HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08162011 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIII IIIIIIII
104995
Box: 33
Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011
Document: PL PACKET 08162011
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2011
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19, 2011
VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
1. GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT— 2609 PAHL AVENUE
VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
1. SIGN DESIGN PLAN — ST. ANTHONY SHOPPING CENTER
2. ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE FOR FRONT PORCH — 3408 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE
IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF.
1. CITY MANAGER SEARCH
X. OTHER BUSINESS.
XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on
the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium,sign their name and address on the form at
the podium,state their name and address for the Cerk's record,and limit their remarks to five minutes: The
Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an
upcoming agenda.
XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
XIII. ADJOURNMENT.
F:\Planning\PC Agendas\2011\08162011 pc agenda.doc
r
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 JULY 19, 2011
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8 I. CALL TO ORDER.
9
10 Chair Jensen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. ROLL CALL.
13
14 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Jensen; Commissioners Crone, Heinis,Niccum, and
15 Poucher.
16 Absent: Commissioners Chaput and Cincoski.
17 Also Present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes and Fire Chief John
18 Malenick.
19
20 III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
21
22 Chair Jensen invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
23
24 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
25
26 Consensus of the Board was to approve the meeting agenda of July 19, 2011 as submitted.
27
28 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
29
30 Motion by Commissioner Niccum, second by Commissioner Poucher, to approve the June 21,
31 2011 Meeting Minutes as submitted.
32
33 Motion carried 4-0-1; Abstain Poucher.
34
35 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
36
37 None.
38
39 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
40
41 None.
42
43 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
44
45 1. GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT—2609 PAHL AVENUE
46
47 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes explained that the property owners have submitted an
48 application for a garage setback permit to build a double car garage to replace their existing
49 single car detached garage. She stated the property owners are also requesting a variance to
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 2
1 construct a 24 x 24 garage which will be 576 square feet, or 48 square feet larger than the City
2 Ordinance allows, which is 528 square feet. She indicated the property owners would like to
3 keep the new garage in the same location because it is situated next to the alley, consistent with
4 the placement of the adjacent garages and generally characteristic of the neighborhood. She
5 added the property owners are also requesting a larger garage because their home is small and
6 they would like to have additional storage.
7
8 Lindsay and Tom Wernimont, 2609 Pahl Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission and
9 Ms. Wernimont stated that they are interested in replacing their dilapidated single car garage
10 with a two car garage and to keep the garage in its existing location because they would like to
11 preserve the existing cherry tree. She indicated that the additional space would be ideal though
12 not a necessity and if the variance is not granted, they are willing to compromise with a 22 x 24
13 garage. She presented pictures of the existing garage and surrounding area, as well as a drawing
14 of the proposed garage showing the proposed footprint. She also pointed out the location of the
15 existing cherry tree. She noted that if the new garage size needs to be adjusted to 22 x 24,they
16 plan to construct the garage to be 24' deep and 22' wide.
17
18 Commissioner Niccum stated that a 24 x 24 garage appears to be a reasonable request and would
19 be a nice addition to the neighborhood. He added that the Ordinance seems to be slightly
20 arbitrary as it relates to restrictions on the dimensions.
21
22 Chair Jensen noted that this would not be an issue if this were an attached garage and the
23 Ordinance would not regulate the size at all. He added that when the Ordinance was created, it
24 was deemed adequate at that time when people typically needed only a one car garage. He stated
25 that the way the garage and driveway are shown on the sketch may require a double move with a
26 vehicle because the area where you enter the garage is further than 1.6'. He questioned whether
27 the property owners might be better served by a 26 x 22 garage depending on the size of their
28 vehicles. [ did notnui<ideistand'whaf'Gliair�Jensen,was say 'tiered=so ' ] He suggested that
29 the property owners do a test rein with some marking paint. He requested that the property
30 owners augment their pictures with survey tape and dimensions showing the proposed garage.
31 He also requested that staff provide further information regarding the history of the Ordinance as
32 it relates to limitations and the apparent disconnect between attached and detached garages.
