Chair:
John Ross
Vice-Chair:
Ryan Briese
Commissioners:
Tim Felton
Justin Humenik
Ruth Krueger
Jason Pachl
Stephanie Yendell
City of South St. Paul
Planning Commission Agenda
AMENDED
Wednesday, June 7, 2017
7:00 p.m.
City of South St. Paul
125 Third Avenue North
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Phone: (651) 554-3217
Fax: (651) 554-3271
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. May 3, 2017
3. Public Hearings
A. PC Case #2017-21: Bruce VanDyke (300 8th Avenue South) – An application for an 11’ rear
yard setback variance and related variances to accommodate the construction of a 20’x30’
attached garage.
B. PC Case #2017-23: Joshua Gaddis (203 8th Street South) – Consider an application for a
variance to allow the construction of a fence in the backyard area where the lot abuts the front
yard of another property.
C. PC Case #2017-22: Eddie Shih (1443 Concord Street South) – Consider a CUP to manufacture
sausages that will be sold to grocery stores, restaurants or general retailers. Normal hours of
operation would be weekdays from 8:00 AM-5:00 PM with occasional hours to 9:00 PM.
D. PC Case #2017-24: An application by JP Bush Homes, 1980 Quasar Avenue South, Lakeland,
MN 55043 on behalf of Dwane Street LLC for a CUP and variances to allow the construction of
a 3-story, 28-unit multi-family apartment building (where 20 units is permitted) at 300 South
Street West. The applicant is seeking a CUP to allow construction of an additional 8 units, a 2’
variance for the fence height at the northern property line and a 2’ variance to the parking
setback for the north side of the property.
E. PC Case #2017-25: Southview Hill Mixed-Use Zoning District – Discuss a proposed ordinance
by the City of South St. Paul establishing a new Mixed Use zoning district for the Southview Hill
area that would allow for a mixture of uses including, residential, office, commercial, multi-family
and mixtures of those uses within the site subject to certain standards.
(OVER)
Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 12, 2017
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 the meeting at 1:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.
4. New Business
5. Other Business
A. Updates
6. Adjournment
Next Planning Commission Meeting: July 12, 2017
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 the meeting at 1:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.
2.A
MINUTES OF MEETING
SOUTH ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION
May 3, 2017
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY COMMISISONER ROSS AT 7:00 P.M.
Present:
Ryan Briese
Tim Felton
Ruth Krueger
Jason Pachl
John Ross
Stephanie Yendell
Absent:
Justin Humenik
1) APPROVAL OF AGENDA – approved as presented – Pachl/Briese (6-0)
2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR April 5, 2017 – Commissioner Yendell noted the motion to
Deny the proposed variances on the bottom of Page 5 was omitted.
Motion to approve the minutes as amended - Yendell/Krueger (6-0)
3) PUBLIC HEARINGS
A) PC Case #2017-18: RJ Ryan Construction (1100 Mendota Heights Road, Mendota
Heights) – Consider an application on behalf of Cobra Transportation for a 6-foot parking
setback variance for the south side of the property at 235 Hardman Avenue South.
Mr. Hellegers reported the site plan and CUP were approved by the City Council on April 17,
2017; however, the parking lot was designed too close to the south property line. In order for
the building to be within 10’ of the surcharge footprint the applicant is seeking a 6-foot south
parking setback variance. The setback doesn’t impact the building but does impact the drive
access area.
Jack Grotkin, owner of RJ Ryan Construction stated the inability to move building farther to
north due to the surcharge area. The applicant wants to keep landscape area between the
parking lot and the building as well as the sidewalk in front of the parking area. The variance is
not for parking stalls but for the driveway itself. Mr. Grotkin reported a representative met with
the neighboring property owner to discuss exterior storage (no long term truck storage;
however, staging for a maximum of 10 trucks on a periodic basis) and screening.
Chair Ross opened the public hearing.
No correspondence was received nor was anyone in attendance to speak to the application.
Chair Ross closed the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2017
Page 2 of 7
Commissioner Felton queried as to how the application fit in terms of practical difficulties within
the Code. Discussion ensued regarding reducing the size building, building coverage
requirements, the existing surcharge area, alternative surcharge methods and costs
associated with alternative methods. Mr. Hellegers reported the building coverage is 21%
which is just over the minimum threshold.
