The URL can be used to link to this page

98-359ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas made application to the Saint Paul 3 Pla.uiung Commission for a determination of similaz use permit in order to determine whether 4 growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gazdening and landscaping supplies is 5 an agricultural use, and therefore permitted in a residential use zoning district. Pursuant to the 6 provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for properry located at 13�c Point Douglas Road South 7 (eastside between Carver and the City Innits) and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Orchazd 8 Estates; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 5, 1998, after hauing provided notice to affected properry owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Plamiiug Commission. The Planning Commission, in Resolution No. 98-10 adopted Febivaiy 13, 1998, decided to deny the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: � The applicants have a contract to purchase the property, contingent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retail sales of water gardening supplies (pond liners, pumps, fountains, waterfalls, plants, and fish), landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing of crops (corn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, and potted plants in the ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the following hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seven days a week. During Christmas tnne the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. The existing building on site would be occupied by the retail center, office, storage, and a conference room to be used by garden clubs. The applicants propose to construct a smaller building on site that would be used for maintaining and repairing equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishxnent. Section 64300(g) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall deternune if a use is similaz to other uses permitted in each district. The planning commission shall make the following fmdings in determining whether one use is similaz to another: a. That the use is sdmitar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. Council File # 9 0 '3.7 / Green Sheet # �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� This finding is not met. Uses permitted in an R-LL zoning district include single family homes, pazks, libraries, houses of worship, foster homes, cemeteries, monasteries, golf courses, colleges, and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. �8-359 a 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 G� c. C'Q While the applicant states that the establishxnent would be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residential zoning dishict, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail in nature and therefore not similar in chazacter to one or more of the principal uses pernutted. It is true that the applicants would be growing some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anyttriug, be accessory to the retail activity. The proposed principal use of the property is cleazly commercial in nature. That the h generated by such use is similar to one or more of the principal uses permitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be similar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most extreme example perhaps being that of a college or university, where traffic is generated year round and from moming until night. However, the applicant's properry is zoned residential-large lot, as is the properry to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that generate a significant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, "The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a seinirural environment of predominantly low-density, one-family detached dwellings along with other residentially related facilities which serve the residents in the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance wooded areas, wildlife and plant resources, fragile bluff areas, topography and large expanses of natural vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm water runoff associated with higher-density development; and to facilitate installation of private wells and individual sewage treatment systems for one-family detached dwellings." That the use is not ftrst permitted in a less restrictive zoning district. This finding is not met. The proposed use is first pernutted in a B-2 or B-3 zoning district, depending upon the exact nature and eactent of the activiry. A retail business where all activity takes place within an enclosed building would be permitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as a retail business whose principal activity is sedling the plants grown on the site and having outside storage, growing, or display. That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan ca11s for single family homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The plan states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. 2 ORlG1NAL 1B-35q 2 WFIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of § 64.206, John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas 3 duly filed on February 26, 1998, an appeal from the determination made by the planning 4 commission, requestiug that a heazing be held before the City Council for the purpose of 5 considering the actions taken by the said commission; and 6 7 WfIEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64206 through § 64.208 and upon notice to affected 8 parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on Mazch 25, 1998, 9 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and the platming commission does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the planning commission in this matter based upon the following fmdings of the council: The Council finds that the planning commission committed no error as to fact finding or procedure in this matter and accordingly adopts the findings and conclusions of the planning commission as contained in its Resolution No. 98-10 dated February 13, 1998; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas be and is hereby denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to John and Joanne Valiukas, the Zoning Administrator and the Plaiuiing Commission. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date _��?�� \0 By: Form Approved by City Attorney �.%�/✓�'�� !' L O ^ c(� sy: Adoption Cextified by Council Se tary Appxwed by Mayor Eor Submission to Council By: ) g� Approved by Mayor: Da e "� - By: 9g- 3sg Council Offices 9s I GREEN SHEET No 608'79 Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES � t__f°E•'�"� LJ°TMCO � � rnrwnuwEr ❑ arvauu _ ❑FUax�ata¢antFSOat ❑AUxr�tamv��ccra ❑ WYOR(ORA8LSf4R) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in denying the appeal of John and oanne Valiukas to a decision of the Planning Commission for pxoperty located at 13XX Point iouQlas Road. PLA13N1NG COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS: Has this PersoNfim� everv.rorked under a canfrxt for this tleP�meM? YFS MO Has this DeB�rm e�.er been a eily emVbYee9 VES NO Does this peismlfirtn possese a sidll not rwrmallypwsessed Dy arry curreM pty emWoyeel YES NO IsMisP��atmBHedventloYt - YES NO �in all veB answers an seoa�ate sheet aM attach to oreen sheet (�OUr�c�l Resear�h C�r'e� , .. � a�, IF APPROVED AlAOUNT OP TRANSACTION COS7/REVENUE BUDfiETm (qRCLE ONE� YES NO ACTNITY NUFiBER CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretazy 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Zoning File No. 98-049 Appeal by 7ohn and Joanne Valiukas March 25, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY �� `'3`59 PegBir75 CityAttorney CivilOrv'uion 400 City Ha11 Te[ephone: 6I2 266-8770 ISWestKeTloggBZvd Facsimile:672298-5619 Sainf Paut, Minnesota 55102 Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� U�/�. eter W. Warner Assistant Ciiy Attarney PWWirmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT s�] CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colemon, Mayor February 27,1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hal] Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Divisiorz of Planning ZS WestFousth Sfieet SoLtt Paul, MN55102 Telephane: 612-266-6565 FacsimiLe: 612-228-3374 I would like to confum that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday March 25, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similar use permit: Appellant: JOHN AND JOANN VALIUKAS File Numbar: #98-001 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similaz use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district. Address: 13XX Point Douglas Road (east side between Carver and city limits) Legal Description of Properry: Lot 2, Block I; Orchard Estates Previous Action Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: unanimous, February 13, 1998 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 6-0, February 5, 1998 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the March 11, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � Kady D lez City Planner cc: File #98-001 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP . r�ms�n�nv� . - NOTICE OF PUBLiC BEARING . - � TRe Saint Paul C�ty Conncil will conduct a pablic hearing on Wedne'sday; March �, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Ci£y Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Coutt Hou'se, Yo consides the appea] 04 3ohn and Joanne Valiukas to a decision .of the Planning Commission denying a determinatian of similaz use to determine whether grQwisig nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies is an agr3cuttural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at ]37IX Point D'ougias Road teast side between Carver and the city ]imits). -- ,- Dated: Mazch 3, 1998 � - - . . - : � -. NAt�CY ANDERSON � . � . . . � Aasistant (.Sty Conncil SecreCary . - . . � (March'4 1998) � . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNMG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pameta Wheetock, Directar �.. crrY oF sanv 1� pauL, Norm Coteman, Mayor W� March 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the CiTy Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Pau(, Minnesota 55102 2i 4Yest Fourth Street Saint Paut, .L.N� 55107 RE: Zoning File #98-049: JOHN & JOANNE VALITJI{AS City Council Hearing. March 25, 1998, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers c��-3sq Telephone: 612-266-6.i 65 Facs�mile. 6l2-228-331 �F PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a determination of similar use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at 13XX Point Douglas Road (east side between Carver and the city limits). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL Unanimous � ZONII3G COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 6-0 5TAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL SUPPORT: No one spoke. OPPO5ITION: One person spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: JOHN & JOANNE VALNKA5 have appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a determination of similar use to determine whether retail sales of gazdening supplies in addition to growing of nursery stock and crops is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at 13� Point Douglas Road. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on February 5, 1998. The applicants and their representative addressed the committee, At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial ofthe request. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a unanimous vote on February 13, 1998. This appeat is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, t J � Ken Ford Plannina Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members APPLICATiON FOR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Econamic Development Zoning Section II00 Cin� Hall Anner 15 West Fourt/: Street Sair:t Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION EFSB:�?Ft � - ��:; . ��— � �?9.�cia�. ::':_:: ::, . -�.i, Name John and Joann Valiukas Address 5�2 Mystic Street City St. Paul St.MN Zip 55119 Daytime phone 738-Z560 Zoning File Name #98-001 Address/Location 13xx Point Aouqlas Road 'FYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �1 City Counci( under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 64.20¢ Paragraph (a3 of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the St. Paut Planning Conmission on February 13 , 1g 9 $ File number: 98 (date of decisionJ � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. The Zoning Committee and Planning Commission erred in finding that the intended principal use is primarily retail. The evidence supports the proposed use of the property to be agricultural with the retail activity being a necessary accessory activity to the agricultural activity. Further, the traffic generated. by the proposed use does faZZ within the parameters set by the zoning code for other residential permitted uses. Attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs sig a I�� I �R City � �� SITE PLAN �� - � � s 3„£O,h�o1 oo�sFz j ., , . . �� 359 �, � . .; ,_ , � � � e$. :,,.; :, �� , � - -' -- i ��E�� j ' '. � -'� .5 v � '� � `:,i � i` c 4 , c�4?' 1� G �L' I � .p ' �� `�t -1 �w �'��). l�' `n �L)( � �n �� ' �I e �� .� il; X�� I� � � ` � `1 `\ l I' � Mt � 1 V) .�1 ' � ` � � �� I 4i ^ tJ � I � , i , d �y b ' i 6 o`.� � I � N .� e s e :°��x � .s3 r � � ,� , �_ � �. o; �� J I �', �Y � .., , I - �, �'� . �. ', � � . yy '' ;� � - : ,��. C ��.��i ` ' f �� i " � l_ o :` � .�� . W ` �� -. '. �,. � ✓� ,� 1 1; Ai �i'�;; � 1 .p K �,ncd /�� . � SL � �Jt..�� ..� . * L 5;�y"� o t qb d J �9 1L _� O � �ad i t (O 3 s , j i�y� . �W Q' UW '�°> t��n M�' iod 1 �. �! � / �� v�'B'C'�S�ood P� a^Dil��/o� < �oMP/ �-� S � 00 s • /' � ;�+'•--" _-� pfl j'�;% , �� 1 B9'ZLZ �. '-' . , r _'_ _ l� J � -- � � ' �i �' L 3 � . canr w ��' '"" __;"� 6 �i�- �_ .f �Bf�BlolOS _ �. '� � i 00'f7Z � 00 . � y � �� a�rs i t tl13A T�� } � �� b �- Q � { _w dl � -0 M � ] �9 ! - .� 'u � r � � 3 + ' � � y..� ��hf o- .� C: ��—' cnr�z-- o� �t� 9 � - ' ' ��./ " ' � � 4 �9�z�� _v�F r4 � �98b J �---- � . _ � � - Y; _ , 'Mtza-Nezi'cz'>s >/r3.v ,N35 av�l it+M 00'£lZ �'� ��- � _� v � city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 98-10 ��e February i3, 998 WHEREAS, JOHN AND JOANNE VALIUKAS, file #98-00 i, have applied for a Determination of Similar Use under the provisions of Section 64.300(g) of the Saint Pau( Legis(ative Code, to determine whether gro�ving nursery stock and crops, along �vith retail sales of gardening and landscapin� supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zonin� district, on property located at 13XX POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH, le�alty described as Lot 2, Elock i; Orchard Estates, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plannin� Commission held a public hearin� on February 5, 1998, at which ali persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursaant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Piannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin� Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving findings of facY: � The appticants have a contract to purchase the property, contin�ent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retait sales of water gardenin� supplies {pond liners, pumps, fountaicts, �vaterfalls, plants, and fish), landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing of � crops (carn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, a�d potted plants in ihe ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the followin� hours: 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. seven da}�s a week. Durin� Christmas time the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. , The esistina buildin� on site «rould be occupied by the retail center, office, stora�e, and a conference room to be used by garden ctubs. The applicants propose to construct a smailer building on site that would be used for maintaininQ and repairin� equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishment. Section 64.300(a) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district tiie plannin� commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each district. The ptannin, commission sha11 make the followin� findings in determining whether one use is similar to another: a. TJrat tlre rrse is sintilar in clrrrracter to oite or nrore of tJze prir:cipal trses penv:itted. Titis fiildin� is not met. Uses permitted in an R-LL zoning district include sin�le faulily homes, parks, libraries, houses of �rorship, foster hanes, cemeteries, monasteries, go[f courses, colleges, moved by Field seconded bY — in favor Upani�us against � a�-3s� � Zonina File �98-001 Page Two of Resolu[ion and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. tiVhile the applican[ states that the establishment would be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residentia] zonin� district, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail i�� nature and therefore not similar in charzcter to one or more of the principal uses permitted. It is true that the applicants would be gro�cin� some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anything, be accessory to the retail activity. The proposed principa( use of the property is clearly commerciat in nature. b. That the trafftc generated by suc/r t�se is si»:ilar to one or more oJthe prixcipa! uses permitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be simifar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most e�treme esample perhaps being that of a college or university, where there traffic is generated year round and from morning until night. Ho�vever, tlie applicant's properiy is zoned residential-lar�e lot, as is the property to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that gznerate a signi�cant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, "The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a semirural environment of przdominantiy lo�v-density, one-family detached d�vellings along �vith other residentially related facilities which serve tl�e residents in � the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance �vooded areas, wildlife and plaut resources, fragife bluff areas, topography and large expanses of nari�ral vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm 4vater runoff associated with hi�her-density development; and to facilitate installation of private �velis and individual sewa�e treatment systems for one-family detached dwellin�s." c. Tleat 1/te ltse is not ftrst pernrittetl in a less restrictive Zatri�to dislrict, This finding is not met. The proposed use is first permitted in a B-2 or B-3 zonin� district, dependina upon the exact nature and extent of the activitv. A retail business �vhere all activity takes place within an enclosed building would be pennitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as n retnil business whose principal actirity is selling the plants grown on the site and having oeusicle storage, grotiving, or display. d Tleat tlee use is cor:sistent wiflt tlie cor�tpre&eiesive plait. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan calls for sin�le fami(y homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The p]an states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. NOIV, THEREFORE, BE IT RLSOLVED, by tl�e Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, tl�e application for a Determination of Similar Use to determine � �vhether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping supplies, is an a�ricul[urai use and tl�erefore permitted iii a residential zonine district at 13XX POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH is liereby denied. Saint Paul Planning Commission �`�(J`h) n�dYMN��SSI�h City Halt Conference Center � � 15 Kellogg Boulevard West M � yLU A meeting of tlie Pla�ining Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, February 13, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent; Mmes. Duarte, Enah, Faricy, Geisser, Maddos, Modon, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messr>. Chavez,. Field Jr., Kona, Kramer, MeDone(l, No�clin and Vaught. Messrs. *Gervais, *Gordon, *Johnson, Mardell, and *Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Beth Baetz, Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Allen Lovejoy, Roger Ryan, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of Minutes of January 30,1998 MOTION: Con:n:issior:er Fieltl nioved approva[ of the minutes of January 30; Con:missimeer C/tavez seconded 1he n:otion whick carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that the Steering Committee discussed how pians would be reorganized, quadrant reporting, meetings with the quadrant leaders, a meetin� �vith the CIB Committee on February' 26 to help coordinate our efforts, and the restructurino of Planning Commission committees. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford announced that after the Planning Commission meeting this mornin�, there wili be a tour that is reviewing the Metro Transit Facility site and the Adult Detention Center Facility site. The City Council has taken further action on the issue a study of advertising signs. They have revised the ordinance as a result of the Planning Commission's action at the last meeting. The task force that has been set up includes a member to be �ecommended by the P[anning Commission and appointed at the discretion ofthe City Council. The rezoning t[�at the P[anning Commission recommended from residential to office use on West Seventh Street near 35E was approved by the City Council. Mc Ford announced that there are now parking authorization slips for the Plannin� � � ��-3s� � IV Commission's use. They «�ili be available at meetin�s. Chair l�torton announced that Commissioner Field will be representing the Planning Commission on the hiliboard task force. Commissioner Geisser announced that she has arran�ed a tour of the ne�� RiverCenter for tlie P{annin� Commission after the next �neetin� on Friday, Febniary 27, 1998. A sian-up sheet was circutated for those who 4vould like to attend. Zoning Committee #97-316 U S West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow a cellular telephone antenna on an existing residential building less than 60' in height at 1305 Grand Avem�e. (Ro�er Ryan, 266-6574, Southeast Team) Commissioner Field explained that the District Council met with the applicant and a before the last Zonina Committee meeting and a compromise �vas reached. U.S. West also furnished the Zoning Committee with information as to alternative sites and tocations which they had checked to see if they could (ocate on a non-residentiat building. A letter from the district council details hvo specific conditions regarding the antenna whicli the applicant found acceptable. MOTION: Conemissio�rer Field n:oved npprova/ of dae requested specia! condition use perntit to n!!ow a ce!ltdar telepbone ar:tenna on an existing residential bui/diaa less tltan 60' � in /reie ht, subject to tlie conditions detailed in a letter jrom tlte tlistrict cauncil, at 1305 Grand Avenue whic/: carried unanimously on n voice vote. #97-315 Andre Gambino/Franca Lin�ri - Change of nonconformina use permit. Properiy at 1472 Grand Avenue is currently used as a contractor's office and the applicant has requested to chan�e the use of the proper[y to a hair salon on the lst floor with hvo residential units on the 2nd floor. (Beth Bartz, 266-6580, Southwest Team) Commissioner Field explained that the MacalestervGroveland Community Council supports the permit with conditions. MOTION.• Con:n:issioner Field ntoved npproval of tlre requested ckar:ge of nonco�rjorn:ing use pern:it to attow tlee property at 1472 Cranrl Avenue, currently used as a co�ttrnctor's offtce, to c/tmtge tlre use to a l:air satort on ihe Ist floor wilh iwo residentin[ nnits ot� the 2nd,floor wit& co�iditioris. Commissioner Faricy exptained tliat her reason for votin� a�ainst the chan�e of nonconforming use is that she was opposed to the operatin� times that were allowed for the hair salon. After careful consideration, she realizes that she finds if quite difficult to tell small business peop(e what times they can be open, especially hair salons who make most of their money before and afrzr other people go to work. She will vote in approval today. Tke nrotion on tke floor carried unanin:ously on a voice vote. � � #98-001 John and Joanne Valiukas - Determination of similar use permit to determine 2 t�hedier growing nursery stock and crops, along «'ith retail sales of gardening and landscapina supplies is an aoricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential z.oning district at 13XX � Poin[ Doualas Road. (Kady Dadlez, 266-6582 Southeast Team) Commissioner Picld e�plained that the app(icant wou(d fike to grow some crops on the property widi some retai( sa(es. In the testimony at the Zoning Committee, the applicant also staed his intention of opering a landscapina business from this site. MOTION: Comnriss'ir�rrrr Field �noved rlerritd for Hee reques7ed deterntiirati�n n/ sfmflar use perrrrit m determine 1Jt�rt �roroifrn aursery stock arrd crops, nlnna witli retai/ snles of n ardeaing and lantlsc�rping supp/ies is au ao ricultural use and tGerefi�re perntitted ir: a resideirtinl Znuing district at 13�x Poi�tt Doualrn Roarl. Commissioiier Field added that the testimony revealad that what the applicant is proposing to do there is more than just a truck farm type of market. 1) They intend, in addition to selling crops, to sell pond liners, stones and rocks; 2) this property was rezoned to residential several years aoo; the person who spoke in opposition lives immediately adjacent to this property. He indicated that at the time he purchased this property four or five years aeo, this property was zoned residentiaL He purchased his home on the assurance that the adjacent property would be residentially used. Commissioner Fietd sta[ed that this use is more of a commercial operation than an agricultural one. Commissioner Vaught sYated that he felt that, because of the legal requirements, that he had to make the decision that, in effect, logically, �vas «rong. He thinks that the zonin� on this particular piece of propeRy is absurd (large lot residential), and that the highest and best use of the property is commercial. He does not consider this space to be residential space because it � is directly across the road from North Star Steel. He noted that if this had been a petition to rezone the propeRy that he would have suppoRed it. Commissioner Nowlin asked staff what the appropriate zonin� would need to be in order to do the use as proposed. Chair Morton responded that it wou(d be B-3. i�Is. Dadlez responded that she tliou�f�t it woutd depend on the extent and the nature of the activity. If everything were to take piace indoors, and it was a fully enctosed facility, it ��ould be zoned B-2. If there «ere some outdoor activity, Iikely a B-3 zoning district. Commissioner Kramer noted that there were other tl�ings that emerged during the Zoning Committee hearing: I) that there would be four employees in addition to the two owners for a total of six; 2) that they would be putting in an 8-spot parking lot in front of the esisting buildin�; and 3) that there �vere going to be garden clubs meeting in the building. It began to look more and more like a retail type use. Commissioner Engh asked tvhat the prospects ��ere that this land mioht actua(fy be used, and she commented that she just noted in the meetin� notes that District 1 Community Council voted in support of it. She's �vonderin� if maybe the Commission is following their own narrow path on the zoninQ and not looking at the prospect of the land bein� used to its hest purpose. Commissroner Fietd said that he generally agrees with the observation, but is troubled because it «as rezoned to "large lot residential and this clearly is not a crop selling operation, and it � �t�-3Sq seemed to grow in scope as questions were asked. He �vondered why the property �vas not � being rezoned; he could have supported that. Commissioner Field noted that he is sympathetic, too, to the person �vlio spoke in oppositron who bought his house several years ago, and was assured that the ad}acent property �vas zoned `9arge lot residential," and t4iat the building was <.nim. �� h�� ,7��i Commissioner Wencl expressed that one of the things people need to consider is that thfs site is part oF a larger uca a�id ad}acent to vacant land to the east. Tl�is is an area �vRiere there could be more housin_; tlie Housing Plan notes that �ae need 9000 more (ivine units by the year 2020. When the lii;hwood �'lan was being de�•eloped, there �tias discussion abou( multiple housing for part of this asea. "I his more intensi��e use, if it is put in, might prectude the plan for housing there. Commissioner Vaught noted that what I�is sense tells him tliat this is a reasonable use for this particular piece of property. He thinks that zoning these particular properties alon� Highway 61 as `'large lot residentiaP' was an error. He also thinks tliat the politics are unlikely that that land would be rezoned from its current zoning. He noted that he woutd second and support a motion to approve th+s case. Commissioner Kramer, in leafing through the Land Use Plan Draft, noted that this particular site is identified as a potential housing development site. With respect to the District 1 position, I�e spoke to a member of the counci! who, in his opinion, expressed that they had not been a�vare of the impact of this use. �� Commissioner Eng(t wondered if this large plan is more the enthusiasm of a neFV small business o�vner. Commissioner Field responded that the app(icant currently has a landscapina business, other operations that are (ocated in Maplewood, and it is their intention to relocate these operations at that one site. They testified that it �vas economically unfeasible for them to operate out of t�vo separate sites. Commissioner Treichel stated that this use is a very interesting concept, but if the zoning were to chan�e here, it wo�dd be spot zoning. Commissioner Vaught noted that since that propeRy along Highway 6] has been rezoned to "large lot residential," no houses have been built there. Commissioner Nowlin commented that if the Commission could get through this irrelevant debate and get on to the Comprehensive Plan, members would find out how wron� Commissioner Vaught is about this issue. Mr. Ford commented that he heard some ambiguity in the recent discussion that the Commission ought to be clear about what the ac[ion is that's being applied for. Is the Commission looking at a similar use behaeen the proposed use and an apple orchazd? Ms. Dadlez replied that the Commission is lookin� at the question of �vhether �vhat they are proposing to do similar to something that's allowed in an RRL zoning district. What their application is saying is that what they are proposin� to do is simi(ar to something listed in the � code in the RRL zoning district, and that is a�riculture. So, the question is: "Is what they are proposing sim+lar to agricalture?" lf it is, then the Com�nission ca�i appro� e it and they can operate their business. Staff"s position is that this is more of a reYail sales business than it is agricu I ture. Commissioner Kramer added that eve�� if this determination of similar use were approved, iY tivould, in addition, require a special condition use permit. The rnotinn orr the Jloor to derr}� Ike reqrrested �leterntinntion of similar use nt 13zx Point Dnuglas Roa�l carried eaannimously an n voice vnte. #98-003 Beverlv Carlson - Special condition use permit to allo�v an auto specialty store selling, repairin� and mounting of used tires at 705 E 7th Street. (Nancy Frick, 266-6554, Northeast Team) Commissioner Field reported that the Land Use Committee of the Da}non�s Bluff Community Council recommended denial for this permit. MOTION: Coraraissioner Field moved denial for Ylze requested specia! condition use permit to a!!aw nrt auto specialty store selling, repairing, a�zr1 mot��iting nsed tires at 705 E 7Ur Street, based upor: tlae lot size of appro.ri»mtely 12,500 square feet versus tbe required IS,000 square jeet, carried t�nanirnaus[y on a voice vote. Februarv 1998 Minor Zonine Amendments -(Ro�er Ryan) Commissioner Field reported that the February 1998 Minor Zoning Amendments were laid over until the next Zoning Committee meeting Thursday, February 19, 1998. Item #7, however, was heard because there was someone present who came to testify regarding that number. Commissioner Field read the next meeting's agenda. He noted that disc�ssion may also be held on some uniform information which is included in the staff findings. With many staff people working on zoning cases, the Zoning Committee thinks it needs to give staff some direction to create uniformiry. Commissioner Geisser asked, regardin� minor zoning text amendment #S that deals with murals, whether this is different from the previous discussion the Commission had that would include a hearing by the full Commission, or whether this is something minor and doesn't affect the full discussion of murals and signs. Mr. Ryan responded that this flows out of the case on Grand Avenue which pointed out that there was no definition of murals. Commissioner Geisser stated that she considers this a major issue that there are murals being painted all over the City on sides of buildin�s. She asked that some kind of conversation be allo«ed at the full Commission meeting on this issue. Chair MoROn reminded members that the minor zoning amendments will have a public hearing at Zoning Committee. Commissioner Geisser is concemed that not all businesses or proposed businesses in Saint Paul wiil be made aware of this public hearin�. She is asking that special consideration by made to �et as mucfi information about the hearing to as many people as possible. Chair Morton sua�ested that maybe the mural issue can be discussed in the billboard committee. Commissioner Field said that he would welcome that. He feels that under the aoe o[d ru[e of � �J � ��-3 S°t MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUARY 5, 1998 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy, Morton and Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Dadiez, Frick, Kelley and Messr. Ryan of the Planning Division. EXCUSED: Mr. Gordon, Mme. Wencl The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. JOHN AND JOANNE VALIUKAS: 13XX Point Douglas Road' 98-001; Determination of Similar Use Permit to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district. Ms. Dadlez presented sfides and gave the staff report noting that based on findings 1 and 2 staff recommends denial of the determination of similar use application. Upon question of Commissioner Vaught, Ms. Dadlez said the previous use was an apple orchard with apples and other related items sold, and that the primary use of the property was agricultural. � Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Dadlez said in the Zoning Code under the residential portion it refers to agricultural being permitted sub}ect to special conditions; however, there is no definition of agriculture in the code. Commissioner Kramer asked whether a special condition use permit wouid also be necessary in addition to the determination of similar use. Ms. Dadlez responded that if the Planning Commission made a determination of similar use, the speciai condition use permit wouid not be required. She further stated this is a use permitted by speciai condition, and Roger Ryan ciarified that if the determination of similar use were approved it wouid establish the use. Commissioner Vaught said he feels this is two separate steps, and we could find a determination of similar use if this was an agricultural use but not grant the special condition use permit. Commissioner Kramer said if we determine this is a similar use, that use would be agriculture which would then require a special condition use permit, and he asked staff which portion of this 5 acre lot would be used for retail purposes. Ms. Dadlez replied much of the retail activity wouid occur indoors because the use will be operating year round, and she believes it would be less than one acre. Robert Polski, attorney representing John and Joanne Valiukas, appeared on behalf of the applicants stating they are under a purchase agreement contingent upon obtaining the proper permits. He explained the past use of the property formerly known as the Pine Tree Apple Orchard which was used to grow and � sell apples as wefi as baking and selling apple pies. Mr. Polski said the applicants plan to use the property Zoning Committee Minutes February 5, 1998 Joan & Joanne Valiukas Page Two for the main purpose of growing crops, trees for landscaping, which is the applicants' business, and they are proposing to put up a new building for their equipment. He also said items associated with ponds, including liners, pumps, fountains and fish for the ponds wili be sold. Mr. Polski said hours will be Monday through Friday 9 am to 8 pm, Saturday 8 am to 4 pm, and Sunday 12 Noon to 4 pm, and during the winter months the hours will cut back. Referring to the property, Mr. Polski said except for dead and diseased trees, no others wil! be torn down at the area bordering the property. He referred to the surrounding neighborhood which has snowplowing, used auto sales, auto repair, plumbing, heating and electrical and pet grooming businesses, some of which are run out residences. Mr. Polski said the District 1 Council voted unanimously to approve the similar use permit as the proposed use was in keeping with the area. Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, John Valiukas of 502 Mystic Street appeared and said they wili be seiling bagged and buik dirt as weli as decorative stones for yards. He referred to a map and said they wiif put in a driveway and parking lot with eight staiis, one for each two employees and one handicapped and one customer. He explained they will repair their own equipment but not bring in other machinery for repair, and thaf they wilf afso run their existing (a�dscaping business from this location. � Commissioner Kramer stated the size of the parking lot, bringing in dirt materiafs fo seti as welf as running their landscaping business conflicts with the agricultural use. Mr. Polski responded that the applicants wil( keep some of their landscaping equipment on site but the majority of the Iandscaping business is done off- site. � Commissioner Kramer suggested creating a parking lot increases the ability to consider it a retail use versus an agricultural use, and Mr. Polski replied that with the public coming onto the property, putting in a driveway and parking fot is a requirement. Ms. Dadlez explained that the homestead had been separated from the rest of the apple orchard and the access to the parking !ot for the orchard went with the homestead. Upon question of Commissioner Chavez, the applicants said their dump truck would bring in loads of dirt to use in the field and for mulch, other items would be delivered directly from Chicago to the individual homes, and commercial trucks would deliver once or twice in the spring for orders of shrubs and piants. Upon question of Commissioner Morton, Mr. Valiukas said they plan to move their curreni business from Maptewood fo this location, during the winter months they will sell Christmas trees and fish to pond owners, and from January through March he will run his snowplowing business. No one appeared in support of the applicant. Mark Howard, 1388 S. Point Douglas Road, appeared and said he owns and lives in the house shown in the slides presented; however isn't shown in the slides is that this business is 40 feet from his back door and the property line 15-20 feet from this building. He said the land is fine but there is a problem with the existing building which is an eyesore. Mr. Howard said since he's lived there apples have not been sold, the apple trees were c�t down and there presently is no agricultural use. He said when he bought his � Gl�-3s°� Zoning Committee Minutes � February 5, 1998 Joan 8� Joanne Valiukas Page Three house he was told the land would be large residential lots with new houses put in, and he would not have bought it if he had been told a construction company would be builf in his back yard. He said a new house was built two houses down from this land and this area is residential, not indusfrial. He said North Star Steel is the onfy industriaf 6usiness in the area and is focated across a service road, highway, and down by the river. Mr. Howard said as he looks out his front door he sees nature and he is very concerned with this business going in and the negative effects to property values on fiis home. Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Howard said he's owned his property for four years, and having this business next door to him would greatiy affect him more than North Star Steel. No one else appeared in opposition. Mr. Polski responded that the existing building is an eye sore because the property has been vacant, and the applicants intent is to clean it all up. He also stated this is a small famiiy-owned business and should not be compared to a{arge construction company. No one else appeared and the public hearing was closed. � Roger Ryan referred to and read Section 64.300 of the Zoning Code, and clarified staff's position that a special condition use permit would not be required in addition to the determination of similar use. Commissioner Vaught asked Assistant City Attorney Warner whether this Gommission can treat an app{ication stylized for determination of similar use as an application both 4or determination of similar use as welf as a special condition use permit. Mr. Warner responded the net result would be the same in that conditions can be imposed in either circumstance. He explained the code states when reviewing an application of similar use, conditions may be attached, and that a special condition use permit allows attached conditions which are specified in the code. Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the staff recommendation to deny the determination of sim+lar use application, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Kramer explained he can accept growing crops and selling them on the corner as an agricultural use with the selling of dirt and plants similar to an agricultural use but he cannot accept the selling of ponds and accessories, landscaping bricks, erecting a new building, the applicants' landscaping business, and creating a parking lot for the public as agricultural uses. Commissioner Vaught spoke in agreement with comments of Commissioner Kramer. He said there is nothing wrong with the use this applicant wants to put on this property, but its current zoning makes it impossible to do so. �J Zoning Committee Minutes February 5, 1998 Joan & Joanne Valiukas Page Four Chair Field spoke in support of the motion for denial and said at first he pictured this to be a small family business but because it has so many activities going on, and given the zoning of the property, he does not see this as an agricultural use. Chair Field also said he is sympathetic to concerns of the adjacent homeowner. There was no further discussion, Adopted Yeas - 6 Drafted by: � Pattie Kelle Recording Secret Nays - 0 Submitted by: � Kady Dadlez Southeast Quadrant � �� Ir"� L� q�' � ZONING COMMITTBE STAFF RSPORT FIL$ # 98-001 1. APPL2CANT: JOfiN & JOANNE VAI,IUKAS DAT& OF HEARING: 02/OS/98 2. CLASSIFICATIOt3: Determination o£ Similar Use 3. LOCATION: 137rx POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTA (eastside btw Carver & city limits) 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1; Orchard Estates 6. PRE5ENT ZONING; R-LL ZONING CODE REFERfiNCE: §64.300(g) 7. STAFF INVSSTIGATION AND REPORT: DATB: 1/29/98 BY: Kady Dadlez 8. DAT& RECEIVED: O1fO5J98 DEADLINE 80A ACTION: 3/6/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------° - -------------------------------------------------- A. PIIRPOSE: Determination of similar use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping � supplies is an agricultural use and there£ore permitted in a residential zoning district. B_ PARCEL SIZE: This irregularly shaped parcel has 282 feet of frontage on Point Douglas Road and an average depth of 415 feet £or a total 1ot area of about 219,500 square feet or 5 acres. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: The property is vacant except for a small o££ice -building. The site was most recently occupied by Pine Tree Apple Orchard as a growing site and sales facility. The orchard property was subdivided in 1994 and the homestead was separated from the rest of the orchard. D. SURROIINDING I,AND IISE: The property is surrounded on the north, south, and east by undeveloped land in an R-LL zoning district and the old orchard homestead to the north in an R-LL zone. North Star Steel and Highway 61 are located to the west of the site in an I-2 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300(g) of the zoning code states that when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each disCrict. The planning commission shall make the findings detailed in #2 of this report in determining whether one use is similar to another. F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: There are two previous zoning cases concerning this property. One case is from 1994 and involves a subdivision to separate the homestead £rom the remainder of the orchard property. The site was � occupied by Pine Tree Orchard as an apple growing site and sales facility. In 1989, the apple trees became nonproductive due to age and disease and harvesting of apples ceased. The sale o£ apples continued at the site � � Zoning File #98-001 Page Two until November 1993 with apples being imported from an orchard in Mahtomedi. The zoning case from 1996 involves a request to rezone the property to T-1 to allow the establishment of a self-storage use. The rezoning petition was denied. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOi�4iENDATZON: The District 1 Community Council voted unanimously to support the determination of similar use, stating that the proposed use is in keeping with the area and is a low impact business. H. FINDINGS: 1. The applicants have a contract to purchase the property, contingent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retail sales of water gardening supplies (pond liners, pumps, fountains, waterfalls, plants, and fish}, landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing oP crops (corn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, and potted plants in the ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the following hours: 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. seven days a week. During Christmas time the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. � The existing building on site would be occupied by the retail center, � office, storage, and a conference room to be used by garden c].ubs. The applicants propose to constrcict a smal2er building on site that would be used for maintaining and repairing equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishment. 2. Section 64.300(g) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each distzict. The planning commission shall make the following findings in determining whether one use is similar to another: a. That the use is similar in character to one or more of the priacipal uses permitted. This finding is not met. Uses permitted in an T2-LL zoning district include single family homes, parks, libraries, houses of worship, foster homes, cemeteries, monasteries, golf courses, colleges, and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. While the applicant states that the establishment wouZd be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residential zoning district, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail in nature and therefore not similar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. It is true that the � applicants would be growing some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anything, be accessory to the retail %, � J a�'- � Zoning Fi1e #98-001 Page Three activity. The proposed principal use of the property is clearly commercial in nature. b. That the traffic generated by such use is similar to one or more of the principaS uses pezmitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be similar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most extreme example perhaps being that of a college or ��n iversity, where there tra£fic is generated year round and from morning until night. However, the applicant�s property is zoned residential-large lot, as is the property to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that generate a significant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, � ^The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a semirural environment of predominantly low-densi[.y, one-family detached dwellings along with oCher residentially related facilities which serve the residents in the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance wooded areas, wildlife � and plant resources, fragile bluff areas, topography and large expanses o£ natural vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm water runoff associated with higher-density development; and to facilitate installation of private wells and individual sewage tzeatment systems for one-family detached dwellings." c. That the use is not first permitted in a less restrictive zoning district. This finding is not met. The proposed use is first permitted in a B-2 or B-3 zoning disCrict, depending upon the exact nature and extent of trie activity. A retail business where all activity Cakes place within an enclosed building would be permitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as a retail business whose principal activity is selling the plants grown on the site and havinq outside storage, growing, or display. d. That the use is coasistent with the compseheasive plan. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan calls £or single family homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The plan states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. � 2. STAFF RBCODII3SNDATION: Based on findings 1 and 2 staff recommends denial of the determination of similar use application. J ' DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE APPLICATION ' Department of Planning and Economic Development ZoningSection R�eE1VED , 1100 City HaU Annex 25 West Fourlh Streel ^^^ SaintPau[, MN55102 ��'� 0 5 �� 266-G589 �O � � � � APPLICANT John D. Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas 502 Mvstic Street PROPERTY LOCATION City St. Paul St. �`?NZip 55119 Dayfime phone 738-1560 Name of owner (if different) Property owned by J-Sv�, a Minnesota Partnersh p ContaCt person (if different) �obert J. Polski Phone 224 177� T.L+.-...�...... -.i- T-.... Address(Location Po�t Ibuglas Road, south of Ca.rver Ave. Le al descri tion: P�e Tree A�ple Orchzrd 9 P See EYhihst A - �tt - �che�ierP+� Current Zoning Residentiai (a(tacl� addifiona! sl�eet if necessary) REQUEST: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 300, Paragraph (fl of the Zoning Code for a Determination of Similar Use. Current Proposed u materials, nursery stock, maintenance honey, baked Eural - � SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Provide the following information (attach additional sheets if necessary). � Is the use similar in character Yo one or more of the principal uses permitted in the zoning district? Xes, the principal use will be agricultural in nature which is a permitted use. L Is the tratfic that the use will generate similar to traffic generated by one or more permiYted uses? Yes � � � Is the use already permitted in a less restrictive zoning district? No, agricultural uses are not first permitted in B3 zoning distr'ct. � � Required site pian is attached � c� ApplicanYs signature�,�� ^ � � Date �" � � City Retail apple orchard - sates of {-� . — J� P LSKI � & P LSKI ATfORNEVS AT LAW January 5, 1998 � FIRSTAR CENTER SUITE1712 707 EAST ftRH STREET SAINTPAUL,MINNESOTA 55701-7808 7ELEPHON E (672)224-7 776 FAX:(612)224-A883 RobertJ.POlski 1q27-1477 RoberfJ. Polski, Jr. Member of ihe Minnewta and Wsconsin Bars Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Point Douglas Road, South of Carver Avenue, Pine Tree Apple Orchard Dear Sir or Madam: �t�-3s`i Encfosed herewith for filing please find the fo(lowing documents pertaining to the above property together with a check in the amount of $500.00 for your fee: w � � Determination of Similar Use Application Site Plan Exhibit "A" - legal description Should you have any questions or require anything further, please don't hesitate to cail. Sincerefy, � , Robert J.�Iski, J . RJP/jth Enclosures � -------._.__ j _��1�� a�' `?��?/_ � ciienlsWaLUkaslstpaul�05 2 � J � ;_ � y S�� q ' y L o a+y ;V„x �� C _ _� a„- �.� T a a e �3 ��'° "< I �' W � +?,-„`'��'�?��'�v '�:a_"� u n M u i� N � O\> o `� �' � P� �(pl o�� L_I �W n -m' "�� L� �` � h � ; , �I ho � � ` � 111 � SITE PLAN l' al� ` � ui : l � ' C� � t,� � � I ' ' � , I Q �� E �Y � � Zd c T ` y 3 y ' F,y15TfM�+ � b � �� ` °.a 3„g£,81olOS _ � OO�f7Z oo. p3X5 � i _ �v13M 'f � '1 I � �M� � q �� : i n ;, � \ l_1 t, � -'� 3„£D,6/oIOS -- 00'SfZ _i _ �� f, �� •, I ,' � .� i ��ti FF1 ^ •i� � � i - � ' i ` I x � , a � 7 -o A 6 4 g8 � "'�� .� , �i � � �� `9.�9LZ:a , _ _ � �. �- % 1-- �' �1' � _ ' 'M2ZN-NBZl'fl' 1 " � b/)3N H13S au(IISaM ` � I 00'£Il / ` : _��,' � j =; �� ' � �; h V� V 1 I ti t U °, V � V` � �' i � ''/� ✓� � � i �� 1; Zg2 �� f �S a �� 11 �i �0 4 � �! �� i�'d 4 L4N �' 1�j/ ? � , a �� iad � .' (`035a9 � 9G ' loa 'oY4 � F8 a� stll'a�ry �'� � � ��' . - awnx o saC �od � o�l��/ � eN Nu� F aQY �solb' Pala" , ei - � �pMPOOa p�} � i ,.� ,� �` � �'/ 9 �ro4 ;�, �-. 8./ � - . $ ppOb i �` i �� 89�.�Z � � __'_ -- y 89'986 ,' � . ._.. � .- i -- J ` � ; � � � -. � � '� � c �� _ �. ` I � t �, � � t r•: � _� � i i i i � '' ' '� � �, �,. ,� , � v � { �_ `� � � � ;' i -. . , n:� ' ' � I I. � i ;_ � R DISTICOMMCNCL Fax � 612-292-7829 Feb 09 15:04 c�g -3S� Distric t lC ommunity C ouncil DistrictlNews � Conway Recseation Ceater • 2090 Conway Sc. • Room 126 • Sc. Paul, MN 55119 (612) 29�7828 {612) 292-7829 pax distl co@mtn.org February 9, 1998 Ms. Kady Dadlez llepartment of Planning and Economic Development• Zoning Section 1100 CiCy Hall Annex 25 west I�ourth Street 5aint Paul, NIN 55102 ZObIIN6 BILINCd NU1�ER: 98-001 ZONINtd SILE NAME: John and Josnne Valivka9 '.CO the zoning committee: At the Monday, .January 26th, 1998, monthly board meetinq, board directozs anc3 ofEicers discussed the above-named psoposal. � It was determined that the request was within the par.ameCers o£ the Dietrict 1 Community Couneil's goals and objectives. f'urthermore, it was determined that the busineas, while being conducted within a residential area, was of zow-impact and would not increase traEfic flow or otherwise deface the natural resouzcea of the area. Therefore, the proposal as submiCtetl to the Gity hae the unanimous support of the ➢zstrict 1 Community Council. As of today, Monday, February 9, the llistsict 1 Office has recorded no objections to this proposal. Should additional iniozmation be needed, please call the tJistricr_ 1 Community Uffice at (612) 292-7828. 5'n erely, ebe . o � lJ� Conmtunity oiganizei District 1 Community Council �� w �J �� 1. SLTNRAY-$A _ HAZEL PARK FiADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. WEST SIDE DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PF-IALEN NORTH END _ , THOMAS-DALE SUMMTT-UNiVERSTTY WEST SEVENTH COMO HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTHONY PARK MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELANl� HIGHI.AND SUIvIMTT HILL DOWNTOWN ZON�NG F�LE ��-�°� �� CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS ��-3S� � BATTLE-CREEK DISTRICT 1 ON „� „,,,. T�` ,..., ,,_ . , - �.. �: �.. _ �. 1i 4 � � � , � �� .��µ �. � /GR -�, J � ( i !I 4 I I (� oa � � � Q � � 4 �, Q --��..--.�. � � Q� Q �Q Q �� I� �� Q p. � ,� �� ,� o � :�, o�� 4 �Q� � ��Q`� �.��a � .,U��' � :� �� :� ' NLA�� ' � - � �av�. '� :' : �' v �4.''�3�� "� ��,.. �� .`� :` �� . 0 �t?�Cw ,. MSEY OPEN SF�.CE , �� ° E�� : �� ° - �� _J �_ —�L`-?�``��3� . _I -- APPLICANT �� _�—" D* �' v�UU K�s LEGEND PURPOSE � � �� zoning district boundary FILE # �� ' � � DATE � � 7 � � a � subject property PLNG. DIST. ' MAP # o one famity �� two famify SCALE 1" = 400' ��!�!± �-� � multiple family � � 0 � 0 _ �i o � � � 0 0 � I o lol � . , o 0 Q _ _ o v .. ::. �.� o � oQ �� QhQ C� t � t � c � n.L orth� . a n CO R1Ri ercia! � .� � industrial V vacant ,� – — - i� ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas made application to the Saint Paul 3 Pla.uiung Commission for a determination of similaz use permit in order to determine whether 4 growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gazdening and landscaping supplies is 5 an agricultural use, and therefore permitted in a residential use zoning district. Pursuant to the 6 provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for properry located at 13�c Point Douglas Road South 7 (eastside between Carver and the City Innits) and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Orchazd 8 Estates; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 5, 1998, after hauing provided notice to affected properry owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Plamiiug Commission. The Planning Commission, in Resolution No. 98-10 adopted Febivaiy 13, 1998, decided to deny the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: � The applicants have a contract to purchase the property, contingent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retail sales of water gardening supplies (pond liners, pumps, fountains, waterfalls, plants, and fish), landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing of crops (corn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, and potted plants in the ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the following hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seven days a week. During Christmas tnne the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. The existing building on site would be occupied by the retail center, office, storage, and a conference room to be used by garden clubs. The applicants propose to construct a smaller building on site that would be used for maintaining and repairing equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishxnent. Section 64300(g) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall deternune if a use is similaz to other uses permitted in each district. The planning commission shall make the following fmdings in determining whether one use is similaz to another: a. That the use is sdmitar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. Council File # 9 0 '3.7 / Green Sheet # �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� This finding is not met. Uses permitted in an R-LL zoning district include single family homes, pazks, libraries, houses of worship, foster homes, cemeteries, monasteries, golf courses, colleges, and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. �8-359 a 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 G� c. C'Q While the applicant states that the establishxnent would be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residential zoning dishict, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail in nature and therefore not similar in chazacter to one or more of the principal uses pernutted. It is true that the applicants would be growing some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anyttriug, be accessory to the retail activity. The proposed principal use of the property is cleazly commercial in nature. That the h generated by such use is similar to one or more of the principal uses permitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be similar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most extreme example perhaps being that of a college or university, where traffic is generated year round and from moming until night. However, the applicant's properry is zoned residential-large lot, as is the properry to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that generate a significant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, "The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a seinirural environment of predominantly low-density, one-family detached dwellings along with other residentially related facilities which serve the residents in the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance wooded areas, wildlife and plant resources, fragile bluff areas, topography and large expanses of natural vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm water runoff associated with higher-density development; and to facilitate installation of private wells and individual sewage treatment systems for one-family detached dwellings." That the use is not ftrst permitted in a less restrictive zoning district. This finding is not met. The proposed use is first pernutted in a B-2 or B-3 zoning district, depending upon the exact nature and eactent of the activiry. A retail business where all activity takes place within an enclosed building would be permitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as a retail business whose principal activity is sedling the plants grown on the site and having outside storage, growing, or display. That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan ca11s for single family homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The plan states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. 2 ORlG1NAL 1B-35q 2 WFIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of § 64.206, John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas 3 duly filed on February 26, 1998, an appeal from the determination made by the planning 4 commission, requestiug that a heazing be held before the City Council for the purpose of 5 considering the actions taken by the said commission; and 6 7 WfIEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64206 through § 64.208 and upon notice to affected 8 parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on Mazch 25, 1998, 9 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and the platming commission does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the planning commission in this matter based upon the following fmdings of the council: The Council finds that the planning commission committed no error as to fact finding or procedure in this matter and accordingly adopts the findings and conclusions of the planning commission as contained in its Resolution No. 98-10 dated February 13, 1998; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas be and is hereby denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to John and Joanne Valiukas, the Zoning Administrator and the Plaiuiing Commission. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date _��?�� \0 By: Form Approved by City Attorney �.