Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 02092021 If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. The meeting can be viewed live via cable channel 16 in the North Suburbs or the web broadcast at https://webstreaming.ctv15.org/regionview.php?regionid=64. Due to health concerns and limited seating, we encourage use of virtual option by using this link: https://www.savmn.com/Calendar.aspx?EID=1197 There is also a dial-in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. For those not in attendance, If you wish to submit a comment or question, electronically submit your comments at http://www.savmn.com/FormCenter/Public-Comments-for-City-Meetings-conduc-20/Public-Comments-for- City-Council-Meeting-91 no later than 5:30 pm on the day of the City Council meeting. Following guidance from state health officials, some City Council Members may choose to participate in upcoming meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call. Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items: I.Approval of the February 9, 2021, City Council Meeting Agenda. (action requested.) II.Proclamations and Recognitions. III.Consent Agenda. These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. A.Approval of January 26, 2021, City Council meeting minutes. (pp.1-16) B.Licenses and Permits. (pp.17) C.Claims. (pp.19-21) D.Resolution 21-019 a resolution authorizing the City Manager and Finance Director to make certain transactions with Multi-Bank Securities, Inc. (pp.23) IV.Public Hearing. A.2022 Budget Calendar and Process. Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director presenting. (pp.25-30) V.Reports from Commission and Staff A.Resolution 21-020 a resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit by Culvers restaurant, to allow for a Dynamic Display Electronic Sign at 4004 Silver Lake Road. Steve Grittman, City Planner presenting. (pp.31-48) CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 9, 2021 7:00 p.m. HRA meeting immediately after council meeting If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay. Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. B. Resolution 21-021 a resolution to approve a Preliminary Plan stage PUD by Development 65, for construction of a 135 unit full service senior living building on a 4.35 acre site along the eastern edge of Stinson Parkway, between Lowry Avenue and 27th Avenue at 2501 Lowry Avenue. Steve Grittman, City Planner presenting. (pp.49-93) VI. General Business of Council. A. Resolution 21-022 a resolution approving the Planned Unit Development Agreement for Stinson Apartments. Steve Grittman, City Planner presenting. (pp.95-111) B. 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan. (motion only) Steve Grittman, City Planner presenting. (pp.113-114) VII. Reports from City Manager and Council members. VIII. Community Forum Individuals may address the City Council about any City business item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. IX. Information and Announcements X. Adjournment CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 2 JANUARY 26, 2021 3 4 CALL TO ORDER. 5 6 Mayor Stille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7 8 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 9 10 Mayor Stille invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 11 12 ROLL CALL. 13 14 Present: Mayor Stille, Councilmembers Jenson, Randle, Walker and Webster. 15 Absent: None 16 Also Present: Interim City Manager Charlie Yunker, City Planner Stephen Grittman, Public Works 17 Superintendent Jeremy Gumke. 18 Guests: None. 19 20 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 21 ITEMS. 22 23 I.APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 24 25 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Webster, to approve the City 26 Council Meeting Agenda of January 26, 2021. 27 28 Motion carried 5-0. 29 30 II.PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS – NONE. 31 A.Presentation of Northeast Youth and Family Services, President and CEO, Tara Jebens-32 Singh Presenting33 34 Ms. Tara Jebens-Singh made a presentation to the City Council. She thanked the Council35 for the continued partnership and CARES Act relief as well as a platform to allow them36 to reach out to the community.37 38 Mayor Stille thanked Ms. Jebens-Singh for her presentation.39 40 Councilmember Webster thanked Ms. Jebens-Singh for her commitment to youth in the41 community and Suburban Ramsey County through the multiple mental health services42 that are available, not only through the school base but also through community clinics43 and the onsite day treatment program. Ms. Jebens-Singh noted the community44 connections and partnerships are so important to them. The board is made up primarily45 of representatives from the different municipalities that NYFS partners with and are46 always looking to make those strong connections.47 48 1 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 2 Councilmember Walker appreciated the services provided for the aging community in St. 1 Anthony with shoveling and mowing. He asked if the staff that does that the same 2 persons each time. He asked that because that would be a basis for developing some kind 3 of a relationship with the resident. Ms. Jebens-Singh thought it may be a little bit of a 4 mix because they do try to partner specific senior chore workers with routine seniors. 5 They want there to be a friendship and a bond formed so that it is a person in that senior’s 6 life, and she would say vice versa. It is a mutual thing. 7 8 Councilmember Walker asked as far as the high school population is there a good sense 9 of tracking or referring them when they leave high school or go off to college. Ms. 10 Jebens-Singh stated making sure that their clients have referrals to the next step is 11 important all along the way. She stated it is an important part to make sure folks are 12 ready for that next step and are not alone. 13 14 Councilmember Jenson asked for an overview of the relationship NYFS has with the 15 police department. 16 17 Ms. Jebens-Singh reviewed the history of the Community Case Management Program 18 with the Council. 19 20 Mayor Stille indicated the City has had a long relationship with NYFS and looks forward 21 to it continuing. 22 23 III. CONSENT AGENDA.24 25 A.Approve January 12, 2021, Council meeting minutes.26 B.Licenses and permits.27 C.Claims.28 D.Resolution 21-011; a Resolution Approving the Northeast Family Services Agreement.29 E.Resolution 21-012; a Resolution Designating Mayor Stille as a participant in Outside30 Organizations for 2021.31 F.Resolution 21-013; a Resolution Designating Councilmember Jenson as a participant in32 Outside Organizations for 2021.33 G.Resolution 21-014; a Resolution Designating Councilmember Randle as a participant in34 Outside Organizations for 2021.35 H.Resolution 21-015; a Resolution Designating Councilmember Walker as a participant in36 Outside Organizations for 2021.37 I.Resolution 21-016; a Resolution Designating Councilmember Webster as a participant in38 Outside Organizations for 2021.39 40 Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve the 41 Consent Agenda items. 42 43 Motion carried 5-0. 44 45 IV. PUBLIC HEARING – NONE.46 2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 3 1 V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF. 2 3 A.Resolution 21-017; a Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash4 Facility with Vacuum Stations at 2701 Kenzie Terrace in the C, Commercial District.5 6 City Planner Grittman reviewed the resolution with the Council. 7 8 Councilmember Webster asked for clarification on the standard for residential properties. She 9 believed residential properties can be no more than thirty-five percent roofs and paved surfaces. 10 She also wondered what percent is set for commercial properties. Mr. Grittman explained the 11 standard for most residential properties is thirty-five percent. The City does allow smaller lots 12 that are a single family to be forty percent. Multi-family is actually fifty percent and there is no 13 standard in the Code for commercial or industrial property right now. He noted those properties 14 are reviewed for stormwater management by the City Engineer to control stormwater according 15 to the City’s standard stormwater management conditions. 16 17 Councilmember Webster indicated in reading through the report it states the use will not be 18 detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity 19 or to the values of the properties in the vicinity. She asked what the City’s due diligence is to 20 really determine if a project meets this requirement. Mr. Grittman stated the City’s responsibility 21 is to make reasonable judgements about what the impacts of the use are likely to be and then 22 measure those against what would be allowed by right effectively under the zoning of the 23 property and then assign conditions to mitigate what the Council believes to be the impacts of the 24 proposed use. 25 26 Councilmember Walker stated the third condition Mr. Grittman spoke of to mitigate things like 27 noise pollution, issues concerning the air, traffic and so forth. He could understand theoretically 28 how that could mitigate those kinds of harms, given this third condition, but he wondered if there 29 was any evidence beyond just theoretical considerations that these measures will in fact reduce, 30 to a significant degree these particular harms to the residents. Mr. Grittman explained staff relies 31 on their experience with similar situations to make reasonable judgements as to what conditions 32 would apply and mitigate the issues staff would foresee. Short of that, staff tries to look at what 33 other evidence is out there in the marketplace with these kinds of uses and these kinds of land 34 use situations. 35 36 Councilmember Jenson thought reading the conditions that were applied to this request, he 37 thought it does a pretty good job of mitigating the aesthetics of the look of this as to how it could 38 fit into the look of the neighborhood. The lighting is going to be mitigated and will shoot 39 downward and also to prevent headlights from shining through into the neighborhood. It does 40 talk about sound abatement dealing with enclosures for the vacuums, but they do not see much 41 related to potential excess car exhaust and wondered what staff thought about that. He would 42 like to add related to car exhaust though is that within about a three-minute drive of this location, 43 there are three other car washes that are nearby. One is on Silver Lake Road and 39th at the 44 Holiday Station. Another is on 39th and Stinson Boulevard, the old Tunnel Car Wash and then 45 one on 37th and Old Highway 8, the Speedway, which is a car wash. He stated people have a 46 3 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 4 choice of three other car washes that are nearby so he was wondering if that will possibly 1 mitigate some of the traffic or reduce some of the traffic that might go into this particular 2 location and reduce the amount of car exhaust that people are concerned about. Mr. Grittman 3 explained with regard to car exhaust on site, certainly idling vehicles create car exhaust but just 4 as Councilmember Jenson pointed out, there are car wash facilities and other commercial drive 5 through facilities all over the Metro area that have existed for many years and the State Pollution 6 Control Agency manages air quality in the Metro area and he is not aware of any situations 7 where idling cars in drive throughs have caused a violation of any of the PCA standards for air 8 pollution. Staff’s presumption here is that this would be similar to all the other facilities that are 9 out there within the allowances for what the State has set for air quality. 10 11 Councilmember Randle asked if the applicant was aware of the new proposed conditions. Mr. 12 Grittman indicated the applicant was aware and at the Planning Commission meeting when these 13 were first proposed and actually had reviewed the staff report and has been a part of the process 14 since December and fully aware of the eleven conditions that the Planning Commission has 15 recommended. 16 17 Mayor Stille stated there is talk of the Minnesota Noise Standards and he wondered how that 18 factored into staff’s recommendation and Planning Commission, if at all, in regard to meeting 19 those or violating those. Mr. Grittman explained the State has noise regulations which is a 20 pollution control agency set of standards and staff’s presumption is that any commercial use, this 21 one included, is going to be required to meet the noise requirements of the PCA. The City 22 cannot issue a permit that would create a violation of those standards. If the applicant is granted 23 a permit and construct and violate those standards, they would not be violating the Conditional 24 Use Permit but would also be violating State Standards and could be penalized or otherwise dealt 25 with for that. The applicant is obligated to meet those standards and staff builds that into their 26 review. Staff’s expectation is that noise mitigation staff is proposing is to reduce that well below 27 what State Standards are so staff is not using that as its expectation, staff is using something 28 lower. 