Motion to approve as presented - Briese/Yendell (6-0)
B) PC Case #2017-16: Jesse Leahy (2222 Wentworth Avenue) – Consider a request for a
3-foot side setback and up to a 6-foot front setback variance to accommodate a front porch
and 2-car garage addition to the front of the home.
Mr. Hellegers reported the applicant is proposing a 3-foot side setback variance and a 6-foot
front setback variance to allow for a 2-car addition to the southeast side of the home and a
front porch addition. The house/garage as it currently sits has a side setback of 6-feet. In
order to keep the garage addition consistent with the existing structure, the applicant is
seeking a 3-foot side setback (where 9-feet is required). The front wall of the existing garage
sits back from the front of the home. While the proposed garage is 22-feet deep it would
extend an additional 16-feet forward from the front of the house which necessitates the 6-foot
front setback variance. The request for the front setback variance is consistent with two other
properties on the block that were granted front setback variances. It was noted the properties
in the neighborhood are deep with no alley access.
Mr. Hellegers stated the proposed plans depict roofline breaks above the front entry and
garage adding visual interest and character to the structure.
Discussion ensued regarding the legal non-conforming use and the fact that the proposal
doesn’t have an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Applicant Jesse Leahy stated reviewed his proposal for a 2-car garage addition and a front
porch area that ties into the garage to help improve the look of the house. The proposed
garage would replace a “J” shaped driveway in front of the house where up to 3 vehicles can
park parallel to the house. The garage addition will provide inside space for vehicles currently
parked outside.
Chair Ross opened the public hearing.
No correspondence was received nor was anyone in attendance to speak on the application.
Chair Ross closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Briese asked if the front setback is standard throughout the city or for this
particular neighborhood. Mr. Hellegers responded the setback is block by block noting the
front setback is for this neighborhood.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2017
Page 3 of 7
Motion to approve the proposal as presented - Krueger/Yendell (6-0)
C) PC Case #2017-17: Twin City Hide (491 Malden Street) – Consider a PUD for
development/upgrades to the Twin City Hide/Twin City Tanning Campus at 491/501 Malden to
occur in phases over the next several years.
Mr. Hellegers reported the following additional conditions for consideration:
14) Project Completion. The entire project must be completed within 3 years.
15) Odor Mitigation. If only the first phase is completed the applicant is required to install
scrubbers to the temporary warehouse.
Proposed plans for the campus:
• Combine existing lots to form one property
• Construct a new 30,000 SF stand-alone warehouse – southwest portion of property
• Demolition of existing 17,000 SF warehouse facility – northern end of TCH facility
• Build a new 46,000 SF Twin City Hide processing facility
• Demolition of existing 35,000 SF Twin City Hide processing facility
• Construction of a new 35,000 SF Twin City Hide warehouse
Mr. Hellegers reported both of the parcels at 491-501 Malden are owned by TCH Realty LLC
but currently TCH only occupies just the northern parcel and Twin City Tanning (TCT)
occupies the eastern portion of the southern parcel. Mr. Hellegers noted the phases are to
happen in quick succession. The PUD allows for a phased replacement of aging structures
allowing Twin City Hide operations to continue on the site. It was noted the applicant is
working with an odor consultant to design odor mitigation for the different stages of their plan.
Upon completion the hides will have the ability to move through both facilities without the need
to be hauled outside.
Mr. Hellegers reported the building materials meet the standards, discussed parking
requirements adding the plan is short of the number required which may require locating
additional and/or shared parking.
Discussion ensued regarding the difference between wet cure hides vs. wet blue hides and
odors emanating from the current facility when overhead doors are opened. Commissioner
Ross asked what the ramifications are if they aren’t in compliance with the odor ordinance. Mr.
Hellegers stated an odor mitigation plan would be put in place.
Commissioner Pachl spoke to the current operation of transporting hides from one building to
the other stating the new facility should keep the hides contained inside.
