Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 04212020 If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure. This meeting will be streamed live and recorded. Due to health concerns and limited seating, we encourage use of virtual option by using this link: www.savmn.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=296. There is also a dial- in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. For those not in attendance, If you wish to submit a comment or question, electronically submit your comments at www.savmn.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=296 no later than 5:30 pm on the day of the meeting. Following guidance from state health officials, some Planning Commission Members may choose to participate in upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items: I. Approval of the April 21, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Approval of the February 18, 2020 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. (action requested) III. Public Hearing. A. Consider a request for a preliminary plat to divide current parcel at 3800 Silver Lake Road into two separate parcels. IV. Staff Reports. V. Other Business. VI. Community Forum. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business 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 Planning Commission 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 APRIL 21, 2020 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 3 FEBRUARY 18, 2020 4 7:00 p.m. 5 6 CALL TO ORDER. 7 8 Chairperson Westrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11 12 Chairperson Westrick invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of 13 Allegiance. 14 15 ROLL CALL. 16 17 Commissioners Present: Chair Westrick, Commissioners Socha, Neumann, Payne, Rude, 18 Erickson, and Morita. 19 20 Absent: None 21 22 Also Present: Student Liaison Bethlehem Beyene and City Planner Stephen 23 Grittman 24 25 I. APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 18, 2020, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26 AGENDA. 27 28 Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Payne, to approve the February 29 18, 2020, Planning Commission agenda. 30 31 Motion carried 6-0, 1 abstain (Neumann). 32 33 II. APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 15, 2020, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 34 MEETING MINUTES. 35 36 Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to approve the October 37 15, 2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 38 39 Motion carried 7-0. 40 41 III. PUBLIC HEARING. 42 43 A. Consider a request for a 5-foot variance from the required 10-foot side yard 44 setback on the south side of 3404 Roosevelt Street to add a second garage stall to 45 an attached garage. 46 47 Chairperson Westrick reviewed how the public hearing will proceed this evening. 48 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 2 It was noted that Commissioner Payne would present to the City Council on Tuesday, March 1 10, 2020. 2 3 Chairperson Westrick opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. 4 5 City Planner Grittman reviewed the request for a variance to the side yard setback 6 requirement. 7 8 Chairperson Westrick asked if the applicant would like to make a presentation. 9 10 Mr. Tom Brama, applicant, addressed the Commission. 11 12 Mr. Jim Roth, 3400 Roosevelt Street, and noted he lived adjacent to the property. He 13 indicated he opposed approval of the variance and believed this was all economically driven 14 due to the owner, Mr. Travis Hoban, purchasing the property at the peak of the market and not 15 being able to get his money out of the property when he moved out of state. He explained Mr. 16 Hoban has not lived in the property and the builder is going to flip the property and the 17 property is easier to sell with a two-car garage then a one car garage. He explained on the side 18 of the house facing this proposed variance he has his first-floor bedroom along with another 19 bedroom on the second floor. His house has four bedrooms and the two largest bedrooms will 20 sit adjacent to that garage. Also, the other bedroom on the first floor will have a garage within 21 ten feet of his house and will change the light coming into that bedroom. He stated he also 22 does not know what the future use of that garage will be and with three bedrooms adjacent to 23 that garage there is no guarantee it will be used for storage of a car and could easily be turned 24 into a workshop which would be noisy. He asked the Commission to vote against granting the 25 variance. 26 27 Chairperson Westrick closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. 28 29 Commissioner Neumann noted on the application form for the City, where the signature line 30 goes, she did not see the property owners’ signature even though it shows it as being required. 31 She stated she only saw the gentleman’s signature who spoke and the date. She wondered if 32 there should be a signature from the property owner. City Planner Grittman explained the 33 City typically requires the property owner’s authorization or signature on the form or the City 34 will accept an authorized signature from an authorized representative and the applicant was 35 determined to be that authorized representative for this particular purpose. 36 37 Commissioner Neumann asked by what criteria was the applicant determined to be the 38 authorized representative. City Planner Grittman indicated he was not sure but what criteria 39 was used but staff determined that Mr. Brama was the appropriate signer and was not sure 40 what the process was. 41 42 Commissioner Erickson asked if the area currently south of the existing garage paved. City 43 Planner Grittman stated a portion of it is paved. He showed a photo showing where the area is 44 paved. He explained a portion of the impervious surface will increase slightly. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 3 Commissioner Rude asked what the reasoning for the fifteen feet total between the two 1 different sides. City Planner Grittman explained it was a code adopted by St. Anthony years 2 ago and is one that is not uncommon in suburban communities. Sometimes it is expressed as 3 being five feet on the garage side and ten feet on the living side but is not consistent 4 throughout, so this allowance is commonly seen. The primary reason for side yard setback is 5 to create spacing between housing on an individual block. 6 7 Commissioner Rude noted on this property the five-foot setback appears to be on the living 8 side of the home while the ten-foot setback is on the garage side. He asked if this was an 9 uncommon thing. City Planner Grittman indicated St. Anthony does not have a requirement 10 for where the five-foot and ten-foot setback is located on a property. 11 12 Commissioner Rude asked what the overhang of the building will be and is this included in 13 the five feet or in addition to it. City Planner Grittman explained the Code allows a foot and a 14 half to two feet, but would have to check exactly, of eve encroachment into the five-foot 15 setback so the actual edge of the roofline can be a little closer than five feet. 16 17 Commissioner Rude asked if granted the proposal would be only for a one stall garage and 18 only one story. City Planner Grittman stated that was correct. 19 20 Commissioner Socha asked if this does not get approved, would the owner plan on building a 21 rear garage or would it not be his intention. 22 23 Mr. Brama stated he has not spoken to the owner about that. One thing that is allowed in the 24 City is that if it is a detached structure it can be built within five feet of a side property, 25 regardless of where the main property sits with no variance needed. In that case, the option 26 would be to tear off the existing one car garage and access a large garage in the back of the 27 property but could also sit within five feet of the property line with no variance requested. 28 The owner felt this was the best way to accomplish this. This garage addition would be a 29 single story and the owner’s signature was turned into the City to Nicole after it was sent out 30 and sent back. 31 32 Commissioner Socha indicated this property is well under the impervious area allowed but she 33 would like to keep the trees and minimize the impervious area. She asked if the applicant 34 knew how much extra would be increased if the garage was turned into a double and also with 35 the accessory building thought about as an alternative, how much impervious area that would 36 take up. Mr. Brama explained the added impervious would be nine by twenty-two and if there 37 would be a garage added in the rear, could be well in excess of five hundred square feet and 38 would take out a couple of trees as well. 39 40 Commissioner Socha asked if an accessory structure were built instead of this addition would 41 the structure be limited to 250 square feet in total size. City Planner Grittman stated it would 42 not, the applicant would be allowed to have a two-car garage size structure, which would be in 43 the neighborhood of five hundred square feet, if the existing attached garage were to be 44 removed. 45 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 4 Commissioner Rude asked if there could be a possibility of making this a hip roof on the one 1 side versus a peaked roof. Mr. Brama indicated it could, but part of the application process is 2 the City would like to see the same construction type there, but it could be a hip roof. The 3 planned overhang on the roof is to be a maximum of six inches. 4 5 Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to recommend that 6 the City Council approve the request for a variance to the side yard setback for construction of 7 a single car garage addition, of a single story in height, with the proposed 5-foot setback at 8 3404 Roosevelt Street NE, and direct staff to prepare resolution declaring terms of the same 9 and contingent upon the conditions staff has recommended. 10 11 Commissioner Neumann stated the reason why she is voting for approval is because of the 12 criteria for the variance. When looking at proposals the Commission is supposed to only look 13 at the criteria and vote based on that. She did not think this was purely economic and would 14 be appropriate based on the criteria. She did not see what the issue would be with this 15 addition. 16 17 Commissioner Socha indicated she was torn on this variance request. She did think it was 18 reasonable to have a multi-car garage and was common in St. Anthony but there are a lot of 19 one car properties in St. Anthony as well so found it hard to see this as an extreme hardship. 20 She also felt like this is more than economic in nature and having a two-car garage is normal 21 criteria now. On the whole she thought it was a reasonable use but not an absolutely 22 necessary one. She thought it was appropriate to grant with conditions to try to protect the 23 neighboring properties concerns and would recommend approval with the two conditions 24 brought forward by staff plus two additional conditions. The first additional amendment 25 explicitly states this will be one story maximum and the second additional amendment would 26 be that it have a six-inch overhang maximum, which is what the applicant indicated they 27 planned on doing. 28 29 Chairperson Westrick asked if there was a second for the amendment to the motion. 30 Commissioner Rude seconded the amendment to the motion. 