29 30 Mayor Stille stated as staff talked about with the exercise, the mitigants, and what the City is 31 striving to accomplish here in response to this application, what are the ramifications if the 32 Council denies this. Mr. Grittman thought denial would have to be based on solid, factual 33 evidence that leads the Council to believe that it is not possible for the applicant to operate this 34 facility within the confines of what the Ordinance allows and there is a presumption in the law 35 that Conditional Use Permits are an allowed use on the property. The City has a high burden to 36 meet if the Council were to deny the permit. If the Council does deny the permit the City is open 37 to a potential lawsuit. A lot of conditions can be added that are reasonable to avoid potential 38 issues, but it is hard to deny one. 39 40 Mr. Tom Archambault, applicant, and owner of Boulevard Auto Works, 2801 Kenzie Terrace, 41 addressed the City Council. 42 43 Councilmember Walker Mr. Archambault how he will control noise pollution from the car wash 44 itself. Mr. Archambault explained the noise pollution from Kenzie Terrace is 68-85 decibels 45 standing twenty feet away from the street. A Mr. Car Wash franchise, located in Shoreview, the 46 4 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 5 same ratings are the same distance was 68 to 75 decibels which was similar or slightly less than 1 what the street at Kenzie Terrace was. He explained he has information from the equipment 2 vendor about the blowers, the units that help dry the vehicle and also information about the 3 vacuum cleaners. He stated regarding the blowers, if he was standing fifty feet away from those 4 units there would be a decibel rating of 79 decibels with no barrier between him and blower 5 itself. The blowers will be in an enclosed building which the blowers inside of and are at the east 6 end of the building which is away from the condominium complex and there will be a door there 7 that will be closed almost one hundred percent of the time. His hope is that the door will only 8 open and close to allow vehicles out of the tunnel car wash. He did not anticipate leaving the 9 tunnel open unless for some reason the building needs to be aired out. He stated at a hundred 10 feet away the decibel level is 75. At the exit of the building, heading west the building is at least 11 125 feet with a driveway and setbacks with property line. There is likely 150 feet between the 12 residents and the actual area in which the noise will be coming out of the building. 13 14 Mr. Archambault explained when it comes to the vacuum cleaners, the vacuum motors 15 themselves will be inside the building and will be inside the enclosed equipment room. The 16 noise will be very minimal when the door opens and closes because there will be a completely 17 enclosed room where the vacuum blowers are inside of. He stated the rating of noise there at 18 fifty feet are 75 decibels. 19 20 Councilmember Randle asked if there was an environmental impact study done for air quality or 21 was one even required. Mr. Archambault indicated he has not had an environmental impact 22 study done but have done phase one environmental of the soil and the property itself and have 23 done soil boring and testing of the sample bores but in terms of air quality and things of that 24 nature to his knowledge it is not required of them nor has one been completed. 25 26 Mayor Stille asked with regard to the length of the facility, it can accommodate cars while being 27 washed and also dried and wondered if the door will be closed during that time or will cars 28 continually be going through which would leave the door open. Mr. Archambault explained 29 because this is an express tunnel car wash the blowers or dryers will be set back probably fifteen 30 feet from the exit of the building so the vehicle will go completely through the dryer prior to 31 reaching the door itself. 32 33 Mayor Stille asked if it was safe to say that the door will be shut until the drying cycle is done 34 and then open up to allow the car to go out then will close again. Mr. Archambault indicated that 35 was correct. 36 37 Mayor Stille asked what the anticipation is with soundproofing within. He explained he has been 38 reading that some of the motors can be built such that there are boxes around them with extra 39 insulation, maybe even insulation on the walls, etc. to help with acoustics and sound and he 40 wondered how that effects equipment quality. Mr. Archambault indicated he would try to 41 answer that but Mr. John Grotkin, RJ Ryan and the project manager would be able to speak to 42 some of the soundproofing of the building itself. He explained when it comes to soundproofing 43 of equipment, very similar to what he has in his current facility right now, there is a car wash bay 44 in the back of that building with a pressure washer and around it they built a sound deadening 45 box because the building itself is built of cinder blocks and sound travels through the building 46 5 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 6 fairly easily and can be quite loud. He would try to soundproof the car wash as best he can in 1 order to try to be the best neighbor he can. 2 3 Mr. Grotkin reviewed building materials and soundproofing with the Council. 4 5 Mayor Stille asked how the doors were made for soundproof. Mr. Grotkin explained the doors 6 will be a thinner material but should hold in the noise. 7 8 Mayor Stille thought if this gets built the applicant may want to re-evaluate the quality of the 9 materials for the doors. 10 11 Mayor Stille noted there were a few residents in attendance that wanted to speak. 12 13 Ms. Susan Guthrie, 2616 Paul Avenue, stated she was kind of stunned at what she just heard. 14 One of the comments was “fear of what we don’t know” and that they are all going to be 15 reassured and will know something different than what they are fearing. She was not sure that 16 was fair and what she feared was that what they really have here is that no one really knows 17 anything. What they are dealing with is reasonable assessments, judgements based on 18 experience, presumptions, and nothing scientific or factual. She stated if they were in the City of 19 Minneapolis there would be environmental impact statements and there would have to be to 20 close out a CUP. The project would have to be looked at and satisfied. There is just much that 21 has not been done. Whatever was seen online was not much of what was presented tonight at the 22 meeting. It is very hard as a citizen to follow what is going on when the information that was 23 available to her outside of the Planning Commission, is basically nothing. Basically, in order for 24 a CUP to be given, existing laws regarding the impact of the project must be satisfied. She 25 indicated she was not satisfied and thought that they do need to know what the cumulative 26 decibel amount will be from all blowers and all of these vacuums going at the same time. They 27 remember that this is not far away from housing and within twenty to thirty feet of existing 28 homes. It is hard to image that along with health, safety, and general welfare, which she 29 believed is the burden of the applicant to prove it is not detrimental as opposed to the neighbors 30 having to prove that it is detrimental. All of these things are very concerning to her. She 31 guessed there are legal requirements, and this is not about guessing, this is about knowing. She 32 is pleased with certain aspects of what has been said but they have to remember that this is right 33 in the middle of housing. She explained this is a quality-of-life issue and is hard to imagine that 34 the property values will not be severely affected having that kind of noise level. If that happens, 35 that is talking about stability of neighborhoods, people moving, and the inability to walk in an 36 area. She thought this needs to be rejected at this point. If it is sent back to staff to review and 37 come up with some more definitive delineations of what the actual risk is to the neighborhood, 38 she would hope that there will be further sessions with the neighborhood. She would hope that 39 the residents could have a dialogue with the planners. She did not think that this use for the land 40 is appropriate with all of the residential surrounding it. There are many other uses that could be 41 considered. 42 43 Ms. Cary Zarhbock, 2704 27th Avenue NE, explained she has lived at that address for 34 years 44 and love living in St. Anthony. She stated she was at the meeting on behalf of concerned 45 neighbors, herself, her husband, Gary, including the single-family homeowners on 27th Avenue 46 6 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 7 NE, as wells as many residents of the Kensington at 2601 Kenzie Terrace. She noted in the 1 packet are multiple letters from concerned residents and a petition signed by more than 70 2 residents of the Kensington, identifying concerns not addressed by the Planning Commission. 3 She really values the work of the staff and of the Planning Commission and the Council that 4 contribute their time to ensure that St. Anthony is a place where people want to live. As 5 concerned citizen, as committed residents here they do feel like it is their responsibility to point 6 out the concerns that have arisen with this. She noted the residents do not have any animosity 7 towards Tom, personally, and really do appreciate that he has been a good neighbor with his car 8 business. However, a car wash is not consistent with St. Anthony Code. It is not an appropriate 9 use of the land he owns. The residents would be willing to engage with him around planning for 10 an alternate business and would have engaged earlier if he had reached out prior to submitting 11 the application. The residents feel that the Planning Commission has not fulfilled their statutory 12 responsibility relative to the Conditional Use Permit for this commercially zoned property that is 13 adjacent to single family and multiple family homes. She explained during the December 15th 14 Planning Commission meeting when asked who burden it was to provide hard evidence of 15 detrimental effect Mr. Grittman incorrectly stated the burden would be on the people making the 16 claim of detrimental value. In fact, as noted in the letter from Tim Keane, Attorney at Law, 17 Minnesota case law shows that the burden is actually on the applicant to prove, based on facts 18 and the record that the use will conform. There has been no such request from the Planning 19 Commission to that applicant. Even though the Planning Commission recommended approval of 20 the CUP, during the December 15th Commission discussion, Commissioner Socha stated she had 21 a hard seeing how it would not be detrimental to some point on neighboring property values and 22 the neighbors agree. In the absence of Planning Commission or applicant action St. Anthony 23 residents did solicit expert opinion so this is not fear of the unknown, this is actually the residents 24 solicited expert opinions, and while these were provided to the Planning Commission before the 25 January 19th meeting, they were not considered. Real Estate agents are considered as experts 26 relative to property value and in the Council packet there are two letters from independent real 27 estate agents, Kathy Daniels, and Ella Ritzman, noting significant negative impact on property 28 values on adjacent single family and multi-family homes. There is also a letter from Steve 29 Platisha, who is professional engineer and noise expert. Based on the decibel levels provided to 30 Tom and in response to a neighbor’s question during the December Commission meeting, the 31 noise expert states that a vacuum at a car wash dryer noise at this level occurred for more than 32 six minutes an hour, the levels would exceed State Noise Pollution Standards. She stated 33 nowhere in the application nor at the planner’s analysis were specific decibel levels requested, 34 described nor analyzed. 