Paul Rogosheske representing Twin City Hide, Dick Gunderson the general contractor
addressed the Commissioners with regard to construction of the state of the art facility with the
benefit of new technology to mitigate odors. Twin City Hide has worked with the City with
respect to odors and spoke to the fact they are not a significant odor generator. The company
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2017
Page 4 of 7
has had conversation with neighboring property owners. The project is expected to be a $2530K facility.
Commissioners Ross asked if odors are from trucks queuing up for delivery. Mr. Gunderson
stated the primary reason of odors is from the doors opening and water from raceways not
being properly drained in the processing building which will be corrected.
Commissioner Yendell asked if the entire new facility will be negative pressure to which Mr.
Gunderson replied the majority of the facility would be negative pressure with the exception of
the cooler space.
Chair Ross declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Hellegers stated no correspondence was received nor was anyone in attendance to
comment on the application.
The public hearing was closed.
Motion to approve the PUD with the conditions in the report in addition to Conditions 14 and 15
as stated above – Pachl/Briese (6-0)
D) PC Case #2017-19: Luther Memorial Church (315 15th Avenue North) – Consider a
CUP that would allow a child daycare for 30-50 children from birth-5 years in the existing
building at 315 15th Avenue North.
Mr. Hellegers reported the applicant is seeking a CUP for a commercial daycare facility at
Luther Memorial Church. The property is zoned R-1 in which churches are a permitted use in
the district. Schools are considered a conditional use in the R-1 zoning district which a
daycare is most consistent with and therefore require a Conditional Use Permit to be located
within the district. At maximum capacity the facility would accommodate 45-50 children from
birth-5 years between the weekday hours of 6:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. The number of parking and
handicap accessible spaces on the site with the additional parking spaces at 3rd Street are
more than adequate. The drop-off/pick-up location would be at the south facing door toward
3rd Street North with patrons utilizing the parking spaces in that location. The weekday
daycare use is complementary to the site as the church activities occur on the weekends.
Commissioner Briese asked if the church would be running the daycare facility to which Mr.
Hellegers responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Yendell queried as to when the church was built. Applicant Rick Voit, Luther
Memorial Church Council stated the church was built in two phases (1956 and 1963). The
daycare will occupy in the 1956 portion of the building which will require asbestos abatement.
Mr. Voit reported the church has been working on a Strategic Plan for the last several years
taking into account the needs of the community. The daycare facility will be church operated
and a state licensed.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2017
Page 5 of 7
Current plans depict a large play area on the north side of the building; however, due to
downspout drainage the location is not optimal. Smaller areas on the south or west side of the
building are being considered.
Commissioner Yendell noted the age of the buildings and asked if the church is working with
an environmental consultant. The applicant stated the church has hired a consultant to deal
with asbestos, including testing for lead and radon. Mr. Voit reported asbestos removal will
start immediately.
Chair Ross opened the public hearing.
No correspondence was received.
Robert and Helen Hatlevig, 311 16th Avenue North bought the parsonage adjacent to the
church stating the church has always been a good neighbor. They expressed concern as to
how the daycare will impact the property value of their home in addition to placement and
noise from the outdoor play area.
Mr. Hellegers stated the plans depict the play area in the northern courtyard area; however,
the precise area has not yet been determined.
Chair Ross closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pachl stated the use is permitted use within the zoning district. Commissioner
Pachl recommended the church work with the homeowner regarding the location of the play
area.
Motion to approve as presented – Krueger/Yendell (5-0-1) Felton abstained
E) PC Case #2017-20: Michael Johnson (235 4th Avenue South) – Consider a request for
a variance of 1.5-feet for the height of the recently garage constructed on the site. The garage
exceeds the height of 16-feet.
Mr. Hellegers stated the applicant is the contractor building a home at 235 4th Avenue South
which is part of Rediscover SSP program. Upon inspection it was noticed the garage is 17.5feet (measured from garage floor to the peak of the structure) rather than 16-feet. The
applicant is requesting a variance of 1.5-feet to comply with Code and keep the garage at its
current height of 17-feet. Since the garage was near completion when the discrepancy was
discovered the contractor finished construction in order to secure the structure and prevent
exposure to the elements. It was noted a fair amount of architectural detail went into the
garage as the contractor attempted a steeper roof pitch to help the structure blend in with the
older character of the neighborhood in addition to having the garage roof slope match that of
the house. The remainder of the structure is compliant with Code. The contractor has
received a temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the house.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2017
Page 6 of 7
Due to the fact there isn’t a unique attribute to the property with which to approve the request
the recommendation is to deny the variance. It was noted the remedy would be to remove the
completed garage and rebuild to the correct height; however, it’s not a desirable fix and proves
cost prohibitive. Mr. Hellegers stated the contractor constructed a higher level of house.
