Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 10242016 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items: I. Approval of the October 24, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the June 27, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (pp.1-) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request from Trautz Properties, Inc. located at 2700 and 2702-2714 County Road 88 for a preliminary plat request to create three lots on the site and to consider a variance to allow for zero lot line. IV. Staff Reports. V. Other Business. A. Presentation from The Village, LLC regarding Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan at 2501 Lowry Avenue. VI. Community Forum. Individuals may address the City Council 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 Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. VII. Information and Announcements. VIII. Adjournment. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA OCTOBER 24, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 3 June 27 , 2016 4 7:00 p.m. 5 6 CALL TO ORDER. 7 8 Chair person Gondorchin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 12 Chair person Gondorchin invited the Commission and the a udience to join him in the Pledge of 13 Allegiance. 14 15 ROLL CALL. 16 17 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Gondorchin, Commissioners Bartel, Kalar, Lichty, 18 Papatola, and Westrick 19 20 Absent: Commissioner Foster 21 22 Also Present: City Planner Breanne Rothstein 23 24 25 I. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 27, 2016, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. 26 27 Motion by Commissioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to approve the June 27 , 28 2016, Planning Commission agenda. 29 30 Motion carried 6-0. 31 32 II. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 22, 2016, R EGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 33 MEETING MINUTES. 34 35 Motion by Commissioner Kalar, seconded by Commis sioner Papatola, to approve the February 36 22, 2016, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minut es as presented. 37 38 Motion carried 6-0 39 40 Commissioner Lichty volunteered to attend the City Council Meeting on July 12, 2016 to present 41 the findings of the Planning Commission Meeting. 42 43 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 44 45 A. Consider a request from the Church of St. Charles Borromeo located at 2727 46 Stinson Boulevard NE for a conditional use permit to allow for a double sided 47 e lectronic sign on the premises 48 49 Plannin g Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 27 , 2016 Page 2 Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. 1 2 City Planner Rothstein reviewed the Church of St. Charles Borromeo, located at 2727 Stinson 3 Boulevard NE, wishes to construct a monument sign with a double -sided electronic display in 4 front of the school located on the premises. The applicant had previously requested permission to 5 construct such a sign in 2014 through a text amendment to the City’s sign code, citing the desir e 6 to have a more visible presence in the community and to mirror the advertising techniques being 7 used at Wilshire Park and the high school. At that time, the city’s code prohibited electronic 8 signs and the applicant’s request was denied. City Planner Rothstein presented a power point 9 presentation summarizing the case. 10 11 City Planner Rothstein stated in December 2014, the City amended the sign code to allow for 12 non-commercial “dynamic display” signs in the R -1 Single Family district through the issuance 13 of a conditional use permit with the following three conditions: 14 1. Aesthetics of the sign, including, but not limited to message color, construction materials, 15 and landscaping; 16 2. Location of the sign with regard to the surrounding area; and 17 3. Position/layout of the sign with regard to the surrounding area. 18 19 Additional specifications for dynamic display signs regarding placement, size of display and 20 copy, illumination, and message transitions are stipulated in §155.29 (DYNAMIC DISPLAYS). 21 In light of the amendments t o the sign ordinance, the applicant is again submitting a request to 22 construct an electronic display sign on the premises. 23 24 The dynamic display component of the sign will have a 2’-9” x 7’-10” double-sided 25 Monochrome electronic display and will occupy 21 sf of the 28 allowable sf. The pedestal and 26 base structure is designed to match the materials of the primary building. Ms. Rothstein stated 27 there is a difference between the sizes of the sign, in changing the size of the font restricting the 28 actual reader board size. The operation requirements of dynamic display signs include must 29 occupy no more than 35% of allowed actual copy and graphic area, every line of copy and 30 graphics must be at least seven inches in height on a read with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per 31 hour, may not change more often than once every 8 seconds and change sequence must be 32 instantaneous without any special effects, must be monochromatic in color with a solid black 33 background, no video display, flashing illumination, and audio, ability to discontinue if 34 malfunctioning, and limits on brightness (written certification from manufacturer). The 35 operational use will be monitored for compliance to Code once it is operating. 36 37 All criterion has been met in the CUP Criteria Review. 38 39 City Planner Rothstein noted the applicant has provided all the required information for the 40 Planning Commission’s evaluation. Staff recommends approval of the application, subject to the 41 following conditions: 42 1. Applicant will comply with dimensional setback requirements for ground sign placement, 43 which requires 15 feet from the curb line. 44 2. Applicant will provide written certification from the sign manufacturer that light intensity has 45 been preset to conform to the brightness levels established by the City’s code. 46 Plannin g Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 27 , 2016 Page 3 3. Applicant will conform to all of the sign operation requirements of the Dynamic Display 1 ordinance including brightness, lettering size, and total sign copy area. 2 3 Ms. Rothstein stated a “concerned resident” submitted a letter on June 16, 2016 stating they do 4 not think the lighted electronic sign should be allowed as it would be an eyesore and not fitting to 5 the landscape and look of Stinson Blvd. 6 7 Chairperson Gondorchin stated he will limit his comments on this case as he is a member of the 8 St. Charles Parish. 