33
34 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes advised that the Planning Commission will hold a public
35 hearing on this matter on August 16`h and the City Council will receive the Planning
36 Commission's recommendation and take formal action the following week.
37
38 2. GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT—2610—30TH AVENUE
39
40 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes advised that the property owners were not present this
41 evening to discuss their request for a garage setback permit to construct a double car garage to
42 replace the existing detached single car garage. She stated that the property owners would like to
43 keep the new garage in the same location as the existing garage because of the shape of the lot
44 and existing driveway. She presented a hand-drawn site plan showing the existing garage and
45 proposed garage,depicting an existing 20 x 22 garage with a side yard setback of 5' and rear
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 3
1 setback of 2'. She indicated that the existing driveway goes into the location of the proposed
2 new garage of 32 x 24, or 768 square feet.
3
4 Commissioner Heinis asked if the proposed garage would increase the coverage of the lot
5 beyond the limitations contained in the Ordinance.
6
7 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes replied that the property owner would still be within the
8 City's limit of 35% lot coverage.
9
10 Chair Jensen requested that the property owner explain why they want the additional garage area
11 and/or why they want the extra length and to submit a more accurate sketch of the new garage.
12 He indicated that time is of the essence if this matter is to be heard by the Planning Commission
13 at a public hearing in August.
14
15 3. U-HAUL—3829 FOSS ROAD
16
17 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated that U-Haul Company is proposing to partner with
18 the owner of the St. Anthony mini-storage to provide rental trucks to the clients using the mini-
19 storage facility. She advised that the rental trucks would be stored behind the building in an
20 alley, out of sight of the public. She added that this would be an allowed use in this Zoning
21 District and would require that all exterior storage be screened.
22
23 Mr. Joel Cornell,Area Field Manager for U-Haul Company of Minnesota, appeared before the
24 Planning Commission and stated that the majority of people using storage facilities are already
25 renting trucks and this would provide a convenient method for people to rent a truck. He
26 indicated that he would be responsible for maintaining the equipment and only small repairs
27 would be done on site, such as changing a tire. He explained that it is anticipated he would have
28 an average of two or three trucks on site and the proposal would not be adding any more rental
29 trucks to the area; rather, the proposal would reduce the travel distance of their trucks and
30 considerably reduce the wear and tear on their trucks.
31
32 Commissioner Heinis suggested that photos depicting the location of where the trucks will be
33 stored be submitted at the time of the public hearing.
34
35 Mr. Cornell agreed and stated that he would also include a U-Haul truck in the photo.
36
37 Commissioner Niccum suggested that the applicant also submit one of the U-Haul rental forms
38 showing the different sizes of vehicles available and which ones will be rented out of this space.
39 He asked if trailers would be available for rental.
40
41 Mr. Cornell replied that trailers would be available for rental.
42
43 Chair Jensen stated that it appears staff will be making a determination as to whether an
44 application is required for the proposed use and whether further action is required by the
45 Planning Commission and/or City Council.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 4
1 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes explained that she intends to ask the City Attorney to
2 confirm that rentals are an allowable use or whether a conditional use is appropriate for this site.
3
4 Mr. Cornell stated that he does not intend to have a truck at this location 100% of the time. He
5 indicated that he typically reviews the reservations for rental trucks and brings the equipment to
6 the location ahead of time.
7
8 IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF.
9
10 1. Code Enforcement Update—John Malenick, Fire Chief
11
12 Fire Chief Malenick provided a brief history of the City's housing code and the Fire
13 Department's role in enforcing the Code. He stated that the previous Code was somewhat
14 ambiguous and contradictory,causing frustration for staff and residents and in 2006, the City
15 Council changed the Code to provide that the Fire Department is responsible for all housing code
16 complaints. He indicated that Rick Lundeen has done an outstanding job and in 2008,the City
17 adopted the International Property Maintenance Code, which is updated every three years. He
18 advised that the Fire Department has also taken responsibility for rental inspections, led by Jim
19 Hoska,and the rental licensing fees funds the inspections program. He presented a summary of
20 the various issues dealt with by the Fire Department, including parking violations,vegetation,
21 garbage, sign enforcement structure and yard maintenance and rental inspections. He indicated
22 that the City identified 116 rental structures in 2010 and 80-90 were inspected. He then
23 presented a sample of the extensive inspection form used by staff when inspecting properties.
