood Cemetery." He published articles on related subjects in trade magazines, featuring Sunset Memorial Park in a May 1930 article in The American Cemetery. Nichols was, according to a colleague, "a good designer, mild-mannered, and a skilled promoter who inspired people and who saw an important synergy between civil engineering and landscape architecture. Nichols believed in large-scale plans that met the needs of the present while providing flexibility for the future."The emphasis on engineering is particularly pertinent for Sunset Memorial Park where irrigation—an innovation uncommon in cemeteries at the time— was installed at the outset.'' Nichols died in Rochester, Minnesota. He is buried at Sunset Memorial Park. National Register Preliminary Assessment The National Register includes a spectrum of properties ranging from architectural monuments to gardens, iron smelters, boats, bridges, and aircraft beacons. Established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the register consists of properties "significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture."To be considered significant, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: be associated with events important to broad patterns of history; Criterion B: have a significant association with the life of an important person; Criterion C: represent a type, period, or method of construction; or be the work of a master; or express high artistic values; or Criterion D: yield, or be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Typically, above-ground properties merit National Register designation based on the first three criteria; Criterion D is usually applied to archaeological sites. Properties can achieve significance on a local, state, or national level. A property may be individually eligible for listing in the National Register, or eligible as a contributing component of an historic district. In addition to significance, a property must maintain physical integrity and must usually be over fifty years old unless it is exceptionally significant. The National Register is administered by the 10 In a 1927 advertisement for Sunset Memorial Park,two landscape architects are identified: "Morell&Nichols, Inc.,"and"Nichols,Nason and Cornell"("Beauty Preserved Inviolable"). 11 A 1927 advertisement claimed,with some exaggeration: "As a part of the elaborate improvement program a complete automatic underground sprinkling system—one of the largest in the world—is now being installed"(ibid.). Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 5 National Park Service,part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and is managed at the state level by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the Minnesota Historical Society. Cemeteries are categorically excluded from the National Register unless they meet one or more of the"criteria consideration"outlined in guidelines issued by the National Park Service. In the case of Sunset Memorial Park, the standard that must be met is Criteria Consideration D, which applies to cemeteries deriving their"primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events." A National Register publication offers examples of cemeteries qualifying under Criterion Consideration D, including"a cemetery . . . which reflects important aspects of community history"and"a cemetery that embodies the principles of an aesthetic movement or tradition of design and monumentation through its overall plan and landscaping, its gravemarkers and funerary sculpture, or its buildings and structures."12 The National Register eligibility of the Sunset Memorial Park administration building either as an individual structure or as part of a larger historic district has not been evaluated previously. A building inventory form for the "Sunset Funeral Home and Mausoleum"was prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission by Mead and Hunt in March 2004 as part of a reconnaissance survey. The form concludes: "The stone funeral home building is recommended for local designation under Criterion 4 for its architectural merit and for listing in the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture."The survey did not analyze the significance of cemetery buildings in Saint Anthony, and did not evaluate the significance of the cemetery's landscape. While this approach might have appeared justified given the parameters of the survey, Sunset Memorial Park clearly functions as a whole and the landscape reads as a whole. Given the funerary property type, in general, and the design and development history of Sunset Memorial Park, in particular, it is necessary to assess the property in its entirety, regardless of municipal boundaries. From this perspective, Sunset Memorial Park is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C and Criterion Consideration D as a well-preserved example of a memorial park and as a significant work of landscape architect Arthur Nichols. Further research is necessary to determine whether the property is of local, statewide, or national significance and whether it also qualifies under Criterion A for its role in the history of the metropolitan area. In addition, an in- depth physical survey of the property should be conducted to verify that the property's historic integrity is good, and to see if the circa 1949 expansion should also be included as part of the historic site. Snow obscured many details of the landscape at the time that this report was prepared. There are a number of contributing features within the Sunset Memorial Park historic site, including the administration building. While the administration building's potential for individual designation is more difficult to evaluate, it does not appear to have sufficient architectural or historic significance to merit National Register designation on its own. 12 Elisabeth Walton Potter and Beth M.Boland, Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places(Washington,D.C.:U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Interagency Resources Division, National Register of Historic Places, 1992), 14-17. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 6 STRUCTURAL CONDITION AND RENOVATION POTENTIAL Exterior Roof The roof was inaccessible, so all roofing observations were made from the ground. Description: The roof is a pitched slate roof with copper valleys,ridge caps, scuppers, gutters and downspouts. The roof shape is formed with two intersecting gables. There are two one story sections of the building tucked in y the southeast and northeast corners of the plan. These sections have a slate hipped roof. The southwest and northeast corners of the plan have two story sections with - a low pitched roof surrounded by a granite parapet. Condition: The condition of the roofing or flashing could not be determined. Recommendation: The roof needs to be closely examined to make sure that all roof conditions are sound. Due to the lack of proper access, this assessment could not be done at this time. Water Shedding System Description: Water is shed off of the building through the pitch of the roofs. The roofs pitch to gutters and downspouts on the east side of the building, and scuppers and downspouts on the west side of the building. Water is then brought to the ground through the downspouts. The gutters on the east side of the building are intergraded into a decorative cornice at the eaves. These gutters project just slightly beyond the face of the granite. Condition: Higher areas of the gutters, downspouts, and scuppers were inaccessible. From the ground, areas of split or deteriorated copper could be seen. There were isolated areas on the north and south sides where water had leaked above or below the gutter and spilled out on the stone wall. Recommendation: The gutters and downspouts that are cracked and leaking should be repaired or replaced. When replacing the gutters and downspouts, take care to match existing profiles and sizes of the existing elements. Exterior Walls Description: The administration building is clad in gray granite blocks. These blocks vary in size and shape, and help define some of the unique characteristics of this compact Gothic style building. At the base of the building, the granite blocks step out to delineate a foundation and Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 7 then continue below grade. The blocks are laid in courses with mortar used in the horizontal and vertical joints. Condition: The granite blocks themselves are in very good condition. There were no visible areas where the blocks have cracked or showed signs of deterioration. At the corners of the east elevation, a few of the comer blocks appear to be loose. It seems that these blocks have been reset in the past, and the mortar joints have been tuckpointed. On the north side of the building, specifically near the base of the building where the blocks step out, there are areas of organic growth staining the blocks. This condition, to a lesser extent, is also seen on some of the piers and corners of the building where a horizontal surface of a block is exposed. The mortar joints on the building are in good condition. There are a few areas of isolated deterioration on the outside corners of the building and where the decorative piers project from the building. It appears that excess ' water has penetrated the wall system and deteriorated the joints. This has caused the mortar to become loose and fall out. This deterioration, however, is isolated. Recommendation: The building should be selectively .' � tuckpointed. Any loose granite blocks should be reset before tuckpointing. Use appropriate cleaning methods to remove organic growth and stains on the north side of the building. Structure Description: It was difficult to assess the structure of the building. The building appears to be constructed of concrete walls behind the granite facade. The first floor has a concrete beam floor system. The structure of the second floor and the roof is unknown. Condition: Signs of structural problems usually appear in the finish materials inside the building or in the cladding materials on the exterior. There were no indications at these locations that there are problems with the structure of the building. Recommendations: None. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 8 Interior Basement Description: The basement has poured concrete foundation walls. There are other interior basement walls that vary from masonry walls for the chimney support and a vault enclosure to framed walls used as partition walls. The floor is concrete. The ceiling is clay tile laid between concrete beams. Part of the basement ceiling is covered with an applied acoustic tile. � s =; Condition: There were no visible cracks in the foundation ; 4 walls. Water stains were present at the base of the foundation walls and floor. More than likely the water entered the foundation because of improper surface drainage on the exterior of the building. There were no signs of recent or current water infiltration. There is a sink in the kitchenette that could be leaking because the wall directly behind the sink in the storage room has a r significant area of mold on the exterior side of the drywall. Recommendation: Remove the mold on the frame wall in the basement. Additionally, conduct a mold assessment in the basement to determine the extent of mold growth. First Floor Description: The first floor has a series of offices and bathrooms that surround a large, two-story reception hall. Painted plaster is on all of the walls and ceilings. The reception hall is the most ornate of all the rooms with a wood beamed ceiling, high wood wainscot, custom doors and door hardware, three large leaded windows, and a large marble fireplace. All of these materials appear to be original to the building. Condition: The majority of the first floor walls, ceilings, trim, doors, and finishes are in good condition. There are areas of worn finish but considering the age of the . n� �� , •.��-.' �;.�:,r, ,: ¢' � building, these wear patterns are expected. The only area of concern is in the northeast comer of the reception hall where there is an area of water staining, peeling paint, x� and plaster deterioration. It is difficult to know if this is a current or an ongoing condition as it was inaccessible. '00 . According to the building occupants, a roof leak was found in that area, and this leak was repaired. Recommendation: If not already done, repair the roof leak in the northeast corner. Repair the areas of deteriorated plaster. Repair any areas of worn finish. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 9 Second Floor {�+ Description: There are a few offices that occupy the third floor. Like the first floor, most of the walls and ceilings are painted plaster. Condition: The walls and ceilings were in good condition except for the ceilings below the southwest and northwest low pitched roofs. The ceilings and portions of the walls Opi . # r in these rooms have areas of water staining, peeling paint, and deteriorated plaster associated with roof leaks. Recommendation: If not already done,repair the roof leaks. Repair the area of deteriorated plaster. Windows Description: The typical window that is found on the building is a casement window with a wood sash and " frame. The glazing is single pane, leaded, divided lights. i Some of the larger openings have fixed transom windows y> above the casement windows. Several of these leaded ;w windows have been replaced with single light windows. Condition: The windows are of special concern as they are in poor condition. There is not one window in the building that does not show signs of deterioration. The 'y = deterioration of the windows is so extreme that in some f cases the entire window opening has been covered in a plastic sheet to prevent the cold air from infiltrating the building. While at the building, this interior plastic sheet was moving in and out because of the wind outside. These windows offer no protection from the weather. Many of these windows show signs of water infiltration. The bottom of the sashes and the sills of the windows have heavy water stains and deteriorated wood. ' ,. Individual lights within the leaded windows have been a 1 , replaced. There are some lights that are cracked. Some windows have been re-leaded. When the windows were 5 re-leaded the window shifted out of square and altered the ° horizontal alignment of the lead cames. Recommendation: Replace the windows on the building. The only windows that should not be replaced are the east windows in the reception hall. These windows would be too difficult to replicate and the Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 10 ornamentation in these windows is integral to the character of the building. All replacement windows should match the character of the existing windows, including the minor divisions of the leaded windows. The east windows in the reception hall should be repaired and a new storm window placed on the outside of each window. Overall Structural Condition Assessment The Sunset Memorial Park administration building is in good condition. There are no problems with the structure of the building. There were some areas of water infiltration through leaks in the roof, but these areas of deterioration are only affecting the finishes, and not the integrity of the structure. The exterior walls are in need of some repair,but these repairs are part of the proper maintenance of the building. Considering the age of the building, these areas of repair are minor. The only significant areas of concern are the windows. They are deteriorated and do not prevent weather from entering the building. Without immediate attention, water that enters the building through these windows could further affect the condition of the materials surrounding the windows. Renovation Potential Assessment The renovation potential of this building is slightly limited. The limitation is not due to its condition, but the compact nature of the building. The main space of the building, the reception hall, is a significant piece of this building both functionally and aesthetically. The most ornate details and finest finishes are found in this room. The alteration of this space should be avoided as this area has a high integrity of original material in good condition. But this room also takes up a good portion of the footprint of the building, and the remaining spaces are limited in size and quantity. Without disrupting the reception hall the possibility of integrating new layouts within the shell of the existing building is greatly reduced. Placing an addition on the building would allow for more opportunities in creating functional spaces around the reception hall. The additions could be designed in such a manner to respect the style and image of the existing building,but this is dependent upon the space needs of the occupant and site constraints. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page I1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMNMNDATIONS While the physical condition of the administration building does not appear to justify its demolition, functional limitations might make a persuasive case for its removal. Since 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—if, and only if, the new construction met the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. To ensure that the new design met these standards, consultation with the Minnesota SHPO is necessary,preferably early in the design development process. In addition, the exterior and significant spaces on the interior should be documented with archival photographs, plans, and elevations. Other mitigation measures, such as salvaging architectural elements, might be appropriate as well. Mitigation should be discussed with the SHPO. Related plans for parking and landscaping might have a more severely negative impact on the Sunset Memorial Park historic site. The tree-lined mall stretching from the administration building to the chapel/mausoleum is a major design feature of the property. Replacement of the trees with trees of a different type and in a different configuration(e.g., interrupted by parking bays) would damage the integrity of the formal aWe. Consultation with the SHPO regarding changes to the landscape is strongly recommended. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 12 Printer version: Some say cemetery plan disturbs the peace Page 1 of 2 startribune.com Close window Last update May 10,2005 at 12:23 PM Some say cemetery plan disturbs the peace Sarah McCann Star Tribune Published May 11,2005 A new funeral home in St. Anthony's Sunset Memorial Park cemetery could be a way to serve families or it could intrude on the park's historic value, disturb the ambiance and flood green space with cars. Officials with Alderwoods Group Inc. of Cincinnati, a national funeral home and cemetery operator, say they would respectfully design and place a funeral home with their clients' needs in mind. The group's attorney, Daniel Tyson, said the current funeral home building's weaknesses include accessibility, size and lack of air conditioning. Two recent studies found the cemetery eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Sunset Memorial Park looks just as the name implies. It was established in 1927 and was the first Midwest example of a memorial park, which strives for a simple, accessible feel. An expanse of grass dotted with trees and plants carpets the memorial park. Headstones are set into the ground, noticeable only as people stroll past them. A grey granite mausoleum and chapel sits on one end of the property, across the border into Minneapolis. That building is used as a funeral home. In front of the mausoleum is a reflection pool lined with trees. Then comes a bell tower followed by mirroring rows of trees. Next in line, the grey granite administrative building and gate house serve as a bookend to the layout. On both sides of the strip are winding trails and landmark monuments. The founders intended the look and feel to help eliminate negative images associated with cemeteries, according to a historic assessment. According to St. Anthony zoning rules, cemeteries are acceptable on that property, but funeral homes are not. Alderwoods Group is asking the city to change the rules to allow funeral homes if the city approves individual requests. The planning commission will vote Tuesday at a public hearing on whether to recommend or deny the zoning request. Then, if the City Council were to approve the change, Alderwoods Group would go through a separate process requesting approval of the funeral home. 