9 10 Commissioner Kalar asked if there are any considerations regarding the Parkway. Ms. Rothstein 11 stated residents were notified within 350 feet of the property, which included Minneapolis 12 residents. This is not part of a designated historic location. This does not warrant any special 13 review. 14 15 Commissioner Papatola asked if certification has been received from the sign manufacturer. Ms. 16 Rothstein stated before the sign permit is issued certification will need to be received. This is a 17 standard requirement. Commissioner Papatola stated there is already a non-dynamic display sign 18 on the property and asked how many different signs would be allowed on the property. Ms. 19 Rothstein stated they would not be eligible for a third ground sign. The attorneys researched the 20 ordinance in detail and the dynamic display signs are now allowed. 21 22 Commissioner Bartel asked if there is a plan for hours of operation for the sign. Ms. Rothstein 23 stated there is no plan and was not part of the request. 24 25 Commissioner Kalar asked how th e sign compares to the sign at Wilshire Park School. Ms. 26 Rothstein stated she could research and report back to the Commission. 27 28 Commissioner Papatola stated he believes the sign at the high school has limited hours and 29 thinks it goes off at 10:00 p.m. and comes on again at 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Bartel agreed 30 there was a set time when the high school sign was approved. Ms. Rothstein stated the current 31 ordinance does not have any hours of operation. Hours of operation can be added as a condition 32 in a conditional use permit. 33 34 The applicant, Mr. Tom Harrington, Stewardship and Development Director of St. Charles 35 Borromeo School. He stated he is grateful for the change to the sign ordinance. 36 37 Ms. Jessica Dahl, President of Top Line Advertising, stated they will be doing the installation. 38 She stated a dimmer will be added to the sign to meet the requirements of getting the brightness 39 below 450. The certification can be provided. 40 41 Commissioner Lichty asked Mr. Harrington if the hours of operation had been considered and 42 Mr. Harrington stated it would turn off at 10:00 p.m. and turn on at 7:00 a.m. 43 44 Chairperson Gondorchin c losed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 45 46 Plannin g Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 27 , 2016 Page 4 Commissioner Lichty suggested the sign be turned on earlier in the morning especially during 1 the wint er months. 2 3 Commissioner Papatola asked Ms. Rothstein to check to see the hours of operation standards for 4 Wilshire Park and the High School to determine consistency. 5 6 Motion by Commissioner Lichty , seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend to the 7 City Council approval of a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for a 8 Double-Sided Dynamic Display Monument Sign on the Premises located at 2727 Stinson 9 Boulevard NE. 10 11 M otion carried 4 i n favor and 2 abstained (Gondorchin and Papatola) 12 13 B. Consider a request from The Unofficial located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard for an 14 amendment to a conditional use permit to allow for the addition of outdoor seating 15 on the premises. 16 17 Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 18 19 City Planner Rothstein reviewed the Applicant’s request for an amendment to existing 20 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for the addition of 40 outdoor seats on the premises 21 located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the 22 City’s Comprehensive Plan. The Site Plan meets all original conditions related to parking and 23 setbacks. Drawings showing the proposed patio were shown. City Planner Rothstein presented 24 a power point presentation summarizing the request. Conditional Use Permit request to amend 25 existing CUP and allow 40 additional outdoor seats on the premises. The Conditional Use 26 Permit issued in 2010 to allow a restaurant within 250 feet of residential area. The CUP 27 amended in 2015 allowed alcohol to be served on the property. 28 29 Ms. Rothstein stated all criterion are met for the CUP Criteria Review. If the Planning 30 Commission agrees to amend the CUP, staff recommends the adoption of the following 31 conditions: 32 1. Previous conditions stated in resolution 10-052 approving a conditional use permit for a 33 restaurant located within 250 feet of a residential structure or district shall remain in full 34 effect, which are: 35 • Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match the building; 36 • Lighting must be “down spill” with no spillage to affect the adjacent residential 37 properties; 38 • No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from the restaurant to adjacent 39 residential properties; 40 • The remodel and redevelopment of the property shall conform as closely as possible 41 and practicable to the Village of St Anthony design standards and PUD documents. 42 2. The Applicant shall submit the appropriate plans and permits for review and approval before 43 beginning any construction or other alterations that requires a permit (i.e. building permit 44 for any interior work, sign permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, etc .). 45 46 Plannin g Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 27 , 2016 Page 5 3. Outdoor seating associated with the restaurant is allowed, provided the establishment 1 exercise significant efforts to reduce the likelihood of noisy or disruptive activitie s in the 2 outdoor seating area after 10:00 p.m. 3 4 Ms. Rothstein noted if there is excessive noise after 10:00 p.m. the CUP could be considered for 5 revocation. 6 7 Chairperson Gondorchin asked if there are any future plans in that location. Ms. Rothstein stated 8 the restaurant is a Conditional Use. The amendment is needed any time there are changes to the 9 CUP. This will not limit any future redevelopment. Chairperson Gondorchin asked about the 10 hours of operation and whether it is open year -round. Ms. Rothstein stated there are hours of 11 operation set for the business and the outdoor seating would follow the same hours (11:00 a.m. to 12 1:00 a.m.) and there are no specifications that the patio be closed during the winter. Chairperson 13 Gondorchin asked how noise would be monitored and enforced. Ms. Rothstein stated the City’s 14 nuisance ordinance would control the noise in decibel level. The police department has a decibel 15 reader. Ms. Rothstein stated there are some issues with using decibel levels. There is no 16 formalized process. 