PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ANOKA CITY HALL Wednesday, September 6, :00 P.M.

Transcription

1 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ANOKA CITY HALL Wednesday, September 6, :00 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes: a. Approval of August 1, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes 3. New Business: a. None 4. Old Business: a. None 5. Public Hearings on Applications: a. A Registered Land Survey/Preliminary Plat with Variances; 609/625 Van Buren Street 6. Miscellaneous: a. Upcoming meetings: Work Session Tuesday, September 19 th at 6:00pm Regular Meeting - Tuesday, October 3 rd at 7:00pm 7. Adjourn. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Manager s office at (763) to make arrangements.

2 NOT APPROVED ANOKA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ANOKA CITY HALL TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, :00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Anoka Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Planning Commissioners present: Chair Don Kjonaas, Sandy Herrala, James Cook, Borgie Bonthuis, Karna Brewer, Peter Rech, and Manley Brahs Planning Commissioners absent: none Staff present: Community Development Director Borglund APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. Approval of June 6, 2017 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BONTHUIS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREWER, TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 6, ayes 0 nays 3 abstain (Brahs, Cook, and Herrala). Motion carried. b. Approval of June 27, 2017 Work Session Minutes MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BREWER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BONTHUIS, TO APPROVE THE WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JUNE 27, ayes 0 nays 1 abstain (Rech). Motion carried. c. Approval of July 18, 2017 Work Session Minutes MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER RECH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BONTHUIS, TO APPROVE THE WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JULY 18, ayes 0 nays 1 abstain (Cook). Motion carried.

3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 2 of 9 NEW BUSINESS: a. Alternative Exterior Building Design/Material 106 Main Street Community Development Director Borglund reported this property is located in the Historic Downtown Core/MS Sub-district EM-1. He provided a rendering of the building at 106 Main Street and stated Mike Butler has been the owner of the building since In February 2017, pieces of stucco fell from the building onto the public sidewalk. Currently, a barricade remains in place to keep pedestrians away from the building front as it presents a public safety issue. Community Development Director Borglund reported the property owner has hired a structural engineer and developed a plan that would involve use of a brick veneer finish to replace the stucco located on the second floor of the building. He provided a rendering that showed which windows would be replaced and explained how the brick veneer finish would be applied. He reported City Code Chapter 74, Article V. Division 5 provides the following regulations for the Main Street EM-1 Zoning Sub-District and architectural requirements for the Historic Downtown Core: In the East Main Street Sub-Districts 1 and 2 and West Main Street Sub-District (EM-1, EM-2, and WM), the primary exterior opaque materials on each elevation of a building, except for the service side, must be brick, stone, or decorative masonry or similar materials or a combination thereof. He also reported City Code Chapter 74, Article V. Division 5 references Chapter 20 - Heritage Preservation Regulations that provides the following exterior requirements: Materials. The use of brick, stone, decorative masonry, or other similar materials is required on new or existing building facades that can be viewed from a public street, not including an alley. Community Development Director Borglund reported according to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission may recommend modifications of the requirements of this Section related to Alternative Designs or Material, and the City Council may approve such modifications upon determining that the proposed architectural design or exterior façade materials meets the following conditions: 1. The proposed design or material is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 74, Article V, Division 5, Section The proposed design or material would enhance the architectural appearance of the building, and would be equal or superior to designs or materials permitted by this section. 3. The proposed design or material would be in harmony with the character of adjacent