31 32 Motion to amend carried 6-1 (Neumann opposed). 33 34 Commissioner Neumann indicated adding additional conditions beyond what staff 35 recommended was too much in her opinion. 36 37 Motion as amended carried 6-1 (Neumann opposed). 38 39 IV. STAFF REPORTS – NONE. 40 41 V. OTHER BUSINESS 42 43 A. Temporary Signage Discussion 44 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 5 City Planner Grittman stated that the intent of this discussion is to determine if the City should 1 consider adopting specific regulations relating to temporary signage, and if so, what types of 2 regulations would be in keeping with the community’s overall character and expectations. 3 4 City Planner Grittman reviewed the information with the Planning Commission. 5 6 Commissioner Morita asked if right now any temporary signage in St. Anthony would be 7 illegal. City Planner Grittman indicated that was correct because there is no provision for 8 temporary signage in the City Code. 9 10 Commissioner Morita asked if the only reason this item has come up is because somebody 11 complained about this site and then the owner of the site mentioned everywhere else is doing 12 it as well. City Planner Grittman indicated that was correct. Once there is a complaint the 13 City Staff needs to follow up on that complaint. Instead of going out and ticketing everybody 14 staff wanted to raise the question if regulations should be put in place that will allow some of 15 this before heading in that direction. 16 17 Commissioner Morita asked in front of the retailers that are posting for rent available sites, 18 their only legal way of doing this is having a six-foot permanent sign. City Planner Grittman 19 explained that or it could be a part of their permanent signage. The apartment buildings that 20 have for lease banners up are also allowed some permanent signage beyond six square feet. 21 Leasing information could be placed on that allowed sign. There are options. 22 23 Commissioner Neumann proposed the City actually does what has been done historically in 24 the past which is to do a workshop specifically for this in light of the fact that this whole site 25 in itself, she did not know the legal stuff and did not personally feel comfortable having this 26 discussion with the limited time this evening and she would prefer staff collect whatever is 27 needed and then have a workshop on this discussion. 28 29 Commissioner Payne asked if the permanent sign defined in the Code. He suggested on a 30 commercial property if it has a permanent fixed sign that is smaller than the maximum 31 allowed could it go up to whatever the maximum allowed would be. No matter if temporary, 32 if combined with the permanent one would then fit within the requirements. City Planner 33 Grittman explained this could not be done. Most of the properties not only have a maximum 34 square footage but there is also a maximum number of signs allowed and materials of the code 35 indicate it needs to be a permanent structure. 36 37 Commissioner Rude asked if this would be the last input the Commission would have on this 38 topic. City Planner Grittman thought this would stand in for the workshop Commissioner 39 Neumann was referring to but this discussion would be brought back to the Commission with 40 some Code language at the next Commission meeting with further discussion for crafting the 41 Code at that meeting. He indicated he would be happy to agree with any Commission 42 requests. 43 44 Commissioner Rude explained he agreed with Commissioner Neumann that this topic does 45 require some discussion but was unsure if it should be done now or at a workshop. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 6 1 Chairperson Westrick asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop or discuss 2 this further at the meeting tonight. City Planner Grittman indicated he would like to hear from 3 the Commission to find out what additional information was needed to bring back for 4 discussion. 5 6 Commissioner Erickson thought it seemed a little unusual that the City of St. Anthony is the 7 only city in the area that does not have an allowance for temporary signs. He asked if there 8 was a reason for that. City Planner Grittman stated it is unusual and he did not know the 9 reason why the Code is written that way, but he did know that St. Anthony is and has been 10 more restrictive than other communities in a lot of its general code requirements. 11 12 Commissioner Socha thought this topic should be addressed. The size of some of the 13 temporary signage on all of the picture is a bit obnoxious. She thought the Commission 14 should schedule a workshop to review this information and give direction to staff. She 15 thought issues that were important to her were the size that is allowed, and the size maybe 16 should vary in regard to the type of property that is being used. She also thought the number 17 of words that can be on the signage should be regulated as well and the duration of the 18 temporary signage. 19 20 Commissioner Rude thought if there is a Worksession then he was not sure the pictures show 21 the best examples of what the City is trying to mimic. He wondered if the Planning 22 Commission should talk to the City Council to find out what other communities St. Anthony 23 should look like. 24 25 Commissioner Morita stated what he took as the point of the discussion was to decide whether 26 or not the Commission should pursue this as regulation or have some kind or rules about it or 27 just leave it alone. He thought the key decision right now is if the Commission thinks this is 28 something that needs to be done and move forward. He personally likes the idea of not 29 allowing temporary signage just in the sense that it gives the community a clean, aesthetic 30 class and leave the City visually appealing. He thought less is more and if doing a sign, it 31 should be a part of the regular signage. 