24 He commended Mr. Lundeen and Mr. Hoska for their efforts and encouraged residents to contact
25 them if they have any concerns.
26
27 Commissioner Poucher stated that he has seen some properties along Silver Lake Road where the
28 owner is not mowing a specific area against their sidewalk. He pointed out one property on 30`h
29 and Silver Lake Road where the owner is not mowing a one foot strip next to their sidewalk. He
30 asked if this was covered by the City's housing code and if this was the property owner's land.
31
32 Fire Chief Malenick explained that when the road was redone, an issue was raised that some of
33 the sod did not take and has turned into rough grass and the property owners along this stretch of
34 road were upset with the City for not maintaining it. He added there has been some
35 disagreement regarding who needs to take care of that; it is the property owner's responsibility
36 and is a housing code issue. He agreed to look into the matter.
37
38 Chair Jensen expressed the Planning Commission's thanks to the Fire Department for their
39 efforts.
40
41 X. OTHER BUSINESS.
42
43 None.
44
45 XI. COMMUNITY FORUM.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 19, 2011
Page 5
1 None.
2
3 XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
4
5 Chair Jensen reminded residents of VillageFest on August 5-7. He also reminded residents of
6 Night to Unite on Tuesday, August 2"d
7
8 XIII. ADJOURNMENT.
9
10 Motion by Commissioner Niccum, second by Commissioner Crone, to adjourn the meeting at
11 8:07 p.m.
12
13 Motion carried 5-0.
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16 Barbara Hughes
17 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
STAFF REPORT
To: Chair and Planning Commissioners
From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager
Date: August 16,2011
Subject: Garage Setback Permit—2609 Pahl Avenue NE
Requested Action: Garage Setback Permit
Date Application Received: July 13,2011
Property Address: 2609 Pahl Avenue
Zoning District: R-1
60-Day Expires: September 12,2011
Waiver Letter Required: Yes Date Sent:_ No X
Future Action: City Council action on Planning Commission Recommendation at the August
23,2011.
Background. The property owners,Lindsay and Tom Wernimont,submitted an application for a Garage
Setback Permit to build a double car garage to replace the existing detached single car garage. The is
adjacent to an alley and as such,is sited in the side yard setback
The property owners in their written statement report that they would like to rebuilt the new garage in the
same location as the existing garage because is it situated next to the alley. This placement,which is 1.6'
from the north property line and 1.8' from the west property line,is consistent with the placement of
garages of their adjacent neighbors. The Wernimont garage location next to the alley is generally in keeping
with the characteristic of the neighborhood. Being granted a setback permit for their garage allows them to
keep the existing location.
They also desire a slightly larger garage than the existing single car garage. They originally proposed a
garage that was 24' x 24' (576SF)but as state in their written statement,but that would probably required
that they remove the only tree they have in their backyard. They have since indicated to staff that will build
a garage that meets the maximum square footage of 528SF,with one dimension being 24 feet.
As stated in their written statement, the primary reason
The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would
cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner;
that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic
considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. (City Code §152.245(C))
FAPlanning\Staff Reports\2011\07192011 2609 pahl garage permit concept review stf rpt.doc07192011 2609 pahl garage permit concept review
stf rpt.doc
In this situation,requiring the property owner to move the rebuilt garage to within three feet of the property
lines would move the location of the garage further from the alley, which is how they access the garage. In
addition, moving the location of the rebuilt garage would put the structure's alignment at odds with the other
garages along the alley,thereby changing the sight lines of the alley and making it more difficult for the
Wernimonts to maneuver on onto the alley.
Since the garage is original to the property, its location was not created by the current owners and is unique
to the property. The property was built in 1952, according to the City records and before the City's zoning
ordinance was codified. Clearly sighting garages along the alley, close to the side and rear property lines,
was commonly done at this time.
The setback permit, if granted, would be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan and the
granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposed and intent of the zoning code.
Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the garage setback request as it meets the criteria as
established by the City's Zoning Code.