35 36 Ms. Zarhbock stated the City Planner and Planning Commission also neglected to consider or 37 assess the impact of air pollution from idling cars and offered no mitigation from this detrimental 38 impact. The car wash plan as seen allows for two lanes of cars idling resulting in sixteen cars 39 waiting their turn in the car wash. These are directly adjacent to the alley which is directly 40 adjacent to backyards as well as the patios and balconies of the Kenzington. This Conditional 41 Use Permit approval is not consistent with St. Anthony’s sustainability plan and it is committed 42 to a reduction of cars idling through the young lungs at work initiative developed due to 43 documented pollution and ill effects of idling cars. The Planning Commission also neglected to 44 consider the impact of noise pollution from car radios while cars wait their turn in the car wash 45 and offered no mitigation to this detrimental impact. She stated in summary, they respectfully 46 7 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 8 request that the St. Anthony City Council fulfill its Statutory responsibility and deny the CUP for 1 the Boulevard Car Wash. 2 3 Ms. Lisa Channer explained she lives right behind where the car wash is being proposed. She 4 stated she is already inundated by floodlights from the Kenzington that literally flood her entire 5 backyard and into the bedroom windows. She would like to know what the lighting would be 6 and how much it would flood the alley and backyards. She asked if the hours of operations go 7 into the evening on any days and how late would they go. She also wondered if there was any 8 kind of fencing that would be provided to keep the car wash separated from the backyards of the 9 residents. She stated those are her biggest concerns and thought it was great this will be a local 10 person wanting to do this and was sure he is earnest. She noted it is a different proposition if a 11 person is living right there with this literally in the backyard. She thought this will drastically 12 affect her property value and she opposed this. 13 14 Mayor Stille explained the floodlights at the Kenzington does not have anything to do with this 15 particular action. He noted Mr. Channer may wish to approach the Board of the Kenzington to 16 see if there is anything that can be done for the lights that flood into her backyard from that 17 facility. In regard to the hours, as proposed, the hours would be 7am to 10pm. The fence will 18 run parallel to the alley for the entire length of the alley. 19 20 Mr. Jesse Pikturna, indicated he wanted to call on the City to deny this project based on some of 21 the concerns already heard and some of the concerns that will be heard throughout the meeting. 22 First of all, the conditions recommended by staff to address some of those concerns are design 23 concept. He did not know who designed the car wash and did not think the City should be 24 designing it. He wants to be ensured that he will not be assaulted by noise from the car wash or 25 subjected to the noise and pollution from idling cars. He wants to ensure that his family will 26 remain safe and their health and wellness protected. He wants the City to do its duty to protect 27 their health, safety, and general welfare. He wants to make sure the engineers that are designing 28 the facility are doing their ethical duty as professional engineers to hold paramount the health, 29 safety, and wellness of the public. He explained he has seen no evidence, no data, and no 30 engineering calculations that these design concepts are going to be sufficient to accomplish those 31 goals. He stated he has only seen design concepts and guesses that these design concepts may 32 reduce the negative impact. What is needed is a professional engineer recognized by the State of 33 Minnesota to provide a design that controls noise, air pollution and other pollution that is suitable 34 to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents. He was very concerned about 35 the noise and that this site is so adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Their quality of live will 36 certainly suffer and his property value will suffer. He also understood there will be the potential 37 for garbage trucks to access the outdoor dumpster on this site which will also cause loud noise. 38 He anticipated traffic and parking spilling out onto Wilson and 27th Avenue creating crowding 39 and potential safety issues. He did not think any engineering study was done to understand the 40 pollution and noise impacts this could have on the neighborhood. He asked the Council to deny 41 this project. 42 43 Ms. Susan Cox, 2616 27th Avenue NE, echoed many concerns raised by the residents. She 44 understood this lot is considered commercial, but it is very close to residential properties. She 45 stated the car wash itself as well as the idling cars is very close to the north lot line where 46 8 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 9 directly on the other side of a narrow alley are people’s backyard that go all the way up to the 1 alley. She explained even though the flood lights at the Kenzington is not a part of this, she has 2 had to install light filtering blinds on her windows and also even though the plans state that the 3 lights from the car wash will face down she did not feel significant mitigation of the concerns 4 that residents have brought up. She stated her biggest issue is that Mr. Archambault has brushed 5 off all of the residents concerns as unreasonable or inaccurate or not necessitating further study. 6 As an engineer she would never get away with making a decision like this with lack of actual 7 data pertaining to this specific site. She encouraged the Council to reject this proposal due to the 8 lack of due diligence. 9 10 Mr. Grittman reviewed the applicant submitted photometric plan. He indicated staff made some 11 recommendations related to lowering the height of the parking lot light poles and making sure all 12 lights are downcast and hooded to make sure there is no glare onto adjoining properties. One of 13 the requirements is that staff would need to verify that the photometric is showing zero-foot 14 candles at the residential property lines. 15 16 Mr. John Laduka, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated many of the residents have already expressed 17 many of his concerns. He thought there needs to be a professional noise study done and not just 18 word taken from the applicant. 19 20 Mr. John Kufus, 2712 27th Avenue NE, stated he is one of the property owners that will directly 21 be affected by the above proposal and he wished to strongly disagree with the Planning 22 Commission’s decision to approve a CUP to Boulevard Auto Works for construction of a car 23 wash. He explained his property abuts the alley there with one house in between him and 24 Boulevard Auto Works. He assumed his backyard will be directly opposite the exit doors for the 25 car wash, therefore, his concerns are principally noise due to dryer blower motors, vacuum 26 cleaners, idling cars, car radios, traffic congestion along Kenzie Terrace and he would like 27 someone to address the possibility that the alley could be blocked along Kenzie Terrace if there 28 are a number of cars waiting to enter the car wash. He was also concerned about decreased 29 property values. 30 31 Mr. Grittman explained the City Engineer has been in contact with Hennepin County 32 Transportation who is responsible for Kenzie Terrace and they are currently examining traffic on 33 Kenzie Terrace on a larger scale, not just this property, but on a larger scale. It is staff’s opinion 34 that the stacking available on this site is far in excess of what would typically be seen or be 35 required for a typical facility of this type and there is not expectation of having traffic backing all 36 the way out onto Kenzie Terrace. There is a lot of onsite driveway to stack the vehicles. 37 38 Mayor Stille indicated the City Engineer has been in discussions with Hennepin County about 39 Kenzie Terrace because the road is over capacity so the City is seeing if the road could be given 40 more room for walkability and more aesthetically pleasing features. 41 42 Mr. Tim Keane stated he is a land use attorney representing both property owners and 43 municipalities throughout the Metro area. He stated he is currently representing multiple 44 residents of the Kenzington Condominiums and the focus of this discussion is on the criteria for 45 granting the Conditional Use Permit and particularly finding three. Principles of land use 46 9 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 10 planning and zoning customarily are governed by the principle to avoid conflicts of use. Here 1 there is about as intense commercial use as could be imagined. A high velocity car wash with 2 high vehicle traffic counts immediately contiguous to a multi-family residential condominium 3 building and a single-family neighborhood. He stated with all respect to Planner Grittman, it is 4 not the burden of the City to establish the compliance with the finding, it is the burden of the 5 applicant. The statement by Mr. Grittman that it is very difficult to deny a Conditional Use 6 Permit completely flies in the face of Minnesota Land Use Law. The decision of the City 7 Council must be based on the facts in the record and the facts are measured against the required 8 findings in the City Code. There has been ample testimony from residents contiguous to the 9 property regarding adverse noise impacts. There has been testimony regarding air quality 10 impacts and concerns, there are concerns with regard to light pollution and impacts directly on 11 nearby residents. There are multiple statements of adverse impacts on nearby residential 12 property values. A property owner is competent to testify as to impacts to their own property. 13 There are also the opinions of real estate professionals and most notably a real estate professional 14 that has represented hundreds of clients within the Kenzington Condominium community. 15 Given the intensity of the car wash impacts, of vehicle trips, noise and air pollution, and safety 16 concerns, this use is simply incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood residential 17 uses. He stated there are many compatible uses that this property can be reasonably put to 18 without imposing the conflicts of land use and can satisfy the requirements of the Conditional 19 Use Permit. He respectfully requests, based on the facts and the record and the City’s Code that 20 the Conditional Use Permit must be denied. 21 22 Mr. Casey Scott, 2501 Paul Avenue, St. Anthony, explained he has known Tom Archambault 23 and his family for many years, and they have been great neighbors. This particular decision to 24 put a car wash so close to the neighbors on 27th seems to be very much in contrary to past 25 decisions that he and the prior owner have made. He found it kind of strange that the owner 26 talked about running the operation from 8am to 5pm and then the City expanded that from 7am 27 to 10pm., especially when this is right near so many houses and residential areas. He thought the 28 hours of operation should be explored, especially on the weekend. Right now, Mr. 29 Archambault’s business does not operate on the weekend so he wondered if there was a need to 30 have this business operate on a weekend. The big difference he sees between the other car 31 washes mentioned during this meeting and this car wash is that this one is extremely close in 32 proximity to the residential neighbors. He appreciated that City staff recommended there be a 33 number of changes to try to mitigate some of this impact, but he also noticed that there has been 34 nothing done to measure the current noise, air pollution, current water runoff, etc. so that there 35 can be some comparisons to other car washes in the neighborhood that were mentioned to see 36 what the difference would be. He thought there are some of those steps that Mr. Keane 37 mentioned and others that should be taken before a decision is made. He would recommend that 38 at a minimum the decision should be tabled until further study is done to be able to understand 39 the impact on the residents in the community. 40 41 Mr. Scott asked how big the trees will be because if small trees are planted those trees will not be 42 able to mitigate for several years. If large trees are planted there is a risk of them dying in a few 43 years and whose responsibility will it be to replant the trees. He thought there were some 44 specific details that needed to be worked out about all of these mitigation steps to make sure that 45 10 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 11 if the City decided to pass this that there really be the mitigations in place that are being 1 stipulated at this time, from inception through however long the car wash exists. 2 3 Ms. Nancy Burns, 2708 Murray, stated she used to live adjacent to the alley. She stated that 4 while it is not understood to people who have not lived it, to move into a property where there is 5 not light pollution, which is the way it was when she lived in the neighborhood, the Kenzington 6 did not have the back parking lot and there was not a back light or surface run off because it was 7 grass. Midway into their homeownership that back parking lot and light was installed, and they 8 asked several times for the light to be mitigated and to be brought down. That is an example of 9 mistrust, while it does not impact this property. She explained they did move out of that 10 neighborhood and the light shining on the properties is a big detriment to the value of the 11 property. 12 13 Mr. Will Halstead, 2708 Murray, stated there are two things that come to mind, one is noise 14 pollution which is a big concern because 75db is comparable to a vacuum cleaner and he 15 wondered how people would like to hear the constant sound of a vacuum cleaner while trying to 16 enjoy their backyard. Another thing is that Councilmember Randle asked if there had been an 17 Environmental Impact Study done on the property and one concern of his is that he knows harsh 18 chemicals are used in car wash applications, so he wondered if there have been any studies about 19 runoff from those car chemicals. He knew there were containment practices in place for car 20 washes but in the winter, there is always an icy path from all of the run-off from cars that goes 21 into the watershed. 