'To serve families' Plans call for replacing the 4,500-square-foot administrative building with an 11,500-square-foot funeral home and putting parking stalls behind the new building. "We're building this to better serve the families that are already coming to us," said Chaya Cooperberg, director of communications for the Alderwoods Group. Preserving history http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=-print_a&story=5391950 5/12/2005 Printer version: Some say cemetery plan disturbs the peace Page 2 of 2 Alderwoods Group hired Charles W. Nelson, a historical architect, who concluded in a memo, "The proposed design is sensitive to the significant historic character of Sunset Memorial Park while addressing the needs of the cemetery long into the future." Nelson and Charlene Roise, a historical consultant and architectural historian hired by the city, said the cemetery is eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. Roise, president of Hess, Roise and Company, said the No. 1 preference should be to keep the administrative building in place. Although the building by itself is not historically significant, it is part of the cemetery and its historic significance, she concluded. "They should try to work with it and save it if they can," she said. "That landscape is very important, so dealing with parking issues is going to be a major challenge." Anyone can go through the rigorous process of getting a property on the register, and while it is an honor, it won't offer much protection, Roise said. Perhaps that's why some residents want to voice their opposition now. "The possible disturbance of the cemetery doesn't excite a lot of people," city manager Mike Morrison said. Resident and former Mayor Dennis Cavanaugh said he is vigorously opposed to a funeral home. "My family is entitled to quiet enjoyment. We have a covenant that when we came in here it would be quiet enjoyment," he said. "Why change this? The whole thing is just so special." • IF YOU GO WHAT: Public hearing on whether St. Anthony should allow funeral homes in areas that are not zoned for such use WHEN: 7 p.m. Tuesday WHERE: City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road CONTACT: City Hall, 612-789-8881 -COMPANY CRITICIZED The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Alderwoods Group, the Cincinnati funeral home and cemetery operator that wants to put a funeral home in Sunset Memorial Park in St. Anthony, is included in a lawsuit involving the top three chains in the country. The suit "charges that the companies engage in price-fixing and sell caskets for as much as six times their wholesale cost," the Journal reported. Contact the writer at 612-673-7512 or smccannnastartribune.com. ©Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5391950 5/12/2005 Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Gilligan, Jerome (Gilligan.Jerome@dorsey.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:08 PM To: mmomson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Mike and Kim--Attached is an amendment to the Section 1665.03 to conform it to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 2(b), which provides that a supermajority vote on any amendment to a zoning ordinance only applies in the case of a rezoning from a residential district to either commercial or industrial district. This law has been in effect since 2001 and the City may not deviate from it. Also attached is an ordinance amending the Section 1665.04 to change the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit from a 4/5ths vote of all the members of the Council to a majority vote of all the members. I think it is a good idea to make this change. While Minnesota law does not prohibit the City from imposing a 4/5ths vote requirement to grant a conditional use permit, this now seems inconsistent with the requirement that a zoning amendment only needs a majority vote(other than for rezoning from residential to industrial or commercial) and also with the standard for approval of a CUP, which is that a CUP that meets the conditions of the zoning code generally must be approved unless the Council finds the use detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. 1 don't know the history of the 4/5ths requirement but think this is something that should at least be reviewed when the Planning Commission and Council adopt the amendment to Section 1665.03. Jerry CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material,and are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited,and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received this e-mail in error,please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments,including any copies thereof,and inform the sender that you have deleted the e- mail,all attachments and any copies thereof. Thank you. <<Voting on zoning amendment.doc>> <<Cond Use Permits amendment.doc>> 4/26/2005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REZONING AND AMENDMENTS AMENDING SECTION 1665.03 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 1665.03 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by modifying subdivision 4, to read as follows: 1665.03 Rezoning and Amendments. Subd. 1. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment of the Zoning Code may be initiated by (a) a petition of the owners of property to be rezoned or affected by amendment; (b) a recommendation by the Planning Commission; or(c) action of the Council. Subd. 2. Submission Requirements. All applications by a property owner for changes in zoning must be accompanied by a drawing showing the property to be affected and all property within 350 feet of the boundaries of the affected property, a statement as to why the zoning change is requested, and the fee set forth in Subsection 615.07. The application will be referred by the Zoning Officer to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Subd. 3. Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the Council on the proposed changes. Subd. 4. Council Action. A majority feup-fifths affirmative vote of all members of the Council is required to approve any rezoning or any other change in the Zoning Code., except that the adoption or amendment of any portion of the Zoning Code that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a four-fifths majority vote of all members of the Council. Subd. 5. Planned Unit Development. In a proceeding for the rezoning of a property under this Section 1665.03, if the property is 3 acres or more in area and if the proceeding is pursuant to a petition by the owner of the property to be rezoned, the City Council may require that the property be designated as a Planned Unit Development under Section 1655, in which case the City Council may also require the property owner to submit an application for a Planned Unit Development approval in accordance with Section 1655. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage by the City Council and publication of the Ordinance or a Summary thereof in the City's official newspaper. Adopted this_day of , 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Passage by City Council: , 2005. Publication in St. Anthony Bulletin: , 2005. 2 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REZONING AND AMENDMENTS AMENDING SECTION 1665.03 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 1665.03 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by modifying subdivision 4, to read as follows: 1665.03 Rezoning and Amendments. Subd. 1. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment of the Zoning Code may be initiated by (a) a petition of the owners of property to be rezoned or affected by amendment; (b) a recommendation by the Planning Commission; or(c) action of the Council. Subd. 2. Submission Requirements. All applications by a property owner for changes in zoning must be accompanied by a drawing showing the property to be affected and all property within 350 feet of the boundaries of the affected property, a statement as to why the zoning change is requested, and the fee set forth in Subsection 615.07. The application will be referred by the Zoning Officer to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Subd. 3. Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the Council on the proposed changes. Subd. 4. Council Action. A maeo 7ity€mss affirmative vote of all members of the Council is required to approve any rezoning or any other change in the Zoning Code., except that the adoption or amendment of any portion of the Zoning Code that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a four-fifths maiority vote of all members of the Council. Subd. 5. Planned Unit Development. In a proceeding for the rezoning of a property under this Section 1665.03, if the property is 3 acres or more in area and if the proceeding is pursuant to a petition by the owner of the property to be rezoned, the City Council may require that the property be designated as a Planned Unit Development under Section 1655, in which case the City Council may also require the property owner to submit an application for a Planned Unit Development approval in accordance with Section 1655. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage by the City Council and publication of the Ordinance or a Summary thereof in the City's official newspaper. Adopted this_day of ) 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Passage by City Council: , 2005. Publication in St. Anthony Bulletin: , 2005. 2 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AMENDING SECTION 1665.04 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 1665.04 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by modifying subdivision 3, to read as follows: 1665.04 Conditional Use Permits. Subd. 1. Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit is to be made on forms available from the Zoning Officer and must be signed by the owner of the property in question. The application must be accompanied by a fee in the amount set forth in Subsection 615.07. The applicant may be required to provide concept and final site plans, if requested by the Zoning Officer. Subd. 2. Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the Council on the proposed changes. Subd. 3. Council Action. A conditional use permit may be granted only by a ma*ority four fifths vote of all members of the Council after determining that: (a) The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property is located. (b) The Council has specified all conditions which the Council deems necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area. (c) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. (d) The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare. Subd. 4. Expiration. A conditional use permit authorizing the erection or alteration of a building will expire if construction has not commenced within 12 months after the conditional use permit is approved by the Council. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage by the City Council and publication of the Ordinance or a Summary thereof in the City's official newspaper. Adopted this_day of 52005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Passage by City Council: ) 2005. Publication in St. Anthony Bulletin: ) 2005. 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 May 17, 2005 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER. 10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Hoska, 17 Galyon, Jensen, Jenson, and Young. 18 19 Absent: None. 