Chair: John Ross Vice-Chair: Mike Madland Commissioners: Ryan Briese Tim Felton Justin Humenik John Mandt Jason Pachl City of South St. Paul Planning Commission Agenda Wednesday, July 9, 2014 7:00 p.m. City of South St. Paul 125 Third Avenue North South St. Paul, MN 55075 Phone: (651) 554-3217 Fax: (651) 554-3211 Web: www.southstpaul.org Hearing assistance PA system is available if you need a hearing assistance unit please notify City staff before the meeting. (If you use the hearing assistance PA system, please remove your hearing aid so it does not cause a feedback problem) Roll Call 1. Agenda 2. Minutes A. June 4, 2014 Meeting 3. Public Hearings A. Kaposia Education Center Sign and Parking (1225 1 st Ave. S.): A Site Plan amendment to an approved CUP for an addition to the parking lot and a sign variance for a monument sign. B. Grace Church Sign Variance (155 8 th Ave. S.): Variances to allow a monument sign with an electronic face to be located at the SW corner of the property. C. Fury Motors Temporary Parking IUP (1031 Concord St. S.): An IUP/variances for a temporary parking lot on the vacant property. D. Street Renaming Schumacher Road (proposed to become Mathias Avenue) 4. New Business A. (none) 5. Other Business A. Updates: 6. Adjournment Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 6, 2014 This meeting is being taped by Town Square Television (NDC4): phone: 651-451-7834 web: www.townsquare.tv Replays can be viewed on Government Channel 19 on the Thursday following meeting at 1:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF MEETING SOUTH ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION June 4, 2014 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY COMMISSIONER JOHN ROSS AT 7:00 P.M. Present: John Ross Absent: Michael Madland John Mandt Jason Pachl Timothy Felton Ryan Briese Justin Humenik Peter Hellegers, City Planner 1) APPROVAL OF AGENDA approved Madland/Humenik (6-0) 2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES for May 7, 2014 approved Pachl/Madland (6-0) 3) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Bridgepoint Business Park 2 nd Addition Preliminary and Final Plat (305 Bridgepoint Dr./201 Armour Ave.): A preliminary and final plat to subdivide the property into 2 lots. This would facilitate development goals and make it easier for the developer to complete the proposed projects. Property would be split in an east/west direction into approximately 8 acre lots. Easements would be re-dedicated on this 2 nd addition. (Commissioner Briese arrives) Eric Simmer, Interstate Partners, was present to answer questions. Motion to approve as presented Humenik/Mandt (7-0) B. Southview Hill Area Plan: Consider approval of an area plan for the Southview and Marie area. Input from citizens and guidance from the Stantec study have provided the opportunity to develop a plan or a concept for the area. Phil Carlson, Senior Planner from Stantec, was present for questions. There was some discussion on incentives for businesses, traffic, HRA and other involvement, high-density residential housing etc. Motion for approval Humenik/Mandt 5 1 no (Madland), 1 abstain (Felton)
4) NEW BUSINESS A. (none) 5) OTHER BUSINESS A. MNRAA B. Bike and Pedestrian Plan C. Southview Boulevard D. Long grass/code Enforcement Motion to adjourn - Briese/Madland
Planning Commission Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 City of South St. Paul Planning Commission Report - REVISED - PC Agenda Item: 3.A Project Name: Kaposia Education Center - CUP / Variance Site Address: 1225 1 st Avenue South PID: multiple PID s Applicant: Wold Architects for SSP Schools Request: Consider the request for sign variance and a site plan amendment to the CUP for a small addition to the parking lot Proceeding: Public Hearing / Planning Commission Recommendation Tentative City Council Meeting Date: July 21, 2014 Deadline: August 10, 2014 Exhibits: *The City must act on this request by this 60-day review period deadline unless the city provides the applicant with written reasons for why additional time, up to a maximum of 120 days, is required. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days but only with the applicant s consent. A. Location map B. Materials submitted by the applicant BACKGROUND Wold Architects on behalf of Special School District #6 has filed an application for an amendment to the site plan for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that was approved in 2013 which included a 6,500 square foot addition to the south side of the Kaposia Education Center. Originally that proposal had included 15 spaces to be added onto the parking lot plus another 30 parking spaces in a new lot at the northeast corner of the site. Eventually both the parking lot addition and new parking lot were scrapped and the school agreed to monitor parking on the site to determine the average number of open parking spaces. What they found was that there was an average of 8 parking spaces open and there was still a need to add some additional parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows an addition of 11 parking spaces at the north end of the parking lot with landscaping north of the spaces to provide some screening. The second part of the application is a variance request for a monument sign. This variance was approved in 2009 but was never built. The request is to allow that same variance which was previously approved, 12 square feet, for a monument sign (total size of 24 square feet) that would be located south of the southern driveway along the west side of the property. U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - SSP Schools - Kaposia Site Plan and Sign Variance - corrected.doc Page 1 of 6
Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-2: Duplex Residence South East West Future Land Use Plan Existing Land Use Zoning Property Size Topography Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Institutional Institutional (school) R-2: Duplex Residence R-2: Duplex Residence R-2: Duplex Residence Subject Property Site Data R-2: Duplex Residence / P: Public Overlay 8.15 acres (355,014 square feet) Reasonably flat Detached Single Family Residential Detached Single Family Residential Detached Single Family Residential Detached Single Family Residential ZONING SUMMARY: Bulk Requirements Required Proposed Lot area N/A N/A Minimum Building Size N/A N/A Lot Coverage 75% 22% Setbacks: Front yard (south) 25 ft. N/A Front yard (west) 25 ft. N/A Rear yard (east) 25 ft. N/A Site Design Required Proposed Landscape Standards: Landscape lot area 25 % 59 % Other Critical Zoning Items Floodplain No Shoreland No MNRRA No Utility easements No EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The code review has been divided into categories to simplify the review. 1. Use: The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for a land use which is generally compatible with all other uses in the district where it is located but should not be permitted as a matter of right in every area within the district because of special circumstances that the use or location may present. Therefore the CUP is judged on the basis of standards and criteria specified in the code (see below) and the City is allowed to impose appropriate conditions and restrictions on the CUP. The Zoning U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - SSP Schools - Kaposia Site Plan and Sign Variance - corrected.doc Page 2 of 6
Code instructs the Planning Commission and City Council to make the following findings when considering a CUP: Conditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed conditional use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood, and in consideration of this question the comparison of the use shall be with respect to uses that are permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in the district which the use is located. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of property in the neighborhood for uses permitted in the district affected. Adequate utilities, access roads, streets, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been provided. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in such a manner as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards in the public streets. Staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that the use conforms to the general purpose of the Zoning Code. The property is located in the R-2 zoning district which allows for schools as conditional uses. Furthermore the site plan change would only add 11 parking spaces to the northern end of the existing parking lot and would provide landscape screening between the parking and properties to the north. This change provides some needed additional parking spaces while minimizing impacts on the adjacent property. 2. Variance Findings (for the building addition portion of the application) In variance cases the City is required to make findings in regard to practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance as defined by State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 and in City Code Section 118-39. The City must make the following findings in considering approval of a variance: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance b. The terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and c. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. (Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties). Practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that: i. The property owner proposes to utilize the property in a reasonable manner. ii. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the property owner, and iii. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - SSP Schools - Kaposia Site Plan and Sign Variance - corrected.doc Page 3 of 6
Staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that the use conforms to the general purpose of the Zoning Code and with conditions should not substantially diminish or impair property values, will not impede the normal and orderly development of property in the neighborhood, already has adequate utilities, and as an existing building has adequate ingress and egress. 3. Lighting: The proposed monument sign would be lit but the lighting would be timed to turn off at night with the parking lot lights. 4. Screening: Landscape screening would be used to screen the parking spaces from the properties to the north. Code would require that this screening to screen the headlight level of the vehicles, typically 2 ½ to 3 ½ feet in height. A landscape plan will be required at the time a building permit application is submitted. 5. Public Correspondence / Correspondence from Neighboring Property Owners: Following is a summary of questions/comments received before from when the CUP for the addition to the school and parking lot addition were proposed in 2013 which are related to the current proposal for an addition to the parking lot: What are the street widths in the area? Syndicate seems narrower so it s probably not as good of a location to put additional parking. o (from staff) Here are the street widths: Dale Street East 32.5 feet back of curb to back of curb. Syndicate Avenue 32 feet (b-b) Spruce Street East 33.5 feet (b-b) 1 st Avenue South 32.5 feet (b-b) Regarding the addition to the existing parking lot; with the proposed access directly to Dale Street, the neighbors across the street feel like they re getting all of the burden (versus sending the outward traffic to 1 st Avenue). Why have the access to Dale as opposed to 1 st Avenue South? What about parking lot screening for properties to the north where are the shrubs or fencing on their side? They could potentially fit in 5-10 more parking spaces at the NW portion of the site if they kept the existing parking lot access instead of the new one, why not do that instead of the planned north access to Dale Street? Concerns in regard to the sign from 2009 were whether the sign would be lit and how it would impact the adjacent homes. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following actions available on the proposed application: A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the application to be acceptable, the following action should be recommended for approval: Approval of a Site Plan Amendment for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Sign Variance of 12 square feet for a monument sign to be located south of the southern U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - SSP Schools - Kaposia Site Plan and Sign Variance - corrected.doc Page 4 of 6