Attachments.
• Project Description and Statement of Request
• Plans, Exterior Elevations
• Photos of the Subject Structure and Subject Property
• Site Plan
F:\Planning\Staff Reports\2011\07192011 2609 pahl garage permit concept review stf rpt.doc07192011 2609 pahl garageconce ermit t review
P P
stf rpt.doc
. air thou
illa e
3301 Silver Lake Road •St.Anthony,MN 55418 • (p)612.782.3301 • (f)612.782.3302
www.ci.saint-anthony.nin.us
VARIANCE APPLICATION FEE: $60 Residential
$100 Other Zoning Districts
A.GENERAL DATA WO-Nio APPLICANT'S NAME: r � Q
The above-named individual,firm,or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following supplemental data in support
of the preliminary information provided on the accompanying zoning application summary form dated for
the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls.
WV W I m voT wpo�m 6141 - U4 - U01011.
Contact Person Last Name First Day Phone
B. PROJECT INFORMATION MAII t' . 6 f �q , �tn' **4fb
7. Subject Property Address: K��/"� Ia_y .�l/,.� �,�►�
2. Specify the nature of the project for which a variance is sought:
3. th ap Fa lain how you wish to vary fro licable Provisions of the Ordinance: ��/� �T ��6 0WO
oA .
1wimp
4. Explain on a separate sheet why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause an tmrisN+p or
deny the applicant reasonable use of the property. State Statute defines hardship as the following: U+idi* ktxds ip as used
in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner,and the variance if granted,will not alter the essential the character of the locality. Please
address each of these items in your written statement.
5. Check all additional supporting documents and date which are being submitted to help explain this
�/prroject`proposal:
Site Plan* O Topographic Map )K Other(specify) r{?71r. �Nuw G'/�(CVJ►T(/�J
*Required Call allach additional pages to fully e. Anna proposal aid need for varinure.
I HI:IiEBY CERTIFY WITH MY SIGNATU •TIiAT ALL DA'rA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS,PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUIi ANI)
CORRECI"I'O T •BEST OF WY KNO I, c GEE..
F Signature plicant Date
EXPIRATION
Within one(1)year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially
started the construction of any building,structure,addition or alteration requested as part of the approval,said variance
shall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted. A letter to extend
the approval of a variance shall be submitted to the Assistant City Manager not les than thirty(30)days before the
expiration of said approval. Such letter shall state the fact for the request,showing a good faith attempt to utilize the
variance,and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The City Council
may grant extensions not to exceed one(1)year.
P:\Planning\forms\Variance Application 2005.doc
July 21, 2011
Project:
New Detached Garage for
Tom and Lindsay Wernimont
2609 Pahl Ave.
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Legal Description:
Lot 33, Block 5, Murray Heights Addition to Minneapolis
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Attached materials:
• Site Plan showing the existing garage and the outline of the new proposed 24' deep x
22' wide double car garage.
• Design and construction documents showing the style, look, and construction details for
the proposed new garage.
• Photos of the existing garage to be demolished, the existing house, and the existing
surrounding garages and neighborhood.
• Colored renderings indicating the proposed style and look of the new garage.
Statement of Request:
According to the current City of St. Anthony zoning ordinance, new detached garages are
required to be set back at least 3'-0" from all property lines. The ordinance also states that if a
setback permit is issued allowing for the construction of the garage within the required setback,
that the garage shall be no larger than 528 sf with no dimension greater than 24 feet.
Tom and Lindsay Wernimont are asking for just one request. That is to allow them to build a
new detached garage at the same location as the existing garage which is 1.6' from the north
property line and 1.8'from the west property line as shown in the site plan survey. The new
garage would be aligned parallel to the existing property line, thus the entire north part of the
new garage would be 1.6' from the north property line. This would be consistent with many of
the neighboring garages which are set parallel to their property lines along the alley.