%�/✓�'�� !' L O ^ c(� sy: Adoption Cextified by Council Se tary Appxwed by Mayor Eor Submission to Council By: ) g� Approved by Mayor: Da e "� - By: 9g- 3sg Council Offices 9s I GREEN SHEET No 608'79 Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES � t__f°E•'�"� LJ°TMCO � � rnrwnuwEr ❑ arvauu _ ❑FUax�ata¢antFSOat ❑AUxr�tamv��ccra ❑ WYOR(ORA8LSf4R) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in denying the appeal of John and oanne Valiukas to a decision of the Planning Commission for pxoperty located at 13XX Point iouQlas Road. PLA13N1NG COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS: Has this PersoNfim� everv.rorked under a canfrxt for this tleP�meM? YFS MO Has this DeB�rm e�.er been a eily emVbYee9 VES NO Does this peismlfirtn possese a sidll not rwrmallypwsessed Dy arry curreM pty emWoyeel YES NO IsMisP��atmBHedventloYt - YES NO �in all veB answers an seoa�ate sheet aM attach to oreen sheet (�OUr�c�l Resear�h C�r'e� , .. � a�, IF APPROVED AlAOUNT OP TRANSACTION COS7/REVENUE BUDfiETm (qRCLE ONE� YES NO ACTNITY NUFiBER CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretazy 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Zoning File No. 98-049 Appeal by 7ohn and Joanne Valiukas March 25, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY �� `'3`59 PegBir75 CityAttorney CivilOrv'uion 400 City Ha11 Te[ephone: 6I2 266-8770 ISWestKeTloggBZvd Facsimile:672298-5619 Sainf Paut, Minnesota 55102 Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� U�/�. eter W. Warner Assistant Ciiy Attarney PWWirmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT s�] CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colemon, Mayor February 27,1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hal] Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Divisiorz of Planning ZS WestFousth Sfieet SoLtt Paul, MN55102 Telephane: 612-266-6565 FacsimiLe: 612-228-3374 I would like to confum that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday March 25, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similar use permit: Appellant: JOHN AND JOANN VALIUKAS File Numbar: #98-001 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similaz use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district. Address: 13XX Point Douglas Road (east side between Carver and city limits) Legal Description of Properry: Lot 2, Block I; Orchard Estates Previous Action Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: unanimous, February 13, 1998 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 6-0, February 5, 1998 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the March 11, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � Kady D lez City Planner cc: File #98-001 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP . r�ms�n�nv� . - NOTICE OF PUBLiC BEARING . - � TRe Saint Paul C�ty Conncil will conduct a pablic hearing on Wedne'sday; March �, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Ci£y Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Coutt Hou'se, Yo consides the appea] 04 3ohn and Joanne Valiukas to a decision .of the Planning Commission denying a determinatian of similaz use to determine whether grQwisig nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies is an agr3cuttural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at ]37IX Point D'ougias Road teast side between Carver and the city ]imits). -- ,- Dated: Mazch 3, 1998 � - - . . - : � -. NAt�CY ANDERSON � . � . . . � Aasistant (.Sty Conncil SecreCary . - . . � (March'4 1998) � . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNMG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pameta Wheetock, Directar �.. crrY oF sanv 1� pauL, Norm Coteman, Mayor W� March 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the CiTy Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Pau(, Minnesota 55102 2i 4Yest Fourth Street Saint Paut, .L.N� 55107 RE: Zoning File #98-049: JOHN & JOANNE VALITJI{AS City Council Hearing. March 25, 1998, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers c��-3sq Telephone: 612-266-6.i 65 Facs�mile. 6l2-228-331 �F PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a determination of similar use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at 13XX Point Douglas Road (east side between Carver and the city limits). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL Unanimous � ZONII3G COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 6-0 5TAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL SUPPORT: No one spoke. OPPO5ITION: One person spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: JOHN & JOANNE VALNKA5 have appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a determination of similar use to determine whether retail sales of gazdening supplies in addition to growing of nursery stock and crops is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at 13� Point Douglas Road. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on February 5, 1998. The applicants and their representative addressed the committee, At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial ofthe request. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a unanimous vote on February 13, 1998. This appeat is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, t J � Ken Ford Plannina Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members APPLICATiON FOR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Econamic Development Zoning Section II00 Cin� Hall Anner 15 West Fourt/: Street Sair:t Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION EFSB:�?Ft � - ��:; . ��— � �?9.�cia�. ::':_:: ::, . -�.i, Name John and Joann Valiukas Address 5�2 Mystic Street City St. Paul St.MN Zip 55119 Daytime phone 738-Z560 Zoning File Name #98-001 Address/Location 13xx Point Aouqlas Road 'FYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �1 City Counci( under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 64.20¢ Paragraph (a3 of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the St. Paut Planning Conmission on February 13 , 1g 9 $ File number: 98 (date of decisionJ � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. The Zoning Committee and Planning Commission erred in finding that the intended principal use is primarily retail. The evidence supports the proposed use of the property to be agricultural with the retail activity being a necessary accessory activity to the agricultural activity. Further, the traffic generated. by the proposed use does faZZ within the parameters set by the zoning code for other residential permitted uses. Attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs sig a I�� I �R City � �� SITE PLAN �� - � � s 3„£O,h�o1 oo�sFz j ., , . . �� 359 �, � . .; ,_ , � � � e$. :,,.; :, �� , � - -' -- i ��E�� j ' '. � -'� .5 v � '� � `:,i � i` c 4 , c�4?' 1� G �L' I � .p ' �� `�t -1 �w �'��). l�' `n �L)( � �n �� ' �I e �� .� il; X�� I� � � ` � `1 `\ l I' � Mt � 1 V) .�1 ' � ` � � �� I 4i ^ tJ � I � , i , d �y b ' i 6 o`.� � I � N .� e s e :°��x � .s3 r � � ,� , �_ � �. o; �� J I �', �Y � .., , I - �, �'� . �. ', � � . yy '' ;� � - : ,��. C ��.��i ` ' f �� i " � l_ o :` � .�� . W ` �� -. '. �,. � ✓� ,� 1 1; Ai �i'�;; � 1 .p K �,ncd /�� . � SL � �Jt..�� ..� . * L 5;�y"� o t qb d J �9 1L _� O � �ad i t (O 3 s , j i�y� . �W Q' UW '�°> t��n M�' iod 1 �. �! � / �� v�'B'C'�S�ood P� a^Dil��/o� < �oMP/ �-� S � 00 s • /' � ;�+'•--" _-� pfl j'�;% , �� 1 B9'ZLZ �. '-' . , r _'_ _ l� J � -- � � ' �i �' L 3 � . canr w ��' '"" __;"� 6 �i�- �_ .f �Bf�BlolOS _ �. '� � i 00'f7Z � 00 . � y � �� a�rs i t tl13A T�� } � �� b �- Q � { _w dl � -0 M � ] �9 ! - .� 'u � r � � 3 + ' � � y..� ��hf o- .� C: ��—' cnr�z-- o� �t� 9 � - ' ' ��./ " ' � � 4 �9�z�� _v�F r4 � �98b J �---- � . _ � � - Y; _ , 'Mtza-Nezi'cz'>s >/r3.v ,N35 av�l it+M 00'£lZ �'� ��- � _� v � city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 98-10 ��e February i3, 998 WHEREAS, JOHN AND JOANNE VALIUKAS, file #98-00 i, have applied for a Determination of Similar Use under the provisions of Section 64.300(g) of the Saint Pau( Legis(ative Code, to determine whether gro�ving nursery stock and crops, along �vith retail sales of gardening and landscapin� supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zonin� district, on property located at 13XX POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH, le�alty described as Lot 2, Elock i; Orchard Estates, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plannin� Commission held a public hearin� on February 5, 1998, at which ali persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursaant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Piannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin� Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving findings of facY: � The appticants have a contract to purchase the property, contin�ent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retait sales of water gardenin� supplies {pond liners, pumps, fountaicts, �vaterfalls, plants, and fish), landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing of � crops (carn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, a�d potted plants in ihe ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the followin� hours: 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. seven da}�s a week. Durin� Christmas time the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. , The esistina buildin� on site «rould be occupied by the retail center, office, stora�e, and a conference room to be used by garden ctubs. The applicants propose to construct a smailer building on site that would be used for maintaininQ and repairin� equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishment. Section 64.300(a) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district tiie plannin� commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each district. The ptannin, commission sha11 make the followin� findings in determining whether one use is similar to another: a. TJrat tlre rrse is sintilar in clrrrracter to oite or nrore of tJze prir:cipal trses penv:itted. Titis fiildin� is not met. Uses permitted in an R-LL zoning district include sin�le faulily homes, parks, libraries, houses of �rorship, foster hanes, cemeteries, monasteries, go[f courses, colleges, moved by Field seconded bY — in favor Upani�us against � a�-3s� � Zonina File �98-001 Page Two of Resolu[ion and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. tiVhile the applican[ states that the establishment would be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residentia] zonin� district, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail i�� nature and therefore not similar in charzcter to one or more of the principal uses permitted. It is true that the applicants would be gro�cin� some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anything, be accessory to the retail activity. The proposed principa( use of the property is clearly commerciat in nature. b. That the trafftc generated by suc/r t�se is si»:ilar to one or more oJthe prixcipa! uses permitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be simifar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most e�treme esample perhaps being that of a college or university, where there traffic is generated year round and from morning until night. Ho�vever, tlie applicant's properiy is zoned residential-lar�e lot, as is the property to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that gznerate a signi�cant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, "The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a semirural environment of przdominantiy lo�v-density, one-family detached d�vellings along �vith other residentially related facilities which serve tl�e residents in � the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance �vooded areas, wildlife and plaut resources, fragife bluff areas, topography and large expanses of nari�ral vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm 4vater runoff associated with hi�her-density development; and to facilitate installation of private �velis and individual sewa�e treatment systems for one-family detached dwellin�s." c. Tleat 1/te ltse is not ftrst pernrittetl in a less restrictive Zatri�to dislrict, This finding is not met. The proposed use is first permitted in a B-2 or B-3 zonin� district, dependina upon the exact nature and extent of the activitv. A retail business �vhere all activity takes place within an enclosed building would be pennitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as n retnil business whose principal actirity is selling the plants grown on the site and having oeusicle storage, grotiving, or display. d Tleat tlee use is cor:sistent wiflt tlie cor�tpre&eiesive plait. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan calls for sin�le fami(y homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The p]an states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. NOIV, THEREFORE, BE IT RLSOLVED, by tl�e Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, tl�e application for a Determination of Similar Use to determine � �vhether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping supplies, is an a�ricul[urai use and tl�erefore permitted iii a residential zonine district at 13XX POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH is liereby denied. Saint Paul Planning Commission �`�(J`h) n�dYMN��SSI�h City Halt Conference Center � � 15 Kellogg Boulevard West M � yLU A meeting of tlie Pla�ining Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, February 13, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent; Mmes. Duarte, Enah, Faricy, Geisser, Maddos, Modon, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messr>. Chavez,. Field Jr., Kona, Kramer, MeDone(l, No�clin and Vaught. Messrs. *Gervais, *Gordon, *Johnson, Mardell, and *Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Beth Baetz, Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Allen Lovejoy, Roger Ryan, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of Minutes of January 30,1998 MOTION: Con:n:issior:er Fieltl nioved approva[ of the minutes of January 30; Con:missimeer C/tavez seconded 1he n:otion whick carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that the Steering Committee discussed how pians would be reorganized, quadrant reporting, meetings with the quadrant leaders, a meetin� �vith the CIB Committee on February' 26 to help coordinate our efforts, and the restructurino of Planning Commission committees. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford announced that after the Planning Commission meeting this mornin�, there wili be a tour that is reviewing the Metro Transit Facility site and the Adult Detention Center Facility site. The City Council has taken further action on the issue a study of advertising signs. They have revised the ordinance as a result of the Planning Commission's action at the last meeting. The task force that has been set up includes a member to be �ecommended by the P[anning Commission and appointed at the discretion ofthe City Council. The rezoning t[�at the P[anning Commission recommended from residential to office use on West Seventh Street near 35E was approved by the City Council. Mc Ford announced that there are now parking authorization slips for the Plannin� � � ��-3s� � IV Commission's use. They «�ili be available at meetin�s. Chair l�torton announced that Commissioner Field will be representing the Planning Commission on the hiliboard task force. Commissioner Geisser announced that she has arran�ed a tour of the ne�� RiverCenter for tlie P{annin� Commission after the next �neetin� on Friday, Febniary 27, 1998. A sian-up sheet was circutated for those who 4vould like to attend. Zoning Committee #97-316 U S West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow a cellular telephone antenna on an existing residential building less than 60' in height at 1305 Grand Avem�e. (Ro�er Ryan, 266-6574, Southeast Team) Commissioner Field explained that the District Council met with the applicant and a before the last Zonina Committee meeting and a compromise �vas reached. U.S. West also furnished the Zoning Committee with information as to alternative sites and tocations which they had checked to see if they could (ocate on a non-residentiat building. A letter from the district council details hvo specific conditions regarding the antenna whicli the applicant found acceptable. MOTION: Conemissio�rer Field n:oved npprova/ of dae requested specia! condition use perntit to n!!ow a ce!ltdar telepbone ar:tenna on an existing residential bui/diaa less tltan 60' � in /reie ht, subject to tlie conditions detailed in a letter jrom tlte tlistrict cauncil, at 1305 Grand Avenue whic/: carried unanimously on n voice vote. #97-315 Andre Gambino/Franca Lin�ri - Change of nonconformina use permit. Properiy at 1472 Grand Avenue is currently used as a contractor's office and the applicant has requested to chan�e the use of the proper[y to a hair salon on the lst floor with hvo residential units on the 2nd floor. (Beth Bartz, 266-6580, Southwest Team) Commissioner Field explained that the MacalestervGroveland Community Council supports the permit with conditions. MOTION.• Con:n:issioner Field ntoved npproval of tlre requested ckar:ge of nonco�rjorn:ing use pern:it to attow tlee property at 1472 Cranrl Avenue, currently used as a co�ttrnctor's offtce, to c/tmtge tlre use to a l:air satort on ihe Ist floor wilh iwo residentin[ nnits ot� the 2nd,floor wit& co�iditioris. Commissioner Faricy exptained tliat her reason for votin� a�ainst the chan�e of nonconforming use is that she was opposed to the operatin� times that were allowed for the hair salon. After careful consideration, she realizes that she finds if quite difficult to tell small business peop(e what times they can be open, especially hair salons who make most of their money before and afrzr other people go to work. She will vote in approval today. Tke nrotion on tke floor carried unanin:ously on a voice vote. � � #98-001 John and Joanne Valiukas - Determination of similar use permit to determine 2 t�hedier growing nursery stock and crops, along «'ith retail sales of gardening and landscapina supplies is an aoricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential z.oning district at 13XX � Poin[ Doualas Road. (Kady Dadlez, 266-6582 Southeast Team) Commissioner Picld e�plained that the app(icant wou(d fike to grow some crops on the property widi some retai( sa(es. In the testimony at the Zoning Committee, the applicant also staed his intention of opering a landscapina business from this site. MOTION: Comnriss'ir�rrrr Field �noved rlerritd for Hee reques7ed deterntiirati�n n/ sfmflar use perrrrit m determine 1Jt�rt �roroifrn aursery stock arrd crops, nlnna witli retai/ snles of n ardeaing and lantlsc�rping supp/ies is au ao ricultural use and tGerefi�re perntitted ir: a resideirtinl Znuing district at 13�x Poi�tt Doualrn Roarl. Commissioiier Field added that the testimony revealad that what the applicant is proposing to do there is more than just a truck farm type of market. 1) They intend, in addition to selling crops, to sell pond liners, stones and rocks; 2) this property was rezoned to residential several years aoo; the person who spoke in opposition lives immediately adjacent to this property. He indicated that at the time he purchased this property four or five years aeo, this property was zoned residentiaL He purchased his home on the assurance that the adjacent property would be residentially used. Commissioner Fietd sta[ed that this use is more of a commercial operation than an agricultural one. Commissioner Vaught sYated that he felt that, because of the legal requirements, that he had to make the decision that, in effect, logically, �vas «rong. He thinks that the zonin� on this particular piece of propeRy is absurd (large lot residential), and that the highest and best use of the property is commercial. He does not consider this space to be residential space because it � is directly across the road from North Star Steel. He noted that if this had been a petition to rezone the propeRy that he would have suppoRed it. Commissioner Nowlin asked staff what the appropriate zonin� would need to be in order to do the use as proposed. Chair Morton responded that it wou(d be B-3. i�Is. Dadlez responded that she tliou�f�t it woutd depend on the extent and the nature of the activity. If everything were to take piace indoors, and it was a fully enctosed facility, it ��ould be zoned B-2. If there «ere some outdoor activity, Iikely a B-3 zoning district. Commissioner Kramer noted that there were other tl�ings that emerged during the Zoning Committee hearing: I) that there would be four employees in addition to the two owners for a total of six; 2) that they would be putting in an 8-spot parking lot in front of the esisting buildin�; and 3) that there �vere going to be garden clubs meeting in the building. It began to look more and more like a retail type use. Commissioner Engh asked tvhat the prospects ��ere that this land mioht actua(fy be used, and she commented that she just noted in the meetin� notes that District 1 Community Council voted in support of it. She's �vonderin� if maybe the Commission is following their own narrow path on the zoninQ and not looking at the prospect of the land bein� used to its hest purpose. Commissroner Fietd said that he generally agrees with the observation, but is troubled because it «as rezoned to "large lot residential and this clearly is not a crop selling operation, and it � �t�-3Sq seemed to grow in scope as questions were asked. He �vondered why the property �vas not � being rezoned; he could have supported that. Commissioner Field noted that he is sympathetic, too, to the person �vlio spoke in oppositron who bought his house several years ago, and was assured that the ad}acent property �vas zoned `9arge lot residential," and t4iat the building was <.nim. �� h�� ,7��i Commissioner Wencl expressed that one of the things people need to consider is that thfs site is part oF a larger uca a�id ad}acent to vacant land to the east. Tl�is is an area �vRiere there could be more housin_; tlie Housing Plan notes that �ae need 9000 more (ivine units by the year 2020. When the lii;hwood �'lan was being de�•eloped, there �tias discussion abou( multiple housing for part of this asea. "I his more intensi��e use, if it is put in, might prectude the plan for housing there. Commissioner Vaught noted that what I�is sense tells him tliat this is a reasonable use for this particular piece of property. He thinks that zoning these particular properties alon� Highway 61 as `'large lot residentiaP' was an error. He also thinks tliat the politics are unlikely that