Chair Ross questioned whether permit application reflected a building height of 16’ or 17.5’
when it came in. Mr. Hellegers responded the plans doesn’t typically specify an exact height;
however, plans are marked up when they come in to note a 16’ height on the garage which in
this case was done. Chair Ross queried as to how the discrepancy was discovered to which
Mr. Hellegers replied it was discovered looked too tall upon inspection and asked the
contractor to check it out.
Commissioner Pachl stated with new construction the process is to bring in plans for review
and approval to prevent any issues prior to starting construction. Discussion ensued regarding
the review and inspection process.
Builder Mike Johnson stated his experience building homes. His intention was to carry the
architectural appeal of the home over to the garage and discussed the garage roof slope. Mr.
Johnson stated the garage is under a separate permit. Materials for the garage were on site
and the structure was built with a framing inspection on a Friday with roofing later in the day.
The builder worked over the weekend to complete the structure (siding and gypsum board on
exterior and interior due to it being close to the property line). The inspector called Monday
morning stating he was stopping out when he noticed the structure appeared too tall. A
measurement was taken at that time which revealed the structure was not to Code. The
inspector issued a correction notice on the height; however, the structure was essentially
complete. The builder stated it was an honest mistake noting he’s tried hard to be in
compliance with all aspects of building a new home. Mr. Johnson noted the hardship with a
tear down and reconstructing in addition to changing the pitch of the roof. The house is sold
as of April 28th noting the house and garage are part of the sale package.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Hellegers reported an email was received from a neighbor who stated no opposition.
There was no one in attendance to comment on the application.
Commissioner Ross closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ross stated the situation is unfortunate and the builder made an honest
mistake; however, there was no gain to the builder. The plans were available to the builder
and the builder has the responsibility to comply with Code.
Commissioner Briese stated the home is a great addition to the neighborhood noting the
sticking point is practical difficulties. Had the issue been caught at framing there wouldn’t have
been an issue; however, having the garage at completion stage is a difficulty of the builder.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2017
Page 7 of 7
Commissioner Yendell stated she felt the precedent has already been set with approval of the
garage variance request of last summer.
Motion to approve the variance request subject to conditions in the Planner’s report –
Yendell/Krueger (5-0-1) Pachl abstained.
F) PC Case #2017-22: Southview Hill Mixed-Use Zoning District – Discussion of a
proposed ordinance by the City of South St. Paul establishing a new Mixed Use zoning district
for the Southview Hill area.
Mr. Hellegers noted the process for notifying affected property owners could not be
accomplished in time for this meeting and requested the public hearing be continued to the
June 7th Planning Commission in order to provide the affected owners the opportunity to
comment on the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Hellegers reported the Council discussed the matter at a worksession on April 24th stating
the Southview Hill Plan adopted in 2014 established recommendations for future land uses
and zoning in areas of the Southview Boulevard and Marie Avenue. The mixed use zoning
district is under consideration to: provide a path for revitalization, guide the use of HRA-owned
properties and to get ahead of the Southview Boulevard improvements that will be undertaken
by the County (now scheduled for 2018) in order that the vision for the area is taken into
consideration.
Mr. Hellegers reported the Southview Hill Plan recommended creating a node of commercial
district land use for the commercial properties in the Southview Shopping Center area and a
mixed-use node for commercial, office or multi-family residential in the area in the vicinity of
Central Square. A mixture of uses provides flexibility and is an important component which
would help guide development to support services and commercial businesses. Existing
single family uses would be grandfathered to allow the existing use; however, the property
would have potential reuses.
Discussion ensued multi-family use and design standards that would create quality
developments.
Motion to continue the public hearing to June 7, 2017 – Briese/Krueger (6-0)
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn at 9:36 P.M. – Yendell/Pachl (6-0)