Statement of Circumstances:
Tom and Lindsay Wernimont moved into their new house located at 2609 Pahl Ave. in late
2008. They bought the house knowing that the existing garage was in a state of disrepair. The
garage is structurally unsound and moves with the time of season. Much of the time during
winter and early spring the garage door and service door will not open due to movement of the
building and concrete slab through the freeze/thaw process. The current concrete slab is
broken into a thousand pieces because of the lack of structural reinforcement within the slab
and the movement of the slab through the seasons of Minnesota. Water also flows into the
building making the garage a pool of water during rain storms and the winter water run-off. Thus
the garage is unusable for their cars for much of the year.
As shown in one of the photographs of their yard, Tom and Lindsay would like to save, if
possible, their only tree in the backyard. In order for that to happen, the new garage would have
to be constructed at the same setbacks as the existing garage. As you can tell from the
attached photos, the majority of the garages along their alley are at similar setbacks.
Constructing the new garage at the existing setback would not in any manner detract from the
I
existing look or characteristic of the neighborhood. They would still maintain the approximately
6' of green space between the garage and the 20 foot alley. Fire safety and traffic through the
alley would not be changed or compromised.
Because their house is the smallest residence on the block and surrounding neighborhood, they
severely lack storage. Because of this need for more storage, the new 24' deep x 22'wide
garage has been designed to maximize storage possibilities by adding potential storage within
the truss space in the attic. The new 5° reinforced concrete slab is designed to float with the
change in seasons without major cracking of the slab.
In addition, the two adjoining houses have recently been greatly enlarged with new additions.
The look of the new garage has been designed to enhance the existing neighborhood look and
the character of the two new adjacent homes. The exterior will have narrow lap siding, insulated
windows, exterior flower boxes, new lighting, a new insulated overhead door, and decorative
moldings and paneling in the gable area to enhance the character. Base and accent colors
would be earth toned. The Wemimont's goal is to have the look of this garage cant' over into a
future remodeling and addition to their house within the next 3 to 5 years. This is another reason
for them to keep the garage as close as possible to the existing setbacks.
In conclusion, a new 24' deep x 22' wide garage as designed constructed within the existing
setbacks would not be detrimental to the site. In fact, it would greatly enhance the existing
neighborhood and not have any impact on fire safety or traffic. It would align with all of the
existing garages in the neighborhood and thus would maintain consistency along the alley.
60.03
5.T 1.5 � •,
T EXISTING 1
GARAGE
(289 SQ.Fr.)
33 S
I �G
N0
n e \
co
32 Lo �� \ r
P
e
I • a
4.9'
a �
1-STORY STUCCO
#2609 \�
4111.3'
�O
G�
32.8' e
28.4'
d e
59.97
PAHL AVENUE
5.7' 1.6' 60.03
�
► PROPOSED ►
18' I GARAGE ►
22'x 24'
I ► (1;2e SQ.FT.)
o �G
\� \ A
32 co Lo
Lo
e °
4.9'— — � a
a
1-STORY STUCCO
#2609 \
11.3'
�O
32.8' e
`\ 28.4'
s
O a
0
59.97
PAHL AVENUE
w41
ok
all
t"�A4 ggg333
let
1
� a��n � ° praaem »rev 77, s
h '
-
y�;.+f�tt
y,
A
T
t. NINE
r r
-f X 1 p y
aam
4
7�
■■
on
l
1 �
a.
.. e
-�4
99,rv� �a.,^
- -_ .';Qs�."L;�ti �..,_? .ate '•. +,r.� `,e `r, � � �.�,� t 11 ,.' _ , 1. r'.
w �•N
ar
;�-
-;
�' -
A?� M«�., �A2 F
L �
`4� i'.
t :;V
M1 �c )j
K;
_E`tti._ K� ..
�..�
M .:
'T:, � � ��1 'L
��,tt� �y y' ._..
+dr ,
{y,
k ..� �` ) �. � _
g' .,E'
.. r a � YG
1p I.
t � � � x'� I
JAAAV
� 3 �.
9 �," I.�fP� �., /
a�
µ _
' i- V � „ � �
+�
. ,�
t
,,
z�* .� �.�+% �. o-�.tet Y. ��e
'_-^ �. � .��P ��� btu
a,
r
� � �i., { fix.,4�i R � «�.., _ i.
���° ¢
.� � � ;..