4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 3 of 9 buildings. Community Development Director Borglund reported staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed alternative building material request and determine whether the proposed brick veneer material meets the three conditions stated above. He provided a sample of the brick veneer product to the Planning Commission. Chair Kjonaas inquired if there was brick behind the stucco and if it could be resurfaced. Community Development Director Borglund confirmed it was brick. Mike Butler, owner, stated he did originally tuck point the front of building, but later had to put stucco over it because the first layer of brick was flaking and not secure. If they were to remove the stucco, they would probably have to rebrick the entire front of the building, since it would take the first brick wythe off. A structural engineer drilled holes to test structural stability of the brick wythes behind the stucco. It was fine on the right and in the center, but on the left, it was damaged by moisture. He explained how the brick veneer would be applied and stated the structural facing, brick veneer, and windows will cost close to $55,000. They will paint the area where the stucco had fallen from to prevent further water damage. He pointed out a decorative strip of brick near the arch of the window and explained how the moisture got behind the stucco and caused the problem. Commissioner Brewer inquired how safe it would be to put a new surface on top of an unstable background. Mr. Butler explained it will be safe because the treated wood frame will be secured all the way through the stucco and brick wythes. If he had to put on full brick, he would have to tear off the backing behind the Salon Eleven sign and interrupt his tenant s business. Commissioner Brewer inquired how he will prevent water getting in between his building and the buildings next to his. Mr. Butler responded after the plywood is put on, his contractor will caulk the seam extremely well. When the brick work is done, they will probably also caulk where his brick meets the other building s brick. He will be careful to not have any of the brick layer project out because that is what invites moisture issues. Commissioner Bonthuis stated the proposed brick does not match the brick at the bottom of the building and inquired what the black surface was behind the business sign. Mr. Butler responded the black surface is pure all heart vertical grain redwood. Commissioner Bonthuis pointed out another area on the top left that also appeared to have water damage. She also inquired if there will be a wall behind the windows after they are installed. Mr. Butler explained the stucco above the decorative strip is secure and will also be secured by the structural facing. The current wall behind the windows will be removed when the windows are installed and the structural facing is secured.

5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Chair Kjonaas inquired if the decorative brick around the windows will remain the same. Mr. Butler confirmed the arches will remain the same and there is not brick design yet, but he is told by the mason it can be done. Chair Kjonaas inquired if the brick on the top that requires a variance matches the brick on the buildings on either side. Mr. Butler stated they could come close, but the buildings have different bricks and it cannot match all three. He is happy to let the City pick out the brick color. Commissioner Brewer noticed the top part of the building is not as wide as the bottom. Mr. Butler explained when he bought the building in 1977, in the area below the sign façade, there was a door and easement where both buildings share a stairway to the second floor. That is why the doorway to his business is shifted over to the right. This area belongs to both building owners as a way to access the stairway to the second floor. Commissioner Brewer inquired if the proposed product is new and how it compares to stucco. Mr. Butler stated it has been around for a while and is masonry that is five-eighths of an inch thick. Commissioner Brahs inquired if the sample provided would be classified as decorative masonry. Community Development Director Borglund responded the Ordinance does not define it and part of the discussion should include interpretation of the ordinances. Commissioner Brahs stated if brick is classified as masonry, this product is decorative masonry. Mr. Butler agreed. Mr. Butler stated he is hopeful they can make a prompt decision so he can get started on the project. Commissioner Herrala inquired if this has been used in other areas of the City or if there are other cities using it. Community Development Director Borglund responded historically brick has been used in the downtown area. Stucco is not permitted in downtown and the changes that were made to the Ordinance design standards were driven by this building. Chair Kjonaas commented they were not all in agreement with Peterson Shoes. He recalls at that time, they wanted to take the discussion further as to whether they should be more open with the design standards. However, with the changes to staff at that time, it never was discussed and now they are faced with it again. Commissioner Brahs inquired what the box of material calls the product. Community Development Director Borglund stated it is called thin brick, which is a brick veneer product. Commissioner Brahs inquired how they define decorative masonry.

6 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 5 of 9 Chair Kjonaas commented he did not realized the walls were three bricks deep and starting with deteriorate. The applicant will have to tear it off if he cannot save it. Commissioner Brewer commented he is probably not the only one that is facing this dilemma. Commissioner Brahs stated the way it will be framed and secured will provide more stability than is there now. Commissioner Cook commented the veneer brick was first used on indoor fireplaces. A sign in the downtown area uses the words real and classic, and he does not think a non-real brick would fit in one of the main structures in that historic area. Chair Kjonaas stated a veneer is thin brick applied to another surface and this is not the same product that was applied to fireplaces. This product will be able to stand up to weather and is real brick. Commissioner Brewer commented it is still just a facing, and it has to be so that it does not stick out further than the other buildings. Commissioner Bonthuis inquired if the brick at the bottom is real brick. She expressed concern with all the different colors of brick being used and pointed out the brick on the buildings on either side of this one sticks out past it. If the Applicant were to rip off the black, then it would all fit in. Commissioner Herrala stated the Applicant wants to keep the black wood on. Commissioner Brewer commented if the Planning Commission and City Council were to approve this, it would be prudent to add it as an acceptable material in the Ordinance. Community Development Director Borglund stated it could be discussed further. Commissioner Herrala inquired what Commissioner Cook does not like about the brick veneer. Commissioner Cook responded if the veneer looks cheap, all the other property owner s properties are diminished. Commissioner Kjonaas commented there was a similar situation with the property next to Wells Fargo and the City made that property owner put real brick up. There was a concern the brick would be too wide and stick into the Wells Fargo parking lot by one-quarter of an inch. Commissioner Brahs stated the Applicant would have to tear off the entire front of the building to replace the brick. Commissioner Brewer commented they should require good quality, but each building does not