32 33 Commissioner Neumann thought a Worksession was a place for the Commission to have a 34 lengthy discussion about it and not necessarily all agree. In this particular situation she 35 thought it needed to be discussed further. She thought at that Worksession the Commission 36 would decide whether or not to pursue a Code change and more in-depth discussion. She 37 thought this needed to be looked at because a complaint was made and that triggered a 38 process. 39 40 Commissioner Morita thought the intent was to find out if the Commission believed that the 41 temporary signage was something that they want to pursue and he thought it had nothing to do 42 with the situation at Lowry Grove and nothing to do with the depth or anything being moved, 43 it is about the temporary signage and whether or not it is allowed in the City of St. Anthony. 44 Commissioner Neumann agreed but indicated that should be discussed at a workshop versus 45 right now having an in-depth discussion, which she is not comfortable with. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 7 1 Chairperson Westrick stated City Planner Grittman’s memo did indicate there would be a 2 Worksession tonight but based on what she was hearing she thought this needed to be 3 discussed further. She asked if the Commission would like to continue discussing this item 4 tonight or schedule another workshop. 5 6 Commissioner Neumann stated this is not something that is unique and has been done in the 7 past where a workshop was scheduled for items after coming to a meeting. 8 9 Commissioner Socha thought less is more because it is cleaner and nice. St. Anthony does 10 have an obligation to think about its businesses as well which the City does not have as 11 thriving of a community as some and she was for the idea of exploring temporary signage 12 further because she did think that it is important for businesses to succeed to have good sign 13 options but should be done in a responsible manner. She thought this was more than what the 14 Commission is up for tackling tonight and another Worksession where the Commission has a 15 little more direction would be an appropriate thing. 16 17 Commissioner Erickson agreed completely with Commissioner Socha that less is more and 18 there is a desire to have a community that is free of visual eyesores but do not want to create 19 an atmosphere so prohibiting of signs which would create an atmosphere of possibly 20 discouraging business. For that reason, the Commission should explore allowing this in some 21 sort of reasonable way. 22 23 Commissioner Payne asked if it would be helpful to have staff put together an ordinance to 24 look at for the next Worksession. He thought it would be helpful to him. 25 26 City Planner Grittman asked what kind of information he could bring forward that would be 27 helpful to the Commission at a Worksession meeting. He noted he would be happy to put 28 together a draft ordinance. 29 30 The Commission agreed to have a draft ordinance made up for further discussion. 31 32 City Planner Grittman asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop meeting 33 for 5:30p.m. before the Commission meeting in March. The Commission was in favor of this. 34 35 Commission Consensus was to schedule a workshop meeting on March 17th at 5:30 p.m. 36 before the Planning Commission meeting. 37 38 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE. 39 40 41 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 42 43 City Planner Grittman thought City staff had the last little bit of information the Met Council 44 has asked the City to provide for the Comprehensive Plan. The document has not gone to the 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes February 18, 2020 Page 8 Community Development Committee yet, but he thought they are finally ready to put it 1 forward for Met Council approval and will go forward to the City Council for approval. 2 3 VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 4 5 Motion by Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Neumann, to adjourn the 6 meeting. 7 8 Motion carried 7-0. 9 10 Chairperson Westrick adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. 11 12 Respectfully submitted, 13 Sue Osbeck 14 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 15 MEMORANDUM To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: Planning Commission Meeting – April 21, 2020 NAC Project No. 323.01 – 20.02 Request: Request for a Preliminary and Final Plat for Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition Property Address: 3800 Silver Lake Road NE Property PID: 313023340028 STAFF RECOMMENDATION The project consists of a subdivision of the development parcel for the Silver Lake Village multi- family apartment project (currently Lot 2, Silver Lake Village) into two parcels generally reflecting the two building wings of the approved project. The Plat, if approved, would create Lots 1 and 2 of the Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition. The boundaries of the Salo Pond site, legally Outlot B of Silver Lake Village, are not proposed to change, and the legal description will remain as a part of the original plat. Thus, while Salo Pond was a component of the PUD amendment, it is not included in the proposed replat. Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the Silver Lake Village PUD as a baseline. In summary, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the terms and requirements of the approved PUD Amendment, adopted by the City Council in December of 2019. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Doran SLV, LLC Owner: Doran SLV, LLC Location: 3800 Silver Lake Road Existing Land Use Vacant Retail Building and Parking Lot (currently being demolished) Zoning: PUD, Silver Lake Village PUD Surrounding Land North: Retail Commercial zoned Silver Lake Village PUD April 21, 2020 Page 2 Use / Zoning: East: Retail Pad Sites – Coffee Shop/Gas Station zoned PUD South: Railroad, then Commercial/Industrial zoned L-I, Light Industrial West: Multiple Family Residential zoned PUD Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: April 6, 2020 Action: 120 Days: August 4, 2020 ANALYSIS 1. Background In December of 2019, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Silver Lake Village Planned Unit Development zoning district approving the redevelopment of the Walmart site as a 496 unit multiple family residential project. The applicant proposed a two-phase multiple family residential project, including a community building and significant site improvements. At the time of the PUD approval, the developer anticipated development on the existing single parcel, legally described as Lot 2, Silver Lake Village. The PUD also included the Salo Pond open space, Outlot B of Silver Lake Village. The development parcels in question are shown on the zoning map below, and are 13 acres in total area. Subsequent to that approval, the applicant has decided to seek a subdivision of the parcel to separate the first phase (which includes the north building of 258 units and the community building, along with associated underground and surface parking) from the second phase, which includes the south building of 238 units, along with additional parking and site improvements. Such subdivisions of multi-phase projects are not uncommon, and often undertaken to separate financing of current construction from future aspects of the project. The applicant is not proposing any long-term changes to the approved PUD, and the terms of the PUD would continue to apply to both phases and parcels. What will change are some of the interim site improvements – although those changes are the result of construction phasing more than a result of the plat. The applicant is seeking to modify emergency vehicle response on the property prior to the second phase of the building, holding more permanent pavement improvements on the south parcel until the second phase is underway. As noted above, the Salo Pond outlot (Outlot B of Silver Lake Village) will not change in boundary or improvements from its original plat and PUD improvements. As such, the proposed subdivision affects only the apartment site, splitting the existing single parcel into two separate development parcels. The site location is shown on the zoning map below. April 21, 2020 Page 3 2. Analysis Preliminary Plat With only limited exceptions, the subdivision of a parcel into two or more development parcels is done via a plat, which is a mapped and surveyed document recorded with the County that will officially created the separate legal parcels. Platting is regulated by the Subdivision Ordinance, which establishes two steps for consideration of a plat: Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. The Preliminary Plat is a record drawing that illustrates the subdivision lines, but also includes a visual description of the improvements proposed as a part of the plat. The purpose of the Preliminary Plat is to ensure that the proposed improvements on the new parcel can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the City’s zoning, building, engineering, and other public safety standards. As a stand-alone process, Preliminary Plat carries the burden of proving the physical viability of a proposed development before the City approves the final subdivision – this ensures that parcels are not conveyed separately that cannot be reasonably developed. April 21, 2020 Page 4 When a Plat is a part of a Planned Unit Development project, the platting aspect is often subsumed by the PUD review, since the PUD will manage the several zoning particulars that apply to the site. A PUD is treated as a single development site – even though it may be broken up into several separate legal land parcels. When this project was initially conceived, the applicants utilized the PUD process to define the various aspects of the proposal, including Architecture, Site Planning, Grading and Drainage control, Utility services, Emergency vehicle response, and every other factor. With the PUD in place, development details are specified under the terms of the PUD zoning and development agreements. Platting the property after the fact is intended, in this case, as primarily a financing mechanism that will have no impact on the PUD approvals. Even though a separate parcel could be conveyed to another owner, the PUD regulations would follow the parcel, and the City’s development agreements would apply to any new owner. As such, the subdivision raises very few new issues that have not already been addressed by the PUD zoning. The standard for reviewing a Preliminary Plat is whether the proposed plat conforms to the requirements of the applicable zoning, and the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. As noted, the applicable zoning in this case is the Silver Lake Village PUD, which will be unaffected by the subdivision. When Preliminary Plat is granted, the applicant obtains some specific development rights, subject to meeting any attached preliminary plat conditions, and final plat processing. It should be noted that while the plat will create two lots, and the PUD contemplates two phases, some of the Phase I improvements will be constructed on Lot 2. This is the result of grading operations, parking lot construction, and certain emergency response requirements prior to the construction of Phase 2. As discussed previously, however, final PUD requirements will