driveway to Kaposia Education Center at 1225 1 st Avenue South, subject to the following conditions: 1) Compliance with Plan Submittals. The site shall be utilized in substantial conformance with the application, narratives, and plans as noted below, on file with the Engineering Department, unless otherwise noted herein: a) Application/Narrative (Wold Architects) dated 06/12/2014 b) Revised Site Plan (Wold Architects) dated 07/09/2014 c) Sign Plans/ Rendering (Wold Architects/SSD#6) dated 01/2009-04/2009 2) Landscaping Plans. Landscaping plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. Landscaping plans shall include a planting schedule detailing the species, number of trees, and size of the trees to be planted. Landscape screening shall be required north of the additional parking spaces with the purpose of screening the adjacent properties from headlight glare. 3) Signage Plans / Permits. Signage plans and Sign permits are required and are subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. 4) Building Plans / Building Permits. All building plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Building Official and South Metro Fire Marshal. 5) Compliance with Building and Fire Codes. The buildings must meet any and all building and fire codes, subject to the review and approval of the City Building Official and the City Fire Marshal, prior to occupancy of the building. 6) Parking on Hard-Surfaced Areas Only. All off-street driveway and parking areas must be hard-surfaced (concrete or asphalt), and perimetered with integral concrete curbing. 7) Maintenance of Landscaped Areas. The applicant or their successors and assigns shall be responsible for the on-going maintenance of the landscaped areas. This includes guaranteeing the health and viability of the proposed tree plantings. 8) Compliance with Laws and Approvals. The property must remain compliant with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances and all prior City approvals. B. Denial. If the Planning Commission does not favor the proposed application or portions thereof, the above requested should be recommended for denial. If the Planning Commission recommends denial, then findings of the basis for denial should be given. 1. The proposed use is not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the plan, in that: a. STAFF ANALYSIS U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - SSP Schools - Kaposia Site Plan and Sign Variance - corrected.doc Page 5 of 6
Staff has reviewed the proposal and believes that the proposed parking lot addition would provide some needed parking spaces while being of minimal impact on adjacent properties, particularly with the screening. The proposed sign is the same scope as the one previously STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Amendment for a Conditional Use Permit to add 11 parking spaces to the existing lot and Sign Variance of 12 square feet for a 24 square-foot monument sign subject to the conditions of approval noted above. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Hellegers Peter Hellegers, City Planner U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - SSP Schools - Kaposia Site Plan and Sign Variance - corrected.doc Page 6 of 6
Planning Commission Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 City of South St. Paul Planning Commission Report PC Agenda Item: 3.B Project Name: Grace Church Sign Variances Site Address: 155 8 th Ave. S. PID: 363255004150 363255004120 Applicant(s): Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church Request: Consider the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an electronic message center (EMC) sign on the proposed monument, a variance for a 2 nd freestanding sign which would be within 50 feet of an existing sign, and a related variance for the location of the proposed sign which would encroach into the corner clear vision area. Proceeding: Public Hearing / Planning Commission Recommendation Tentative City Council Meeting Date: July 21, 2014 Deadline: August 16, 2014* Exhibits: *The City must act on this request by this 60-day review period deadline unless the city provides the applicant with written reasons for why additional time, up to a maximum of 120 days, is required. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days but only with the applicant s consent. A. Location maps B. Materials submitted by the applicant BACKGROUND Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church currently has a small V-shaped monument sign at the middle of the south side of their property. The sign has a manually changeable message board and due to its location does not provide sufficient signage to traffic on Southview Boulevard, it mainly serves pedestrians. This existing sign is proposed to remain for historical reasons. Grace Church is proposing to install a 4-foot by 8-foot cabinet style monument sign that would include an electronic message center sign. The EMC sign would be required to follow City Code with regard to a minimum of an 8 second static display, maximum brightness that can adjust for time of day, be equipped with an off switch for if the sign malfunctions, etc. The corner clear vision area requires that the sign be setback consistent with a line 15 feet from the intersection of the property line (back of the sidewalk) while the proposal would have the sign set back only 12 feet back. This area currently has shrubbery and a flagpole in the area, the shrubs would be removed and the flag pole would abut the proposed sign. Finally, the code allows just one freestanding sign per property except where the property has more than 1 street face, there the code allows 1 additional sign but the signs are required to be at least 100 feet apart. The proposed sign would not meet this 100-foot distance from the existing sign U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Grace Church Sign Variance - 155 8th Ave S.doc Page 1 of 5