that land would be rezoned from its current zoning. He noted that he woutd second and support a motion to approve th+s case. Commissioner Kramer, in leafing through the Land Use Plan Draft, noted that this particular site is identified as a potential housing development site. With respect to the District 1 position, I�e spoke to a member of the counci! who, in his opinion, expressed that they had not been a�vare of the impact of this use. �� Commissioner Eng(t wondered if this large plan is more the enthusiasm of a neFV small business o�vner. Commissioner Field responded that the app(icant currently has a landscapina business, other operations that are (ocated in Maplewood, and it is their intention to relocate these operations at that one site. They testified that it �vas economically unfeasible for them to operate out of t�vo separate sites. Commissioner Treichel stated that this use is a very interesting concept, but if the zoning were to chan�e here, it wo�dd be spot zoning. Commissioner Vaught noted that since that propeRy along Highway 6] has been rezoned to "large lot residential," no houses have been built there. Commissioner Nowlin commented that if the Commission could get through this irrelevant debate and get on to the Comprehensive Plan, members would find out how wron� Commissioner Vaught is about this issue. Mr. Ford commented that he heard some ambiguity in the recent discussion that the Commission ought to be clear about what the ac[ion is that's being applied for. Is the Commission looking at a similar use behaeen the proposed use and an apple orchazd? Ms. Dadlez replied that the Commission is lookin� at the question of �vhether �vhat they are proposing to do similar to something that's allowed in an RRL zoning district. What their application is saying is that what they are proposin� to do is simi(ar to something listed in the � code in the RRL zoning district, and that is a�riculture. So, the question is: "Is what they are proposing sim+lar to agricalture?" lf it is, then the Com�nission ca�i appro� e it and they can operate their business. Staff"s position is that this is more of a reYail sales business than it is agricu I ture. Commissioner Kramer added that eve�� if this determination of similar use were approved, iY tivould, in addition, require a special condition use permit. The rnotinn orr the Jloor to derr}� Ike reqrrested �leterntinntion of similar use nt 13zx Point Dnuglas Roa�l carried eaannimously an n voice vnte. #98-003 Beverlv Carlson - Special condition use permit to allo�v an auto specialty store selling, repairin� and mounting of used tires at 705 E 7th Street. (Nancy Frick, 266-6554, Northeast Team) Commissioner Field reported that the Land Use Committee of the Da}non�s Bluff Community Council recommended denial for this permit. MOTION: Coraraissioner Field moved denial for Ylze requested specia! condition use permit to a!!aw nrt auto specialty store selling, repairing, a�zr1 mot��iting nsed tires at 705 E 7Ur Street, based upor: tlae lot size of appro.ri»mtely 12,500 square feet versus tbe required IS,000 square jeet, carried t�nanirnaus[y on a voice vote. Februarv 1998 Minor Zonine Amendments -(Ro�er Ryan) Commissioner Field reported that the February 1998 Minor Zoning Amendments were laid over until the next Zoning Committee meeting Thursday, February 19, 1998. Item #7, however, was heard because there was someone present who came to testify regarding that number. Commissioner Field read the next meeting's agenda. He noted that disc�ssion may also be held on some uniform information which is included in the staff findings. With many staff people working on zoning cases, the Zoning Committee thinks it needs to give staff some direction to create uniformiry. Commissioner Geisser asked, regardin� minor zoning text amendment #S that deals with murals, whether this is different from the previous discussion the Commission had that would include a hearing by the full Commission, or whether this is something minor and doesn't affect the full discussion of murals and signs. Mr. Ryan responded that this flows out of the case on Grand Avenue which pointed out that there was no definition of murals. Commissioner Geisser stated that she considers this a major issue that there are murals being painted all over the City on sides of buildin�s. She asked that some kind of conversation be allo«ed at the full Commission meeting on this issue. Chair MoROn reminded members that the minor zoning amendments will have a public hearing at Zoning Committee. Commissioner Geisser is concemed that not all businesses or proposed businesses in Saint Paul wiil be made aware of this public hearin�. She is asking that special consideration by made to �et as mucfi information about the hearing to as many people as possible. Chair Morton sua�ested that maybe the mural issue can be discussed in the billboard committee. Commissioner Field said that he would welcome that. He feels that under the aoe o[d ru[e of � �J � ��-3 S°t MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUARY 5, 1998 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy, Morton and Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Dadiez, Frick, Kelley and Messr. Ryan of the Planning Division. EXCUSED: Mr. Gordon, Mme. Wencl The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. JOHN AND JOANNE VALIUKAS: 13XX Point Douglas Road' 98-001; Determination of Similar Use Permit to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district. Ms. Dadlez presented sfides and gave the staff report noting that based on findings 1 and 2 staff recommends denial of the determination of similar use application. Upon question of Commissioner Vaught, Ms. Dadlez said the previous use was an apple orchard with apples and other related items sold, and that the primary use of the property was agricultural. � Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Dadlez said in the Zoning Code under the residential portion it refers to agricultural being permitted sub}ect to special conditions; however, there is no definition of agriculture in the code. Commissioner Kramer asked whether a special condition use permit wouid also be necessary in addition to the determination of similar use. Ms. Dadlez responded that if the Planning Commission made a determination of similar use, the speciai condition use permit wouid not be required. She further stated this is a use permitted by speciai condition, and Roger Ryan ciarified that if the determination of similar use were approved it wouid establish the use. Commissioner Vaught said he feels this is two separate steps, and we could find a determination of similar use if this was an agricultural use but not grant the special condition use permit. Commissioner Kramer said if we determine this is a similar use, that use would be agriculture which would then require a special condition use permit, and he asked staff which portion of this 5 acre lot would be used for retail purposes. Ms. Dadlez replied much of the retail activity wouid occur indoors because the use will be operating year round, and she believes it would be less than one acre. Robert Polski, attorney representing John and Joanne Valiukas, appeared on behalf of the applicants stating they are under a purchase agreement contingent upon obtaining the proper permits. He explained the past use of the property formerly known as the Pine Tree Apple Orchard which was used to grow and � sell apples as wefi as baking and selling apple pies. Mr. Polski said the applicants plan to use the property Zoning Committee Minutes February 5, 1998 Joan & Joanne Valiukas Page Two for the main purpose of growing crops, trees for landscaping, which is the applicants' business, and they are proposing to put up a new building for their equipment. He also said items associated with ponds, including liners, pumps, fountains and fish for the ponds wili be sold. Mr. Polski said hours will be Monday through Friday 9 am to 8 pm, Saturday 8 am to 4 pm, and Sunday 12 Noon to 4 pm, and during the winter months the hours will cut back. Referring to the property, Mr. Polski said except for dead and diseased trees, no others wil! be torn down at the area bordering the property. He referred to the surrounding neighborhood which has snowplowing, used auto sales, auto repair, plumbing, heating and electrical and pet grooming businesses, some of which are run out residences. Mr. Polski said the District 1 Council voted unanimously to approve the similar use permit as the proposed use was in keeping with the area. Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, John Valiukas of 502 Mystic Street appeared and said they wili be seiling bagged and buik dirt as weli as decorative stones for yards. He referred to a map and said they wiif put in a driveway and parking lot with eight staiis, one for each two employees and one handicapped and one customer. He explained they will repair their own equipment but not bring in other machinery for repair, and thaf they wilf afso run their existing (a�dscaping business from this location. � Commissioner Kramer stated the size of the parking lot, bringing in dirt materiafs fo seti as welf as running their landscaping business conflicts with the agricultural use. Mr. Polski responded that the applicants wil( keep some of their landscaping equipment on site but the majority of the Iandscaping business is done off- site. � Commissioner Kramer suggested creating a parking lot increases the ability to consider it a retail use versus an agricultural use, and Mr. Polski replied that with the public coming onto the property, putting in a driveway and parking fot is a requirement. Ms. Dadlez explained that the homestead had been separated from the rest of the apple orchard and the access to the parking !ot for the orchard went with the homestead. Upon question of Commissioner Chavez, the applicants said their dump truck would bring in loads of dirt to use in the field and for mulch, other items would be delivered directly from Chicago to the individual homes, and commercial trucks would deliver once or twice in the spring for orders of shrubs and piants. Upon question of Commissioner Morton, Mr. Valiukas said they plan to move their curreni business from Maptewood fo this location, during the winter months they will sell Christmas trees and fish to pond owners, and from January through March he will run his snowplowing business. No one appeared in support of the applicant. Mark Howard, 1388 S. Point Douglas Road, appeared and said he owns and lives in the house shown in the slides presented; however isn't shown in the slides is that this business is 40 feet from his back door and the property line 15-20 feet from this building. He said the land is fine but there is a problem with the existing building which is an eyesore. Mr. Howard said since he's lived there apples have not been sold, the apple trees were c�t down and there presently is no agricultural use. He said when he bought his � Gl�-3s°� Zoning Committee Minutes � February 5, 1998 Joan 8� Joanne Valiukas Page Three house he was told the land would be large residential lots with new houses put in, and he would not have bought it if he had been told a construction company would be builf in his back yard. He said a new house was built two houses down from this land and this area is residential, not indusfrial. He said North Star Steel is the onfy industriaf 6usiness in the area and is focated across a service road, highway, and down by the river. Mr. Howard said as he looks out his front door he sees nature and he is very concerned with this business going in and the negative effects to property values on fiis home. Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Howard said he's owned his property for four years, and having this business next door to him would greatiy affect him more than North Star Steel. No one else appeared in opposition. Mr. Polski responded that the existing building is an eye sore because the property has been vacant, and the applicants intent is to clean it all up. He also stated this is a small famiiy-owned business and should not be compared to a{arge construction company. No one else appeared and the public hearing was closed. � Roger Ryan referred to and read Section 64.300 of the Zoning Code, and clarified staff's position that a special condition use permit would not be required in addition to the determination of similar use. Commissioner Vaught asked Assistant City Attorney Warner whether this Gommission can treat an app{ication stylized for determination of similar use as an application both 4or determination of similar use as welf as a special condition use permit. Mr. Warner responded the net result would be the same in that conditions can be imposed in either circumstance. He explained the code states when reviewing an application of similar use, conditions may be attached, and that a special condition use permit allows attached conditions which are specified in the code. Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the staff recommendation to deny the determination of sim+lar use application, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Kramer explained he can accept growing crops and selling them on the corner as an agricultural use with the selling of dirt and plants similar to an agricultural use but he cannot accept the selling of ponds and accessories, landscaping bricks, erecting a new building, the applicants' landscaping business, and creating a parking lot for the public as agricultural uses. Commissioner Vaught spoke in agreement with comments of Commissioner Kramer. He said there is nothing wrong with the use this applicant wants to put on this property, but its current zoning makes it impossible to do so. �J Zoning Committee Minutes February 5, 1998 Joan & Joanne Valiukas Page Four Chair Field spoke in support of the motion for denial and said at first he pictured this to be a small family business but because it has so many activities going on, and given the zoning of the property, he does not see this as an agricultural use. Chair Field also said he is sympathetic to concerns of the adjacent homeowner. There was no further discussion, Adopted Yeas - 6 Drafted by: � Pattie Kelle Recording Secret Nays - 0 Submitted by: � Kady Dadlez Southeast Quadrant � �� Ir"� L� q�' � ZONING COMMITTBE STAFF RSPORT FIL$ # 98-001 1. APPL2CANT: JOfiN & JOANNE VAI,IUKAS DAT& OF HEARING: 02/OS/98 2. CLASSIFICATIOt3: Determination o£ Similar Use 3. LOCATION: 137rx POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTA (eastside btw Carver & city limits) 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1; Orchard Estates 6. PRE5ENT ZONING; R-LL ZONING CODE REFERfiNCE: §64.300(g) 7. STAFF INVSSTIGATION AND REPORT: DATB: 1/29/98 BY: Kady Dadlez 8. DAT& RECEIVED: O1fO5J98 DEADLINE 80A ACTION: 3/6/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------° - -------------------------------------------------- A. PIIRPOSE: Determination of similar use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping � supplies is an agricultural use and there£ore permitted in a residential zoning district. B_ PARCEL SIZE: This irregularly shaped parcel has 282 feet of frontage on Point Douglas Road and an average depth of 415 feet £or a total 1ot area of about 219,500 square feet or 5 acres. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: The property is vacant except for a small o££ice -building. The site was most recently occupied by Pine Tree Apple Orchard as a growing site and sales facility. The orchard property was subdivided in 1994 and the homestead was separated from the rest of the orchard. D. SURROIINDING I,AND IISE: The property is surrounded on the north, south, and east by undeveloped land in an R-LL zoning district and the old orchard homestead to the north in an R-LL zone. North Star Steel and Highway 61 are located to the west of the site in an I-2 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300(g) of the zoning code states that when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each disCrict. The planning commission shall make the findings detailed in #2 of this report in determining whether one use is similar to another. F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: There are two previous zoning cases concerning this property. One case is from 1994 and involves a subdivision to separate the homestead £rom the remainder of the orchard property. The site was � occupied by Pine Tree Orchard as an apple growing site and sales facility. In 1989, the apple trees became nonproductive due to age and disease and harvesting of apples ceased. The sale o£ apples continued at the site � � Zoning File #98-001 Page Two until November 1993 with apples being imported from an orchard in Mahtomedi. The zoning case from 1996 involves a request to rezone the property to T-1 to allow the establishment of a self-storage use. The rezoning petition was denied. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOi�4iENDATZON: The District 1 Community Council voted unanimously to support the determination of similar use, stating that the proposed use is in keeping with the area and is a low impact business. H. FINDINGS: 1. The applicants have a contract to purchase the property, contingent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retail sales of water gardening supplies (pond liners, pumps, fountains, waterfalls, plants, and fish}, landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing oP crops (corn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, and potted plants in the ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the following hours: 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. seven days a week. During Christmas time the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. � The existing building on site would be occupied by the retail center, � office, storage, and a conference room to be used by garden c].ubs. The applicants propose to constrcict a smal2er building on site that would be used for maintaining and repairing equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishment. 2. Section 64.300(g) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each distzict. The planning commission shall make the following findings in determining whether one use is similar to another: a. That the use is similar in character to one or more of the priacipal uses permitted. This finding is not met. Uses permitted in an T2-LL zoning district include single family homes, parks, libraries, houses of worship, foster homes, cemeteries, monasteries, golf courses, colleges, and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. While the applicant states that the establishment wouZd be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residential zoning district, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail in nature and therefore not similar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. It is true that the � applicants would be growing some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anything, be accessory to the retail %, � J a�'- � Zoning Fi1e #98-001 Page Three activity. The proposed principal use of the property is clearly commercial in nature. b. That the traffic generated by such use is similar to one or more of the principaS uses pezmitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be similar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most extreme example perhaps being that of a college or ��n iversity, where there tra£fic is generated year round and from morning until night. However, the applicant�s property is zoned residential-large lot, as is the property to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that generate a significant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, � ^The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a semirural environment of predominantly low-densi[.y, one-family detached dwellings along with oCher residentially related facilities which serve the residents in the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance wooded areas, wildlife � and plant resources, fragile bluff areas, topography and large expanses o£ natural vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm water runoff associated with higher-density development; and to facilitate installation of private wells and individual sewage tzeatment systems for one-family detached dwellings." c. That the use is not first permitted in a less restrictive zoning district. This finding is not met. The proposed use is first permitted in a B-2 or B-3 zoning disCrict, depending upon the exact nature and extent of trie activity. A retail business where all activity Cakes place within an enclosed building would be permitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as a retail business whose principal activity is selling the plants grown on the site and havinq outside storage, growing, or display. d. That the use is coasistent with the compseheasive plan. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan calls £or single family homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The plan states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. � 2. STAFF RBCODII3SNDATION: Based on findings 1 and 2 staff recommends denial of the determination of similar use application. J ' DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE APPLICATION ' Department of Planning and Economic Development ZoningSection R�eE1VED , 1100 City HaU Annex 25 West Fourlh Streel ^^^ SaintPau[, MN55102 ��'� 0 5 �� 266-G589 �O � � � � APPLICANT John D. Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas 502 Mvstic Street PROPERTY LOCATION City St. Paul St. �`?NZip 55119 Dayfime phone 738-1560 Name of owner (if different) Property owned by J-Sv�, a Minnesota Partnersh p ContaCt person (if different) �obert J. Polski Phone 224 177� T.L+.-...�...... -.i- T-.... Address(Location Po�t Ibuglas Road, south of Ca.rver Ave. Le al descri tion: P�e Tree A�ple Orchzrd 9 P See EYhihst A - �tt - �che�ierP+� Current Zoning Residentiai (a(tacl� addifiona! sl�eet if necessary) REQUEST: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 300, Paragraph (fl of the Zoning Code for a Determination of Similar Use. Current Proposed u materials, nursery stock, maintenance honey, baked Eural - � SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Provide the following information (attach additional sheets if necessary). � Is the use similar in character Yo one or more of the principal uses permitted in the zoning district? Xes, the principal use will be agricultural in nature which is a permitted use. L Is the tratfic that the use will generate similar to traffic generated by one or more permiYted uses? Yes � � � Is the use already permitted in a less restrictive zoning district? No, agricultural uses are not first permitted in B3 zoning distr'ct. � � Required site pian is attached � c� ApplicanYs signature�,�� ^ � � Date �" � � City Retail apple orchard - sates of {-� . — J� P LSKI � & P LSKI ATfORNEVS AT LAW January 5, 1998 � FIRSTAR CENTER SUITE1712 707 EAST ftRH STREET SAINTPAUL,MINNESOTA 55701-7808 7ELEPHON E (672)224-7 776 FAX:(612)224-A883 RobertJ.POlski 1q27-1477 RoberfJ. Polski, Jr. Member of ihe Minnewta and Wsconsin Bars Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Point Douglas Road, South of Carver Avenue, Pine Tree Apple Orchard Dear Sir or Madam: �t�-3s`i Encfosed herewith for filing please find the fo(lowing documents pertaining to the above property together with a check in the amount of $500.00 for your fee: w � � Determination of Similar Use Application Site Plan Exhibit "A" - legal description Should you have any questions or require anything further, please don't hesitate to cail. Sincerefy, � , Robert J.�Iski, J . RJP/jth Enclosures � -------._.__ j _��1�� a�' `?��?/_ � ciienlsWaLUkaslstpaul�05 2 � J � ;_ � y S�� q ' y L o a+y ;V„x �� C _ _� a„- �.� T a a e �3 ��'° "< I �' W � +?,-„`'��'�?��'�v '�:a_"� u n M u i� N � O\> o `� �' � P� �(pl o�� L_I �W n -m' "�� L� �` � h � ; , �I ho � � ` � 111 � SITE PLAN l' al� ` � ui : l � ' C� � t,� � � I ' ' � , I Q �� E �Y � � Zd c T ` y 3 y ' F,y15TfM�+ � b � �� ` °.a 3„g£,81olOS _ � OO�f7Z oo. p3X5 � i _ �v13M 'f � '1 I � �M� � q �� : i n ;, � \ l_1 t, � -'� 3„£D,6/oIOS -- 00'SfZ _i _ �� f, �� •, I ,' � .� i ��ti FF1 ^ •i� � � i - � ' i ` I x � , a � 7 -o A 6 4 g8 � "'�� .� , �i � � �� `9.�9LZ:a , _ _ � �. �- % 1-- �' �1' � _ ' 'M2ZN-NBZl'fl' 1 " � b/)3N H13S au(IISaM ` � I 00'£Il / ` : _��,' � j =; �� ' � �; h V� V 1 I ti t U °, V � V` � �' i � ''/� ✓� � � i �� 1; Zg2 �� f �S a �� 11 �i �0 4 � �! �� i�'d 4 L4N �' 1�j/ ? � , a �� iad � .' (`035a9 � 9G ' loa 'oY4 � F8 a� stll'a�ry �'� � � ��' . - awnx o saC �od � o�l��/ � eN Nu� F aQY �solb' Pala" , ei - � �pMPOOa p�} � i ,.� ,� �` � �'/ 9 �ro4 ;�, �-. 8./ � - . $ ppOb i �` i �� 89�.�Z � � __'_ -- y 89'986 ,' � . ._.. � .- i -- J ` � ; � � � -. � � '� � c �� _ �. ` I � t �, � � t r•: � _� � i i i i � '' ' '� � �, �,. ,� , � v � { �_ `� � � � ;' i -. . , n:� ' ' � I I. � i ;_ � R DISTICOMMCNCL Fax � 612-292-7829 Feb 09 15:04 c�g -3S� Distric t lC ommunity C ouncil DistrictlNews � Conway Recseation Ceater • 2090 Conway Sc. • Room 126 • Sc. Paul, MN 55119 (612) 29�7828 {612) 292-7829 pax distl co@mtn.org February 9, 1998 Ms. Kady Dadlez llepartment of Planning and Economic Development• Zoning Section 1100 CiCy Hall Annex 25 west I�ourth Street 5aint Paul, NIN 55102 ZObIIN6 BILINCd NU1�ER: 98-001 ZONINtd SILE NAME: John and Josnne Valivka9 '.CO the zoning committee: At the Monday, .January 26th, 1998, monthly board meetinq, board directozs anc3 ofEicers discussed the above-named psoposal. � It was determined that the request was within the par.ameCers o£ the Dietrict 1 Community Couneil's goals and objectives. f'urthermore, it was determined that the busineas, while being conducted within a residential area, was of zow-impact and would not increase traEfic flow or otherwise deface the natural resouzcea of the area. Therefore, the proposal as submiCtetl to the Gity hae the unanimous support of the ➢zstrict 1 Community Council. As of today, Monday, February 9, the llistsict 1 Office has recorded no objections to this proposal. Should additional iniozmation be needed, please call the tJistricr_ 1 Community Uffice at (612) 292-7828. 5'n erely, ebe . o � lJ� Conmtunity oiganizei District 1 Community Council �� w �J �� 1. SLTNRAY-$A _ HAZEL PARK FiADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. WEST SIDE DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PF-IALEN NORTH END _ , THOMAS-DALE SUMMTT-UNiVERSTTY WEST SEVENTH COMO HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTHONY PARK MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELANl� HIGHI.AND SUIvIMTT HILL DOWNTOWN ZON�NG F�LE ��-�°� �� CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS ��-3S� � BATTLE-CREEK DISTRICT 1 ON „� „,,,. T�` ,..., ,,_ . , - �.. �: �.. _ �. 1i 4 � � � , � �� .��µ �. � /GR -�, J � ( i !I 4 I I (� oa � � � Q � � 4 �, Q --��..--.�. � � Q� Q �Q Q �� I� �� Q p. � ,� �� ,� o � :�, o�� 4 �Q� � ��Q`� �.��a � .,U��' � :� �� :� ' NLA�� ' � - � �av�. '� :' : �' v �4.''�3�� "� ��,.. �� .`� :` �� . 0 �t?�Cw ,. MSEY OPEN SF�.CE , �� ° E�� : �� ° - �� _J �_ —�L`-?�``��3� . _I -- APPLICANT �� _�—" D* �' v�UU K�s LEGEND PURPOSE � � �� zoning district boundary FILE # �� ' � � DATE � � 7 � � a � subject property PLNG. DIST. ' MAP # o one famity �� two famify SCALE 1" = 400' ��!�!± �-� � multiple family � � 0 � 0 _ �i o � � � 0 0 � I o lol � . , o 0 Q _ _ o v .. ::. �.� o � oQ �� QhQ C� t � t � c � n.L orth� . a n CO R1Ri ercia! � .� � industrial V vacant ,� – — - i� ORIGINAL Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas made application to the Saint Paul 3 Pla.uiung Commission for a determination of similaz use permit in order to determine whether 4 growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gazdening and landscaping supplies is 5 an agricultural use, and therefore permitted in a residential use zoning district. Pursuant to the 6 provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for properry located at 13�c Point Douglas Road South 7 (eastside between Carver and the City Innits) and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1; Orchazd 8 Estates; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 5, 1998, after hauing provided notice to affected properry owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Plamiiug Commission. The Planning Commission, in Resolution No. 98-10 adopted Febivaiy 13, 1998, decided to deny the application based upon the following findings and conclusions: � The applicants have a contract to purchase the property, contingent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retail sales of water gardening supplies (pond liners, pumps, fountains, waterfalls, plants, and fish), landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing of crops (corn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, and potted plants in the ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the following hours: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seven days a week. During Christmas tnne the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. The existing building on site would be occupied by the retail center, office, storage, and a conference room to be used by garden clubs. The applicants propose to construct a smaller building on site that would be used for maintaining and repairing equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishxnent. Section 64300(g) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall deternune if a use is similaz to other uses permitted in each district. The planning commission shall make the following fmdings in determining whether one use is similaz to another: a. That the use is sdmitar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. Council File # 9 0 '3.7 / Green Sheet # �� RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA �� This finding is not met. Uses permitted in an R-LL zoning district include single family homes, pazks, libraries, houses of worship, foster homes, cemeteries, monasteries, golf courses, colleges, and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. �8-359 a 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 G� c. C'Q While the applicant states that the establishxnent would be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residential zoning dishict, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail in nature and therefore not similar in chazacter to one or more of the principal uses pernutted. It is true that the applicants would be growing some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anyttriug, be accessory to the retail activity. The proposed principal use of the property is cleazly commercial in nature. That the h generated by such use is similar to one or more of the principal uses permitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be similar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most extreme example perhaps being that of a college or university, where traffic is generated year round and from moming until night. However, the applicant's properry is zoned residential-large lot, as is the properry to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that generate a significant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, "The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a seinirural environment of predominantly low-density, one-family detached dwellings along with other residentially related facilities which serve the residents in the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance wooded areas, wildlife and plant resources, fragile bluff areas, topography and large expanses of natural vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm water runoff associated with higher-density development; and to facilitate installation of private wells and individual sewage treatment systems for one-family detached dwellings." That the use is not ftrst permitted in a less restrictive zoning district. This finding is not met. The proposed use is first pernutted in a B-2 or B-3 zoning district, depending upon the exact nature and eactent of the activiry. A retail business where all activity takes place within an enclosed building would be permitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as a retail business whose principal activity is sedling the plants grown on the site and having outside storage, growing, or display. That the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan ca11s for single family homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The plan states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. 2 ORlG1NAL 1B-35q 2 WFIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of § 64.206, John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas 3 duly filed on February 26, 1998, an appeal from the determination made by the planning 4 commission, requestiug that a heazing be held before the City Council for the purpose of 5 considering the actions taken by the said commission; and 6 7 WfIEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64206 through § 64.208 and upon notice to affected 8 parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on Mazch 25, 1998, 9 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 WHEREAS, the council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the zoning committee and the platming commission does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby affirm the decision of the planning commission in this matter based upon the following fmdings of the council: The Council finds that the planning commission committed no error as to fact finding or procedure in this matter and accordingly adopts the findings and conclusions of the planning commission as contained in its Resolution No. 98-10 dated February 13, 1998; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of John Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas be and is hereby denied; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk sha11 mail a copy of this resolution to John and Joanne Valiukas, the Zoning Administrator and the Plaiuiing Commission. Requested by Department of: Adopted by Council: Date _��?�� \0 By: Form Approved by City Attorney �.%�/✓�'�� !' L O ^ c(� sy: Adoption Cextified by Council Se tary Appxwed by Mayor Eor Submission to Council By: ) g� Approved by Mayor: Da e "� - By: 9g- 3sg Council Offices 9s I GREEN SHEET No 608'79 Rathy Lantry, 266-8670 TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES � t__f°E•'�"� LJ°TMCO � � rnrwnuwEr ❑ arvauu _ ❑FUax�ata¢antFSOat ❑AUxr�tamv��ccra ❑ WYOR(ORA8LSf4R) ❑ (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in denying the appeal of John and oanne Valiukas to a decision of the Planning Commission for pxoperty located at 13XX Point iouQlas Road. PLA13N1NG COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMIS: Has this PersoNfim� everv.rorked under a canfrxt for this tleP�meM? YFS MO Has this DeB�rm e�.er been a eily emVbYee9 VES NO Does this peismlfirtn possese a sidll not rwrmallypwsessed Dy arry curreM pty emWoyeel YES NO IsMisP��atmBHedventloYt - YES NO �in all veB answers an seoa�ate sheet aM attach to oreen sheet (�OUr�c�l Resear�h C�r'e� , .. � a�, IF APPROVED AlAOUNT OP TRANSACTION COS7/REVENUE BUDfiETm (qRCLE ONE� YES NO ACTNITY NUFiBER CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor Apri121, 1998 Nancy Anderson Council Secretazy 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Zoning File No. 98-049 Appeal by 7ohn and Joanne Valiukas March 25, 1998 Dear Ms. Anderson: OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY �� `'3`59 PegBir75 CityAttorney CivilOrv'uion 400 City Ha11 Te[ephone: 6I2 266-8770 ISWestKeTloggBZvd Facsimile:672298-5619 Sainf Paut, Minnesota 55102 Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint Paul City Council in the above-entitled matter. Would you please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� U�/�. eter W. Warner Assistant Ciiy Attarney PWWirmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT s�] CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colemon, Mayor February 27,1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hal] Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Divisiorz of Planning ZS WestFousth Sfieet SoLtt Paul, MN55102 Telephane: 612-266-6565 FacsimiLe: 612-228-3374 I would like to confum that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday March 25, 1998, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similar use permit: Appellant: JOHN AND JOANN VALIUKAS File Numbar: #98-001 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision denying a determination of similaz use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district. Address: 13XX Point Douglas Road (east side between Carver and city limits) Legal Description of Properry: Lot 2, Block I; Orchard Estates Previous Action Planning Commission Recommendation: Denial; vote: unanimous, February 13, 1998 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Denial; vote: 6-0, February 5, 1998 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the March 11, 1998 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � Kady D lez City Planner cc: File #98-001 Paul Dubruiel Pattie Kelly Wendy Lane, LIEP . r�ms�n�nv� . - NOTICE OF PUBLiC BEARING . - � TRe Saint Paul C�ty Conncil will conduct a pablic hearing on Wedne'sday; March �, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Ci£y Council Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Coutt Hou'se, Yo consides the appea] 04 3ohn and Joanne Valiukas to a decision .of the Planning Commission denying a determinatian of similaz use to determine whether grQwisig nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies is an agr3cuttural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at ]37IX Point D'ougias Road teast side between Carver and the city ]imits). -- ,- Dated: Mazch 3, 1998 � - - . . - : � -. NAt�CY ANDERSON � . � . . . � Aasistant (.Sty Conncil SecreCary . - . . � (March'4 1998) � . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNMG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pameta Wheetock, Directar �.. crrY oF sanv 1� pauL, Norm Coteman, Mayor W� March 13, 1998 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the CiTy Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Pau(, Minnesota 55102 2i 4Yest Fourth Street Saint Paut, .L.N� 55107 RE: Zoning File #98-049: JOHN & JOANNE VALITJI{AS City Council Hearing. March 25, 1998, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers c��-3sq Telephone: 612-266-6.i 65 Facs�mile. 6l2-228-331 �F PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision denying a determination of similar use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at 13XX Point Douglas Road (east side between Carver and the city limits). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DENIAL Unanimous � ZONII3G COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL 6-0 5TAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL SUPPORT: No one spoke. OPPO5ITION: One person spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: JOHN & JOANNE VALNKA5 have appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to deny a determination of similar use to determine whether retail sales of gazdening supplies in addition to growing of nursery stock and crops is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district at 13� Point Douglas Road. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on February 5, 1998. The applicants and their representative addressed the committee, At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 6-0 to recommend denial ofthe request. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for denial on a unanimous vote on February 13, 1998. This appeat is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 1998. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, t J � Ken Ford Plannina Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members APPLICATiON FOR APPEAL Department ojPlanning and Econamic Development Zoning Section II00 Cin� Hall Anner 15 West Fourt/: Street Sair:t Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION EFSB:�?Ft � - ��:; . ��— � �?9.�cia�. ::':_:: ::, . -�.i, Name John and Joann Valiukas Address 5�2 Mystic Street City St. Paul St.MN Zip 55119 Daytime phone 738-Z560 Zoning File Name #98-001 Address/Location 13xx Point Aouqlas Road 'FYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appea! to the: ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �1 City Counci( under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 64.20¢ Paragraph (a3 of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the St. Paut Planning Conmission on February 13 , 1g 9 $ File number: 98 (date of decisionJ � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission. The Zoning Committee and Planning Commission erred in finding that the intended principal use is primarily retail. The evidence supports the proposed use of the property to be agricultural with the retail activity being a necessary accessory activity to the agricultural activity. Further, the traffic generated. by the proposed use does faZZ within the parameters set by the zoning code for other residential permitted uses. Attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs sig a I�� I �R City � �� SITE PLAN �� - � � s 3„£O,h�o1 oo�sFz j ., , . . �� 359 �, � . .; ,_ , � � � e$. :,,.; :, �� , � - -' -- i ��E�� j ' '. � -'� .5 v � '� � `:,i � i` c 4 , c�4?' 1� G �L' I � .p ' �� `�t -1 �w �'��). l�' `n �L)( � �n �� ' �I e �� .� il; X�� I� � � ` � `1 `\ l I' � Mt � 1 V) .�1 ' � ` � � �� I 4i ^ tJ � I � , i , d �y b ' i 6 o`.� � I � N .� e s e :°��x � .s3 r � � ,� , �_ � �. o; �� J I �', �Y � .., , I - �, �'� . �. ', � � . yy '' ;� � - : ,��. C ��.��i ` ' f �� i " � l_ o :` � .�� . W ` �� -. '. �,. � ✓� ,� 1 1; Ai �i'�;; � 1 .p K �,ncd /�� . � SL � �Jt..�� ..� . * L 5;�y"� o t qb d J �9 1L _� O � �ad i t (O 3 s , j i�y� . �W Q' UW '�°> t��n M�' iod 1 �. �! � / �� v�'B'C'�S�ood P� a^Dil��/o� < �oMP/ �-� S � 00 s • /' � ;�+'•--" _-� pfl j'�;% , �� 1 B9'ZLZ �. '-' . , r _'_ _ l� J � -- � � ' �i �' L 3 � . canr w ��' '"" __;"� 6 �i�- �_ .f �Bf�BlolOS _ �. '� � i 00'f7Z � 00 . � y � �� a�rs i t tl13A T�� } � �� b �- Q � { _w dl � -0 M � ] �9 ! - .� 'u � r � � 3 + ' � � y..� ��hf o- .