.. - %�y
y
' .i_, �:'
,s
i Y Y►�f�
,,,�ys°��k� ,� .
�� €
t.` & k �,�
�°� +!
Y
� ii t.
t; Pr;
�o�
:; '" ��I
,� --
y :
':'ar_ �
q"�`" ,,
,�,�.. � h�
',p
..;`fi
"n =,
•ems-- _
a� '. .tea�S•-•'
Act{
• � t
. .'�Q_�•yYi Ti�r 'y 4_\
44 -
,� �Y - �.� • ,z' J ` � ..� �`� ti°tf-� .AL`S.,f�
�.� • '- __ _ � _---rte-'_� r ` .�4'r�}�
.Y: ✓ !!y�� ` �• '' bi jet �jy 1 +�� 6, a,� •
16.
ji
ALL- ..��� i - r��� 1 W .t( i� � ,( 4f; �.y•y. �
R', 'g �•
•
F
� M trw
r.
kar7�IS� L .r f�•..
RA
f�
� T •
STAFF REPORT
To: Chair and Planning Commissioners
From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager
Date: August 16,2011
Subject: Comprehensive Sign Plan Review —St. Anthony Shopping Center
Background. Greg Kozulla of Kozulla&Associates,is working with the group of owners of the St.
Anthony Shopping Center to update the look of the Center. Included as a part of the visual rejuvenation of
the Shopping Center,Mr. Kozulla is at the concept review to present a proposed color rendering of what
the Shopping Center might look like,including new signs for the tenants.
Mr. Kozulla has also submitted a written document outlining the technical aspects of this plan,as required
by the City's Sign Ordinance,Subdivision 155.26. The Ordinance requires that a plan be submitted for the
whole shopping center;the plan outlines the location,size,height,color,lighting and orientation of all signs
and must be submitted for preliminary plan approval. Exceptions to the sign regulations must be cited,and
may be allowed if the sign areas and densities are in conformity with the intent of the sign ordinance. The
comprehensive sign plan will be reviewed by the City's Planning Commission and will forward a
recommendation to the City Council
Mr. Kozulla is here this evening for a concept review of his preliminary draft of a comprehensive sign plan
and rendering.
Attachments.
• Comprehensive Sign Plan for St.Anthony Shopping Center and Rendering
• §155.26 Shopping Centers and the Like;Plan Required
FAPlanning\Staff Reports\201 1\08162011 Sign Plane st anthony shopping centerl concept review stf rpt.doc08162011 Sign Plane st anthony
shopping centerl concept review stf rpt.doc
Comprehensive Sign Plan
St. Anthony Shopping Center
St.Anthony, MN
August 2, 2011
St Anthony Shopping Center LLC("Owner')proposes to conform to the City of St.Anthony's Sign
Ordinance("Ordinance")as amended within this document. Please let this document be considered St.
Anthony Shopping Center's Comprehensive Sign Plan
Tenant Signage
The Comprehensive Sign Plan will provide for the following:
1. Allow signage on storefronts up to 60' in length to have 3 square feet per lineal foot of tenant
frontage, however,the total signage area shall not exceed 15%of the total wall area frontage.
2. Allow signage on storefronts which exceed 60'in length to have 3 square feet per lineal foot of
tenant frontage up to a maximum of 300 square feet, however,the total signage area shall not
exceed 15%of the total wall area frontage.
3. Multiple rows of signage text shall be permitted and shall be calculated independently from the
row above or below, but total lineal footage shall not exceed a factor of 3;i.e.:the square foot
area of row 1 plus row 2 plus subsequent rows(if desired)shall not exceed 3 times that total
tenant frontage or exceed 15%of the total wall area frontage.
4. Signage logos shall be included when calculating maximum signage area.
5. All new tenant wall signage will be single wall mounted aluminum channel letters with plastic
inserts facing the public street. All new tenant signage will be backlit on painted raceways.
Raceway color will match the color of the building background of which the raceway is
mounted. The aluminum raceway profile,channel profile,letter size,font,color,etc.,will
require property owner approval prior to submission to the City.