17 18 Commiss ioner Bartel asked about the 10-foot setback from the sidewalk and asked if the 19 sidewalk would be right next to the patio. Ms. Rothstein stated the patio would be relatively 20 narrow. The Stinson Blvd project is in the right -of-way which is off the property and includes the 21 sidewalk. Ms. Rothstein will research the exact distance and provide to City Council. 22 23 Commissioner Papatola asked how this request is different from the Village Pub. Ms. Rothstein 24 stated outdoor seating was allowed at Village Pub and not part of their CUP. In terms of design it 25 would be similar. This request is strict er than the Village Pub needs to adhere to. 26 27 Commissioner Bartel asked if the Village Pub is as close to residential. Ms. Rothstein stated 28 there was no CUP for that property. 29 30 Commissioner Kalar asked if there is a plan as to how it will be finished with fencing, etc. Ms. 31 Rothstein stated there will be a fence as alcohol served on the patio must be fenced in to prevent 32 people from walking down the street with their drinks. 33 34 Mr. Chris Christopherson, applicant, stated the immediate proposal for the patio is a concrete 35 slab or footings with decking. The decking would have a 40 inch railing. The concrete suggested 36 a concrete patio. They are still in the early stages and these decisions have not been met. 37 Chairperson Gondorchin asked about the noise level and what steps the owner would take in 38 reducing the noise. Mr. Christopherson stated up to and including closing the patio. They will 39 work together with the community to ensure noise will not be a problem. There would be 40 speakers with music that would be directed away from the residents and noise level reduced. 41 There would be no TV’s or additional lighting. The play area would include bean bag games 42 which would end by 10:00 p.m. 43 44 Chairperson Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. 45 46 Plannin g Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 27 , 2016 Page 6 Chairperson Gondorchin stated since we are early in the process the CUP amendment is 1 requested at this time. Ms. Rothstein stated the plans would be submitted to the City C ouncil as 2 provided. The details are relevant. If there are significant changes the Commission would like to 3 see, then that would come back for approval. 4 5 Motion by Commissioner Lichty , seconded by Commissioner Papatola, to recommend to the 6 City Council app roval of a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for 7 the Addition of 40 Outdoor Seats on the Premises Located at 3701 Stinson Boulevard with 8 conditions outlined in the staff report. 9 10 Commissioner Lichty noted the 10:00 p.m. condition is included in the conditions. 11 12 Motion carried 6 -0 13 14 C. Consider an amendment of the City Code, adding section 152.189 Opting-Out of the 15 Requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593 (Temporary Family Health 16 Care Dwellings). 17 18 Chairperson Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 19 20 City Planner Rothstein presented on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the 21 creation and regulation of temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minnesota Statute 22 §462.3593. The law establishes a permitting process allowing landowners to place mobile 23 residential dwellings on their property to serve as temporary dwellings. The law intends to 24 provide dwellings accommodating short-term care for family members in need of assistance or 25 close supervision. These temporary dwellings would be exempt from assisted living regulation 26 and subject to a specific permitting process. Cities may opt-out of requirements before the 27 September 1, 2016 deadline. City Planner Rothstein reviewed a power point presentation 28 summarizing the case. She reviewed the following findings: 29 • The law regulates the user and not merely the land use. 30 • The law will require the City to collect and manage medical information 31 • Concerns that the law does not adequately confirm the temporary nature of these 32 dwellings. 33 • By opting-out of Minn Stat. §462.3593, St. Anthony will retain maximum flexibility to 34 address temporary family health care dwellings in a manner that is specific to the needs 35 of the city. 36 • An opt-out ordinance is the correct step to take if a city either wants to use their existing 37 land use controls or to develop a customized version that might allow this sort of use in 38 some cases using different processes or criteria. 39 40 Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance which would serve as the official opt-out for the 41 City of St. Anthony from the terms and conditions of Minnesota Stat. §462.3593 which defines 42 and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. 43 44 Commissioner Lichty stated RV’s would most likely not be considered due to the wording in the 45 ordinance. He has no hesitation in passing this opt -out amendment. 46 Plannin g Commission Regular Meeting Minutes June 27 , 2016 Page 7 1 Commissioner Kalar asked if residents wanted to do this what would be the process. Ms. 2 Rothstein stated the City Code says each residential property can only have one dwelling unit. 3 4 Chairperson Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. 5 6 Motion by Commissioner Lichty , seconded by Commissioner Westrick, to recommend to the 7 City Council approval of an Ordinance Adding Section 152.189 to St. Anthony City Code 8 Opting-Out of the Requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593 (Temporary Family 9 Health Care Dwellings). 10 11 Motion carried 6 -0 12 13 IV. STAFF REPORTS 14 15 Ms. Rothstein stated on Thursday 5:30 – 8:30 p.m. There will be an Advance Workshop on 16 Sustainability. There will be 15 St. Anthony attendees. Dinner will be provided. 17 18 There will be a Regular Planning Commission Meeting in July. 19 20 V. OTHER BUSINESS - NONE 21 22 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE 23 24 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - NONE 25 26 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 27 28 Motion by Commiss ioner Bartel, seconded by Commissioner Kalar, to adjourn the meeting at 29 8:10 p.m. 30 Motion carried 6-0 31 32 33 Respectfully submitted, 34 Debbie Wolfe (T imeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.) 