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 The Commission agreed, by consensus, to approve the meeting agenda as presented. 26 27 Motion carried unanimously 28 29 V. MEETING MINUTES. 30 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2005. 31 32 Chair Stromgren had the following corrections: 33 • Page 5, second paragraph, line 34, reads: `ding that he'; should read: `noting that he' 34 • Page 5, first paragraph, line 23, reads: `Nelson suggested a diamond grill pad'; should read: 35 `Nelson suggested a diamond grill pattern' 36 37 Commissioner Young had the following correction: 38 • Page 5, first paragraph, line 21, reads: `Morrow-Nichols'; should read `Morrell-Nichols' 39 40 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska,to approve the meeting minutes 41 of the Planning Commission of April 19, 2005 as amended. 42 43 Motion carried unanimously 44 I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 2 1 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 2 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the May 24, 2005 City Council Meeting_ 3 4 Chair Stromgren stated that Commissioner Young would attend the City Council Meeting on 5 May 24, 2005. 6 7 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 8 9 7.1 3217—31" Avenue NE, Petition of Variance for Lot Coverage 10 11 Chair Stromgren opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m. 12 13 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the Petition of 14 Variance for Lot Coverage submitted by Patrick Palan and Patricia Le Febvre, owners of 3217— 15 31"Avenue NE. She explained that the owners are proposing to construct a 12-foot x 10-foot 16 deck on the backside of their house. She stated that based on the findings from the public 17 hearing Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to 18 lot coverage to the City Council. She provided the Commission with a brief background noting 19 that it was discovered during a meeting between Mr. Palan and Staff,that the structures on the 20 site exceeded the allowable lot coverage percentage as stipulated in the City Ordinance. She 21 reviewed the lot size, structures and layout with the Commission noting that currently the house, 22 the detached garage, the driveway, sidewalk and patio exceed the allowable lot coverage by 230- 23 square feet. She stated that according to documents from Hennepin County and the City's 24 address file, the house and garage were built in 1955. She noted that Staff assumes that a 25 driveway was also constructed at the same time but the file does not indicate the materials used 26 for the original construction. She stated that the current owners pulled a permit in 1991 to 27 replace the original driveway with asphalt. She stated that in their application for a variance the 28 applicants state that the undue hardship they have with this property is the length of the driveway 29 required to access their detached garage, which is located deep into the lot. She explained that in 30 order to build the proposed deck and comply with the City's lot coverage requirements the 31 applicant would have to move their garage forward approximately 10-feet. She further explained 32 that the extraordinary circumstance that they feel this variance would help to alleviate is because 33 the property had already exceeded the allowable lot coverage they are not able to improve the 34 property. She stated that Staff's review of the documents in the property file shows that the 35 hardship was not created by the owners but rather as a result of the original codification of the 36 City's Zoning Ordinance, which was created in 1976. 37 38 Mr. Palan stated that he has worked to make improvements to the house over the past three years. 39 He reviewed the changes and upgrades with the Commission and explained that they were not 40 aware of the lot coverage issue until they applied for the deck permit. He reviewed the layout of 41 the lot, locations of the current structures and the proposed deck plans with the Commission. 42 43 Chair Stromgren asked what type of surface would exist under the deck. Mr. Palan stated that he 44 plans to place key rock under the deck and along the sides of the deck. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 3 1 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. 2 3 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Galyon, to recommend approval of 4 the Variance for lot coverage, from 35-percent to 40-percent, to allow a deck at 3217—3 0 5 Avenue Northeast;the Variance corrects extraordinary circumstances not caused by the property 6 owner. 7 8 Motion carried unanimously 9 10 7.2 Alderwoods Group—Petition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 11 12 Chair Stromgren clarified that this public hearing specifically relates only to the proposed text 13 change, which would allow cemeteries in an R1 zoning district and would make a funeral home a 14 conditional use in an R1 zone. 15 16 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 17 18 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the proposed 19 text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance whereby Chapter 16, Section 1615.02 would be 20 amended to allow cemeteries, mausoleums, crypts, vaults, and crematoriums in an R-1 Single 21 Family Zoning District. She stated that the text amendment would also include a change to 22 Section 1615.03 whereby funeral homes are allowed in the R-1 Zoning District as a permitted 23 conditional use. She provided the Commission with an overview of the text amendment changes 24 and definitions. She stated that Staff recommends that the proposed language be modified to 25 remove crematoriums as a permitted use in the R-1 District and also add the recommended 26 definition of funeral homes to the proposed text amendment. She stated that Alderwoods Group 27 has indicated that they are also interested in defining the minimum acreage required for a 28 designation of funeral home as part of the proposed language. She stated that if the proposed 29 changes are agreed to and based on the findings of fact from the public hearing on this request, 30 Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the text 31 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to the City Council. 32 33 Dan Tyson,45 South 7`h Street, Minneapolis, stated that he is present this evening, along with 34 several members of the Alderwoods team to review the proposed text amendment with the 35 Commission. He introduced the Alderwoods team to the Planning Commission noting that they 36 are all available to answer any questions the Commission might have. He opened by stating that 37 the words being said are overshadowing what his client is trying to accomplish noting that behind 38 the words is the respect for matters of grief,respect for the grieving, and matters of the heart. He 39 stated that also behind the words is a matter of place, located within the City of St. Anthony, a 40 place to remember and a reverence of life. He explained that his client is asking for an 41 enhancement to the funeral home as part of this reverence to the lives lived. He stated that they 42 are in agreement with the proposed language changes. He clarified that they are asking for 43 changes to the text as an amendment, not for a change to the zoning ordinance. He explained 44 that they need to have conformity with their use, which is what the proposed language addresses 45 with this request. He further explained that part of the request recommends limiting the size of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 4 1 the cemetery site and proposes a 10-acre minimum be added to the language. He stated that the 2 site itself consists of approximately 97 acres in St. Anthony and 20-acres in Minneapolis noting 3 that the concern is the changing of organic language in order to meet the limitations of the 4 acreage. He stated that they are also requesting that certain accessory uses be included as 5 permitted uses and that the ordinance be changed to include language that allows funeral home 6 mortuaries and crematorium as a permitted conditional use. He stated that the language changes, 7 proposed by Staff, are acceptable noting that they included the mortuary to be consistent with 8 other parts of the City's language. He explained that the crematorium is also a part of the 9 operation and services that a funeral home provides. He requested that any details be included 10 with the condition of use process. He reviewed the overall project noting that they have other 11 requests as they move forward through this process that includes the proposal to construct a new 12 structure on this site, which would be part of the conditional use process. 13 14 Mr. Tyson stated that they invited the public and City officials to an Open House this past 15 January noting that this was a good way for them to show the Residents what they would like to 16 do. He stated that site drawings were provided for their review and comment noting that they 17 received a lot of positive feedback and information. He stated that they have also held informal 18 meetings with City Staff to discuss the proposals and concern regarding the historic significance. 19 He stated that the City responded by hiring Charlene Roise to perform a study noting that the 20 study concluded that the building is functionally obsolete. He indicated that the report also states 21 that there was a case for removal of the building noting that individually they are not eligible for 22 the national register. He stated that this conclusion came after a very thorough study of the 23 building. He stated that they responded to the City's request to meet with the State Historical 24 Society noting that they hired Charles Nelson, former head of the State Historical Society, to 25 assist with the historical aspects of the property. He stated that John Herman is available this 26 evening to answer questions. He noted that the findings would also be part of the next public 27 hearing when they come forward to request approval for the conditional use permit. He 28 referenced the concerns expressed regarding potential encroachment of the design of the building 29 on existing gravesites and assured the Commission that he could state, without exception, that 30 this is not the case. He stated that Matt Duggan is present with drawings of the proposed site that 31 show this is not the case. 32 33 Commissioner Young asked how they came up with the 10-acre figure. Mr. Tyson explained 34 that it was based on research from other municipalities and on the size of the City of St. Anthony. 