6. All existing tenant signs regardless of size,font,color,raceway,etc.,shall be grandfathered as
acceptable should the existing signage be removed and reinstalled for any reason.
7. Color of channels,color of channel letter inserts and letter font shall be determined by tenant
with selection open to all colors and fonts available by signage fabricators.
8. Maximum channel letter size will be 48"and minimum channel letter size will be 24".
9. Owner shall have the option to operate lit signs(including existing pylon or future ground
signs)such that there is no hourly operation restriction and be able to operate on a 24/7 basis
if desired.
10. Allow additional wall signs to each of the tenants,but,wall signage area allowed will be
maintained at a maximum of 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of wall width yet not exceed 15%
of the total wall area.
Ground Signage(Site Signage)
1. At the time of this Comprehensive Sign Plan execution,the Owner is not planning for new
ground signs and chooses to keep the existing pylon/monument sign intact and make non-
structural improvements to the sign. If the Owner would like to install Grounds Signs in the
future it will coordinate with City staff.As part of the Comprehensive Sign Plan,the owner shall
not be obligated to remove and/or replace the existing site signage or, if the owner determines
existing site signage be removed,that it not be obligated to install new site signage. Given
this property has two main vehicular entrances,the owner shall have the option to provide a
future ground sign at the Kenzie Terrace entrance in addition to the Service Drive entrance.
V k
t
..'{11111N' 'I 4 • ��s�l I 'F
130 St.Anthony-Land Usage
(4) A complete set of plans showing the necessary elevations, distances, dimensions to fully
and clearly represent the construction and the placement of the signs, including dimensions of the wall
surface of the building to which it is to be attached and linear footage of the right-of-way frontage of
the building;
(5) The cost of the sign;
(6) Type of sign (i.e. wall sign, monument sign)and if the sign is to be illuminated,the
technical means by which this is to be accomplished;
(7) Certification by applicant indicating the application complies with all requirements of the
sign ordinance;
(8) If the proposed sign is along a county road or state trunk highway, the application shall be
accompanied by proof that the applicant has obtained a permit from the county or state for the sign;
(9) Where a shopping center comprehensive sign plan is proposed,the plan must include the
location, size, height, color lighting and orientation of all signs; and
(10) When aground sign plan is submitted, the plan must include the location of the sign in
relation to the lot lines and the building height, including any difference from the established grade,
grade level, dimensions of the berm, size, color, lighting and hours of illumination.
(C) Permit Issuance.
(1) Each application must be reviewed for compliance by the City Manager or designee.
(2) If the proposed sign complies with this chapter, a permit will be issued within 30 days
after the application date.
(3) A sign permit will become null and void if the work for which the permit was issued has
not been completed within 1 year of issuance, or renewed.Application for renewal will consist of the
same procedures as the initial application for permit, including payment of any fee.
(Ord. 08-002, passed 4-22-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
ff§235KI SHOPPING CENTERS AND THE LIKE; PLAN REQUIRED.
Shopping centers/strip mall/professional building comprehensive sign plan.
(A) A comprehensive sign plan must be provided for the whole of a shopping center, strip mall, or
professional building development.
(B) This plan includes the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs, and
must be submitted for preliminary plan approval.
Signs
(C) When a comprehensive sign plan is submitted, exceptions to the regulations of this chapter
may be permitted if the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the
intent of this chapter and if such exception results in an improved relationship between the various
parts of the sign plan as determined by the City Council.
(D) Comprehensive sign plans will be reviewed by the City Planning Commission which will
forward a recommendation to the City Council on the appropriateness of the proposed sign plan.
(Ord. 08-002, passed 4-22-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
§ 155.27 GROUND SIGNS.
(A) Ground signs are permitted in all districts but only to the extent permitted in this section and
in the District Schedules set forth in § 155.29.
(B) Permit application. A permit shall be applied for in accordance with § 155.25.
(C) Height. A sign must not exceed 8 feet in height, including pedestal and any berming.
(D) Surface Area:
(1) Signs having 1 copy surface may have up to 34 square feet of surface area.
(2) Signs having 2 or more copy surfaces may have up to 68 square feet for all surfaces.