35 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for October 24, 2016 WSB Project No. 02170-400 Request: Request for a preliminary plat, final plat and variances for St. Anthony Village Center RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the proposed preliminary plat, final plat, and variances requested, and recommends approval of all the applications, subject on the following conditions: 1) Satisfactory submittal and execution of a reciprocal easement agreement which clearly articulates the rights and responsibilities of the three affected landowners; 2) Satisfactory submittal of evidence that the final plat includes the names and signatures of all the current fee owners of the land being platted; 3) Satisfactory submittal of evidence that the condo ownership structure is, or will be, terminated prior to filing of the final plat; and 4) City Attorney review and resolution of any other outstanding legal issues associated with recording of the plat. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant/Owner: John Trautz of Trautz Properties, Inc/ Daniel Shattuck of St. Anthony Village, LLC Location: 2700 and 2702-2714 County Road 88 Existing Land Use / Commercial/C-1 Commercial (multi-tenant) Zoning: Surrounding Land North: Park/Low-Density Residential Use / Zoning: East: County Road 88/Park South: Commercial West: Commercial and High Density Residential Deadline for Agency Application Date: 10-3-2016 Action: 60 Days: 12-3-2016 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: NA October 24, 2016 St. Anthony Village Center Addition Page 2 CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE 1. Background John Trautz of Trautz Properties, Inc has entered into a purchase agreement with Daniel Shattuck of Shattuck Properties to purchase the multi-tenant strip mall located at 2702-2714 County Road 88, which includes the city-owned liquor store. Shattuck is also selling the Village Pub to the current operator. The Applicants are proposing a preliminary and final plat of “St. Anthony Village Center” to convert the property located at 2700 and 2703-2714 County Road 88 from a Common Interest Community (CIC) plat to a standard “Lot and Block” plat. Additionally, variances are needed to accommodate a zero setback on the proposed property line in several areas. Furthermore, two additional variances are requested to bring existing lot line encroachments into conformity through consideration of variances for existing non-conforming situations. The primary reason for processing this application is to eliminate the defunct Condo Association in favor of a private Easement Agreement. This easement agreement would establish a process for shared maintenance of the parking areas and landscaping areas to more closely match current practice. Additionally, it would be a three party agreement among the City for the liquor store, John Trautz, the new owner of the strip mall, and Corey Burstad, the new owner of Village Pub. The current Condo Association is not following its bylaws for meetings and does not include Corey Burstad (new owner of Village Pub). This change would also be a chance to amend the existing parking and access agreement and CIC documents into one, comprehensive easement agreement. We do not expect anything to change with regard to the way the property is managed or costs are divided from current practice, but to amend the documents to reflect current practice and bring in the new third party (Village Pub). Because the City owns the liquor store through the CIC, the City is a party (co-applicant) to this plat. 2. Applicable Codes. Section 151 Subdivision Regulations, Section 152.120 General Commercial District, and Section 152.245 Variances are applicable subsections of city code related to this application. The nature of this application is legal ownership change from a condo to a fee title owner, rather than for the development of land. 3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Approvals. 3a. Preliminary Plat The preliminary plat for St. Anthony Village Center proposes to create one new lot by subdividing the existing lot located at 2703- 2714 County Road 88 into two parcels. Section 151.02 lists the following required information, which has been submitted and is satisfactory to staff: identification and description of the plat, design features, including streets, easements, drainage, lots, dimensions, public use area, and elevations. October 24, 2016 St. Anthony Village Center Addition Page 3 Section 152.124 provides dimensional requirements for lot size, setbacks, and floor area ratio, which are summarized in the table below: Minimum Requirement Proposed Lot 1 (Strip Mall) Proposed Lot 2 (Liquor Store) Existing Lot of Record (Village Pub) Lot Size 15,000 sq. ft 53,363 sq ft 38,005 sq ft NA Building Sq. footage NA 11,332 sq. ft 9,010 sq ft. 4,500 sq. ft. Floor Area Ratio 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 Setbacks 35 ft. front* 10 ft. side 20 ft. rear 42 feet 0 feet 62 feet 50 feet 0 feet 10 feet 2 feet** 6 feet 10 feet *All lots must abut by their full frontage on a public street ** Deviations requiring a variance are highlighted in yellow. 3b. Final Plat Section 151.04 requires that the final plat be prepared by a surveyor in compliance with code and show all monument, proof that all taxes have been paid, and the City Attorney has found evidence of satisfactory title. The City Attorney is reviewing the title, which will be resolved before Council action. Accompanying the final plat will be a new easement agreement which calls forth rights and responsibilities over the parking, sidewalk, and common landscaping areas located within the plat. This document will be considered concurrently with the preliminary and final plat at City Council. Due to the nature of this subdivision as a fully developed commercial shopping center with no development plans, staff is not recommending the execution of a Development Contract (other than the Easement Agreement) payment of any development fees (sewer, water, park dedication), or an analysis of the infrastructure. 