35 Ms. Moore-Sykes further clarified noting that Staff also discussed the acreage. She explained 36 that there are other cemeteries located in the City and Staff did not want to create a non- 37 conforming situation. She assured the Commission that the other cemeteries would be included 38 in the acreage before proposing final approval. 39 40 Commissioner Jensen noted their proposal includes discussion of funeral homes and mortuaries 41 as non-conforming use and asked what the differences are between funeral homes and 42 mortuaries. Mr. Tyson explained that the term mortuaries and funeral homes are synonymous 43 terms for the same use. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 5 1 Commissioner Young noted that a funeral home is more expansive in its function and asked if 2 the term mortuary has a different definition than a funeral home. Mr. Tyson explained that a 3 mortuary is inclusive to funeral homes adding that he is ok with the term `funeral home' if this is 4 what the Commission wants. Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that funeral homes and mortuaries are 5 listed separately in the commercial zoning regulations and suggested that they keep the verbiage 6 as `funeral homes and mortuaries' to remain consistent within the ordinance. 7 8 Commissioner Jenson noted that the language in the proposed section 1615.03 states that funeral 9 homes, mortuaries and crematories are accessories to a cemetery and asked if this would imply 10 that a funeral home could only be located in a cemetery. Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that in an R- 11 1 district they could have a cemetery without a funeral home but not a funeral home without a 12 cemetery. She further clarified that the only district where a funeral home and a mortuary would 13 be allowed would be in a commercial district. 14 15 Chair Stromgren clarified his understanding of the applicant's rationale for the changing noting 16 that the previous application was to rezone the cemetery to an open space district. He stated that 17 the Planning Commission motioned to continue this request and the request was denied by City 18 Council because they were uncertain of the long-term intent of the applicant and due to the 60- 19 day period. He questioned why it should be allowable as an R-1 since it is already and ROS. Mr. 20 Tyson explained that after consulting with Staff it was determined that a full rezoning of the 21 property was not the best way and it was determined that it would be the most consistent use by 22 using the current zoning to make their uses conforming. 23 24 Commissioner Young asked how the Minneapolis portion of the cemetery is zoned. Mr. Tyson 25 stated that the Minneapolis portion of the cemetery is in an R-1 District. 26 27 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, reviewed his understanding of Chapter 16 of 28 the zoning code noting that the structure of the code was setup by the City Fathers to keep order 29 within the city. He stated that any rezoning would have to be tested on how it would impact the 30 present preservation of this cemetery. He expressed his disagreement with Mr. Tyson stating that 31 this is not R-1 it is a legal non-conforming use. He noted that the Alderwoods Group is asking to 32 construct a new Administration Building and expressed concerns that there has been no actual 33 discussion on the new building and how it would impact the area. He stated that the original 34 concept review that was submitted made no mention of a new building adding that the present 35 zoning is in place to protect the present use. He stated the two different facilities would have a 36 definite negative impact to the area with an increase in noise levels and traffic. He advised the 37 Planning Commission to be careful when considering the co-mingling of a mortuary and funeral 38 home. He expressed concerns stating that the proposed structure would be extremely close to 39 gravesites from both the north and south areas and the proposed changes to the roadway area 40 would reduce the actual size of the roads making it difficult to navigate through the cemetery. 41 He commended the Planning Commission stating that they did an excellent job researching the 42 historical nature of the building. He stated that the report clearly states that Sunset Memorial is 43 eligible for the National Registry. He stated that the current building is in good condition and if 44 the non-conforming funeral home and administration building were removed it would actually 45 function quite well. He stated that the City is under no legal obligation to adjust the zoning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 6 1 codes adding that Alderwoods Group has not shown a hardship. He noted that the Alderwoods 2 Group has several locations throughout the metro area and urged the Planning Commission to 3 vote no to the petition dated April 25, 2005. 4 5 Thomas Arsenault, 1560 Trollhaugen Drive, Fridley, thanked the Commission for listening to the 6 public on this issue. He stated that he does not have a problem with the proposed text changes 7 adding that it does feel as if this is the first step down a very slippery slope to major changes to 8 Sunset Memorial. He stated that he feels intimidated by the size of the Alderwoods Group 9 noting that it is just him representing his immediate and extended family. He stated that his 10 family has several relatives buried in Sunset Memorial noting that it is the peace and tranquility 11 of Sunset that made them choose this location as their final place of rest. He stated that while the 12 proposal being discussed tonight is only for a text amendment, ultimately, this change does lead 13 to a bigger change to the cemetery. He expressed concerns stating that all of the gravesites at 14 Sunset would be affected, as would all who use the cemetery. He acknowledged that the changes 15 might not destroy gravesites but it would destroy the peace of the cemetery. He stated that this 16 cemetery has been, for many years, a peaceful place for many to come to and a new funeral home 17 and administration building, along with a parking lot, would affect all of the gravesites with 18 access, changes in the views, along with an overall change in the character of the cemetery. He 19 stated that he is speaking for his family and on behalf of himself and his family he would like to 20 recommend that the Planning Commission vote no, beginning with the text amendment. He 21 stated that the Community needs a peaceful place. 22 23 Nancy Soldatow, 3217 32nd Avenue Northeast, stated that she sees many people walking and 24 biking in the area. She stated that Sunset is a very quiet, peaceful area with a lovely building and 25 view. She stated that St. Anthony does not have many places like this anymore and urged the 26 Commission to vote against any kind of text change that would change the building or the area. 27 28 Diane Asbroth, 340 Dakota, Golden Valley, stated that she grew up in the St. Anthony area 29 noting that she only heard of this a week and half ago. She explained that her mother was buried 30 at Sunset last Tuesday and expressed concerns about the proposed changes at the cemetery. She 31 stated that when she and her family first moved to St. Anthony, Sunset Memorial was a striking 32 and tranquil cemetery. She stated that her family has always admired Sunset Memorial Park for 33 that reason adding that this is also the reason why her mother chose Sunset as her final resting 34 place. She stated that in listening to the Attorney explain the need for a text change she found 35 herself asking why. She expressed concerns stating that the Alderwoods Group is looking for a 36 monetary gain not for an improvement for those residing there or for those who will be residing 37 there. She stated that the people currently at Sunset and the relatives of those at Sunset were not 38 aware of the proposed changes noting that the aesthetics alone should be a big consideration. 39 She stated that the proposed parking area would be a major factor and impact on the cemetery 40 adding that the mall is something that puts a person into an awesome state. She stated that she 41 does not believe the changes to the verbiage or the building would affect the entrance in a 42 positive fashion noting that Sunset has a meaning from deep within versus being a profit-making 43 organization. She asked the Planning Commission to vote no to the text amendment and the 44 proposed changes at Sunset. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 7 1 John Dennison, 2821 Silver Lane, stated that he and his family have lived in St. Anthony for 2 many years adding that his parents are buried at Sunset. He stated that his mother and sister used 3 to take regular drives through the area just because it gave them a sense of peace. He stated that 4 the view of the Bell Tower and music coming from the Tower sets a beautiful tone to the area. 5 He expressed his agreement with the Residents stating that this is a beautiful facility and asked 6 the Planning Commission to the language and cemetery the way it is. 7 8 Florence Iverson, 2812 Highway 88, asked why they feel the need to disrupt the cemetery and 9 build a big funeral home. She stated that there are several funeral homes in the area and what is 10 happening. She asked the Planning Commission to vote against the changes. 11 12 Steven Weise, 2513 St. Anthony Boulevard stated that the verbiage is extremely important and 13 changing the wording would impact the cemetery considerably. He stated that many utilize the 14 cemetery just because it is such an amazing place. He expressed concerns stating that the 15 architecture of the building is beautiful and it would be a shame to tear it down. He stated that it 16 is his understanding that the building is eligible for the National Registry and suggested taking 17 this avenue versus removing the building. He urged the Planning Commission to vote no on the 18 proposed changes. 19 20 Laura Faucher, 2058 St. Anthony Parkway, Board of Preservation Alliance, stated that she is on 21 board with Charlie Nelson. She stated that she disagrees with the proposed changes. She 22 explained that she is an architect noting that she works, on a regular basis, with zoning issues for 23 historic buildings. She stated that would like to state that the Preservation Alliance, as a whole, 24 is very concerned about the issues and had they been aware of this situation sooner they would 25 have nominated Sunset Memorial to the top ten list of places in jeopardy. She urged the 26 Planning Commission to vote no to this request. 