Direction North South East West Future Land Use Plan Existing Land Use Zoning Property Size Topography Future Land Use Plan (Southview Hill Plan) Commercial (Mixed Use) Commercial (Commercial) Commercial (Mixed Use) Commercial (Mixed Use) Surrounding Area Zoning R-2: Single and Two Family Residential C-1: Retail Business C-1: Retail Business C-1: Retail Business Subject Property Site Data Institutional (Mixed Use in Southview Hill Plan) Church / Parish house C-1: Retail Business.45 acres (19,699 square feet) Relatively flat Existing Land Use Detached Single Family Residential Gas Station Commercial / Detached Single Family Residential Office Bldg./ parking EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST A. CUP / VARIANCE Following are standards from the City s Zoning Code that apply to specifically to the application. 1. Zoning signs The Code allows for 1 freestanding sign per street frontage with a minimum of 100 feet is to be left between signs on different street frontages. Aggregate property signage for a property in the C-1 zoning district is 150 square feet with a maximum sign size of 100 square feet for any one sign. Monument signs have a maximum height of 6 feet in the C-1 zoning district. A clear vision area triangle is required at all street corners which prohibits items between 2 and 10 feet in height from being placed in an area within 15 feet of the intersection of the property lines. This corner currently has shrubs and a flag pole and only a small area to fit the proposed sign. Staff also shared the proposed sign variance application with Dakota County staff to ensure that the proposed location would not be a problem as Southview Boulevard is a County Road. An electronic message center (EMC) sign (aka dynamic display sign) requires a Conditional Use Permit for approval and must meet the following standards: a. The sign display cannot change more than once every 8 seconds b. Each EMC sign must be at least 1,500 feet from any other EMC sign c. Each EMC sign must be at least 75 feet from a residential use d. Brightness daytime maximum 5,000 NITs, nighttime maximum 500 NITs e. Dimmer control the sign must have an automatic dimmer control to produce a distinct illumination change from a higher illumination level to a lower level for the half hour before sunset and the half hour after sunrise. Signs must also be equipped so that the owner can immediately turn off the sign if the display or lighting if it malfunctions. U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Grace Church Sign Variance - 155 8th Ave S.doc Page 2 of 5
2. CUP Findings The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for a land use which is generally compatible with all other uses in the district where it is located but should not be permitted as a matter of right in every area within the district because of special circumstances that the use or location may present. Therefore the CUP is judged on the basis of standards and criteria specified in the code (see below) and the City is allowed to impose appropriate conditions and restrictions on the CUP. The Zoning Code instructs the Planning Commission and City Council to make the following findings when considering a CUP: Conditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed conditional use conforms to the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. The conditional use will not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood, and in consideration of this question the comparison of the use shall be with respect to uses that are permitted without a Conditional Use Permit in the district which the use is located. The conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of property in the neighborhood for uses permitted in the district affected. Adequate utilities, access roads, streets, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been provided. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in such a manner as to minimize traffic congestion and hazards in the public streets. Staff has reviewed the proposal and determined that the use conforms to the general purpose of the Zoning Code. The property is located in the C-1 zoning district which allows for dynamic display signs (EMC) as conditional uses. Furthermore the dynamic display would be more than 75 feet from the closest residential property. The sign will be required to meet the code standards for electronic signs which should also minimize potential impacts. 3. Variance Findings In variance cases the City is required to make findings in regard to practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance as defined by State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 and in City Code Section 118-39. The City must make the following findings in considering approval of a variance: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance b. The terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and c. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. (Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties). Practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that: U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Grace Church Sign Variance - 155 8th Ave S.doc Page 3 of 5