22 23 Mr. Grittman reviewed when an environmental impact study is needed and when a study is 24 required. 25 26 Mr. Paul McHugh, 2608 Kenzie Terrace, Kenzington Condominiums, stated he was concerned 27 with idling vehicles and the pollution impact it will cause to the neighborhood. He stated it was 28 not addressed by the City Planner that idling cars are a documented source of air pollution and 29 harm to human health. He read what the EPA stated about idling vehicles. He explained this is a 30 real issue of pollution. He thought this is worth paying full attention to. 31 32 Mr. Dave Colling, 2708 27th Avenue, voiced his opposition to the project and echoed what his 33 neighbors have stated. 34 35 Mr. Dave Hess, 408 Kenzington Condos, explained he lives directly behind this proposed 36 project. He is concerned about his health and the health of others in his building. He also 37 indicated there will be a significant decrease in home values if the car wash were to be built. He 38 explained as a resident and a realtor that the City Council does not approve this Conditional Use 39 Permit because it is the wrong use in the wrong location. 40 41 Ms. Jeanette Fleming asked if there is going to be a door on the entrance to the tunnel that moves 42 up and down as well as the exit. She also wondered if there will be a prewash person at the 43 entrance spraying the cars before entering the tunnel. 44 45 11 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 12 Mr. Archambault indicted he did not know the exact details of the business because he was still 1 trying to get a Conditional Use Permit for the business. What he hoped to do is to get cars in the 2 door with the car down as people approach with an auto attendant where people will pay to get in 3 and once they get in the door will open. The goal will not have a prep station, but he did hope to 4 have an attendant there to help people get on the conveyor system. He wanted to give the best 5 customer experience. He noted he does want to conserve energy so if there were a stream of cars 6 in line, he would prefer not to have the door open and close after every vehicle. 7 8 Mayor Stille thanked everyone for their testimony. He closed community comment for Council 9 deliberation. 10 11 Mayor Stille indicated this is not an easy topic because it affects a lot of people. The Council 12 was asked if they would want to live next to a car wash which he indicated he would not, but he 13 would not want to live next to a commercial property either that has a permitted use that a car 14 wash could be there. He thought people get a chance to get accustomed to that. On the other 15 hand, there is a business owner that bought the business in 2015 with the expectation of 16 expansion, knowing that it was a permitted use to have a car wash there. His concern is that the 17 City may end up in litigation if the Council denies this and if the City ends up in litigation, his 18 even bigger consideration is the City may lose all of its bargaining power that the City has with 19 this particular business owner with a CUP. Having said that, if this moves forward, he did not 20 care for the transaction or situation as it exists right now and needs more teeth to the conditions 21 with more conditions. He thought some were too loose and he was prepared to talk about that 22 and manufacture those conditions at the meeting. 23 24 Mayor Stille stated one of the things he thought was how could a use like this fit into a 25 neighborhood with such close proximity to residential. He struggled with that. He did research 26 this and found a car wash in Wayzata that demonstrated a car wash can coexist with a residential 27 neighborhood. There were luxury condominiums twenty-five feet from the car wash to the west. 28 To the north of that there were townhomes with a fence forty-eight feet from the beginning of the 29 facility with patios right beyond the fence. He talked to the owner of the car wash and the owner 30 has not had a complaint in a long time. It led him to believe that this could co-exist. He wanted 31 to do this right and he would be willing to table this in order to get it done right. 32 33 Councilmember Randle explained he did not go through all of the emails but did go through as 34 many as he could. He also reached out to other individuals to see if there is any legal way to 35 deny this and quite honestly the City does not have any legal standing to deny this. He stated 36 litigation is a real concern for the City. He did not see how the City can actually deny this, but 37 he was open to thoughts on how the City can help mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. 38 39 Councilmember Jenson felt there needs to be further study from an environmental standpoint 40 dealing with noise and fumes. As it stands right now, he cannot vote to approve this. 41 42 Councilmember Walker stated in reference to Wayzata, in terms of demographics are the 43 residents similar to what exists in St. Anthony. Would it follow also that the residents there fit in 44 the same profile as the residents here in terms of age, health issues, etc. Mayor Stille explained 45 he only talked to the owner of the business. 46 12 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 13 1 Councilmember Webster believed this project needs more study and continued to be concerned 2 about how this project could be detrimental to health, safety and general welfare of the residents 3 living directly around the proposed car wash. She thought this definitely needs further study. 4 5 Mayor Stille stated one of the things the Planning Commission recommended are hours from 6 7am to 10pm and frankly he did not think there was a reason to have those hours. He understood 7 the owner expressed he only planned on being open 8am to 5pm but the business could be sold, 8 and the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so the next owner could have the business 9 open from 7am to 10pm. He thought if this proves to be a really good operation and there is no 10 noise impact Mr. Archambault could always come back to the City for extended hours of 11 operation approval. He suggested hours of 8am to 6pm. He thought there should be a condition 12 that strives to have the doors open and shut behind when cars enter upon commencement and the 13 same thing with completion. He thought the project should meet or exceed Minnesota Noise 14 Standards, which has to be done anyway. He thought there could be some signage encouraging 15 refraining from idling while waiting in the cue. There should also be a limit of capacity such as 16 one hundred cars a day and if the air quality index exceeds 100, some things that could easily be 17 put into place to help mitigate some of these things. He was also opened to continuing this as 18 well. 19 20 Councilmember Walker indicated this is a tough item and his issue is conservation. His main 21 concern is with condition three which was the same concern of many residents. He was not 22 convinced this project is rock solid and that the third condition can be met at this time. 23 24 Mayor Stille explained if the Council tables this he wants to give some direction to staff for 25 clarity. He thought if the Council denies this proposal the City will still get the car wash sooner 26 or later. 27 28 Councilmember Webster thought about possible direction to give to staff, as a community, the 29 mission is to be a progressive and welcoming village that is walkable, safe, and sustainable. She 30 thought at the very least and environmental study would be a good place to start. Mayor Stille 31 asked what kind of environmental study she would suggest. Councilmember Webster thought 32 concerns raised by the residents such as water runoff, chemicals that would be used, air 33 pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. She thought this would-be helpful information for 34 the Council in order to see a bigger picture and she thought it would be one step for the City to 35 do its due diligence looking at the standard with regard to the health, safety and general welfare 36 of the residents working or residing near the proposed project. 37 38 Mayor Stille asked Mr. Grittman what kind of study that would be. Mr. Grittman explained the 39 City Engineer could look at the water runoff and work with the applicants’ team to make those 40 estimates. He presumed they could get a noise study of the proposed conditions, some kind of an 41 acoustical contour study. He was not sure how they would measure the impact of potential car 42 stereos and would probably need to rely on signage or other tools to attempt to suppress that. 43 Regarding the fumes, he would need to rely on the City Engineer to see if they have staff that 44 would be able to provide some kind of analysis of the air quality issues related to a facility like 45 this. 46 13 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 14 1 Mayor Stille thought the Council was ok with tabling this item for 120 days or until March 17, 2 2021 and if the City does not act on this by March 17th then the proposed Conditional Use Permit 3 is automatically approved. Mr. Grittman indicated that it would be approved as submitted, 4 without the added conditions. Mayor Stille asked if there is time to do these studies. Mr. 5 Grittman indicated he did not have an answer for that. Mr. Yunker indicated this would have to 6 come before the Council at the March 9th meeting. 7 8 Mayor Stille was not sure if there needed to be a motion on this but could designate this as being 9 tabled and he thought there were at least three Councilmembers who agreed for tabling. 10 11 Consensus of the Council was to table this item to the March 9, 2021 City Council meeting with 12 instructions of visiting with the applicant and assembling reports. 13 14 Mr. Archambault asked the reason why this item is being tabled and what did he need to do. He 15 thought there needed to be a motion to either vote yes or no or tell him what to do. Mayor Stille 16 indicated the Council did not need to vote at this time. He explained to Mr. Archambault that 17 staff will be in contact with him about various studies that needed to be done. Mr. Grittman 18 noted one other item that is at issue, generally is the property value discussion. Mr. Archambault 19 explained he would go along with the studies, but he would not agree to looking at property 20 values. Mayor Stille agreed because he felt that people living next to commercial property will 21 have to anticipate some of that. 22 23 VI. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL. 24 25 A. Snow and Ice Control Presentation. 26 27 Public Works Superintendent Gumke had to leave the meeting, so Mayor Stille tabled the 28 presentation until the February 9, 2021 City Council meeting. 29 30 Mr. Gumke appeared back in the meeting to give his presentation to the City Council. 31 32 Mayor Stille indicated with regard to sidewalks, the City Ordinance requires the community to 33 shovel the sidewalks, but Public Works does the basic stuff. He did encourage the community to 34 participate on shoveling the sidewalks if they live along them for walkability. 35 36 Mayor Stille thanked Mr. Gumke for his presentation. 37 38 B. Resolution 21-018; a Resolution Approving the Hiring of Charlie Yunker as the City 39 Manager for the City of St. Anthony. 40 41 Mayor Stille reviewed the resolution with the Council. He noted the City has been looking for a 42 City Manager since Mr. Casey left in September and the City went through a process and 43 selected four finalists to interview and on January 19th the Council interviewed those four people 44 and deliberated. He was pleased to introduce Mr. Charlie Yunker who is an eight-year employee 45 of St. Anthony. He reviewed Mr. Yunkers education and work history and expressed Mr. 46 14 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 15 Yunkers dedication to the City. He thought Mr. Yunker will bring a different twist and newness 1 to the position and stated he looked forward to working with him for a long time. Mayor Stille 2 congratulated Mr. Yunker on his promotion. 3 4 Mr. Yunker expressed his thanks and kind words to the Council. He stated he has always been 5 proud to be an employee of St. Anthony. He thanked his family and introduced his wife Aubrey 6 Yunker. 7 8 Councilmember Randle congratulated Mr. Yunker on his promotion. He explained over the last 9 three years he has gotten to know him and indicated staff respects him and he thought Mr. 10 Yunker will do very well in this role. 11 12 Councilmember Jenson agreed with everything that has been said and welcomed Mr. Yunker to 13 the full-time job of City Manager. He felt Mr. Yunker understood the staff and has many 14 insights on what is going on in the City which is very helpful. 15 16 Councilmember Webster congratulated Mr. Yunker on this position and looked forward with 17 working with him in his new role. 18 19 Councilmember Walker stated Mr. Yunker was competing against some tough applicants and it 20 was a tough decision. He congratulated him on being the chosen person for the job. He 21 concurred with the rest of the Council and wished him well in his new position. 