7 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 6 of 9 have to look alike. Commissioner Rech commented it would look better if they could match the existing brick on the building so it looks like it is all made from the same material. Chair Kjonaas reminded the Commission the Applicant said the City could pick out the colors, and a condition could be added that the brick veneer match the existing brick. Commissioner Herrala stated it would be hard to even match real brick to the existing brick on the bottom. They need to decide if they will allow a veneer, not color. Commissioner Rech commented they need to decide what is allowable between decorative masonry, veneer, and real brick, because there is not a lot of clarity in the City s Ordinances. The sample the Applicant provided is thicker than other veneer brick he has seen. Commissioner Cook commented before the meeting he looked at different brick walls and there are different irregularities with them. With the veneer, there will be quite a contrast because they will be using large pieces of it. Commissioner Herrala suggested they table this application in order to get more information on the veneer and see examples of it on other buildings. Commissioner Brahs commented they could get more information about the product from the salesperson. Chair Kjonaas inquired why the Applicant waited so long to bring this to the Planning Commission. He also stated the Planning Commission decided what the standards were going to be in the Historic district and since then, this is the third application requesting a deviation from those standards. They should be meeting with the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), deciding what they want Main Street to look like, and talking with property owners that have this problem. He does not think they should be pressured to make a decision tonight that sets a precedent for the next request. Community Development Director Borglund stated they asked several times for a plan from the Applicant and were finally able to convince him to hire a structural engineer to figure out what could be done. Commissioner Herrala commented on a home inspection website, it says that brick veneer looks almost identical to solid brick structures except they are built using a different technique, and solid brick and brick veneer both use the same bricks. Commissioner Cook he recently had stone work done and used a similar veneer product, but it

8 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 7 of 9 had a random pattern. He is more concerned with this brick work that is supposed to be the same throughout. Commissioner Rech commented this building is in the Historic Downtown district. It is an old building that used stucco as a patch, and now it is failing. The owner now wants to use a veneer patch on it and it is not fair to the other buildings around it who are expected to use real brick. Also, they do not know what the HPC would say about it either. Chair Kjonaas inquired if the Applicant could put a stucco patch on it if they turn the application down. Community Development Director Borglund stated if they make a recommendation, the City Council is the final decision. Legally, they could argue the nonconformity for the repair. Chair Kjonaas stated whether they approve or deny this application, it still needs to be discussed with the HPC, property owners, and the City Council. Commissioner Herrala commented they also need to determine why they do not want this. Commissioner Brahs commented they need clarification on what decorative masonry is. Commissioner Cook stated brick also has some structural integrity. Commissioner Bonthuis agreed this needs to be discussed further because there are other buildings in the area that will need updating in the future. MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER COOK, AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BREWER, TO DENY THE ALTERNATIVE EXTERIOR BUILDING DESIGN/MATERIAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 106 MAIN STREET, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. The proposed material is not consistent with Chapter The proposed material is not an enhancement of materials. 3. The proposed material is not in harmony with the character of adjacent buildings and surrounding district. The Commission agreed they need to further discuss the definition of materials during a Work Session. Community Development Director Borglund stated he will go through the Ordinance and provide information to the Commission on what they do and do not have existing definitions for. Commissioner Cook stated they need to deny this because they do not have enough information

9 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 8 of 9 on what should be allowed in this district and they do not want to set the wrong precedent. Commissioner Bonthuis commented the Council could also overrule their decision. Commissioner Herrala stated she does not agree with the findings for denial because they do not have enough information. Chair Kjonaas commented if they table it, they may not be able to move on it fast enough and that is not fair to the Applicant. Commissioner Brewer commented in the event the Council does approve it, they would recommend the upper half of the building match the lower half of the building. Commissioner Bonthuis pointed out if they deny it and the Council approves it, brick veneer will be an allowable product in this district. 4 ayes 3 nays (Herrala, Rech, Bonthuis). Motion carried. Commissioner Brewer directed staff to send a statement to the Council that if they approve this Application, the Planning Commission recommends the upper half of the building match the bottom half as much as possible. Chair Kjonaas commented to staff they want to begin discussion on what they want to happen in the Historic Downtown district, and if they want to include the HPC and property owners in that discussion. Commissioner Brahs suggested they get some clarity as a Commission on where they stand on this issue before they include the HPC. OLD BUSINESS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NEW APPLICATIONS: a. A : Lot Split with Variances; 609/628 Van Buren Street Chair Kjonaas advised this item has been pulled from the agenda. In response to Commissioner Brewer, Community Development Director Borglund stated this was removed because it is a Torrens property and requires a registered land survey.