3c. Variances There are three variances needed related to the buildings on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, St. Anthony Village Center, and three variances recommended to process as part of the existing condition related to the Village Pub. The exact variances are: 1) A 10 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 0 feet for the building on Lot 1, Block 1 St. Anthony Village Center; 2) A 10 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 0 feet for the building on Lot 2, Block 1 St. Anthony Village Center; 3) A 10 foot rear yard setback variance to allow of setback of 10 feet for the building on Lot 2, Block 1 St. Anthony Village Center; October 24, 2016 St. Anthony Village Center Addition Page 4 4) A 33 foot front yard setback variance to allow of setback of 2 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88; 5) A 4 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 6 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88; 6) A 10 foot rear yard setback variance to allow of setback of 10 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88. Section §152.245, (C) Evidence, lists the criteria the City Council must consider in determining whether to grant or deny a variance. The applicable criteria include: 1. The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section. The application for these variances to setbacks are eligible subject matter for variance criteria because these factors are related to dimensional and/or bulk standards. Criterion met. 2. Strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because: a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; The property owners propose to use the property in the current situation. Granting these variance will approve the current situation, with the change in ownership structure from a condo to a fee title. Criterion met. b. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; The owner is requesting this ownership structure change, however the location of the existing buildings are not in the owner’s control to change. Criterion met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and Granting of this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, because there is no change proposed to buildings. Criterion met. d. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. These variances, in conjunction with the plat, will improve the existing situation to more clearly represent and allow for the current practices on the property. Criterion met. 3. The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan. If the variance is granted the use of the property would remain the same land use as it is today, which is commercial. Criterion met. 4. The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code. The intent of the zoning code is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city and its people through the establishment of minimum regulations governing land development and use. The zoning code is established to: protect the use districts; promote orderly development and redevelopment; provide adequate light, air, and access to property; prevent congestion in the public streets; prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures by October 24, 2016 St. Anthony Village Center Addition Page 5 regulating land, buildings, yards, and densities; and provide for compatibility of different land uses. Given these factors, this application is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance to prevent overcrowding of land and undue concentration of structures and provide adequate access to light and air. Criterion met. POSSIBLE ACTIONS 1. Recommend Approval (with or without conditions) of the preliminary plat for St. Anthony Shopping Center, the final plat for St. Anthony Shopping Center, the 6 associated variances and adopt the resolution found in Exhibit C. 2. Recommend Denial (with or without conditions) of the applications. In the event of a recommendation for denial (with or without conditions), the Planning Commission must state its findings and any conditions related to denial. 3. Request Additional Information and Continue the Public Hearing. The Applicant appears to have provided enough information for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to approve or deny the request. Should the Planning Commission request additional information from the Applicant, the Planning Commission should continue the public hearing until a later time. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Draft Resolution THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK St. Anthony Village Center October 18, 2016 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft ± THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE CENTER AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES WHEREAS, the St. Anthony Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 24, 2016 for the review of the preliminary plat for St. Anthony Village Center located at 2702 – 2714 County Road 88; and WHEREAS, staff presented a Staff Report that provided information regarding the preliminary plat, final plat, and variances received from the property owners; and WHEREAS, staff also presented the Planning Commission with a current preliminary plat and final plat, prepared by Sambatek, dated October 10, 2016 for its review and consideration; and WHEREAS, the splitting of the property will result in two lots from the original one platted lot and Common Interest Community plat; and WHEREAS, the current owner, Daniel Shattuck, desires to sell the property to John Trautz of Trautz Properties, LLC, and the prospective owner is requesting this plat, with variances in order to remove the Common Interest Community plat, the Condo Association and to replace the CIC and Condo Association with an easement agreement; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request in its entirety, found the request for preliminary plat, final plat, and variances to meet the requirements for approval set forth in city code and enumerated in the Staff Report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council to approve the preliminary plat, final plat, and requested variances, subject to the following conditions, and in accordance with the staff report dated October 24, 2016: 1) Satisfactory submittal and execution of a reciprocal easement agreement which clearly articulates the rights and responsibilities of the three affected landowners, and is substantially consistent with the rights and responsibilities set forth in the current Condo Association documents; 2) Satisfactory submittal of evidence to provide proof of clear title (and resolution of any outstanding title issues); 3) City Attorney review and resolution of any other outstanding legal issues associated with recording of the plat. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does hereby approve the following requests: 1) A preliminary plat for St. Anthony Village Center; 2) A final plat for St. Anthony Village Center; 3) A 10 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 0 feet for the building on Lot 1, Block 1 St. Anthony Village Center; 4) A 10 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 0 feet for the building on Lot 2, Block 1 St. Anthony Village Center; 5) A 10 foot rear yard setback variance to allow of setback of 10 feet for the building on Lot 2, Block 1 St. Anthony Village Center; 6) A 33 foot front yard setback variance to allow of setback of 2 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88; 7) A 4 foot side yard setback variance to allow of setback of 6 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88; 8) A 10 foot rear yard setback variance to allow of setback of 10 feet for the building on 2720 Hwy 88. Adopted this XX day of November, 2016. ___________________________________ Jerome O. Faust, Mayor Attested: ___________________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk St. Anthony Village Center Request for Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Variances Planning Commission Meeting October 24,2016 St. Anthony Village Center General Information Applicant/Owner: John Trautz of Trautz Properties, Inc/ Daniel Shattuck of St. Anthony Village, LLC Location: 2700 and 2702-2714 County Road 88 Existing Land Use / Commercial/C-1 Commercial (multi-tenant) Zoning: Surrounding Land North: Park/Low-Density Residential Use / Zoning: East: County Road 88/Park South: Commercial West: Commercial and High DensityResidential St. Anthony Village Center St. Anthony Village Center •Overview -Purchase Agreement – New Owner -Currently Common Interest Community (CIC) -Condo Association (defunct) -Third owner involved -Requesting preliminary and final plat for “fee title” ownership Preliminary Plat Final Plat Variances Variance Criteria Review •Subject matter of the application is within the scope of this section; –Criterion met •The property owner purposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code; –Criterion met •The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner; –Criterion not met •The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; –Criterion met •Economic considerations alone are not the basis of practical difficulties; –Criterion met •The variance, if granted, would be consistent with the City’s comprehensive land use plan; –Criterion met • The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning code; –Criterion met Variance Criteria Review St. Anthony Village Center Recommendation -Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and final plat for St. Anthony Village Center, and the associated variances, subject to the following conditions: Satisfactory submittal and execution of a reciprocal easement agreement which clearly articulates the rights and responsibilities of the three affected landowners, and is substantially consistent with the rights and responsibilities set forth in the current Condo Association documents; Satisfactory submittal of evidence to provide proof of clear title (and resolution of any outstanding title issues); City Attorney review and resolution of any other outstanding legal issues associated with recording of the plat. St. Anthony Village Center Questions? 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 • www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us •(612) 782-3301 Fax (612) 782-3302 Our mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village which is sustainable, safe and secure. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on October 24, 2016, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a request from Trautz Properties, Inc on two matters related to the commercial properties located at 2702-2714 and 2700 County Road 88. 1) Consider a preliminary plat request to create three lots on the site to be known as Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3. Currently, Lot 2 (2720 County Rd. 88, known as “The Village Pub”) exists as a separately platted parcel. The proposed preliminary plat would subdivide the remainder of the property into Lot 1 and Lot 3. 2) Consider a variance request to allow for a zero lot line (no setback) at the proposed side property line separating Lot 1 and Lot 3 and at the front property line of Lot 2. An additional setback variance is requested for Lot 1 to allow for a reduced side yard setback. The C – Commercial District requires a 35-foot front yard setback, a 20-foot rear yard setback and a 10- foot side setback. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed requests to the City Council for their meeting to be held on November 22, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763-231-4863. The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available prior to the meeting online at www.saint-anthony.mn.us . Breanne Rothstein, AICP City Planner THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Breanne Rothstein, AICP, City Planner Date: Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2016 WSB Project No. 02170-300 Request: Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan Request for Village, LLC located at 2501 Lowry Avenue REQUESTED ACTION According to Section 152.209 of city code, the sketch plan for a Planned Unit Development is not considered a formal application, but an informal opportunity for the developer to show their “basic intent and general nature of development”. This is the Planning Commission’s and the public’s opportunity to hear the developer’s initial presentation of the plans for the redevelopment of 2501 Lowry Avenue. No action is recommended or needed at this time. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: The Village, LLC Owners: The Village, LLC Location: 2051 Lowry Avenue Existing Land Use / Manufactured Home Community/Single-Family Residential (approximately 98 home sites and 95 RV sites) Zoning: Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / Zoned R-1 - Single Family Residential Use / Zoning: East: High Density Residential/Planned Unit Development South: High Density Residential and Commercial/Planned Unit Development West: Single-Family Residential and Commercial in Minneapolis October 24, 2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant for the proposal, The Village, LLC, with lead developer Continental Property Group, purchased the Lowry Grove Manufactured Home Community on June 13, 2016. On June 15, the City received official correspondence from the owner regarding their intent to close Lowry Grove. This closure notice triggered a series of statutory requirements of both the landowner and the city. On October 11, 2016, the required public hearing was held, and the following actions were taken: 1) Hold a public hearing regarding the closure notice 2) Review and evaluate the impacts of the closure on residents 3) Inform residents of their rights to access the Manufactured Home Park Trust Fund 4) Appoint a neutral third party On August 26, 2016, The Village, LLC submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development sketch plan review of a re-development plan for 2501 Lowry Avenue. To date, 10 homes have been purchased and demolished within the park. Another 8 have been moved from the location to another park. The developer has conducted a neighborhood meeting on October 18 and has invited residents from the surrounding areas. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The site under re-development consideration is approximately 15 acres located on the very southwestern edge of the city of St. Anthony at 2501 Lowry Avenue (see enclosed site location map). Bremer Bank (2 stories) is located on the southwestern-most corner of the property and currently is not part of the re-development plan. Kenzington Condos (ownership condos for seniors) are located immediately to the east (5 stories, plus at grade garage). To the south is The Legacy that is 4 stories (rental, assisted living for seniors), Walker Senior Housing that is 3 stories (rental, assisted living for seniors) and Autumn Woods that is 3 stories (general occupancy rental units). The PUD sketch plan submittal is attached for your review, as well as a narrative outlining the request. The total density proposed for the site is 52 units per acre, and height is proposed as 5 stories (2 buildings), 4 stories (1 building), and 3 stories (2 buildings). The PUD sketch plan proposes several housing types, unit sizes, styles and ownership models. For sale townhome units (37) are proposed on the northern and western edges of the property. 5 buildings of multi-family housing are shown. The sketch plan outlines a total of 837 housing units. Ownership options include townhomes (37) and senior co-op (100). The plan shows 700 rental units, including senior assisted living (100), age-restricted rental (100), general occupancy apartments (340), affordable rental apartments (60), and general occupancy micro apartment units (100). A total of 60 units are included of below market-rate rental apartments. OTHER REQUIREMENTS In addition to city code requirements for the review and consideration of a Planned Unit Development preliminary development plan, re-zoning and subdivision application, this re- development is subject to many other jurisdictional requirements including the following: October 24, 2016 Page 3 State Rules Governing Completion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Due to its size (over 375 attached units), State Rule 4410 requires preparation of an EAW to evaluate and identify existing environmental conditions and identifies the impacts of this proposed development with regard to land use, soils, fish/wildlife, historical property, water resources, sewer, water, and transportation infrastructure and any potential noise, odor, light, or visual impacts. As part of this document, a full traffic study is being prepared that evaluates 10 intersections and associated roadways. Completion of this document is led by the city, and the recommendations from it will be critical to informing the design and preliminary plat and PUD preliminary development plan. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Upon analysis of the property through the purchase, a Phase I and Phase II Environment Assessment were completed and identified several sources of contamination on the property, which will need to be properly handled and remediated through the process established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Hennepin County Transportation. Kenzie Terrace is a County Road and coordination with their plans and needs regarding changes or upgrades to Kenzie Terrace is required. Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. The land under which Stinson Parkway is built is considered MPRB parkland, not right-of-way. Therefore, special review and provision must be made for any upgrades or impacts to Stinson Parkway, given its designation as parkland and the MPRB jurisdiction. Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. This development will be subjected to the rules of the MWMO and the city regarding pollutant loading reduction, discharge rates and volumes, and flood elevations. State Statute Governing Manufactured Home Park Closure. The closure of manufactured home parks are subject to statute related to the closure and removal of the manufactured homes. A precise procedure must be followed regarding the closure of the park, starting with a nine month notification (commenced on June 15). COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDANCE The enclosed exhibit summarizes the land use guidance in the city’s Comprehensive Plan for this area. The Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Plan discusses the following items related to the site at 2501 Lowry Avenue: • It acknowledges Lowry Grove as a source of affordable housing in the community • It recognizes its age and condition • It states that any changes in land use would be initiated by the landowner, not proactively by the City. • It states that any change in land use would require proper notification and provision for re- location under state statute. • It states the importance of provision of affordable housing in this area to the community. • It outlines a general vision, should the property re-develop, that includes a mix of multi- family housing (“townhomes and condominium apartments”) October 24, 2016 Page 4 • Discusses the need for better pedestrian improvements and streetscape on Kenzie Terrace. NEXT STEPS The PUD sketch plan is the first in many steps towards re-development of the