27 28 Will Stark, 2840 43rd Avenue South, Board of Preservation Alliance, stated that he has an interest 29 in representing other Minnesotans who have an interest in preserving historic buildings and 30 locations in Minnesota. He reminded the Planning Commission that the conclusion of the survey 31 shows that Sunset Memorial is a historical cemetery with eligibility to register with the National 32 Register for Historic Places. He explained that the loss of the building would impair the integrity 33 of the Historic District. He noted that this hearing is only about the proposed text changes and 34 suggested that zoning could be a way of protecting the historical resources in this Community. 35 He explained that a funeral home is a commercial use adding that it is not appropriate use for a 36 residential zone. He urged the Commission to keep in mind all of the historic factors. 37 38 Vernie Bjorklund, 3207 Silver Lake Road, stated that she has lived in St. Anthony for 40 years 39 noting that her son is buried at Sunset Memorial. She stated that one of the reasons it would be 40 nice to keep the cemetery as it is, is because the City mainly consists of buildings and this is one 41 of the few places people can go where they are not surrounded by huge buildings. She stated that 42 the view is wonderful to see in all the seasons and urged the Planning Commission to vote no, 43 this is an asset to the Community that should be preserved. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 8 1 Richard Wiese, 802 Torchwood Drive,New Brighton, stated that his interest is based on fact. He 2 stated that he purchased two lots in Sunset for all the reasons named this evening. He stated that 3 if it is not broken, please don't fix it. For those already in Sunset, please let them rest in peace. 4 5 Tammy Reiman, 6842 Monroe Street, stated that her family purchased three lots in Sunset and 6 her father is buried a half block from the administration building. She expressed concerns stating 7 that she just found about this a week and half ago and it really struck her the wrong way. She 8 stated that many of her family are buried in Sunset and it has always been a peaceful place. She 9 stated that she does not understand why they want to change the area and obstruct the views. She 10 stated that it is a very peaceful place and it should remain that way. 11 12 Ron Sundmoore, 2708 34 Avenue Northeast, stated that he is probably one of the few people still 13 alive who was personally present at the 1937 dedication of the Sunset Memorial chapel and 14 mausoleum. He stated that at the time the speakers of the day made a great point that Sunset 15 Memorial would be a different cemetery and that the cemetery was purposely designed to be a 16 park forever without a commercial establishment, such as a large mortuary, in lieu of a reception 17 building. He expressed concerns stating that part of the original design was the view of the mall 18 leading to the Tower of Memories, all of which are very classic in their design. He stated that it 19 would be a desecration to allow any changes to this design and urged the Commission to vote no. 20 21 William Volna, 3501 Coolidge, agreed with all of the statements made tonight. He stated that he 22 used to go swimming at Sunset Memorial noting that it used to be a swamp in area. He stated 23 that the big picture always brings him back to historic places and architectural structures that 24 have been lost noting that the proposed building would not replicate the cut granite or become a 25 long-term structure like the one currently in place. He stated that you couldn't replace 26 architectural design. He stated that his son is buried in Sunset and asked how long the new 27 owners have had the cemetery. He stated that every year he receives a brochure asking for 28 comments noting that over the last five years he has commented and expressed concerns about 29 the appearance of the cemetery and the fact that this is the gateway area to St. Anthony. He 30 stated that the fences and gates around the area are in disrepair and expressed concerns about 31 their ability to maintain new structures if they are not able to repair the current structures and 32 gates. He urged the Commission to vote no on the text amendment changes. 33 34 Stanley Kasal, 2801 Silver Lake Road, stated that it appears to him that the Council has already 35 acted once to deny any changes to the zoning and now they are going at it from the back door. 36 He asked what they plan to do with the zoning issues in Minneapolis. 37 38 Mr. Tyson stated that many questions have been raised this evening noting that some cannot be 39 specifically answered at this time. He assured the Commission that they would provide answers 40 as submitted. He stated that this body has the challenge of interpreting the questions in a way 41 that protects the legacy for the Residents and Citizens of St. Anthony in the way they have asked. 42 He stated that this body would take all of the issues into consideration as they look to protect the 43 overall cemetery. He explained that the Alderwoods Group is asking for the right to live within a 44 conformity that came about as a result of changes in the City with respect to zoning. He clarified 45 that only one building is being proposed, not two and they are asking this evening to be allowed Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 9 1 to bring this into conformity with the current zoning, to be able to provide the framework and to 2 have the issues addressed through the conditional use process. 3 4 Chair Stromgren asked how long the Alderwoods Group has been in operation. Mr. Tyson stated 5 that the Alderwoods Group has been in operation since 1991. 6 7 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. 8 9 Commissioner Jensen stated that the City has no ability to demand that a facility maintain upkeep 10 of conforming use. Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that as a legal non-conforming they cannot allow 11 anything to happen there that would continue to be non-conforming. She explained that the 12 zoning ordinance stated that a City has the right to go in and rectify violations of the code that 13 create a nuisance. She stated that the City does have the ability to control what goes into an area 14 through the zoning and ordinance. 15 16 Commissioner Jensen acknowledged that it is the site that moves so many of the residents, which 17 is the reason why they should add a conditional use. He noted that there are many places in the 18 cemetery where trees are missing and nothing has been replanted. He stated that the site was 19 significant for what it was designed to be and clearly, at some point, it should be expected that 20 there would be some form of construction activity as the roads are in need of repair. He agreed 21 that there are a lot of reasons for concern when considering the upkeep adding that he does not 22 know if anything has actually been submitted at this point that would allow him to vote on the 23 building design or the text amendment. 24 25 Commissioner Young expressed concerns stating that they have funeral homes and mortuaries in 26 commercial use areas and now they are discussing the possibility of moving this to another 27 zoning code group. She stated that she is concerned and unsure as to how this bodes for the City. 28 29 Vice Chair Hason stated that after talking with Residents he does not think that a funeral home 30 should be permitted in an R-1 zoning. He stated that he would be interested to know if the 31 Alderwoods Group has looked at redesigning or reconfiguring the Minneapolis portion of the 32 cemetery. 33 34 Chair Stromgren stated that he and Commissioner Young participated with the Design 35 Committee and shared several design alternatives that included remodeling and expansion of the 36 chapel building located at the west end of the Mall on the Minneapolis side. He stated that the 37 options proved to be unworkable because they did not have an adequate space at the site. He 38 stated that they took it away from the meeting that they could do a workable solution that would 39 require a split in the operations between sales and administration and the funeral home could fit 40 on the chapel site, which would allow the original administration building to retain its original 41 footprint. He noted that the entire landscape composition was clearly eligible to be nominated 42 for historical designation. He stated that he has copies of two letters submitted to Staff, one from 43 Joan Scovil opposing the changes and the other from Chris Addington and Delores Way both 44 oppose the plan. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 10 1 Commissioner Jensen noted that the administration building function would be part of the 2 definition proposal and asked if this is something that should be within a motion or as Item E in 3 the document. He stated that currently it is not listed as a function and he wants to make the 4 functions compliant. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that currently it exists as a legal non-compliant 5 that cannot be expanded or enhanced. She stated that the entire site exists in an R-1 zone adding 6 that she is not sure where the light industrial reference comes from. 7 8 Commissioner Galyon clarified that this would be the first allowed as a commercial use in an R-1 9 District. Chair Stromgren confirmed. 10 11 Motion by Commissioner Jensen to recommend approval of the text amendment as indicated and 12 summarized by Staff; that the text amendment would be under 1605.1 definitions and included as 13 Item E-cemeteries under permitted conditional uses within an R-1 District; provide that the site is 14 at least 10-acres in size; allow mausoleums; and add Item D-funeral homes, mortuaries and 15 crematoriums to the zoning ordinance. 16 17 Motion failed for lack of a second. 18 19 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Young, to deny the text change 20 amendment as defined in 1605.01, .02 and .03 as recommended by the Alderwoods Group. 21 22 Aves-6 Na-vs-1 (Jensen) Motion carried. 23 24 7.3 AMCON St. Anthony, LLC— St. Anthony Marketplace 25 26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the proposed 27 revised site plan and consider the various petition requests presented by the representatives of 28 AMCON. She provided the Commission with an overview of each request noting that each has 29 been published in the local newspaper and neighboring properties have been notified. She stated 30 that AMCON representatives have met with Staff to review their revised site plan for the 31 remaining development of the former Stonehouse property. She provided the Commission with 32 an overview of the conditions noting that the hours for outdoor seating should not exceed beyond 33 10:00 p.m. She stated that City Engineers must approve the plan and determine whether there 34 would be any adverse affects on the current water flow. She stated that the hours of operation 35 would coincide with the liquor store noting that the conditional use permit previously approved 36 has expired and the conditions no longer pertain. She stated that based on the findings of facts 37 from the public hearing on each of the requests, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 38 consider recommending approval of the revised site plan, conditional use permits and variances 39 to City Council. 