� C: ��—' cnr�z-- o� �t� 9 � - ' ' ��./ " ' � � 4 �9�z�� _v�F r4 � �98b J �---- � . _ � � - Y; _ , 'Mtza-Nezi'cz'>s >/r3.v ,N35 av�l it+M 00'£lZ �'� ��- � _� v � city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number 98-10 ��e February i3, 998 WHEREAS, JOHN AND JOANNE VALIUKAS, file #98-00 i, have applied for a Determination of Similar Use under the provisions of Section 64.300(g) of the Saint Pau( Legis(ative Code, to determine whether gro�ving nursery stock and crops, along �vith retail sales of gardening and landscapin� supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zonin� district, on property located at 13XX POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH, le�alty described as Lot 2, Elock i; Orchard Estates, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Plannin� Commission held a public hearin� on February 5, 1998, at which ali persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursaant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Piannin� Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin� Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving findings of facY: � The appticants have a contract to purchase the property, contin�ent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retait sales of water gardenin� supplies {pond liners, pumps, fountaicts, �vaterfalls, plants, and fish), landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing of � crops (carn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, a�d potted plants in ihe ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the followin� hours: 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. seven da}�s a week. Durin� Christmas time the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. , The esistina buildin� on site «rould be occupied by the retail center, office, stora�e, and a conference room to be used by garden ctubs. The applicants propose to construct a smailer building on site that would be used for maintaininQ and repairin� equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishment. Section 64.300(a) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district tiie plannin� commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each district. The ptannin, commission sha11 make the followin� findings in determining whether one use is similar to another: a. TJrat tlre rrse is sintilar in clrrrracter to oite or nrore of tJze prir:cipal trses penv:itted. Titis fiildin� is not met. Uses permitted in an R-LL zoning district include sin�le faulily homes, parks, libraries, houses of �rorship, foster hanes, cemeteries, monasteries, go[f courses, colleges, moved by Field seconded bY — in favor Upani�us against � a�-3s� � Zonina File �98-001 Page Two of Resolu[ion and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. tiVhile the applican[ states that the establishment would be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residentia] zonin� district, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail i�� nature and therefore not similar in charzcter to one or more of the principal uses permitted. It is true that the applicants would be gro�cin� some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anything, be accessory to the retail activity. The proposed principa( use of the property is clearly commerciat in nature. b. That the trafftc generated by suc/r t�se is si»:ilar to one or more oJthe prixcipa! uses permitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be simifar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most e�treme esample perhaps being that of a college or university, where there traffic is generated year round and from morning until night. Ho�vever, tlie applicant's properiy is zoned residential-lar�e lot, as is the property to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that gznerate a signi�cant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, "The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a semirural environment of przdominantiy lo�v-density, one-family detached d�vellings along �vith other residentially related facilities which serve tl�e residents in � the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance �vooded areas, wildlife and plaut resources, fragife bluff areas, topography and large expanses of nari�ral vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm 4vater runoff associated with hi�her-density development; and to facilitate installation of private �velis and individual sewa�e treatment systems for one-family detached dwellin�s." c. Tleat 1/te ltse is not ftrst pernrittetl in a less restrictive Zatri�to dislrict, This finding is not met. The proposed use is first permitted in a B-2 or B-3 zonin� district, dependina upon the exact nature and extent of the activitv. A retail business �vhere all activity takes place within an enclosed building would be pennitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as n retnil business whose principal actirity is selling the plants grown on the site and having oeusicle storage, grotiving, or display. d Tleat tlee use is cor:sistent wiflt tlie cor�tpre&eiesive plait. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan calls for sin�le fami(y homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The p]an states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. NOIV, THEREFORE, BE IT RLSOLVED, by tl�e Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, tl�e application for a Determination of Similar Use to determine � �vhether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping supplies, is an a�ricul[urai use and tl�erefore permitted iii a residential zonine district at 13XX POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTH is liereby denied. Saint Paul Planning Commission �`�(J`h) n�dYMN��SSI�h City Halt Conference Center � � 15 Kellogg Boulevard West M � yLU A meeting of tlie Pla�ining Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, February 13, 1998, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent; Mmes. Duarte, Enah, Faricy, Geisser, Maddos, Modon, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messr>. Chavez,. Field Jr., Kona, Kramer, MeDone(l, No�clin and Vaught. Messrs. *Gervais, *Gordon, *Johnson, Mardell, and *Sharpe *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Beth Baetz, Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Allen Lovejoy, Roger Ryan, and Larry Soderholm, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. I. Approval of Minutes of January 30,1998 MOTION: Con:n:issior:er Fieltl nioved approva[ of the minutes of January 30; Con:missimeer C/tavez seconded 1he n:otion whick carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that the Steering Committee discussed how pians would be reorganized, quadrant reporting, meetings with the quadrant leaders, a meetin� �vith the CIB Committee on February' 26 to help coordinate our efforts, and the restructurino of Planning Commission committees. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford announced that after the Planning Commission meeting this mornin�, there wili be a tour that is reviewing the Metro Transit Facility site and the Adult Detention Center Facility site. The City Council has taken further action on the issue a study of advertising signs. They have revised the ordinance as a result of the Planning Commission's action at the last meeting. The task force that has been set up includes a member to be �ecommended by the P[anning Commission and appointed at the discretion ofthe City Council. The rezoning t[�at the P[anning Commission recommended from residential to office use on West Seventh Street near 35E was approved by the City Council. Mc Ford announced that there are now parking authorization slips for the Plannin� � � ��-3s� � IV Commission's use. They «�ili be available at meetin�s. Chair l�torton announced that Commissioner Field will be representing the Planning Commission on the hiliboard task force. Commissioner Geisser announced that she has arran�ed a tour of the ne�� RiverCenter for tlie P{annin� Commission after the next �neetin� on Friday, Febniary 27, 1998. A sian-up sheet was circutated for those who 4vould like to attend. Zoning Committee #97-316 U S West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow a cellular telephone antenna on an existing residential building less than 60' in height at 1305 Grand Avem�e. (Ro�er Ryan, 266-6574, Southeast Team) Commissioner Field explained that the District Council met with the applicant and a before the last Zonina Committee meeting and a compromise �vas reached. U.S. West also furnished the Zoning Committee with information as to alternative sites and tocations which they had checked to see if they could (ocate on a non-residentiat building. A letter from the district council details hvo specific conditions regarding the antenna whicli the applicant found acceptable. MOTION: Conemissio�rer Field n:oved npprova/ of dae requested specia! condition use perntit to n!!ow a ce!ltdar telepbone ar:tenna on an existing residential bui/diaa less tltan 60' � in /reie ht, subject to tlie conditions detailed in a letter jrom tlte tlistrict cauncil, at 1305 Grand Avenue whic/: carried unanimously on n voice vote. #97-315 Andre Gambino/Franca Lin�ri - Change of nonconformina use permit. Properiy at 1472 Grand Avenue is currently used as a contractor's office and the applicant has requested to chan�e the use of the proper[y to a hair salon on the lst floor with hvo residential units on the 2nd floor. (Beth Bartz, 266-6580, Southwest Team) Commissioner Field explained that the MacalestervGroveland Community Council supports the permit with conditions. MOTION.• Con:n:issioner Field ntoved npproval of tlre requested ckar:ge of nonco�rjorn:ing use pern:it to attow tlee property at 1472 Cranrl Avenue, currently used as a co�ttrnctor's offtce, to c/tmtge tlre use to a l:air satort on ihe Ist floor wilh iwo residentin[ nnits ot� the 2nd,floor wit& co�iditioris. Commissioner Faricy exptained tliat her reason for votin� a�ainst the chan�e of nonconforming use is that she was opposed to the operatin� times that were allowed for the hair salon. After careful consideration, she realizes that she finds if quite difficult to tell small business peop(e what times they can be open, especially hair salons who make most of their money before and afrzr other people go to work. She will vote in approval today. Tke nrotion on tke floor carried unanin:ously on a voice vote. � � #98-001 John and Joanne Valiukas - Determination of similar use permit to determine 2 t�hedier growing nursery stock and crops, along «'ith retail sales of gardening and landscapina supplies is an aoricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential z.oning district at 13XX � Poin[ Doualas Road. (Kady Dadlez, 266-6582 Southeast Team) Commissioner Picld e�plained that the app(icant wou(d fike to grow some crops on the property widi some retai( sa(es. In the testimony at the Zoning Committee, the applicant also staed his intention of opering a landscapina business from this site. MOTION: Comnriss'ir�rrrr Field �noved rlerritd for Hee reques7ed deterntiirati�n n/ sfmflar use perrrrit m determine 1Jt�rt �roroifrn aursery stock arrd crops, nlnna witli retai/ snles of n ardeaing and lantlsc�rping supp/ies is au ao ricultural use and tGerefi�re perntitted ir: a resideirtinl Znuing district at 13�x Poi�tt Doualrn Roarl. Commissioiier Field added that the testimony revealad that what the applicant is proposing to do there is more than just a truck farm type of market. 1) They intend, in addition to selling crops, to sell pond liners, stones and rocks; 2) this property was rezoned to residential several years aoo; the person who spoke in opposition lives immediately adjacent to this property. He indicated that at the time he purchased this property four or five years aeo, this property was zoned residentiaL He purchased his home on the assurance that the adjacent property would be residentially used. Commissioner Fietd sta[ed that this use is more of a commercial operation than an agricultural one. Commissioner Vaught sYated that he felt that, because of the legal requirements, that he had to make the decision that, in effect, logically, �vas «rong. He thinks that the zonin� on this particular piece of propeRy is absurd (large lot residential), and that the highest and best use of the property is commercial. He does not consider this space to be residential space because it � is directly across the road from North Star Steel. He noted that if this had been a petition to rezone the propeRy that he would have suppoRed it. Commissioner Nowlin asked staff what the appropriate zonin� would need to be in order to do the use as proposed. Chair Morton responded that it wou(d be B-3. i�Is. Dadlez responded that she tliou�f�t it woutd depend on the extent and the nature of the activity. If everything were to take piace indoors, and it was a fully enctosed facility, it ��ould be zoned B-2. If there «ere some outdoor activity, Iikely a B-3 zoning district. Commissioner Kramer noted that there were other tl�ings that emerged during the Zoning Committee hearing: I) that there would be four employees in addition to the two owners for a total of six; 2) that they would be putting in an 8-spot parking lot in front of the esisting buildin�; and 3) that there �vere going to be garden clubs meeting in the building. It began to look more and more like a retail type use. Commissioner Engh asked tvhat the prospects ��ere that this land mioht actua(fy be used, and she commented that she just noted in the meetin� notes that District 1 Community Council voted in support of it. She's �vonderin� if maybe the Commission is following their own narrow path on the zoninQ and not looking at the prospect of the land bein� used to its hest purpose. Commissroner Fietd said that he generally agrees with the observation, but is troubled because it «as rezoned to "large lot residential and this clearly is not a crop selling operation, and it � �t�-3Sq seemed to grow in scope as questions were asked. He �vondered why the property �vas not � being rezoned; he could have supported that. Commissioner Field noted that he is sympathetic, too, to the person �vlio spoke in oppositron who bought his house several years ago, and was assured that the ad}acent property �vas zoned `9arge lot residential," and t4iat the building was <.nim. �� h�� ,7��i Commissioner Wencl expressed that one of the things people need to consider is that thfs site is part oF a larger uca a�id ad}acent to vacant land to the east. Tl�is is an area �vRiere there could be more housin_; tlie Housing Plan notes that �ae need 9000 more (ivine units by the year 2020. When the lii;hwood �'lan was being de�•eloped, there �tias discussion abou( multiple housing for part of this asea. "I his more intensi��e use, if it is put in, might prectude the plan for housing there. Commissioner Vaught noted that what I�is sense tells him tliat this is a reasonable use for this particular piece of property. He thinks that zoning these particular properties alon� Highway 61 as `'large lot residentiaP' was an error. He also thinks tliat the politics are unlikely that that land would be rezoned from its current zoning. He noted that he woutd second and support a motion to approve th+s case. Commissioner Kramer, in leafing through the Land Use Plan Draft, noted that this particular site is identified as a potential housing development site. With respect to the District 1 position, I�e spoke to a member of the counci! who, in his opinion, expressed that they had not been a�vare of the impact of this use. �� Commissioner Eng(t wondered if this large plan is more the enthusiasm of a neFV small business o�vner. Commissioner Field responded that the app(icant currently has a landscapina business, other operations that are (ocated in Maplewood, and it is their intention to relocate these operations at that one site. They testified that it �vas economically unfeasible for them to operate out of t�vo separate sites. Commissioner Treichel stated that this use is a very interesting concept, but if the zoning were to chan�e here, it wo�dd be spot zoning. Commissioner Vaught noted that since that propeRy along Highway 6] has been rezoned to "large lot residential," no houses have been built there. Commissioner Nowlin commented that if the Commission could get through this irrelevant debate and get on to the Comprehensive Plan, members would find out how wron� Commissioner Vaught is about this issue. Mr. Ford commented that he heard some ambiguity in the recent discussion that the Commission ought to be clear about what the ac[ion is that's being applied for. Is the Commission looking at a similar use behaeen the proposed use and an apple orchazd? Ms. Dadlez replied that the Commission is lookin� at the question of �vhether �vhat they are proposing to do similar to something that's allowed in an RRL zoning district. What their application is saying is that what they are proposin� to do is simi(ar to something listed in the � code in the RRL zoning district, and that is a�riculture. So, the question is: "Is what they are proposing sim+lar to agricalture?" lf it is, then the Com�nission ca�i appro� e it and they can operate their business. Staff"s position is that this is more of a reYail sales business than it is agricu I ture. Commissioner Kramer added that eve�� if this determination of similar use were approved, iY tivould, in addition, require a special condition use permit. The rnotinn orr the Jloor to derr}� Ike reqrrested �leterntinntion of similar use nt 13zx Point Dnuglas Roa�l carried eaannimously an n voice vnte. #98-003 Beverlv Carlson - Special condition use permit to allo�v an auto specialty store selling, repairin� and mounting of used tires at 705 E 7th Street. (Nancy Frick, 266-6554, Northeast Team) Commissioner Field reported that the Land Use Committee of the Da}non�s Bluff Community Council recommended denial for this permit. MOTION: Coraraissioner Field moved denial for Ylze requested specia! condition use permit to a!!aw nrt auto specialty store selling, repairing, a�zr1 mot��iting nsed tires at 705 E 7Ur Street, based upor: tlae lot size of appro.ri»mtely 12,500 square feet versus tbe required IS,000 square jeet, carried t�nanirnaus[y on a voice vote. Februarv 1998 Minor Zonine Amendments -(Ro�er Ryan) Commissioner Field reported that the February 1998 Minor Zoning Amendments were laid over until the next Zoning Committee meeting Thursday, February 19, 1998. Item #7, however, was heard because there was someone present who came to testify regarding that number. Commissioner Field read the next meeting's agenda. He noted that disc�ssion may also be held on some uniform information which is included in the staff findings. With many staff people working on zoning cases, the Zoning Committee thinks it needs to give staff some direction to create uniformiry. Commissioner Geisser asked, regardin� minor zoning text amendment #S that deals with murals, whether this is different from the previous discussion the Commission had that would include a hearing by the full Commission, or whether this is something minor and doesn't affect the full discussion of murals and signs. Mr. Ryan responded that this flows out of the case on Grand Avenue which pointed out that there was no definition of murals. Commissioner Geisser stated that she considers this a major issue that there are murals being painted all over the City on sides of buildin�s. She asked that some kind of conversation be allo«ed at the full Commission meeting on this issue. Chair MoROn reminded members that the minor zoning amendments will have a public hearing at Zoning Committee. Commissioner Geisser is concemed that not all businesses or proposed businesses in Saint Paul wiil be made aware of this public hearin�. She is asking that special consideration by made to �et as mucfi information about the hearing to as many people as possible. Chair Morton sua�ested that maybe the mural issue can be discussed in the billboard committee. Commissioner Field said that he would welcome that. He feels that under the aoe o[d ru[e of � �J � ��-3 S°t MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE � CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON FEBRUARY 5, 1998 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy, Morton and Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Bartz, Dadiez, Frick, Kelley and Messr. Ryan of the Planning Division. EXCUSED: Mr. Gordon, Mme. Wencl The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. JOHN AND JOANNE VALIUKAS: 13XX Point Douglas Road' 98-001; Determination of Similar Use Permit to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping supplies, is an agricultural use and therefore permitted in a residential zoning district. Ms. Dadlez presented sfides and gave the staff report noting that based on findings 1 and 2 staff recommends denial of the determination of similar use application. Upon question of Commissioner Vaught, Ms. Dadlez said the previous use was an apple orchard with apples and other related items sold, and that the primary use of the property was agricultural. � Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Dadlez said in the Zoning Code under the residential portion it refers to agricultural being permitted sub}ect to special conditions; however, there is no definition of agriculture in the code. Commissioner Kramer asked whether a special condition use permit wouid also be necessary in addition to the determination of similar use. Ms. Dadlez responded that if the Planning Commission made a determination of similar use, the speciai condition use permit wouid not be required. She further stated this is a use permitted by speciai condition, and Roger Ryan ciarified that if the determination of similar use were approved it wouid establish the use. Commissioner Vaught said he feels this is two separate steps, and we could find a determination of similar use if this was an agricultural use but not grant the special condition use permit. Commissioner Kramer said if we determine this is a similar use, that use would be agriculture which would then require a special condition use permit, and he asked staff which portion of this 5 acre lot would be used for retail purposes. Ms. Dadlez replied much of the retail activity wouid occur indoors because the use will be operating year round, and she believes it would be less than one acre. Robert Polski, attorney representing John and Joanne Valiukas, appeared on behalf of the applicants stating they are under a purchase agreement contingent upon obtaining the proper permits. He explained the past use of the property formerly known as the Pine Tree Apple Orchard which was used to grow and � sell apples as wefi as baking and selling apple pies. Mr. Polski said the applicants plan to use the property Zoning Committee Minutes February 5, 1998 Joan & Joanne Valiukas Page Two for the main purpose of growing crops, trees for landscaping, which is the applicants' business, and they are proposing to put up a new building for their equipment. He also said items associated with ponds, including liners, pumps, fountains and fish for the ponds wili be sold. Mr. Polski said hours will be Monday through Friday 9 am to 8 pm, Saturday 8 am to 4 pm, and Sunday 12 Noon to 4 pm, and during the winter months the hours will cut back. Referring to the property, Mr. Polski said except for dead and diseased trees, no others wil! be torn down at the area bordering the property. He referred to the surrounding neighborhood which has snowplowing, used auto sales, auto repair, plumbing, heating and electrical and pet grooming businesses, some of which are run out residences. Mr. Polski said the District 1 Council voted unanimously to approve the similar use permit as the proposed use was in keeping with the area. Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, John Valiukas of 502 Mystic Street appeared and said they wili be seiling bagged and buik dirt as weli as decorative stones for yards. He referred to a map and said they wiif put in a driveway and parking lot with eight staiis, one for each two employees and one handicapped and one customer. He explained they will repair their own equipment but not bring in other machinery for repair, and thaf they wilf afso run their existing (a�dscaping business from this location. � Commissioner Kramer stated the size of the parking lot, bringing in dirt materiafs fo seti as welf as running their landscaping business conflicts with the agricultural use. Mr. Polski responded that the applicants wil( keep some of their landscaping equipment on site but the majority of the Iandscaping business is done off- site. � Commissioner Kramer suggested creating a parking lot increases the ability to consider it a retail use versus an agricultural use, and Mr. Polski replied that with the public coming onto the property, putting in a driveway and parking fot is a requirement. Ms. Dadlez explained that the homestead had been separated from the rest of the apple orchard and the access to the parking !ot for the orchard went with the homestead. Upon question of Commissioner Chavez, the applicants said their dump truck would bring in loads of dirt to use in the field and for mulch, other items would be delivered directly from Chicago to the individual homes, and commercial trucks would deliver once or twice in the spring for orders of shrubs and piants. Upon question of Commissioner Morton, Mr. Valiukas said they plan to move their curreni business from Maptewood fo this location, during the winter months they will sell Christmas trees and fish to pond owners, and from January through March he will run his snowplowing business. No one appeared in support of the applicant. Mark Howard, 1388 S. Point Douglas Road, appeared and said he owns and lives in the house shown in the slides presented; however isn't shown in the slides is that this business is 40 feet from his back door and the property line 15-20 feet from this building. He said the land is fine but there is a problem with the existing building which is an eyesore. Mr. Howard said since he's lived there apples have not been sold, the apple trees were c�t down and there presently is no agricultural use. He said when he bought his � Gl�-3s°� Zoning Committee Minutes � February 5, 1998 Joan 8� Joanne Valiukas Page Three house he was told the land would be large residential lots with new houses put in, and he would not have bought it if he had been told a construction company would be builf in his back yard. He said a new house was built two houses down from this land and this area is residential, not indusfrial. He said North Star Steel is the onfy industriaf 6usiness in the area and is focated across a service road, highway, and down by the river. Mr. Howard said as he looks out his front door he sees nature and he is very concerned with this business going in and the negative effects to property values on fiis home. Upon question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Howard said he's owned his property for four years, and having this business next door to him would greatiy affect him more than North Star Steel. No one else appeared in opposition. Mr. Polski responded that the existing building is an eye sore because the property has been vacant, and the applicants intent is to clean it all up. He also stated this is a small famiiy-owned business and should not be compared to a{arge construction company. No one else appeared and the public hearing was closed. � Roger Ryan referred to and read Section 64.300 of the Zoning Code, and clarified staff's position that a special condition use permit would not be required in addition to the determination of similar use. Commissioner Vaught asked Assistant City Attorney Warner whether this Gommission can treat an app{ication stylized for determination of similar use as an application both 4or determination of similar use as welf as a special condition use permit. Mr. Warner responded the net result would be the same in that conditions can be imposed in either circumstance. He explained the code states when reviewing an application of similar use, conditions may be attached, and that a special condition use permit allows attached conditions which are specified in the code. Commissioner Kramer moved approval of the staff recommendation to deny the determination of sim+lar use application, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Chavez. Commissioner Kramer explained he can accept growing crops and selling them on the corner as an agricultural use with the selling of dirt and plants similar to an agricultural use but he cannot accept the selling of ponds and accessories, landscaping bricks, erecting a new building, the applicants' landscaping business, and creating a parking lot for the public as agricultural uses. Commissioner Vaught spoke in agreement with comments of Commissioner Kramer. He said there is nothing wrong with the use this applicant wants to put on this property, but its current zoning makes it impossible to do so. �J Zoning Committee Minutes February 5, 1998 Joan & Joanne Valiukas Page Four Chair Field spoke in support of the motion for denial and said at first he pictured this to be a small family business but because it has so many activities going on, and given the zoning of the property, he does not see this as an agricultural use. Chair Field also said he is sympathetic to concerns of the adjacent homeowner. There was no further discussion, Adopted Yeas - 6 Drafted by: � Pattie Kelle Recording Secret Nays - 0 Submitted by: � Kady Dadlez Southeast Quadrant � �� Ir"� L� q�' � ZONING COMMITTBE STAFF RSPORT FIL$ # 98-001 1. APPL2CANT: JOfiN & JOANNE VAI,IUKAS DAT& OF HEARING: 02/OS/98 2. CLASSIFICATIOt3: Determination o£ Similar Use 3. LOCATION: 137rx POINT DOUGLAS ROAD SOUTA (eastside btw Carver & city limits) 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 1 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 1; Orchard Estates 6. PRE5ENT ZONING; R-LL ZONING CODE REFERfiNCE: §64.300(g) 7. STAFF INVSSTIGATION AND REPORT: DATB: 1/29/98 BY: Kady Dadlez 8. DAT& RECEIVED: O1fO5J98 DEADLINE 80A ACTION: 3/6/98 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------° - -------------------------------------------------- A. PIIRPOSE: Determination of similar use to determine whether growing nursery stock and crops, along with retail sales of gardening and landscaping � supplies is an agricultural use and there£ore permitted in a residential zoning district. B_ PARCEL SIZE: This irregularly shaped parcel has 282 feet of frontage on Point Douglas Road and an average depth of 415 feet £or a total 1ot area of about 219,500 square feet or 5 acres. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: The property is vacant except for a small o££ice -building. The site was most recently occupied by Pine Tree Apple Orchard as a growing site and sales facility. The orchard property was subdivided in 1994 and the homestead was separated from the rest of the orchard. D. SURROIINDING I,AND IISE: The property is surrounded on the north, south, and east by undeveloped land in an R-LL zoning district and the old orchard homestead to the north in an R-LL zone. North Star Steel and Highway 61 are located to the west of the site in an I-2 zoning district. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 64.300(g) of the zoning code states that when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each disCrict. The planning commission shall make the findings detailed in #2 of this report in determining whether one use is similar to another. F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: There are two previous zoning cases concerning this property. One case is from 1994 and involves a subdivision to separate the homestead £rom the remainder of the orchard property. The site was � occupied by Pine Tree Orchard as an apple growing site and sales facility. In 1989, the apple trees became nonproductive due to age and disease and harvesting of apples ceased. The sale o£ apples continued at the site � � Zoning File #98-001 Page Two until November 1993 with apples being imported from an orchard in Mahtomedi. The zoning case from 1996 involves a request to rezone the property to T-1 to allow the establishment of a self-storage use. The rezoning petition was denied. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOi�4iENDATZON: The District 1 Community Council voted unanimously to support the determination of similar use, stating that the proposed use is in keeping with the area and is a low impact business. H. FINDINGS: 1. The applicants have a contract to purchase the property, contingent on receiving zoning approval, and intend to operate an establishment involving retail sales of water gardening supplies (pond liners, pumps, fountains, waterfalls, plants, and fish}, landscaping items, nursery stock, and the growing oP crops (corn for its stalks, pumpkins, gourds, shrubs, and potted plants in the ground). The proposed use would be open year round and keep the following hours: 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m. seven days a week. During Christmas time the evening hours would be extended to 8:00 p.m. � The existing building on site would be occupied by the retail center, � office, storage, and a conference room to be used by garden c].ubs. The applicants propose to constrcict a smal2er building on site that would be used for maintaining and repairing equipment such as lawn mowers and trucks associated with the establishment. 2. Section 64.300(g) of the zoning code states, "when a specific use is not listed in the district the planning commission shall determine if a use is similar to other uses permitted in each distzict. The planning commission shall make the following findings in determining whether one use is similar to another: a. That the use is similar in character to one or more of the priacipal uses permitted. This finding is not met. Uses permitted in an T2-LL zoning district include single family homes, parks, libraries, houses of worship, foster homes, cemeteries, monasteries, golf courses, colleges, and cellular telephone antennas. Agriculture is also permitted, as a special condition use. While the applicant states that the establishment wouZd be agricultural in nature and should therefore be permitted in a residential zoning district, staff disagrees. The proposed use is primarily retail in nature and therefore not similar in character to one or more of the principal uses permitted. It is true that the � applicants would be growing some crops on site, however, that portion of the activity would, if anything, be accessory to the retail %, � J a�'- � Zoning Fi1e #98-001 Page Three activity. The proposed principal use of the property is clearly commercial in nature. b. That the traffic generated by such use is similar to one or more of the principaS uses pezmitted. This finding is not met. The traffic generated by the proposed use may be similar to a principal use permitted in a residential district, the most extreme example perhaps being that of a college or ��n iversity, where there tra£fic is generated year round and from morning until night. However, the applicant�s property is zoned residential-large lot, as is the property to the north, south, and east. The intent of the zoning district is not to allow uses that generate a significant amount of traffic. The intent of the R-LL zoning district states, � ^The R-LL One-Family Large Lot Residential District is the lowest density residential district. The intent is to provide for a semirural environment of predominantly low-densi[.y, one-family detached dwellings along with oCher residentially related facilities which serve the residents in the district. The district is designed to protect, maintain and enhance wooded areas, wildlife � and plant resources, fragile bluff areas, topography and large expanses o£ natural vegetative cover; to reduce erosion and excessive storm water runoff associated with higher-density development; and to facilitate installation of private wells and individual sewage tzeatment systems for one-family detached dwellings." c. That the use is not first permitted in a less restrictive zoning district. This finding is not met. The proposed use is first permitted in a B-2 or B-3 zoning disCrict, depending upon the exact nature and extent of trie activity. A retail business where all activity Cakes place within an enclosed building would be permitted in a B-2 zoning district. A greenhouse, on the other hand, is first permitted in a B-3 zoning district as a special condition use and is defined as a retail business whose principal activity is selling the plants grown on the site and havinq outside storage, growing, or display. d. That the use is coasistent with the compseheasive plan. This finding is not met. The District 1 Plan calls £or single family homes and other residential uses in this area, p.5. The plan states that in general, the District Council will oppose rezoning residential land for commercial uses, p.7. � 2. STAFF RBCODII3SNDATION: Based on findings 1 and 2 staff recommends denial of the determination of similar use application. J ' DETERMINATION OF SIMILAR USE APPLICATION ' Department of Planning and Economic Development ZoningSection R�eE1VED , 1100 City HaU Annex 25 West Fourlh Streel ^^^ SaintPau[, MN55102 ��'� 0 5 �� 266-G589 �O � � � � APPLICANT John D. Valiukas and Joanne Valiukas 502 Mvstic Street PROPERTY LOCATION City St. Paul St. �`?NZip 55119 Dayfime phone 738-1560 Name of owner (if different) Property owned by J-Sv�, a Minnesota Partnersh p ContaCt person (if different) �obert J. Polski Phone 224 177� T.L+.-...�...... -.i- T-.... Address(Location Po�t Ibuglas Road, south of Ca.rver Ave. Le al descri tion: P�e Tree A�ple Orchzrd 9 P See EYhihst A - �tt - �che�ierP+� Current Zoning Residentiai (a(tacl� addifiona! sl�eet if necessary) REQUEST: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 300, Paragraph (fl of the Zoning Code for a Determination of Similar Use. Current Proposed u materials, nursery stock, maintenance honey, baked Eural - � SUPPORTING INFORMATION: Provide the following information (attach additional sheets if necessary). � Is the use similar in character Yo one or more of the principal uses permitted in the zoning district? Xes, the principal use will be agricultural in nature which is a permitted use. L Is the tratfic that the use will generate similar to traffic generated by one or more permiYted uses? Yes � � � Is the use already permitted in a less restrictive zoning district? No, agricultural uses are not first permitted in B3 zoning distr'ct. � � Required site pian is attached � c� ApplicanYs signature�,�� ^ � � Date �" � � City Retail apple orchard - sates of {-� . — J� P LSKI � & P LSKI ATfORNEVS AT LAW January 5, 1998 � FIRSTAR CENTER SUITE1712 707 EAST ftRH STREET SAINTPAUL,MINNESOTA 55701-7808 7ELEPHON E (672)224-7 776 FAX:(612)224-A883 RobertJ.POlski 1q27-1477 RoberfJ. Polski, Jr. Member of ihe Minnewta and Wsconsin Bars Department of Planning & Economic Development Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West 4th Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Point Douglas Road, South of Carver Avenue, Pine Tree Apple Orchard Dear Sir or Madam: �t�-3s`i Encfosed herewith for filing please find the fo(lowing documents pertaining to the above property together with a check in the amount of $500.00 for your fee: w � � Determination of Similar Use Application Site Plan Exhibit "A" - legal description Should you have any questions or require anything further, please don't hesitate to cail. Sincerefy, � , Robert J.�Iski, J . RJP/jth Enclosures � -------._.__ j _��1�� a�' `?��?/_ � ciienlsWaLUkaslstpaul�05 2 � J � ;_ � y S�� q ' y L o a+y ;V„x �� C _ _� a„- �.� T a a e �3 ��'° "< I �' W � +?,-„`'��'�?��'�v '�:a_"� u n M u i� N � O\> o `� �' � P� �(pl o�� L_I �W n -m' "�� L� �` � h � ; , �I ho � � ` � 111 � SITE PLAN l' al� ` � ui : l � ' C� � t,� � � I ' ' � , I Q �� E �Y � � Zd c T ` y 3 y ' F,y15TfM�+ � b � �� ` °.a 3„g£,81olOS _ � OO�f7Z oo. p3X5 � i _ �v13M 'f � '1 I � �M� � q �� : i n ;, � \ l_1 t, � -'� 3„£D,6/oIOS -- 00'SfZ _i _ �� f, �� •, I ,' � .� i ��ti FF1 ^ •i� � � i - � ' i ` I x � , a � 7 -o A 6 4 g8 � "'�� .� , �i � � �� `9.�9LZ:a , _ _ � �. �- % 1-- �' �1' � _ ' 'M2ZN-NBZl'fl' 1 " � b/)3N H13S au(IISaM ` � I 00'£Il / ` : _��,' � j =; �� ' � �; h V� V 1 I ti t U °, V � V` � �' i � ''/� ✓� � � i �� 1; Zg2 �� f �S a �� 11 �i �0 4 � �! �� i�'d 4 L4N �' 1�j/ ? � , a �� iad � .' (`035a9 � 9G ' loa 'oY4 � F8 a� stll'a�ry �'� � � ��' . - awnx o saC �od � o�l��/ � eN Nu� F aQY �solb' Pala" , ei - � �pMPOOa p�} � i ,.� ,� �` � �'/ 9 �ro4 ;�, �-. 8./ � - . $ ppOb i �` i �� 89�.�Z � � __'_ -- y 89'986 ,' � . ._.. � .- i -- J ` � ; � � � -. � � '� � c �� _ �. ` I � t �, � � t r•: � _� � i i i i � '' ' '� � �, �,. ,� , � v � { �_ `� � � � ;' i -. . , n:� ' ' � I I. � i ;_ � R DISTICOMMCNCL Fax � 612-292-7829 Feb 09 15:04 c�g -3S� Distric t lC ommunity C ouncil DistrictlNews � Conway Recseation Ceater • 2090 Conway Sc. • Room 126 • Sc. Paul, MN 55119 (612) 29�7828 {612) 292-7829 pax distl co@mtn.org February 9, 1998 Ms. Kady Dadlez llepartment of Planning and Economic Development• Zoning Section 1100 CiCy Hall Annex 25 west I�ourth Street 5aint Paul, NIN 55102 ZObIIN6 BILINCd NU1�ER: 98-001 ZONINtd SILE NAME: John and Josnne Valivka9 '.CO the zoning committee: At the Monday, .January 26th, 1998, monthly board meetinq, board directozs anc3 ofEicers discussed the above-named psoposal. � It was determined that the request was within the par.ameCers o£ the Dietrict 1 Community Couneil's goals and objectives. f'urthermore, it was determined that the busineas, while being conducted within a residential area, was of zow-impact and would not increase traEfic flow or otherwise deface the natural resouzcea of the area. Therefore, the proposal as submiCtetl to the Gity hae the unanimous support of the ➢zstrict 1 Community Council. As of today, Monday, February 9, the llistsict 1 Office has recorded no objections to this proposal. Should additional iniozmation be needed, please call the tJistricr_ 1 Community Uffice at (612) 292-7828. 5'n erely, ebe . o � lJ� Conmtunity oiganizei District 1 Community Council �� w �J �� 1. SLTNRAY-$A _ HAZEL PARK FiADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. WEST SIDE DAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PF-IALEN NORTH END _ , THOMAS-DALE SUMMTT-UNiVERSTTY WEST SEVENTH COMO HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTHONY PARK MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE MACALESTER GROVELANl� HIGHI.AND SUIvIMTT HILL DOWNTOWN ZON�NG F�LE ��-�°� �� CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS ��-3S� � BATTLE-CREEK DISTRICT 1 ON „� „,,,. T�` ,..., ,,_ . , - �.. �: �.. _ �. 1i 4 � � � , � �� .��µ �. � /GR -�, J � ( i !I 4 I I (� oa � � � Q � � 4 �, Q --��..--.�. � � Q� Q �Q Q �� I� �� Q p. � ,� �� ,� o � :�, o�� 4 �Q� � ��Q`� �.��a � .,U��' � :� �� :� ' NLA�� ' � - � �av�. '� :' : �' v �4.''�3�� "� ��,.. �� .`� :` �� . 0 �t?�Cw ,. MSEY OPEN SF�.CE , �� ° E�� : �� ° - �� _J �_ —�L`-?�``��3� . _I -- APPLICANT �� _�—" D* �' v�UU K�s LEGEND PURPOSE � � �� zoning district boundary FILE # �� ' � � DATE � � 7 � � a � subject property PLNG. DIST. ' MAP # o one famity �� two famify SCALE 1" = 400' ��!�!± �-� � multiple family � � 0 � 0 _ �i o � � � 0 0 � I o lol � . , o 0 Q _ _ o v .. ::. �.� o � oQ �� QhQ C� t � t � c � n.L orth� . a n CO R1Ri ercia! � .� � industrial V vacant ,� – — - i