property at 2501 Lowry Avenue. There are many agencies, plans, and permits to be reviewed, commented on, and completed over the next several months. • The Environmental Assessment Worksheet is expected to be complete in November, with an official 30 day agency comment period in December. • The developer is currently compiling information for submittal of their preliminary plat. The next item the Planning Commission will review will be a request for re-zoning to Planned Unit Development, a PUD preliminary development plan, and a preliminary plat. These applications are considered formal applications. • A public hearing will completed at the preliminary plat stage, which is the opportunity for comments, input and decision as part of the public record. • Final Development Plan, Final Plat, and Development Contract will be the final steps, only after consideration of preliminary plat and development plan and a re-zoning to Planned Unit Development. RECOMMENDATION The City Code, Section 152.209 states the following: The sketch plan [for a Planned Unit Development] provides an opportunity for an applicant to submit an informal plan to the city showing the applicant’s basic intent and general nature of the development. The sketch plan is optional and is intended to provide feedback from the Planning Commission before the applicant incurs substantial cost in the preparation of formal plans. The sketch plan shall be considered a partial, incomplete application prior to formal submittal of the complete application and scheduling of hearings. The sketch plan portion of the Planned Unit Development process is not considered part of the land use application process, but as an introductory opportunity for the planning commission to hear the plans. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the materials, listen to the presentation made by the Developer, and take no formal action on the PUD sketch plan presented. ATTACHMENTS 1) Site Location Map 2) Land Use Map from the Comprehensive Plan 3) Applicant’s Submitted Materials 2501 Lowry Avenue test October 12, 2016 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 400 ft ± THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Future Land Use Map for 2501 Lowry Avenue and Surrounding Properties THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1SOUTHERN GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT October 18, 2016 N E S T I N S O N P A R K W A Y K E N Z I E T E R R A C E NE 2 7 T H A V E N U E NE 2 6 T H A V E N U E NE L O W R Y A V E N U E Co n t e x t M a p 2 Ex i s Ɵ n g C o n d i Ɵ o n s SOUTHERN GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT October 18, 2016 3SOUTHERN GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT October 18, 2016 Ex i s Ɵ n g C o n d i Ɵ o n s SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 LOCATION OF CONTAMINATED SO TO BE REMOVED Legend Property Boundary Contaminated Soil 0 100 200 50 Feet 1 inch = 100 feet ± Lo c a t i o n o f f o r m e r l e a k i n g u n d e r g r o u n d s t o r a g e t a n k LOCATION OF CONTAMINTED SOIL TO BE REMOVED SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 LOCATION OF FUTURE VENTING SYSTEM TO MITIGA SOIL VAPORS Legend Property Boundary Approximate Proposed Building Locations Approximate Venting System Perforated Pipe Active System Passive System 0 100 200 50 Feet 1 inch = 100 feet ± Ar e a w h e r e d r y cl e a n i n g c h e m i c a l s w e r e de t e c t e d i n s o i l v a p o r o v e r 1 0 X t h e Po l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A g e n c y l i m i t LOCATION OF FUTURE VENTING SYSTEM TO MITIGATE SOIL VAPORS SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 56 ’ 56 ’ 26 T H A V E N U E N E N E S T I N S O N P A R K W A Y K E N Z I E T E R R A C E Master Plan B u i l d i n g A 5 S t o r y Bu i l d i n g B 5 S t o r y Bu i l d i n g E 3 S t o r y 46’ TO W N H O M E S N 36 ’ Bu i l d i n g D 3 S t o r y Bu i l d i n g C 4 S t o r y 30 ’ TO W N H O M E S 36 ’ 30’ 30 ’ SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Bi r d s E y e V i e w - L o o k i n g N o r t h e a s t A A B B C C D D E E NE S T I N S O N P A R K W A Y K E N Z I E T E R R A C E 3 S t o r i e s 3 S t o r i e s 3 6 Ō 36 Ō 5 S t o r i e s 5 S t o r i e s 5 6 Ō 56 Ō 5 S t o r i e s 5 S t o r i e s 5 6 Ō 56 Ō 4 S t o r i e s 4 S t o r i e s 4 6 Ō 46 Ō 2 &3 2 & 3 S t o r i e s St o r i e s 3 S t o r i e s 3 S t o r i e s 3 6 Ō 36 Ō 2 &3 2 & 3 S t o r i e s St o r i e s 2 &3 2 & 3 S t o r i e s St o r i e s SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Pe r s p e c Ɵ v e V i e w - F r o m S Ɵ n s o n B o u l e v a r d , L o o k i n g N o r t h e a s t SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Pe r s p e c Ɵ v e V i e w - F r o m I n t e r n a l D r i v e w a y SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Vi s i o n i n g I m a g e s SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Vi s i o n i n g I m a g e s SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Vi s i o n i n g I m a g e s SO U T H E R N G A T E W A Y R E D E V E L O P M E N T Oc t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 6 Vi s i o n i n g I m a g e s NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF SKETCH PLAN APPLICATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The City of St. Anthony Village received an application for sketch plan review from The Village, LLC regarding the redevelopment of the property located at 2501 Lowry Ave (“Lowry Grove Manufactured Home Park”). Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hear details regarding the developer’s sketch plan proposal at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on October 24, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council chambers located at City Hall at 3301 Silver Lake Road. Under Section 152.209 of the City Code, a sketch plan is not considered a formal redevelopment application. Instead, a sketch plan is an informal opportunity for a developer to show the “basic intent and general nature” of a proposed redevelopment. Accordingly, the Planning Commission meeting noticed above will not be a formal public hearing and no action will be taken at the meeting. Rather, the meeting will be an opportunity for the public to hear the developer’s initial presentation of its redevelopment plans for the Lowry Grove Manufactured Home Park. If you have any questions, please contact Breanne Rothstein, City Planner, at (763) 231-4863.