40 41 Paul Tucci, Oppidan, Inc., provided the Planning Commission with an update on the proposed 42 site plan. He reviewed the major modification of the building noting that they are proposing 43 4,500-feet as compared to the original intention to place a 6,000 square foot restaurant. He stated 44 that things have changed and they have been trying to fill the space. He indicated that they do --- --45 have an operator who wants 3,500 square feet and this would allow them the best opportunity to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 11 1 place a restaurant in an end cap space. He reviewed site plan changes noting that they have 2 turned the building and moved the drive-through. He noted that parking is a premium adding 3 that there was some concern about some of the conflicts. He reviewed the original landscaping 4 plan with the Commission noting that 19 Russian Olive trees were removed. He stated that they 5 have met with the City's landscape architect reviewed the plan for the trees inside the property, 6 the layout design and provided them with the conceptual plans. He stated that a meeting is 7 scheduled for next Wednesday, May 25, 2005 with the City's landscape architect to discuss the 8 design, to ensure that one group does it and to make sure there are no misunderstandings on the 9 design. He provided the Commission with an overview of the elevations and materials noting 10 that the plan is to pick up the elements of the existing building. He pointed out that there is a 11 good chance that the windows would be opaque glass noting that this would eliminate the ability 12 to see through the building to the backside of the operation. He stated that the sides of the 13 building would utilize the same materials and the windows on the west elevation would probably 14 remain clear unless a need for opaque is determined. He stated that a coffee shop with a drive- 15 through is proposed for the east elevation noting that the drive-through is a request and 16 requirement of the coffee shop and they are trying to accommodate their needs without too much 17 disruption to the flow of traffic on the site. 18 19 Mr. Tucci reviewed the traffic flow stating that it is their belief that they have a good mix to 20 move customers through the site. He reviewed the parking variance noting that the original 21 request was for 27 stalls and based on code they would be short by 58 stalls. He stated that under 22 the new plan they would only be short 18 stalls. He stated that they have improved the overall 23 numbers and are asking for less of a variance. 24 25 Commissioner Jenson asked for more detail on the coordination of the landscaping and how they 26 plan to do it. He asked who would have overall responsibility for the maintenance. Mr. Tucci 27 stated that their responsibility ends at the property line. He stated that they would add trees and 28 shrubs throughout the area noting that they have asked to work with the City on the landscaping 29 and to finish the curb. He stated that they have contacted the City's landscape architect and plan 30 to meet next Wednesday, May 25`h to discuss the landscaping plan and to ensure that they have 31 an integrated plan for the area. He stated that they would also have to determine who should take 32 on the physical responsibility of doing the work. 33 34 Commissioner Jenson asked what the height of the trees would be. Mr. Tucci stated that the 35 shrubs would be approximately two-feet in height and the trees, over time, could grow as tall as 36 15 to 20-feet in height. 37 38 Commissioner Young stated that the first site plan showed a different location for the drive- 39 through and asked for further clarification on the changes. Mr. Tucci reviewed the proposed 40 location of the drive-through and the impact on traffic flow with the Commission. 41 42 Chair Stromgren asked if audio equipment would be used for the drive-through. Mr. Tucci 43 confirmed that audio equipment is part of the design for the drive-through. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 12 1 Vice Chair Hanson asked where the microphone would be located. Mr. Tucci stated that the 2 microphones would probably be a wall unit located at the corner of the building. 3 4 Commissioner Galyon referenced the traffic flow and expressed concerns stating that there is a 5 real potential for stacking in this area. Mr. Tucci stated that he does not believe there would be 6 an over-abundance of parked cars in the area noting that with what they know regarding the 7 traffic patterns in this area the potential for stacking would not hinder the flow of traffic in this 8 area. 9 10 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the monument sign and asked if this is a new feature. Mr. Tucci 11 stated that it was his understanding that there has been some discussion about the monument sign 12 adding that a design has not been established yet because they have to verify the ordinance 13 requirements. 14 15 Commissioner Young stated that there are three corners to consider and asked if the company did 16 a large panoramic view of the elevation for the site. Mr. Tucci confirmed that they did. 17 18 Vice Chair Hanson noted if building has to be done to meet requirement AMCON made with the 19 city. Asked if building actually needs to be built. 20 21 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted AMCON does have amendment to developer agreement scheduled to be 22 heard by City Council on May 24, 2005. 23 24 Commissioner Jensen asked if the recommended volumes for trash should be restated due to the 25 change in restaurants. Mr. Tucci reviewed the trash enclosure area noting that they do have the 26 room to expand if it is deemed necessary. 27 28 Chair Stromgren asked what the style of operation would be for the restaurant. Mr. Tucci stated 29 that it would be a sit-down restaurant that would serve American fare, with liquor. He stated that 30 there would not be an outdoor patio, which is a change from the previous approved proposal. 31 32 Bob Foster, Attorney, stated that the hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with 33 the opportunity to be open until 2:00 a.m. He stated that they have met with the Sports Boosters 34 and anticipate signing lease to be a part of the operation. He stated that Husky's Sports Bar is the 35 tentative name noting that there would be two owners, Walter Torshey and Guy Peterson. He 36 noted that they are also the owners, for the past five years, of the Jackson Street Bar and Grill in 37 Anoka. 38 39 Chair Stromgren referenced signage and asked if anything would be facing west towards Kenzie 40 Terrace. Mr. Tucci stated that there is no signage proposed for the west side. He stated that it 41 was not approved and does not show on the elevation. 42 43 Renee Radecki, 3404 Silver Lane, President of Sports Booster, confirmed that they did meet with 44 the restaurant owners noting that the meeting was very productive. She stated that most of their 45 questions were answered and they are currently reviewing the viability of a lease. She stated that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 13 1 they feel very positive and happy to be able to work with someone who is also willing to work 2 with them. She stated that they have not signed a lease yet adding that they feel this is very 3 positive and look forward to working with them in the future. 4 5 Diane Asgrof stated that the high school sports team is named the Husky's and she objects to 6 naming a bar and grill after the high school sports teams. 7 8 Steven Wise stated that he was disappointed when Stonehouse was gone noting that he is looking 9 forward to another sports bar setting and was very hopeful that another sports bar would happen. 10 He referenced the coffee shop location noting that it is located right in the main artery of the City 11 that comes directly through St. Anthony. He stated that the view of a boulevard garden area 12 would be more powerful than seeing a building directly located at the gateway corner. 13 14 Florence Iverson, 2812 Highway 88 invited the Commission to visit her home. She stated that 15 they could clearly see the reflection of all the buildings against the wall while sitting in her 16 kitchen. She referenced the coffee shop stating that they already have a coffee shop in St. 17 Anthony and does not see the need for another one, especially one with a drive-through. She 18 stated that four years ago the City had a beautiful plan for a gateway area that included flowers at 19 the corner. She asked the Commission to take into consideration her concerns with the drive- 20 through and the night lighting. 21 22 Dennis Cavanaugh commented that many of the Residents were disappointed when they learned 23 that Spectators would not be coming to St. Anthony. He expressed concerns stating there is no 24 need for a drive-through coffee shop noting that this is a walking, family oriented community. 25 He asked the Commission if they freely give variances now to no-name businesses noting that it 26 is important to the Community to know who would be located at the center and who would be 27 operating the coffee shop. He referenced the doors located on the north side stating that the 28 windows are a nice feature and expressed concerns about the potential for snow collecting at the 29 doors. He expressed concerns stated that the development agreement has not been completed. 30 He stated that they do not want to see a box retail or a drive-through window for a coffee shop, 31 it's tacky. He stated that he also agrees that Husky's would not be an appropriate name for the 32 bar as the name is a big brand for the Village and should go to something that is really 33 significant. 34 35 Mr. Foster explained that the name `Husky's' was tentative noting that if there is an adverse 36 reaction from the Community they have no problem with renaming. He stated that no signs have 37 been ordered. He noted that somehow the Community had the belief that Spectators is what 38 should have gone into this location noting that it would have been a very tight fit, which is one of 39 the reasons for the proposed change. 