22 23 Mr. Yunker thanked the Council for all of the kind words. 24 25 Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve Resolution 26 21-018; a Resolution Approving the Hiring of Charlie Yunker as the City Manager for the City 27 of St. Anthony. 28 29 Motion carried 5-0. 30 31 VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 32 33 Councilmember Webster stated two weeks ago, the Council and staff participated in goal setting. 34 A chance to spend Wednesday, Thursday and Friday morning together to look at the data and 35 look at some of the trends in the community in order to set some goals for 2021 and keep they 36 are on what is ahead of them in the next three to five years. The Council also conducted City 37 Manager interviews last week and on January 27th is the Family Services Collaborative Meeting. 38 In addition to that there were two community engagement circles that were held in January. 39 These circles are funded and sponsored by the Family Service Collaborative. The two events 40 held in January; the theme was What Makes A Community A Community. 41 42 Councilmember Walker stated he attended the goal setting as well as the interview process. 43 44 Councilmember Randle stated he attended both the goal setting workshop and the interview 45 process as well as Sunday, January 17th was the Sister City meeting. They are doing a book 46 15 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 16 exchange where the countries exchange books. He showed the new logo for the Sister Cities 1 logo. Mayor Stille indicated he liked the new logo and thought the two flags melded well 2 together. 3 4 Councilmember Jenson stated he attended the goal setting meeting and the interviews. On 5 January 15th he attended the Ramsey County Local League of Governments Executive Board 6 which was a planning session for the 2021 meeting sessions for the Board of Directors. 7 8 Mayor Stille thanked the City Council for the goals setting workshop. 9 10 VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM. 11 12 Mayor Stille invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items that 13 are not on the regular agenda. 14 15 Hearing none, Mayor Stille moved forward with the agenda. 16 17 IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 18 19 None. 20 21 X. ADJOURNMENT. 22 23 Mayor Stille adjourned the meeting at 10:16 p.m. 24 25 26 Respectfully submitted, 27 Sue Osbeck 28 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 29 30 Mayor 31 ATTEST: 32 City Clerk 33 16 Saint Anthony Village DATE: February 9, 2021 Approved: TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: License Clerk ITEM: License and Permits for Approval: General Contractors Licenses: Archetype Signmakers, Bloomington, MN GM Northrup, Prior Lake, MN Mechanical Licenses: Dean’s Professional, Maple Grove, MN Deziel Heating & A/C, Buffalo, MN 17 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 18 City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 1/22/2021 - 2/10/2021 Feb 02, 2021 10:41AM Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount 11798 CENTRAL PENSION FUND LOCAL #49 43168 01/22/2021 4,480.00 10710 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 43169 01/22/2021 1,445.00 11813 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 43170 01/22/2021 32.00 12077 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 43171 01/22/2021 811.85 12760 10322006 SSI MN TRANCHE 1 (FD)43172 02/10/2021 322.38 1118 56 BREWING 43173 02/10/2021 792.00 12933 AA EQUIPMENT COMPANY 43174 02/10/2021 4,097.59 1100 ARTISIAN BEER COMPANY 43175 02/10/2021 4,354.94 10115 ASPEN MILLS 43176 02/10/2021 69.95 10116 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC 43177 02/10/2021 184.66 1013 BELLBOY CORPORATION 43178 02/10/2021 5,062.07 1014 BELLBOY CORPORATION 43179 02/10/2021 153.40 10172 BIFFS, INC.43180 02/10/2021 19.72 11883 BIG RIVER GROUP LLC 43181 02/10/2021 3,700.00 2009 BLACK STACK BREWING 43182 02/10/2021 849.00 12133 BLAINE TIRE & AUTO 43183 02/10/2021 268.60 10185 BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC 43184 02/10/2021 45.49 13010 BOURQUE, LEON 43185 02/10/2021 27.90 1018 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEER 43186 02/10/2021 21,922.50 1011 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 43187 02/10/2021 3,198.16 1009 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE & SPIRITS 43188 02/10/2021 1,309.40 1017 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 43189 02/10/2021 18,558.55 12596 CINTAS 43190 02/10/2021 1,162.53 12150 CITY OF NEW BRIGHTON 43191 02/10/2021 6,117.09 10307 CIVIC SYSTEMS, LLC 43192 02/10/2021 4,170.00 1010 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE COMPANY 43193 02/10/2021 1,419.00 12320 COMO LUBE AND SUPPLIES 43194 02/10/2021 35.00 10332 COMPTON'S COMMERCIAL CLNG. INC 43195 02/10/2021 4,228.00 12561 CORE & MAIN LP 43196 02/10/2021 1,302.42 1042 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE 43197 02/10/2021 114.21 12773 CUMMINS SALES & SERVICE 43198 02/10/2021 1,718.08 13008 CYRYT, JOAN 43199 02/10/2021 14.76 13006 DDA - DAVID DROWN ASSOCIATES CO 43200 02/10/2021 6,000.00 10393 DELL MARKETING LP 43201 02/10/2021 9,720.40 13015 EVERGREEN TOWNHOMES LLC 43202 02/10/2021 81.45 10501 FASTENAL COMPANY 43203 02/10/2021 18.62 10511 FINANCE AND COMMERCE 43204 02/10/2021 280.11 10526 FLEETPRIDE 43205 02/10/2021 559.74 10573 GOODIN COMPANY 43206 02/10/2021 202.62 1021 GREAT LAKES COCA COLA 43207 02/10/2021 957.43 12409 GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION INC 43208 02/10/2021 67,142.11 10603 H & L MESABI INC 43209 02/10/2021 1,383.62 10617 HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS 43210 02/10/2021 20.47 10636 HEDBACK & CARLSON PLLC 43211 02/10/2021 3,500.00 13009 HENDERSON, LINDSEY 43212 02/10/2021 72.44 10647 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY 43213 02/10/2021 231.00 10681 HIRSHFIELD'S INC 43214 02/10/2021 224.90 1019 HOHENSTEIN'S, INC 43215 02/10/2021 8,006.94 13007 IANNAZZO, TOM 43216 02/10/2021 50.05 2013 INBOUND BREWCO 43217 02/10/2021 502.00 1027 INDEED BREWING COMPANY 43218 02/10/2021 1,668.95 11754 INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL, INC.43219 02/10/2021 617.00 1016 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING 43220 02/10/2021 16,950.50 19 City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 1/22/2021 - 2/10/2021 Feb 02, 2021 10:41AM Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount 1102 JOHNSON BROTHERS 43221 02/10/2021 2,964.18 1004 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.43222 02/10/2021 1,072.52 1005 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.43223 02/10/2021 4,911.80 1006 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.43224 02/10/2021 5,832.89 1044 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.43225 02/10/2021 8,346.56 13011 JOHNSON,BARBARA/CULLY 43226 02/10/2021 202.98 10797 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS 43227 02/10/2021 139.75 12894 LEAST SERVICE/COUNSELING LLC 43228 02/10/2021 990.00 2010 LUPULIN BREWING 43229 02/10/2021 22.67 1022 M. AMUNDSON LLP 43230 02/10/2021 2,476.88 10874 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT GROUP 43231 02/10/2021 397,164.56 13014 MAILE, MARGUERITE 43232 02/10/2021 35.46 10882 MAMA 43233 02/10/2021 45.00 11985 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 43234 02/10/2021 11,397.78 10888 MARKEL/EDWARD 43235 02/10/2021 125.00 12983 MED ALLIANCE 43236 02/10/2021 7.15 10931 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - WASTEWATER 43237 02/10/2021 119,341.73 12344 MIDDLE MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED 43238 02/10/2021 3,167.50 10939 MIDWAY FORD 43239 02/10/2021 93.21 12864 MILLER, BRETT W 43240 02/10/2021 2,400.00 12940 MINNEHAHA BLDG MAINTENANCE 43241 02/10/2021 4.57 11029 MINNESOTA DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES 43242 02/10/2021 2,353.23 13003 MINNESOTA MANAGEMENT OF BUDGET 43243 02/10/2021 115.50 2006 MODIST BREWING COMPANY 43244 02/10/2021 338.67 11079 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES 43245 02/10/2021 138.60 1125 NEGOCE 43246 02/10/2021 243.00 1051 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY 43247 02/10/2021 602.00 11131 NORTH SUBURBAN ACCESS CORPORATION.43248 02/10/2021 788.25 11132 NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS 43249 02/10/2021 6,052.42 11163 OFFICE DEPOT 43250 02/10/2021 735.37 1066 OLD WORLD CANNING COMPANY 43251 02/10/2021 90.00 2011 OMNI BREWING 43252 02/10/2021 301.99 12112 OREILLY AUTO PARTS 43253 02/10/2021 30.76 13012 OTTERNESS, JERRI 43254 02/10/2021 197.20 11185 PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES, INC.43255 02/10/2021 835.00 1012 PAUSTIS & SONS 43256 02/10/2021 2,433.75 2034 PEQUOD DISTRIBUTION 43257 02/10/2021 948.50 11211 PETTY CASH - U.S. BANK 43258 02/10/2021 133.42 1001 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 43259 02/10/2021 4,423.45 1002 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 43260 02/10/2021 5,368.68 2019 PRYES BREWING COMPANY 43261 02/10/2021 830.00 12311 PUCKETTS RECYCLING 43262 02/10/2021 120.00 1020 ROOTSTOCK WINE COMPANY 43263 02/10/2021 109.50 11345 ROSEVILLE CHRYSLER DODGE 43264 02/10/2021 168.83 12614 SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 43265 02/10/2021 425.52 13016 SALESS, DELORIS 43266 02/10/2021 35.01 12670 SEESTEDT'S 43267 02/10/2021 1,221.16 12346 SHRED IT 43268 02/10/2021 37.77 11408 SIGNATURE CONCEPTS, INC.43269 02/10/2021 1,916.88 2018 SMALL LOT WINES 43270 02/10/2021 77.00 1024 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 43271 02/10/2021 5,432.94 1008 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 43272 02/10/2021 927.63 1026 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 43273 02/10/2021 9,498.03 20 City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 1/22/2021 - 2/10/2021 Feb 02, 2021 10:41AM Vendor Number Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount 1036 SOUTHERN GLAZER'S OF MN 43274 02/10/2021 113.28 11457 ST ANTHONY VILLAGE CENTER, LLC 43275 02/10/2021 4,250.40 2035 STACKED DECK BREWING CO 43276 02/10/2021 376.00 11478 STAR TRIBUNE 43277 02/10/2021 1,520.07 2001 STEEL TOE BREWING 43278 02/10/2021 192.00 11502 STREICHER'S 43279 02/10/2021 147.54 13017 SUKOWATEY, LAURA 43280 02/10/2021 41.53 12920 SVAP III SILVER LAKE VILLAGE LLC 43281 02/10/2021 2,456.48 12956 TECHACUMEN 43282 02/10/2021 2,681.25 11552 TESSMAN SEED INC.43283 02/10/2021 237.50 12081 THE HARTFORD 43284 02/10/2021 1,348.87 11566 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 43285 02/10/2021 254.50 12702 TOKLE INSPECTIONS INC 43286 02/10/2021 1,373.60 11586 TRACY PRINTING 43287 02/10/2021 796.00 1098 TRADITION WINE & SPIRITS 43288 02/10/2021 2,710.25 11595 TRI STATE BOBCAT, INC.43289 02/10/2021 313.03 11609 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR 43290 02/10/2021 325.00 2037 URSA MINOR BREWING 43291 02/10/2021 624.20 12776 USS MINNESOTA ONE MT LLC (CH)43292 02/10/2021 1,606.55 11674 VERIZON WIRELESS 43293 02/10/2021 1,452.61 1025 VINOCOPIA 43294 02/10/2021 612.21 12648 WINDSTREAM 43295 02/10/2021 164.37 1034 WINE COMPANY/THE 43296 02/10/2021 2,167.70 1038 WINE MERCHANTS INC 43297 02/10/2021 865.89 11731 WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GRP, INC.43298 02/10/2021 145.96 13013 WOLFENBERG, JOANN 43299 02/10/2021 100.02 11738 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC.43300 02/10/2021 53,477.25 11740 XCEL ENERGY 43301 02/10/2021 17,367.33 6540 Z WINES USA LLC 43302 02/10/2021 85.00 Grand Totals: 915,655.24 21 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 22 CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 21-019 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND FINANCE DIRECTOR TO MAKE CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH MULTI-BANK SECURITIES, INC. WHEREAS, Multi-Bank Securities, Inc., currently provides investments services to the City of Saint Anthony Village and has executed a Broker certification form for 2017. WHEREAS, In order to settle investment transactions directly with Multi-Bank Securities, Inc. the City of Saint Anthony Village has an account in its name. WHEREAS, the City Manager and Finance Director are authorized to make certain transaction with Multi-Bank Securities, Inc. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes Charlie Yunker, City Manager and Shelly Rueckert, Finance Director are authorized to make certain transaction with Multi-Bank Securities, Inc. Adopted this 9th day of February, 2021. ______________________________________ Randy Stille, Mayor ATTEST:____________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Review for Administration: _____________________________________ Charlie Yunker, City Manager 23 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 24 PUBLIC HEARING 2022 BUDGET City Council Meeting February 9, 2021 2022 BUDGET CALENDAR January 13-15, 2021: Goal Setting, Financial Management and Planning February 9, 2021: Public Hearing/Provide Residents with an opportunity to have input in the 2022 Budget process. 