i. The property owner proposes to utilize the property in a reasonable manner. ii. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the property owner, and iii. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following actions available on the proposed application: A. Approval. If the Planning Commission has review the application and determined that the application is consistent with the Variance findings (see p.3-4 of this report), then staff would recommend the following conditions for a recommendation for approval: Approval of a CUP and Variances for a monument sign with a dynamic display (EMC) sign including; a CUP for a dynamic display sign, a 3-foot variance from the corner clear vision area, a variance of 60-feet for the distance between freestanding signs, for the property located at 155 8 th Avenue South subject to the following conditions: 1) Compliance with Plan Submittals. The site shall be utilized in substantial conformance, in the reasonable opinion of the City Council, with the application, narratives, and with the following plans on file with the Engineering Department: a) Application/Narrative (Grace Church) dated 06/18/2014 b) Site Plan/Rendering (Grace Church) dated 06/18/2014 c) EMC Sign elevation (Stewart Signs) dated 02/12/2014 2) Building Permits Required. Building Permits are required for the proposed improvements. All building plans and specifications are subject to the review and approval of the City Building Official and South Metro Fire Marshal. 3) Sign Permits Required. The applicant shall file the necessary sign permit application and supplementary material as necessary and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Planner. 4) Base/Support for the Monument Sign. The monument sign shall have a face that may be supported between two columns or a solid base the columns or solid base shall be brick, stone, stucco, rock-faced block or similar materials consistent with City Code. Incorporating the sign into planting area with low-rise plantings is encouraged. 5) Illumination Restrictions for EMC Sign. The illumination of the electronic restricted to the hours between 7 am and 10 pm. There shall be no illumination of the sign between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. 6) Necessary Approvals from Other Agencies. The applicant shall obtain all U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Grace Church Sign Variance - 155 8th Ave S.doc Page 4 of 5
necessary approvals/permits from the State of Minnesota, Dakota County and any other applicable regulatory agencies. 7) Compliance with Laws and Approvals. The property must remain compliant with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances and all prior City approvals. 8) Termination of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. The Conditional Use Permit / Variance will terminate if improvements have not substantially begun within 1-year from the date of approval of the Conditional Use Permit / Variance. 9) Review of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. The Conditional Use Permit and Variance will be reviewed in approximately 1 year to determine compliance with the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit / Variance. B. Denial. If the Planning Commission does not favor the proposed application or portions thereof, the above requested should be recommended for denial. If the Planning Commission recommends denial, then findings of the basis for denial should be given. Denial of the CUP/Variances for a monument sign with a dynamic display component for the property located at 155 8 th Avenue South for the following reasons: STAFF ANALYSIS The idea behind the sign seems to make sense in that the existing monument, while blending into the aesthetic of the church, doesn t seem to serve the real signage need for the church anymore. The location of the original sign is not ideal and the sign face is a too small for vehicular traffic. Therefore proposing a new sign at the corner makes sense with the potential for more visibility for the signage at a size that people could easily see from vehicles on Southview. The one-sided orientation to the SW also makes sense in that that is really the only option give the constraints of the building footprint behind the sign. Keeping the existing sign also makes sense in that it again blends like a piece of the church and that would still be the only sign location that would be visible for westbound traffic on Southview. Staff held some concerns with the proposed location of the sign and potential for the sign to impact adjacent residential properties. In particular pushing the sign staff does have reservations about pushing the sign into the clear vision area. However, the area does have shrubs, a flag pole, and close by there are the building walls so the difference may not be that much of an impact. Having the sign illumination turn off by a certain time at night would also be a good step to lessen potential impacts for nearby residential properties. Staff has recommended the same time restrictions that are in place for the EMC sign at Southview Shopping Center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the CUP/variances for a monument sign with an EMC component on the property located at 155 8 th Avenue South, subject to the conditions listed in this report. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Hellegers Peter Hellegers, City Planner U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Grace Church Sign Variance - 155 8th Ave S.doc Page 5 of 5
Planning Commission Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2014 City of South St. Paul Planning Commission Report PC Agenda Item: 3.C Project Name: Fury Motors Interim Use Permit (IUP) Site Address: 1031 Concord Street South PID s: (multiple # s) Applicant: Fury Motors Request: Consider the request for an IUP (and related variances*) to allow a temporary parking lot on the vacant property at 1031 Concord Street South Proceeding: Public Hearing / Planning Commission Recommendation Tentative City Council July 21, 2014 Meeting Date: Deadline: August 28, 2014* *The City must act on this request by this 60-day review period deadline unless the city provides the applicant with written reasons for why additional time, up to a maximum of 120 days, is required. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days but only with the applicant s consent. Exhibits: A. Location Map, Previous B. Materials submitted by the applicant BACKGROUND Fury Motors is proposing an Interim Use Permit to use the vacant HRA owned property across Concord Street from their operation to have additional employee parking. The reason for the request, Fury reports, is that they have grown substantially since they moved to the site in 1998. The number of employees has jumped from 39 to 153 (116 FT, 37 PT) and car sales have also increased threefold during that time. Fury has also experience significant growth in their repair business. This winter Fury employees began parking along Malden Street and on Schumacher Road where the streets are not signed no parking so cars may be parked there. The parking on these streets has caused some friction in the area as area property owners have noted the area being much more constricted from the parked cars. Additionally construction at Mathias Die and Cemstone as well as existing truck traffic to other area businesses has meant additional crowding on the streets and made truck travel through the area precarious. Fury has talked to City and HRA staff several times over the last several months about their parking needs and the potential for installing a temporary parking lot on this location. Use of this property as just a parking lot is not in the City or HRA s long term interest. However, the City and HRA both recognize Fury s need to accommodate their vehicles. Staff has asked Fury to consider other suggestions as well such as; utilizing other existing parking lots or storage areas for temporary parking, or more permanent fixes such as converting more on-site space to surface parking or acquiring other properties to have more opportunities for parking. Fury is proposing to pave the U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 1 of 7
parking on the vacant lot and lease the property from the HRA for 3 years with the potential for additional 1 year extensions of the lease. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Light Industrial I: Industrial Light Industrial South Mixed Use - Commercial GB: General Business Commercial East Light Industrial I: Industrial Heavy Industrial West Commercial GB: General Business Commercial Future Land Use Plan Existing Land Use Zoning Property Size Topography Subject Property Site Data Light Industrial Vacant (previously car wash / furniture store) GB: General Business 1.13 acres (49,223 square feet) Primarily flat, slopes downward at eastern property line, slopes downward at north ZONING SUMMARY: Bulk Requirements Required Proposed Setbacks: Front yard 40 ft. from centerline / block avg. 20ft from property line Side yard N/A 25 ft / appx. 110-115 ft Rear yard N/A 5 ft Site Design Required Proposed Parking Standards: Parking stalls N/A 75 Accessible parking stalls 3 0 Other Critical Zoning Items Floodplain No Shoreland No MNRRA Yes (but not bluff or adjacent to water) Utility easements No EVALUATION OF THE REQUEST A. INTERIM USE PERMIT Following are standards from the City s Zoning Code that apply to specifically to Interim Use Permits. 1. Land Use A parking lot is typically an accessory use on a property, accessory to the principal use (building). Some districts stipulate specific parking setbacks while U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 2 of 7
others use vague language relating back to building setbacks. The General Business district does not provide specific parking setbacks, it relies on the provisions with in the parking code stating that parking cannot be on required yards (setback areas) and the setback information speaks to block averages and distances from the centerlines of adjacent streets. On an average city street with a typical platted width of 60 feet, the setback under the GB district (based on 40 feet from the centerline of the street) would be translated to a minimum of a 10-foot setback. The proposed parking lot is shown with a 20- foot setback. The measurements were based off of plat data rather than a survey and would need to be field verified. Based on the irregular shape of the property the setbacks would vary in width compared to the fixed width of the parking lot. The Planning Commission should consider whether allowing a fixed setback of 5-feet from the eastern property line is preferable to a fixed 20- foot setback on the western property line. Holding the eastern side as the fixed side might allow the parking lot to run more consistent with existing features in the area, such as the extended building line of the Motor Parts Plus building just south of this property. 2. Parking, Curbing, Pavement, Accessible Parking The City s parking regulations require parking to be on an approved hard surface. Additional standards call for the parking to be curbed with 6-inch integral concrete curb and landscaping and screening not to exceed 4 feet to be included between the parking and the property line. Additionally for lots of 6,000 square feet or more the parking lot is required to install curbed landscape planting islands. The Code does allow the City Engineer to approve wheel guards (curb stops) to be utilized in lieu of other requirements (namely barrier curb). Examples of where that might be employed are where the parking area is adjacent to an overland drainage feature such as a rain garden, where an existing site that is not undergoing major reconstruction is attempting to retrofit to partially meet standards, or potentially for a temporary use such as proposed. A variance would need to be utilized with regard to the curbed landscape planting islands that would traditionally be required for a parking lot of this size as no such planting islands are shown. Alternatives which would not require the variance would be to stay the requirement for a period of time requiring that they provide the islands but given the nature of the request as temporary only requiring Fury to put them in if they were there for say 5 years. Another possibility would be to require that they include the planting islands now and just use curb stops around them. Spaces should be striped to meet City Code (9 x 18 min.) and the lot should also provide the adequate number of accessible parking spaces. Based on the size of the lot 3 accessible parking spaces would be required. Additionally, stormwater treatment would be required if more than an acre of impervious surface is created. The proposed temporary parking lot would be a paved asphalt surface U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 3 of 7