10 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 1, 2017 Page 9 of 9 MISCELLANEOUS: a. Upcoming Meetings: Work Session August 15 at 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting September 6 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER BREWER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERRALA, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. 7 ayes 0 nays. Motion carried. Time of adjournment: 8:11 p.m. Submitted by Stephanie Rouse, Associate Planner

11 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ST AVENUE, ANOKA, MN APPLICATION NUMBER: A PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Sept. 6, 2017 BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST Clark Palmer, Associate Planner (763) cpalmer@ci.anoka.mn.us APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: Vicki Violet PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION: 609/625 Van Buren Street The Applicant, Vicki Violet, submitted a Registered Land Survey/Preliminary Plat with variances request to subdivide the property located at 609 Van Buren into three Tracts (A, B, and C). EXISTING SIZE OF SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND ZONING & PROPERTIES USE LAND USE 0.56 North: R-1 (Low Density Residential) R-1 Single Family Residential; Multifamily Residential (3+ units) acres total South: R-1 (Low Density Residential) East: R-1 (Low Density Residential) West: R-1 (Low Density Residential) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Site Location Shown in Red APPROVE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS DENY BACKGROUND The Applicant is proposing a Registered Land Survey (RLS)/Preliminary Plat that will subdivide the existing parcel at 609 Van Buren Street into three tracts (A, B, and C). The subdivision, if approved, will allow for the development of the proposed Tract A and the combination of the proposed Tract C with the abutting property to the east (625 Van Buren Street). The newly created Tract A would have access to a public street and connect to existing utilities in Harrison Street, and, as proposed, would be fully conforming in terms of lot depth, lot width, and lot area. The combination of the newly created Tract C with the parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street is intended to (1) eliminate an encroachment issue, where the current common lot line passes through the house located at 625 Van Buren Street, and (2) reduce nonconforming elements of the parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street by increasing the lot area/width. Tract C is intended to be combined with the existing parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street, variances are not needed. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to combine proposed Tract C with the existing parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street resulting in the existing nonconforming lot located at 625 Van Buren Street to increase in conformance. In addition to the proposed RLS, two variances are being requested. The first variance is requested for impervious lot coverage in excess of the permitted 35% maximum coverage at proposed Tract B. Currently, 609 Van Buren Street has an impervious lot coverage of 25%. As proposed, the subdivision would result in an impervious lot coverage of 47% for Tract B. The second variance is requested for impervious lot coverage in excess of the permitted 35% maximum after the proposed Tract C is combined with the existing parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street. The newly created parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street will result in an impervious lot coverage of 36.4%. ATTACHMENTS RLS, SKETCH PLAN, CERTFICATE OF SURVEY, STAFF ANALYSIS

12 STAFF ANALYSIS Zoning Requirements The following are the zoning requirements outlined in the R-1 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district. Tract A: Regulation Code Requirement Proposed Status Lot Area 10,000 square feet 10,002.4 square feet Conforming Lot Width 75 feet 80 feet Conforming Lot Depth 120 feet 125 feet Conforming Tract B: Regulation Code Requirement Proposed Status Lot Area 10,000 square feet square feet Conforming Lot Width 75 square feet 80 square feet Conforming Lot Depth 125 square feet 135 square feet Conforming Building Setbacks Front: 25 feet Side (east): 10 feet Side (west): 10 feet Rear: 25 ft Front: 25 feet Side (east): 28 feet Side (west): 22.8 feet Rear: 8 feet Impervious Surface 35% 47% (5,456 SF / 11,402 SF) Conforming Conforming Conforming Legal- Nonconforming Nonconforming variance needed Tract C / 625 Van Buren (once combined): Regulation Code Requirement Proposed Status Lot Area 10,000 square feet 8302 square feet (increase from SF [ SF]) Legal nonconforming Lot Width 75 feet 60 feet [increase from 40 feet (+20 feet)] Legal nonconforming Lot Depth 125 feet feet Conforming Building Setbacks Front: 25 feet Side (east): 10 feet Side (west): 10 feet Rear: 25 feet Front: 22.2 feet Side (east): 15.4 feet Side (west): 18 feet Rear: 57 feet Conforming Conforming Conforming Conforming Impervious Surface 35% 36.4% (3,026 SF / 8,402 SF) Nonconforming variance needed Variance Review When considering a variance application, the City must apply the legal standards of the following five practical difficulties to the facts presented by the Applicant. Variances may be granted when the Applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. Findings of fact are stated below: Page 2