(3) Buildings with 2 or more businesses/tenants shall be allowed an additional 12 square feet
for 2 or more copy surfaces, for a total of 80 square feet.
(E) Landscaping. Ground signs must be landscaped. Landscaping may consist of shrubs, plants,
rocks, or other decorative materials located around the pedestal.
(F) Design and location:
(1) Signs must maximize the use of natural materials in construction and should conform to
the material design of the principal structure.
(2) Signs must be located at least 15 feet from the curb line of any public street and cannot be
placed within any street right-of-way or government easement.
(3) The pedestal width of a ground sign must be at least equal to the sign width.
(4) The principal structure of a parcel of land will be allowed one ground sign, regardless of
the number of tenants in the structure.
(Ord. 08-002, passed 4-22-2008) Penalty, see § 10.99
� t
STAFF REPORT
To: Chair and Planning Commissioners
From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager
Date: August 16,2011
Subject: Encroachment Variance for Front Porch and Stoop with Steps—3408 Maplewood Drive
Background. Cam Sandwick of Albertsson Hansen Architecture,Ltd.,met with Staff to discuss the
possibility of obtaining an encroachment variance for her clients,the owners of 3408 Maplewood Drive,
who would like to add a front porch to their home.
A front porch is part of a renovation project that they are planning for the front of their home. Their garage
extends beyond the front of the house by approximately 10.5 feet. The home owners are proposing to fill in
that space from the side of the garage to the end of the house with a 10.5' x 30' (323SF) enclosed screen
porch. As presented on the site plans,it does appear that the garage does currently encroach
approximately 4 feet into the front yard setback.
In addition,they are proposing a front stoop with steps that will extend 5.9' beyond the front porch into the
front yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance does allow stoops to encroach up to 5' into the front setback
(§152.177 ENCROACHMENT 1N YARDS)
Ms.Sandwick will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to present the proposal and
answer questions.
Attachments.
• Site Plans for 3408 Maplewood Drive
• Photos of the house
F:\Planning\Staff Reports\2011\08162011 3408 Maplewood Front Poch and steps variance concept review stf rpt.doc08162011 3408
Maplewood Front Poch and steps variance concept review stf rpt.doc
YNEW STARS
32—7fl� ll—, VAMMICE REE00URED 0
-A Ulm A
20'-6r ti fa
S5
4H ENCKMCWM
FM
--JLJ--
YARD
FROM YARD
Kf--BBA—CK
N SCR-EE—Nu
NEW PO"
323 SO FEET
DEW HOUSE
YARD'
EA5WF0JSE
3408 MAREWOOD DWE
EYSTORY BURDRJGb IT
FOOT PRM AREA•1503 SOFT
cli
WNDOWWEHS
53'-2j
EASING PATK)
yrs
REAR YARD
REAR YARD L--, SET BACK
SET BACK 5—Cr
"M o
At,t
}
Amommom
V
s;� :1'.• _ �a..� - .'fir ��.
t"1.r._"�• a �� � { �' •l' ���( _
K
F, xw1IIkN�.
40wo.
. •`�^'�.^a*a.�.
i
�4�. 'i.•� ,.�!hV�Ili
i.y.
s e
• *via—
a,h
Albertsson Hansen
Architecture, Ltd.
®® ®®
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - -
0
Ln
00 Cn
(N
C V
1 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 2 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION v LO N Co
�2j.0 Scale: 1 /8" = 1 '-0" AB2.0 Scale: 1/8" = V-0" � 'o
.> � � o
O s
0
E o 0) .
o 0
c c`-)
ry Co
a >
0- Q o
C �`
C)
c
Q s Co
C ap c C"
S O Q 0 z
Q 'q C00:) a)
M Ln cv
® ® ® Issue Dates:
® ® ® — Programming 06/08/11
Schematic Design
06/28/11
Design Development
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 08/09/11
\ ---------------
-T . . , #
/ \
— — — — — — As-Built Drawings
Exterior Elevations
Scale- 1/8" = 1'-0"
3 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 4 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
�2. Scale: 1 /8" = V-0" AB2.0 Scale- 1 /8" - 1 '-0" AB2 . 0