3. Interim Use Permit Findings Fury Motors is seeking an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for a temporary parking lot on the vacant property at 1031 Concord Street South. The proposed term of the IUP is for 3 years with the potential to extend the IUP for 1-year terms consistent with the term of a lease that they would need to obtain from the HRA. Extension of the IUP would require Fury to come back through the IUP process with the City and would need to be prior to extension of the IUP. City Code Section 118-41, states that the City Council may grant an interim use permit for the interim use of property, if the following criteria can be met: Interim Use Permit Criteria: The use conforms to the zoning regulations. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. Permits for the use will not impose additional costs on the City, if it is deemed necessary for the City to take the property in the future; and. The user agrees in writing to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the interim use. 4. Variance Findings In variance cases the City is required to make findings in regard to practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance as defined by State Statute 462.357, subd. 6 and in City Code Section 118-39. The City must make the following findings in considering approval of a variance: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance b. The terms of the variance are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and c. The applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. (Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties). Practical difficulties as used in connection with the granting of a variance means that: i. The property owner proposes to utilize the property in a reasonable manner. ii. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the property owner, and iii. The variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. *(This section would be applicable if the City were to not require the landscape planting islands or integral curb and stormwater collection such as are use on permanent parking lots) U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 4 of 7
ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following actions available on the proposed application: A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the application to be acceptable, the following action should be recommended for approval: A. Approval. If the Planning Commission finds the application to be acceptable, the following action should be recommended for approval: Approval of the Interim Use Permit for a temporary parking lot on the vacant lot at 1031 Concord Street South, subject to the following conditions: 1) Compliance with Plans/Submittals. The site shall be utilized in substantial conformance, in the reasonable opinion of the City Council, with the application, narratives, and with the following plans on file with the Engineering Department: a) Narrative (Fury Motors) dated 06/30/2014 b) Proposed Parking Lot Layout (Phillips Architects) dated 11/14/2013 2) Compliance with Laws and Approvals. The property must remain compliant with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances and all prior City approvals. 3) Parking for Employee Parking Only. The proposed parking lot shall be limited to Fury employee parking only. No customer parking, parking for vehicles for sale, being stocked or prepped for sale, or for awaiting automotive repair shall be allowed. 4) Parking Lot Performance Standards. The applicant shall comply with the City s parking standards by: a) Access/Emergency Access: Passable access aisles shall be maintained in the proposed employee parking lot and the applicant shall maintain the correct parking space dimensions. The access aisles shall also serve as the fire access lanes through the parking area for emergency access. b) Parking Surface: The parking lot surface shall be required to be a paved asphalt or paved concrete surface. c) Curbing and stormwater catch basins: Wheel guards / curb stops shall be used at the end of each parking space and shall be placed to ensure that vehicles do not extend beyond the extent of the parking lot. If the parking lot were to remain for longer than 5 years then integral concrete curbing and stormwater catch basins would be required. d) Landscape Planting Islands: The applicant shall be required to provide landscape planting islands if the parking lot were to remain for longer than 5 years. The landscape planting islands shall be bordered with integral U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 5 of 7
concrete curbing and landscaped to meet City Code. e) Accessible Parking: The parking lot shall provide a sufficient number of accessible parking spaces and access aisles to be compliant with ADA requirements. f) Drainage; Drainage from the temporary parking lot shall be directed to public ways, not directed toward neighboring properties. If the parking lot were to remain for more than 5 years then drainage would need to be address through stormwater catch basins as mentioned above. 5) Update on Resolving the Permanent Parking Issues. The premise of the IUP for temporary parking is that it provides a temporary solution to the applicants parking problem but does not relieve the applicant of the need to find a long term solution. The applicant shall continue to work toward a permanent parking solution and shall update the City and HRA on an annual basis with their efforts to find a permanent parking solution. 6) Applicant Required to Have a Current Lease with the Property Owner. The applicant shall be required to have a current lease or signed agreement with the property owner (HRA) for the use of the property. The applicant should also provide the property owner as an additional insured for their proposed use of the property as a temporary parking lot. 7) Applicant Responsible for Clean-up/Restoration. The applicant shall be responsible for any necessary clean-up activities related to the Interim Use including the removal of the asphalt, curb stops, and fencing associated with the requested temporary parking lot use. 8) Term of the Interim Use Permit. The term of the Interim Use Permit shall be for three (3 years), August 1, 2014 through July 31, 2017. If the applicant requests to renew the IUP they shall be required to follow the standard IUP procedure. 9) Termination of the Interim Use Permit. The violation of a condition of approval may terminate the Interim Use Permit, upon action by the Council. B. Denial. If the Planning Commission does not favor the proposed application or portions thereof, the above requested should be recommended for denial. If the Planning Commission recommends denial, then findings of the basis for denial should be given. Denial of the Interim Use Permit for a temporary parking lot at 1031 Concord Street South, for the following reasons: 1) STAFF ANALYSIS U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 6 of 7