13 1. The proposed variances are in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. The purpose of the R-1 zoning district is to provide areas for single-family detached dwellings and to limit impervious lot coverage to 35%. The proposed Tract A would be developable and could host a fully conforming single-family detached dwelling. The proposed Tract B would exceed the maximum 35% impervious lot coverage by 12%. Once the proposed Tract C is combined with the parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street the impervious lot coverage would be 36.4%. When evaluating the request for a variance, staff considered the benefit to the Applicant while weighing any adverse impacts on the neighborhood. Since the dwelling located at the proposed Tract B is existing, and the Applicant is not asking to increase the intensity of the nonconforming use, staff finds that the request for the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. However, one option to mitigate any negative impacts created by the granting of the variances is to consider requiring the removal of areas of impervious lot coverage on the proposed Tract B and Tract C. 2. The proposed variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The properties are designated low-density residential in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variances meet the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan by allowing for the subdivision the current parcel located at 609 Van Buren Street into 3 tracts that will allow for the development of a single-family dwelling on the proposed Tract A, the meeting of minimum lot area and dimensions at the proposed Tract B, and the reduction of nonconforming dimensions at the parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street. 3. That the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this ordinance. Staff finds the Applicant s request reasonable to subdivide the property located at 609 Van Buren Street into three tracts based on the large size of the lot and the fact that all hard surfaces on the sites are existing. 4. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The land owner is proposing to subdivide the parcel located at 609 Van Buren Street into 3 tracts which, as proposed, will result in the exceeding of the maximum 35% impervious lot coverage for both Tract B and what would become the new parcel once the proposed Tract C is combined with the existing parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street. The physical circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner is that the dwelling located at 609 Van Buren was constructed during a time when multifamily dwellings were allowed and the impervious lot coverage allowance was greater, up to 50%. And, as required by City Code Section (t)(2), a quadhome is required to provide at least two parking spaces per dwelling unit. This means the property at 609 Van Buren Street must maintain a minimum of 8 offstreet parking spaces. 5. The proposed variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The average lot size in the neighborhood is 0.26 acres or 11,325 square feet. Tract A and Tract B are over 10,000 square feet each. The proposed Tract C is planned to be combined with the existing nonconforming parcel located at 625 Van Buren Street. Staff finds that based on the proposed lot sizes, that the subdivision and need for variances will not alter the essential character of the locality. Page 3

14 RECOMMENDATION A. Staff recommends approval of the Registered Land Survey/Preliminary Plat with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall combine the proposed Tract C with the property located at 625 Van Buren Street with Property Identification Number of , legally described as Slaughter & Creightons Addition To Anoka Lot 23 Blk 15 Slaughter & Creightons Add) by means of a lot combination application filed with the Anoka County Property Records office. 2. The Applicant shall grant necessary easements to the City for electrical power lines. 3. The Applicant shall saw-cut and remove areas of bituminous on the proposed Tract C so that the driveway used for access from the proposed Tract B to the garage located at 625 Van Buren Street is no wider than the width of the garage plus 10 ft, to conform with City Code Section (a) and reduce impervious lot coverage below the 35% maximum. 4. The Applicant shall execute a shared access easement agreement to allow for the shared access of the driveway serving both the proposed Tract B and the attached garage located at 625 Van Buren Street. B. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow the maximum impervious lot coverage of 47% for the proposed Tract B with the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall saw cut and remove approximately 90 square feet of bituminous at the northern extent of the parking lot/driveway serving the proposed Tract B. C. Staff further recommends denial of a 1.4% variance to the maximum impervious lot coverage at the proposed Tract C/625 Van Buren Street parcels once combined. Staff finds that reduction of impervious lot coverage as recommended in the above Condition 3 would easily reduce the impervious lot coverage to be at 35% or less. Page 4

15

16