continue to apply, and full build out of the project will be required to comply with the terms of the approved PUD. Final Plat. The Final Plat is the recorded document that establishes the new parcels and boundaries. The Final Plat is a simple map of the proposed subdivision land, without the development details shown on the Preliminary Plat. The standard for reviewing a Final Plat is very simple: does it conform to the requirements and conditions of Preliminary Plat approval. If so, the City’s role in Final Plat consideration is merely administrative. The Final Plat drawing is reviewed to ensure that it reflects preliminary requirements, and is then ready for recording. The proposed Final Plat is consistent with the submitted Preliminary Plat. Subject to final staff review, the plat appears to be the proper form for approval and recording. April 21, 2020 Page 5 Park Dedication. As a component of plat review, the City is permitted by state law to require a portion of land (or a cash payment in lieu of land) to be set aside for park and open space uses. The PUD process also allows for park dedication since it can create park demand without new subdivision. At the time of the PUD approval for this project, it was determined that adequate land areas had already been addressed by the original Silver Lake Village PUD, and that no new dedication requirement was necessary. This would be applicable to the current plat proposal as well. It should be noted that while public park was not required, there are several trail and sidewalk connections that are a component of the PUD which will benefit both residents of the project and the community at large in and around the project area. Comprehensive Plan. The City’s draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan is presently under review by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council has classified St. Anthony Village as an “urban community.” “Urban communities” are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 10 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, “urban communities” are expected to target opportunities for intensive development near regional transit investments. The City’s draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the former Walmart site as a priority redevelopment opportunity. Recognizing that the City is expected to accommodate an increase in population and that little to no vacant land presently exists, redevelopment of previously developed sites is considered the primary means of achieving the City’s residential density objectives. The Land Use Plan included in the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan directs commercial use of the subject site. The Plan also notes however, that high density residential redevelopment (within Area 7) is specifically encouraged and allowed on the subject site. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also establishes a desired density range of 20 to 40 units per acre for high density residential development. The applicant has proposed a residential density of 35.7 units per acre (464 dwelling units/13 acres) which is within the density range directed by the draft 2040 Plan. With the preceding in mind, the proposed redevelopment project is considered consistent with the City’s 2040Comprehensive Plan. Emergency Vehicle Access. As a part of the review process, emergency services (fire and police) have reviewed the project and made a finding that proper emergency vehicle access is provided. As noted, the emergency access will be modified from the initial PUD approval to accommodate phased site improvements. As a part of Final PUD approval, the submitted development plans should be subject to review and comment by the Fire Chief. April 21, 2020 Page 6 Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the project at the PUD stage, and has noted that issues related to civil plans will require follow- up, but none that will impact the Preliminary Plat documents or the general site planning. Final review of these aspects of the plan would be a condition of Plat approval. Development Agreement. As a condition of Final Plat approval, the applicant would be required to enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. While the PUD development agreement will continue to control all aspects of site development, there are likely to be slight amendments required to accommodate the changes in legal description and some of the phased improvements. The applicant should expect to cooperate with development agreement amendments in this context. 3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for Plat Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 151, Subdivision Code. SUMMARY AND STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary and Final Plat for Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition - Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. Access and utility easements shall be in place to accommodate the requirements of the approved PUD development plans. Proof of such easements shall be provided to the City as a part of the original or amended documentation. 2. Ongoing site development issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer, and may be modified to ensure consistency with the intent and requirements of the PUD zoning. 3. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 4. The applicant enter into any modifications to the PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 5. Consideration of comments of other City Staff. This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposal, with the conditions cited, is consistent with the requirements for Plat consideration as required by the Subdivision Ordinance, with the long-term objectives of the Silver Lake Village PUD, and with the recommendations and policies of the St. Anthony Comprehensive Plan. April 21, 2020 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material Exhibit C: Draft City Council resolution THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 21, 2020 3800 Silver Lake Road NE Doran SLV: Preliminary Plat and Final Plat – Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT –SITE LOCATION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT -ZONING FINAL PLAN PUD –PROPOSED SITE PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAT –SILVER LAKE VILLAGE 3RD ADDITION FINAL PLAT –SILVER LAKE VILLAGE 3RD ADDITION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT–SUBDIVISION CONSIDERATIONS Consistency with the approval PUD zoning requirements. Consistency with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Final Plat consistency with the terms and conditions of the approved Preliminary Plat. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT –PRIMARY STAFF COMMENTS 1.Access and utility easements shall be in place to accommodate the requirements of the approved PUD development plans. Proof of such easements shall be provided to the City as a part of the original or amended documentation. 2.Ongoing site development issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer, and may be modified to ensure consistency with the intent and requirements of the PUD zoning. 3.Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 4.The applicant enter into any modifications to the PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 5.Consideration of comments of other City Staff. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT–PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Consideration of recommending approval for a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition as presented by Doran SLV, and with conditions, including those recommended by staff. CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. _____________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT AS “SILVER LAKE VILLAGE 3RD ADDITION”, CREATING TWO DEVELOPMENT PARCELS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE SILVER LAKE VILLAGE PUD AT 3800 SILVER LAKE ROAD WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village previously approved a request from Doran SLV for an amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD, redeveloping the site from a retail facility to a multiple family residential development in two buildings at 3800 Silver Lake Road, legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, and Outlot B, Silver Lake Village; and WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately 13 acres is located in the Silver Lake Village PUD district; and WHEREAS, the subject Lot 2 has been occupied by a vacant retail facility; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to subdivide said Lot 2 into two development parcels, each of which will contain a portion of the overall development; and WHEREAS, the development plans for the overall Silver Lake Village PUD will not change as a result of the plat; and WHEREAS, the project continues to be consistent with the St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan related to the conversion of this portion of the Silver Lake Village PUD from commercial use to multiple family residential use; and WHEREAS, the phasing of the development shall be governed by the PUD, irrespective of the subdivision lot lines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 21, 2020 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat and Final Plat with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as modified below; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution for approval: 1. The property is located in an area of mixed commercial and residential use. 2. The proposed improvements to the property are consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 3. The subdivision does not affect the development aspects of the PUD, and the terms of the approved PUD continue to regulate the development project. 4. With the proposed plat, under conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property. 5. The redevelopment of the subject site has been an important objective for the community, including a highlighted goal of the Comprehensive Plan, and the subdivision furthers that objective. 6. The proposed Plat of Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition will accommodate reasonable use without negative impacts on neighboring property nor on public improvements and services. NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff report and approves Preliminary and Final Plat for the Silver Lake Village 3rd Addition at 3800 Silver Lake Road NE: 1. Easements shall be reviewed and regulated as approved under the PUD. 2. The applicant enters into any modifications of the PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it, if determined necessary to effect the terms of the PUD zoning approval. 3. Consideration of comments of other City Staff. Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ___ day of ____, 2020. ____________________________________ Randy Stille, Mayor ATTEST:____________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Review for Administration: ____________________________________ Mark Casey, City Manager NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on April 21, 2020, 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 for a preliminary plat to divide current parcel at 3800 Silver Lake Road into two separate parcels. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on May 12, 2020 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 763-957-1100. The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com . Steve Grittman City Planner