The proposed use of the vacant property for a permanent parking lot would not be consistent with the City s visions for the area, nor would it be in the City s best interest. The highest and best use of this property would be to combine it with other area parcels to maximize the benefit of this frontage on Concord Street. The issue of course is that working toward that end takes time and cooperation with other properties. It is for that reason that interim uses of property in situations such as this can make sense and are provided for within the code. Parking lots in and of themselves are permissible as accessory uses and while not permanent use is on site, one is across the street. The main dilemma from the zoning standpoint is whether there is cause to grant a variance from the standards for the proposed temporary use or whether you can work within the standards to provide sufficient flexibility for the temporary use. In staff s opinion there simply is not cause for a variance, the issues for parking are the temporary request and the issue leading to the request would be considered self-created and there isn t a unique situation or cause related to the property. Therefore the standards need to be applied, but the City still has flexibility on how to enact them. The situation has played out before on the former Cherokee Manufacturing property where an IUP was requested for exterior storage (which was supposed to be on a hard surface) however based on that applicants request the requirement to pave was stayed for 5-10 years as they were looking at transitioning out of that property and the storage was only necessary if they stayed. Requiring the applicant to install landscape islands or integral curbing but staying those requirements for 5 years would provide the flexibility to deal with their short term issue but recognize that this is not a permanent solution. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the interim use permit subject to the conditions listed in this report. Respectfully Submitted, Peter Hellegers Peter Hellegers, City Planner U:\City Planner\Planning Cases\2014\07-09-14\07-09-14 PC Report - Fury Temp Parking Lot IUP - 1031 Concord St S.doc Page 7 of 7
Planning Commission Meeting Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 City of South St. Paul Planning Commission Report PC Agenda Item: 3.D Project Name: Schumacher Rd / Mathias Ave. Site Address: n/a PID: n/a Applicant: Mathias Die Company Request: Consider the request to change the name of Schumacher Rd. to Mathias Avenue Proceeding: Public Hearing / Planning Commission Recommendation Tentative City Council Meeting Date: July 21, 2014 Deadline: n/a* Exhibits: *The City must act on this request by this 60-day review period deadline unless the city provides the applicant with written reasons for why additional time, up to a maximum of 120 days, is required. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days but only with the applicant s consent. A. Location Maps B. Street Naming Policy C. Request from Mathias Die Company BACKGROUND In December of last year Mathias Die Company submitted a request to change the name of Schumacher Road to Mathias Avenue. Mathias Die Company made the request with the idea that the street leads right to their front parking lot entrance and as a South St. Paul business since the 1960 s, they would like the street name to highlight their location there and noting that they ve just doubled the size of the facility with a new 19,000 square foot addition. There are currently no properties addressed off of Schumacher Road so the potential impacts of the street renaming are greatly minimized. A public hearing on the requested street name change was held on March 17 th and was tabled noting concerns that the City did not have specific procedures or standards for street naming and a later work session the Council directed staff to develop a street naming policy. Staff contacted adjacent cities and found that many cities used a County addressing policy (which would not fit with South St. Paul s exiting street names) while West St. Paul did not have a specific policy. Staff assembled a draft policy based on the City s park naming policy and elements of the County policy were included where they made sense along with South St. Paul addressing methodology. The draft policy was reviewed by the Council at their June 23 rd work session and is up for consideration at their meeting on Monday, July 7 th. The proposed street renaming is now being brought to the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing on the name change in accordance with the new policy. Page 1 of 2
In accordance with the policy the proposed street renaming must be evaluated according to the criteria found on page 3. In this particular case items 2 and 3 under the renaming criteria appear pertinent to the request. REQUEST Review the proposed street renaming proposal and consider if the proposal is consistent with the new street naming policy. Consider recommending the proposed street name change to the City Council, through adoption of PC Resolution #2014-04 (I will bring two versions to the meeting, one for approval and the other for denial). Respectfully Submitted, Peter Hellegers Peter Hellegers, City Planner Page 2 of 2