25 2022 BUDGET CALENDAR February –April 2021: City Council work sessions with City Manager, Finance Director and City Engineer –Discussions on 2022 Debt levy and Updated Street and Utility improvements plan. 2022 BUDGET CALENDAR April -May 2021: Staff Meetings with Department Heads –Discussion on 2022 Operating Budget and Capital Budgets -using City’s Budget Parameters: •City revenues budgeted using current run rates for sources that are subject to trends and conservative baseline estimates for re-occurring aids and charges for services •Expenses budgeted at amounts that will maintain present level of City services •Liquor transfers are based on operating results June -August 2021: Further work sessions with Council –Discussing Staff Proposals for 2022 Operating and Capital Budgets. 26 2022 BUDGET CALENDAR August 24, 2021: Presentation of the Proposed 2022 Operating Budget & Property Tax Levy to the City Council. September 14, 2021: Resolution passed:Setting the proposed 2022 Operating Budget and Property Tax Levy. Announce the date and time at which the final Budget and Tax Levy will be discussed. 2022 BUDGET CALENDAR October -November 2021: Presentation of long term capital budgets/plans. December 14, 2021: Presentation of 2022 Operating Budget and Levy with Public Input. Adoption of the 2022 Operating Budget and Property Tax 27 2021 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 63% 1% 3% 13% 13% 1%3%3%Tax Levy 63% Licenses 1% Permits 3% Intergov't Revenue 13% Charges for Services 13% Fines 1% Reimburseable Revenue 3% Transfers 3% 2021 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 11% 4%1% 48% 3% 16% 11% 4%2% General Gov't 11% Financial Services 4% Inspections 1% Police 48% City Buildings 3% Fire 16% Public Works 11% Parks 4% Reimburseable Expenditures 2% 28 GENERAL FUND AND OVERALL LEVIES 2020 Actual 2021 Proposed $ Increase/ (Decrease)% Change General Fund $4,571,013 $4,754,650 $183,637 4.02% C.I.P.$283,200 $283,200 $0 0% Road Improvement Debt $1,927,204 $1,913,699 $(13,505)(0.70)% Lease Revenue Bonds $341,602 $344,897 3,295 .96% HRA Levy $185,064 $197,564 $12,500 6.75% Tax Abatement $218,375 $228,585 $10,210 4.68% Building Improvement $83,000 $83,000 0 0% Infrastructure Improvement $0 $60,000 $60,000 NA Total Percent Change 3.37% QUESTIONS? 29 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 • www.savmn.com Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that on February 9, 2021, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint Anthony Village City Council will hold a public hearing to receive public input on the 2022 Budget and the 2022 Budget calendar process. Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Clerk at 612-782-3313. Shelly Rueckert Finance Director 30 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Stille and St. Anthony Village City Council From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: City Council Regular Meeting for February 9, 2021 NAC File No: 323.01 – 21.01 Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an electronic (digital display) sign for Culver’s at 4004 Silver Lake Road NE. STAFF and PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The applicant is proposing to upgrade an existing ground sign identifying its business location at 4004 Silver Lake Road. The ground sign would be located along the northeast side of the building, adjacent to Silver Lake Rd NE. Because a portion of the sign will include an electronic digital display, the sign requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 155.29 of the City’s Sign Ordinance. The Planning Commission considered this item at a public hearing on January 19, 2021. There were no members of the public who spoke at the hearing, and both the applicant and representative were available to answer questions. Based on a review of the proposed sign and the applicable regulations, Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the CUP request, with conditions related to compliance with code requirements applicable to dynamic display signs. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Springfield Sign Owner: Sweet Cream Prop St Anthony (Steve Sparks) Location: 4004 Silver Lake Road NE Existing Land Use / Retail and Other Commercial / Zoned: C- Commercial District Zoning: Surrounding Land North: Retail and other Commercial / Zoned: C- Commercial District Use / Zoning: East: Single Family Attached / Zoned: R3- Townhomes District South: Retail and other Commercial / Zoned: Planned Unit Development West: Multifamily / Zoned: R4-Multiple Dwellings District Deadline for Agency Complete Application Date: 12-18-20 Action: 60 Days: 02-16-21 Letter Sent: No 120 Days: 04-17-21 31 February 9, 2021 Page 2 ANALYSIS 1. Background The applicant proposes to upgrade ground sign at the subject property along Silver Lake Road NE. The new sign would be located approximately 5 feet 2 inches from the property line along Silver Lake Rd NE, and 2 feet five inches from the property to the north. The plans show an overall sign height of 8 feet, 2 inches. The permanent sign display area is 16.78 square feet, and the proposed electronic message board sign area is proposed to be 11.5 square feet – a total sign area of 28.28 square feet. For ground signs in the C, Commercial District, the relevant requirements are as follows: Maximum Height: 8 feet Setback: 15 feet from street curb Sign Area: 34 square feet per surface (up to 2 surfaces totaling 68 square feet) For Dynamic Displays in the C District, these additional requirements are imposed: Percentage of total sign display area: 35% Minimum duration of continuous image: 5 minutes Transitions: Image changes must be instantaneous, without special effects or gradual transitions Messages: Must be complete with each image, not continuing in context or intent to the next images Color: Must be monochromatic against a solid black background Sign Construction and Maintenance. All permanent freestanding ground signs shall have self- supporting structures erected on and permanently attached to concrete foundations. The base of Dynamic Display signs must maximize the use of natural materials, such as stone, brick, rock 32 February 9, 2021 Page 3 or similar decorative material, in construction and should conform to the material design of the principal structure. In addition to these requirements, there are several operational requirements which are designed to prohibit the impression of video, movement, flashing, scrolling, or similar perceptions of motion. The image must be static for the full 5 minutes (or more). The applicants and owner should be sure to familiarize themselves with the operational requirements, as compliance with these requirements will be a component of the Conditional Use Permit. The proposed sign slightly exceeds the dimensional requirements of code, being 2 inches above the maximum higher of 8 feet. It appears that the height may be an existing condition, and would be presumably legally non-conforming. If this is the case, the applicant should verify that they are not adding to the height of the existing sign. The digital display area, at 11.5 square feet, is 33.8% of the maximum allowable sign area. While the overall sign display area on this site is less than the maximum, the digital portion is compliant with the potential display. As such, staff finds that the proposed digital sign complies with the intent of the code. The locational requirements of the code are met. The sign may be allowed under the CUP, if the applicant reduces the height and the size of the dynamic sign. In summary, the proposed sign does not meet the requirements of the relevant Zoning and Sign Ordinance requirements. 2. Applicable Code Sections. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.253 establishes the process and findings required for consideration of Conditional Use Permits. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §152.29 Dynamic Displays regulates the construction and use of electronic dynamic display signs by Conditional Use Permit, and sets the various performance standards applicable to such signs. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit for an electronic dynamic display sign at 4004 Silver Lake Road NE with the following conditions: 1. Applicant will submit plans either showing a height of 8 feet, or verifying the existing height of the sign as it currently exists as a “grandfathered” condition. 2. Applicant will submit plans verifying that the dynamic sign accounts for a maximum of no more than 35% of the maximum allowable sign area. 3. Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 minutes duration, and other related requirements. As such, planning staff recommends the following motion: 1. Motion to Approve the Conditional Use Permit application for a dynamic display sign, pursuant to findings related to compliance with the applicable city regulations, conditioned on modifications to the sign, along with ongoing operational practices, that meet the requirements of the sign ordinance. 33 February 9, 2021 Page 4 ALTERNATIVE CITY COUNCIL ACTION 2. Motion to deny the CUP. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the City Council must state its findings related to denial on the record. 3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. A motion to table should be accompanied by the specific information requested of staff or the developer necessary to make a recommendation. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Application and Supporting Material 34 Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission 3301 Silver Lake Road Saint Anthony Village, Mn. 55418 Conditional Use Permit Request: An Electronic Message Sign (EMS) Culver’s of Saint Anthony Village 4004 Silver Lake Road Saint Anthony Village, Mn. 55421 Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Apache Plaza We are requesting a conditional use permit to make an upgrade of signage from a Manual Reader Board (MRB) to an Electronic Message Sign (EMS). We feel the new upgrade will give us a more aesthetical appeal, as well as a more clear and legible message of our services and goods to the public. Our message will also be more legible at a distance to help improve traffic safety. Our sign will also conform to all the regulations set forth in the City Code of Ordinances Title XV,155.29 Dynamic Displays. We are respectfully asking for you to review our requests, see our need, and approve our request. Sincerely, Chris Hampton Springfield Sign 4825 E. Kearney St., Springfield, Mo. 65803, chrish@springfieldsign.com 417-862-2454 35 36 37 38 5'-312" 2'-612"2'-5" LOCATION:NSILVER LAKE ROADCUB FOODS SERVICE ROAD PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN TO BE UPDATED SCALE 1" = 30'Client: Culver Franchising System, Inc. 540 Water Street Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 p (608) 643-7980Sheet Number:1 OF 1 Project Number: Drawn By: Reviewed By: Date: CLH MW SPRINGFIELD SIGN 4825 E. Kearney St. Springfield, MO 65803 (417) 862-2454 11-18-20 27794 ST. ANTHONY, MN. NEW CULVER'S-SIGNAGE 4004 SILVER LAKE ROAD ST. ANTHONY, MN. 55421 SIGN PLACEMENT PLAN CULVER FRANCHISING SYSTEM, INC. 39 SIGN PACKAGE PROPOSAL Culver’s of St. Anthony, MN RE-IMAGE PRESENTED TO: 10/14/20 - Preliminary 10/20/20 - Revision - EMC change 10/23/20 - Revision - Size Change to Monument 10/26/20 - Revision - Dimension Change 11/02/20 - Revision - Cap removal 11/13/20 - Revision - Monument change to ME-27 12/21/20 - Revision - Change EMC to Amber Monochromatic 12/21/20 - Revision - EMC Size change DATE PREPARED: 2019 Springfield Sign & Graphics Inc., Springfield Sign 40 NOTES SITE SURVEY INFO MONUMENT MONUMENT RE-IMAGE ST. ANTHONY, MN *SCALE AND COLORS NOT REPRESENTATIVE FROM EMAIL ATTACHMENTS *ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE SCALE: 3/8” = 1’ Culver’s sign cabinet of aluminum construction and internally illuminated with LED’s Watchfire RGB full color Electronic Message Center (EMC) with RF wireless communication Amber EMC option available Culver’s Oval is 3M Panaflex faces with 3M HP vinyl decoration UL marked product Broadband communication option available NOTES OVAL: 60.00” X 99.00” = 32.40 SF (MATH.) EMC: 29.00” X 75.00” = 15.10 SF PATTERN EXISTING:YES SITE SURVEY RECEIVED: Proposed Signage EXISTING SCALE: N.T.S. NO SCOPE OF WORK: SITE SURVEY INFO FIELD VERIFIED SURVEY EXISTING: - REFACE EXISTING UPPER CULVER’S OVAL CABINET NO DATE SURVEY RECEIVED: SALES PERSON: MARK WESSELL AO: 27794 DESIGNED BY: J KROEGER T:\o27794 - Culver_s of St. Anthony_ MN _214 (1558)\Art T h i s i s a n a r t i s t i c r e n d i t i o n a n d f i n a l c o l o r s / s i z e s m a y v a r y f r o m t h a t d e p i c t e d h e r e i n . This drawing is Copyrighted material, it remains the property of Springfield Sign & Graphics Inc. unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. It is unlawful to use this drawing for bidding purposes, nor can it be reproduces, copied or used in the production of a sign without written permission from Springfield Sign. 2019 Springfield Sign & Graphics Inc., Springfield Sign SIZING IS APPROXIMATE SITE SURVEY REQUIRED - REPLACE EXISTING MRB WITH EMC NIGHT VIEW SCALE: N.T.S.29”7’-0.5” OVAL 6’-0” EMC 8’ 2” O.A.H. APPROX.SUNDAES -MONUMENT CANNOT EXCEED EXISTING HEIGHT. -LETTER HEIGHT MUST BE AT LEAST 9” TALL. -EMC SQUARE FOOTAGE: 2’x5’-9”=11.5 SF. -OVAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 16.78 SF. -AMBER COLOR. -CHANGE WILL BE INSTANTANEOUS. -BRIGHTNESS SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAX ILLUM. OF 4,500 NITS DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS. MAX 450 NITS BETWEEN DUSK/DAWN, AS MEASURED FROM THE SIGNS FACE AT MAX BRIGHTNESS. DATE CREATED / REVISION HISTORY 10/14/20 - NEW 10/20/20 - REV1-EMC Change 10/23/20 - REV2 - Size Change 10/26/20 - REV3- Dimension edit 11/2/20 - REV4- Cap removal 11/13/20 - REV5 - Monument change 12/21/20-REV6-Change to Amber EMC 12/21/20 - REV7 - EMC size change SUNDAES -MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH A DIMMER CONTROL OR MECHANISM TO AUTO CONTROL THE SIGNS BRIGHTNESS TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS. -HOLD TIME IS 5 MINUTES. 