40 41 Mr. Tucci assured the Commission that all exit doors and sidewalks would be kept clear and 42 plowed. He stated that the operator for the coffee shop has a letter of intent noting that it would 43 be a Dunn Brothers Coffee Shop. He stated that it is their goal to include a drive-through 44 window stating that they have said no deal without the drive-through. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 14 1 John Kufus, 2712 27`h Avenue Northeast, asked the Planning Commission to consider the fact 2 that if a drive-through is that popular it could end up with stacking and back up problems on 3 Kenzie Terrace. He asked them to take this into consideration when making their decision. 4 5 Stanley Kasal, 2801 Silver Lake Road, stated that if the drive-through becomes a reality would 6 there be an exit directly onto St. Anthony Boulevard. He stated that this could possibly eliminate 7 the potential for congestion on Kenzie Terrace, but it could also create problems going the 8 opposite direction. 9 10 Barry Tedlund, Fitness Crossroads, St. Anthony Center,thanked the Commissioners for their 11 time and commitment. He stated that the first plans AMCON presented troubled him a bit as he 12 felt they were trying to squeeze too much onto the site. He stated that he was disappointed to 13 hear that Spectators would not be coming to St. Anthony. He indicated that he took a drive to 14 Savage to check out the restaurant located there and it would have made a nice add to the City. 15 He acknowledged and agreed with the concerns expressed about traffic flow and the corner. He 16 stated that he was hopeful that it would be a stand-alone restaurant adding that it appears as if 17 they are trying to get too much out of this corner and would end up very congested. He stated 18 that bottom line, his interest is with the restaurant noting that it is his hope that they give the City 19 and the Residents what was promised. 20 21 Russell Karkola, 2828 Highway 88, stated that they need the parking noting that the Stonehouse 22 didn't have enough. He suggested giving the new owner a shot adding that he is in no hurry for 23 it, as the corner is already packed. He wished the new tenants good luck noting that if they have 24 a good business they would definitely need the parking. 25 26 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. 27 28 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he is disappointed with the lack of information on prospective 29 tenants. He stated that the Planning Commission has to review the conditions to determine if 30 everything applicable has been included. He noted that the hours of operation are part of the 31 conditional use permit. 32 33 Chair Stromgren noted that the hours of operation are outlined under Item 1-Restaurant Location, 34 letter i. Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours. He stated that having a 35 smaller restaurant in this location would be a better deal for the City, as it would have less impact 36 on traffic flow and the residential areas. 37 38 Vice Chair Hanson suggested that they stipulate the hours of operation. Commissioner Young 39 agreed and suggested 1:00 a.m. for serving liquor and 2:00 a.m. for close. 40 41 Ms. Moore-Sykes reviewed the recommendations for conditional uses: all conditional uses are in 42 effect except for the following: strike Item c-hours for outdoor seating; remove item d-no noise 43 within a residential district; strike Item f-patio location, as there is no patio. 44 - 45 Vice Chair Hanson suggested that they keep Item d as a condition of use. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 15 1 2 A. Conditional Use Permit—Restaurant within 250-feet of Residential Area. 3 4 Motion by Commissioner Jensen second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend approval of 5 the Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant to be within 250-feet of the residential area as 6 proposed and the interior signage is not to face the west. 7 8 Motion carried unanimously 9 10 B. Conditional Use Permit—Drive-Through Service—Outlot 11 12 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he is opposed to the drive through for the coffee shop. He 13 expressed concerns stating that there is too much potential for headlight glare into the residential 14 area. He stated that this area is one of the main gateways into the City and there is too much 15 going on at this corner. He stated that the Residents have been very clear about what they want 16 for the gateway area adding that he agrees that a drive-through would make the area look tacky. 17 He stated that he would prefer to see a nice patio area with seating. He asked Staff and Council 18 to review the overall project and suggested holding off on an additional building. 19 20 Commissioner Jensen noted that profitability of a business is not one of their charges as a 21 Planning Commission. He agreed that this is a tough site adding that he would feel better if the 22 drive-through had a better buffer for the headlights. He stated that as it stands right now the plan 23 does not satisfy the concerns or what they would like to see for the gateway area. He noted that it 24 could be tailored a bit more to solve the identified issues. 25 26 Commissioner Hoska agreed with Commissioner Jensen stating that the proposed landscaping 27 should be improved to include additional screening in the drive-through area. 28 29 Chair Stromgren acknowledged that the vendor would probably like to have the drive-through 30 but it is not necessary. He stated that St. Anthony has three successful coffee shops and none of 31 them have drive-through windows. He stated that the business would still be viable without the 32 drive-through and agreed that the daily exposure to headlights shining into the residential areas 33 would have an impact and would be a real detriment to the neighbors. 34 35 Commissioner Gaylon stated that he is also opposed to the drive-through. He stated that this is 36 the gateway to their City and he is concerned about the traffic flow and the potential for stacking 37 in the parking area. He stated that he would be a proponent for a nice looking patio area. 38 39 Motion by Chair Stromgren, second by Commissioner Galyon, to recommend that the City 40 Council deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through service based on 41 parking conditions, noise, headlight glare. 42 43 Motion carried unanimously 44 45 C. Variance Petition—Parking On-Site Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 16 1 2 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend approval of 3 the Variance Petition for the 18 parking spaces on-site; hardship is based on the triangular shape 4 of the site 5 6 Aves-6 Abstain-1 (Hanson) Motion carried. 7 8 9 D. Variance Petition—Building Setback - Outlot 10 11 Chair Stromgren explained that any landscaping or design conditions would fall under this 12 variance. 13 14 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend approval of 15 the Variance Petition for the building setback and include a condition to the variance that the 16 applicant continues to work with the City to ensure a smooth transition for the landscaping. The 17 Building setback is for 5-feet and 12-feet as proposed on application; Add items a through h from 18 the previous variance approval. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously 21 22 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW 23 8.1 Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment—Rezoning Section 1665.03 and Conditional Use 24 Permits, Section 1665.04 25 26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she received an email from the City Attorney regarding zoning 27 ordinance amendments that are attached for your review. She provided the Commission with an 28 overview of the amendments stating that the concept is to change the zoning to comply with 29 State statute. 30 31 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 32 33 9.1 NONE 34 35 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 36 37 10.1 2005 Proposed Planning and Zoning Ordinance Amendments 38 39 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she has been trying to put together ordinance amendments noting 40 that she has received an email from the City Attorney stating that the sub-zoning would be done 41 in June and the remainder would be completed in the July/August timeframe. 42 43 Commissioner Jensen noted that all of the street projects have allocations for stormwater. He 44 stated that he does not see a problem with the increase. He stated that this would allow people to 45 come through the standard process. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 17 1 2 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that lots less than 9000 square feet are already at 40-percent for 3 impervious surface. She stated that they do have some non-conforming sites adding that it is nice 4 to have those come before the Commission, as it allows the City to monitor what goes on with 5 those lots. 6 7 10.2 Update on City Redevelopment Projects. 8 9 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Caribou Coffee Shop is tentatively planning to open on Saturday, 10 May 21, 2005 at Silver Lake Village. 11 12 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS 13 14 NONE 15 16 XII. ADJOURNMENT 17 18 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Young,to adjourn the meeting at 19 10:31 p.m. 20 21 Motion carried unanimously. 22 23 Respectfully submitted, 24 Bonnie Sullivan 25 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 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: �#y w� p_tyY1 Orin. Address: — (n,�q rVj p r)rae Agenda Item Addressing: �G � ftMO�c.n 7 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 HAFormsTlanning\Public 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 for the City Clerk's record. Date: 5— 1 Name: (A k-1.4 Address: Agenda Item Addressing: ,l` v U 1, ( Vl &' (A_ 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: S7A' -,/4?�y Address: 2-� Sl I Vey ZA,/ , 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 HAForms\Planning\Public 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 for the City Clerk's record. Date: 5-/7 -5" Name: ✓V`� ��-� c4 Address: (5 l4 w d J%�, t o, 24 rj 5-5 rA 7 Agenda Item Addressing: 74Mc'15,1, 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: SS ELL L 14 P Address: 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 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 address for the Secretary's record. Name: v �� SS Address: 2 �� Agenda Item Addressing: J\\L `S 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: Address: 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: 4S 1kn vo 2 J2 r