41 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 42 CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 9, 2021 4004 Silver Lake Road NE Culvers: Dynamic Display Sign Conditional Use Permit DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP -SITE LOCATION 43 DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –AERIAL PHOTO DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –SIGN ILLUSTRATION 44 DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –REVIEW SUMMARY DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –CITY COUNCIL ACTION Motion to approve the request for CUP at 4004 Silver Lake Road N, with the following conditions: 1.Applicant will submit plans either showing a height of 8 feet, or verifying the existing height of the sign as it currently exists as a “grandfathered” condition. 2.Applicant will verify that the dynamic sign accounts for a maximum of no more than 35% of the maximum allowable sign area. 3.Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 minutes duration, and other related requirements. 45 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 46 CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 21-020 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGN AT 4004 SILVER LAKE ROAD IN THE “C”, COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Springfield Sign on behalf of Culver’s for a ground sign with an electronic dynamic display at 4004 Silver Lake Road; and WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately .92 acres and is located in the “C”, Commercial Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the subject parcel is currently developed with a restaurant building; and WHEREAS, such electronic digital display signs are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial District; and WHEREAS, subject to verification, the proposed sign is consistent with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance with regard to size, setback and other standards, or will be made so pursuant to City approval; and WHEREAS, the sign can be constructed to be consistent with the materials standards required by the Sign Ordinance related to such signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2021 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as listed below; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution for approval: 1. The property is located in an area of commercial land use on a collector roadway. 2. The proposed sign is reasonably consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 3. The dimensional requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance can be met by the proposed application as modified. 4. With the modification or verification of the size under conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property. 5. The operational aspects of the City’s Sign Ordinance can be met on an ongoing basis by the owner/operator of the sign. 47 6. The proposed sign, constructed and operated within the requirements of the Code, will not adversely impact surrounding property or public areas. NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff report and approves Conditional Use Permit for a dynamic display sign as shown on the plans submitted on or before December 18, 2020, at 4004 Silver Lake Road, with the following conditions: 1. Applicant will submit plans either showing a height of 8 feet, or verifying the existing height of the sign as it currently exists as a “grandfathered” condition. 2. Applicant will submit plans verifying that the dynamic sign accounts for a maximum of no more than 35% of the total sign area. 3. Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 minutes duration, and other related requirements. Passed in regular session of the City Council on the 9th day of February, 2021. ____________________________________ Randy Stille, Mayor ATTEST:____________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Review for Administration: ____________________________________ Charlie Yunker, City Manager 48 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Stille and St. Anthony Village City Council From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: City Council Meeting – February 9, 2021 NAC Project No. 323.01 – 20.19 Request: Request for a Preliminary Plan Planned Unit Development for a Senior Housing Project Property Address: 2501 Lowry Avenue NE Property PID: 07-029-23-23-0001 (part) STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the R-4, Multiple Family Residential District as a baseline. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan promotes use of the subject property for high density multiple family residential uses of up to 40 units per acre as allowable in this area. The applicant is seeking the PUD, consisting of up to 135 units of “aging-in-place” senior housing on 4.25 acres, a density of 31.8 units per acre. The site plan also relies on a shared driveway with the Urban Grove Manufacture Home Park, extending from the east side of the building to Kenzie Terrace on the south. That shared driveway (approximately .5 acres in area), would have the effect of reducing overall density to approximately 28 units per acre if including in the subject property total. The proposed PUD meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the majority of the baseline standards. The principal areas of flexibility under the PUD include: (1) Building height (code is 35 feet/3 stories); applicant proposes approximately 56 feet to top of parapet and 4 stories. (2) Lot coverage/impervious surface (R-4 code limits this to 50%); applicant’s proposal is approximately 50.5%. (3) Density (R-4 code limits this to approximately 24 units per acre, Comprehensive Plan calls for 20-40 units per acre); applicant is proposing approximately 32 - 36 units per acre. 49 February 9, 2021 Page 2 Planning Commission considered the item at its January 19, 2021 public hearing. The developers made a presentation, and were available to answer questions from the Commission. Two members of the public were present to ask questions and express concerns over density, access to Stinson Parkway, and emergency access to the alley to the north. After consideration of the development details and proposed conditions, Planning Commission voted to recommend approval, consistent with the Staff recommendation. Planning commission found that the flexibility requested under the PUD is appropriate, given the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the related improvements and amenities proposed as part of the project. As such, Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the Preliminary Plan stage of the PUD Amendment for St. Anthony Village Senior Housing at 2501 Lowry Avenue NE, with a series of conditions as noted in the summary section below. GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Robert Wall – Development 65, LLC Owner: The Village, LLC Location: 2501 Lowry Avenue NE Existing Land Use Vacant (former manufactured home park) Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential Surrounding Land North: R-1, Single Family Residential Use / Zoning: East: R-1, Manufactured Home Park (under development) South: C, Commercial (Bank/Office Building) West: Mixed Residential (City of Minneapolis) Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: December 17, 2020 Action: 60 Days: February 15, 2021 Letter Sent: NA 120 Days: April 16, 2021 1. Background The applicant is proposing to redevelop a 4.25 acre portion of the former Urban Grove manufactured home park property with a senior-living multiple family residential project of up to 135 dwelling units. The property was recently approved by City Council for subdivision from the larger Urban Grove property. The development parcels in question are shown on the zoning map below. The unit count was clarified by the applicants as up to 135 total units. The project is proposed to be developed in a single phase. The project had undergone a Concept PUD review with the City Council and Planning Commission in January of 2020, at the time, a 125 unit project. Upon the withdrawal of the developer from the potential housing project on the Bremer Bank site to the south, the applicant has redesigned the 50 February 9, 2021 Page 3 proposal to add 10 additional units, but on essentially the same property and similar footprint. The facility is proposed to include, initially, 83 independent living units, 28 assisted living units, and 24 memory care units – as shown on the floor-by-floor plans submitted with the application, a total of 135 units. In staff’s experience, it is not uncommon that these facilities shift between assisted and independent living status, based on the needs of the individual tenants. Within the apartment building, a range of unit types are to be provided. The independent living units are broken down into the following unit sizes: • 11 studio units, from 434 to 804 square feet, • 38 one-bedroom units from 651 to 754 square feet, • 22 one-bedroom plus den units 942 square feet, and • 18 two-bedroom units from 1,127 to 1,226 square feet. The site is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, as noted previously. The consideration of a Planned Unit Development for this project would include a rezoning to PUD zoning district, and adoption of a PUD ordinance limiting the use of the property to the approved site plan, building plan, density, and related facilities. 2. Analysis Planned Unit Development 51 February 9, 2021 Page 4 Purpose. The applicant wishes to establish a PUD, Planned Unit Development zoning district to accommodate the proposed apartment project. For PUD applications, it is important that the purpose of planned unit development be considered and that a determination is made that this purpose will be fulfilled. Generally speaking, planned unit development is intended to allow a mixture of uses and/or flexibility from the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance in return for higher site and building design standards than what would otherwise be allowed or required. Section 152.202 of the Zoning Ordinance specifically states that planned unit development may allow the following: (A) Variety. Within a comprehensive site design concept, a mixture of land uses, housing types and densities; (B) Sensitivity. Through the departure from the strict application of required setbacks, yard areas, lot sizes, minimum house sizes, minimum requirements, and other performance standards associated with traditional zoning, a PUD can maximize the development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural characteristics; (C) Efficiency. The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in street lengths and other utility-related expenses; (D) Density transfer. The project density may be clustered, basing density on a number of units per acre in place of specific lot dimensions; and (E) District integration. The combination of uses which are allowed in separate zoning districts such as: 1. Mixed residential uses to allow both densities and unit types to be varied within the project; 2. Mixed residential uses with increased density based upon the greater sensitivity of PUD projects to regulation; and 3. Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within the project. Processing. To accommodate the requested PUD amendment, a two-stage review process will take place. In this regard, the application under consideration is the Preliminary PUD Plan stage. Generally speaking, Preliminary Plan approval is similar to a basic rezoning in that it establishes that the proposed use is appropriate for the subject site. Also, as part of Preliminary Plan review, various conditions of approval are typically imposed. The Preliminary Plan will be subject to a public hearing, review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and consideration of approval by the City Council. The second stage is the Final PUD Plan which basically serves to implement the various conditions of Preliminary Plan approval and ensure that such conditions have been satisfied. The Final Plan is reviewed by the City Council for adoption as an ordinance. No public hearing is required for Final Plan. 52 February 9, 2021 Page 5 Comprehensive Plan. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive was adopted last year. The Metropolitan Council has classified St. Anthony Village as an “urban community.” “Urban communities” are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 10 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, “urban communities” are expected to target opportunities for intensive development near regional transit investments. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property as an important redevelopment opportunity. Recognizing that the City is expected to accommodate an increase in population and that little to no vacant land presently exists, redevelopment of previously developed sites is considered the primary means of achieving the City’s residential density objectives. The Land Use Plan included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan high density development on the subject property. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan also establishes a desired density range of 20 to 40 units per acre for high density residential development. The applicant has proposed a residential density of 28 - 32 units per acre (135 dwelling units/4.25 acres) which is within the density range directed by the draft 2040 Plan. With the preceding in mind, the proposed redevelopment project is considered consistent with the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. With regard to planned housing and affordability, the Metropolitan Council assigned (as a part of the 2040 Plan Update process) an allocation for 152 additional “affordable” units to St. Anthony for the 2021-2030 decade. The Plan accommodates this allocation with land designated for residential development that could support “affordable” housing of more than 460 units. This measurement accounts for land that is available for development at densities of more than 8 units per acre, according to Metropolitan Council definition. Planning staff would note that while rent ranges for the proposed project are not considered in this calculation, not every project will meet every goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The primary goals met by this project would include compatible redevelopment of the subject property, and attention to supporting park-like development along the Stinson Parkway frontage in the City. Land Use Compatibility. In consideration of the proposed apartment building project, a determination should be made that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses. Land uses which surround the subject site include the Urban Grove manufactured home park (along Kenzie Terrace NE), single family residential neighborhoods to the north, office- commercial to the south, and mixed single family residential in Minneapolis to the west (homestead and non-homestead). Just east of the manufactured home park is additional senior housing and other multiple family on either side of Kenzie Terrace. The primary potential conflicts raised by this type of housing would relate to building massing in the areas adjoining the lower density small-structure neighborhoods. The applicants have addressed this issue by setting the building back from Stinson Parkway nearly 90 feet, and 53 February 9, 2021 Page 6 minimizing the paved parking areas from the front yard space. The face of the building is approximately 220 feet from the faces of the residential buildings that line the west side of Stinson Parkway. The nearest parking/drive aisle is approximately 25 feet from the front property line, 35 feet from the public sidewalk, and 60 feet from the nearest drive lane of Stinson Parkway. Typical front setbacks in the R-4 District would be 30 feet at minimum. To the north (also single family), the building setback is approximately 110 feet from the north property line, which is the south boundary of the alley serving those properties. The building would be approximately 135 feet to the south edge of the garages adjoining the alley, and approximately 240 feet or more to the nearest wall of the residential structures themselves. The applicants have proposed a grass-pave emergency drive access along the north front of the building to a point adjoining the alley and the rear parking area, an employee parking lot of 20 spaces. The employee lot accesses the shared drive, and would utilize the Kenzie Terrace access point to the south. No traffic is able to use the alley, with exception of emergency vehicle use under emergency conditions. Otherwise, the alley would be closed via a gated access restriction, again with grass pave surface. Site Access. Front door access to the property is planned for the existing curb cut from Stinson Boulevard. The driveway serves a covered front entry canopy area, with guest parking arrayed around the recessed area. This drive then also accesses a parking area of 16 spaces in front of the south wing, then provides access to the underground parking garage. From this point, the driveway continues to the east to join the shared driveway leading to Kenzie Terrace. From the rear shared private road, access is available to the northerly employee parking area, as well as the loading location for food service deliveries. The applicants have indicated that trash handling equipment will be located in the underground garage, with access to the equipment a part of the design of the garage entry. Access-related issues should be subject to further comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Setbacks. The PUD zoning district does not impose specific structure setback requirements. For reference purposes however, the following table illustrates setback requirements imposed in the City’s R-4 Multiple Family Residential zoning district (commonly applied to high density residential housing projects) and setbacks proposed by the applicant: R-4 District Setback Proposed Setback Front Yard 30 feet 90 feet Side Yard 15 feet 110 feet (north) 110 feet (south) 54 February 9, 2021 Page 7 Rear Yard 40 feet or 20 % of the lot depth, whichever is greater 55 feet+ As shown above, the proposed structure setbacks meet or exceed the requirements imposed in the City’s R-4 District. Recognizing that the site is bordered on the north and west by single family, and to the south by commercial uses, shadows cast on adjacent properties (from the five story buildings) are not expected to have impacts on those properties. For these reasons, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed structure setbacks are acceptable. Existing and proposed tree height will already create greater shadow impacts than the building at these setbacks. Off-Street Parking Supply. According to the Zoning Ordinance, apartments must provide one off-street space per three units. For the 135 units, the minimum requirement would be 45 spaces. The applicants have provided this count as surface parking, and provided an additional 99 spaces underground. For senior facilities, a large number of the tenants will not drive or have automobiles. None of the memory care tenants will have cars, and typically, fewer than 20% of the assisted living tenants will keep automobiles – and fewer than this number will drive in any case. For independent living tenants, a maximum automobile count of one space per unit is more than enough, according to most data. As such, we would expect a tenant utilization of parking of less than 100 parking spaces, with another 30 spaces needed for maximum shift staff. The proposed plan exceeds this count, at 151 spaces total. The applicants have also provided a “proof of parking” area in the front of the north wing with an additional 20 parking spaces if needed. Presuming that these spaces are not needed, the area is covered with grass pave to maintain a green and pervious appearance in lieu of unused pavement. If this area is needed for some reason, the City or the applicant could initiate an amendment to add this parking to the supply. Building Height. The structure consists of a below-ground level parking garage and four floors above the garage. The building is four stories in height (46 feet to the top of the parapet). The only garage exposure is at the entrance, which is graded to a point below ground, and not visible from surrounding public or residential areas. While the PUD zoning district does not impose a specific height requirement and can provide for “flexibility” in this regard, it is important to note that the City’ R-4, Multiple Family Residential District imposes a maximum height requirement of 3 stories or 35 feet. As a condition of Preliminary PUD approval, findings should be made by City Officials that the proposed four-story building height is acceptable as component of a project which meets the intent of the City’s PUD requirements in consideration of other aspects of the project. Emergency Vehicle Access. As a part of the review process, emergency services (fire and police) have reviewed the project and made a finding that proper emergency vehicle access and hydrant availability is provided. Building plans will be evaluated when submitted. In similar 55 February 9, 2021 Page 8 applications, staff will take considerations of such items as key box locations, address markings, and fire lane designations, among other items, at that time. As a part of Final PUD approval, the submitted development plans should be subject to review and comment by the Fire Chief. Building Materials. According to the submitted building elevations, the apartment buildings are to be finished in a variety of materials including the following: • Tan brick encompassing ground level, and portions of the second level • Grey shake siding • Medium grey and beige cement board siding • Glass Balconies appear to be constructed of metal railing materials. The applicant suggests that the materials are intended to reflect colors found in the area, including the St. Charles Borromeo Church, one block to the north. Landscaping. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan that emphasizes tree plantings in perimeter site locations, with shrub planting areas around the building in rock mulch planting areas. Tree planting along Stinson Parkway includes a variety of (mostly) deciduous over- and under-story tree planting in the front yard space between the parking areas and the property line. Existing tree planting in the boulevard space between the sidewalk and the travel lanes is a part of the Parkway improvements, as well as significant tree planting in the median. One addition to the landscaping plan should be large evergreen plantings at the north end of the shared driveway to screen headlight glare from north-bound employee traffic from affecting the residential area to the north. Because these facilities have staff changes around the clock, this glare could have an impact at certain times. Sidewalks, Parks, and Open Space. The submitted site plan illustrates concrete sidewalks along the south, east and west sides of the site. Sidewalks are also illustrated within the interior court area. The City Engineer has noted that those sidewalks should be shown as 6 feet in width to match existing improvements in the area. The site establishes an impervious surface coverage of 50.05% of the development property. The resulting impervious only slightly exceeds the R-4 standard. The applicant has provided a stormwater management plan which has been reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure appropriate drainage control to meet the City’s objectives of flood management in this area. The facility will be subject to a park dedication requirement which will be detailed as a part of the development agreement.. Lighting. The applicants have submitted a lighting plan that shows a series of 25 foot poles with down-cast fixtures along the front area of the building, and other limited illumination of the 56 February 9, 2021 Page 9 site. Footcandle readings at the perimeter are typically less than 0.5 footcandles, and 0.1 at the alley. Signage. The Preliminary PUD application does not appear to include any information related to signage. As a condition of Final PUD approval, a sign plan must be submitted which demonstrates compliance with applicable City sign requirements. Trash Handling. As noted above, trash equipment will be located within the garage level. Grading, Drainage, and Utilities. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has reviewed the project at Preliminary Plan stage, and has identified review comments related to civil plans will require technical comment and attention, but none that appear to impact the Preliminary Plan documents or the general site planning. PUD Agreement. As a condition of Final PUD approval, the applicant will be required to enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 3. Criteria for and Consistency with Criteria for PUD Approval. Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section §152.209. SUMMARY AND STAFF/PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS Preliminary Plan PUD – Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. An access easement shall be in place to accommodate the easterly shared access road with the Urban Grove development site to Kenzie Terrace. Proof of such access easement shall be provided to the City as a part of the final PUD documentation. 2. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 3. The City finds that the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the facility. 4. Final PUD Plans demonstrate compliance with ADA parking supply requirements (for disabled persons). 5. City Officials find the proposed four-story apartment building heights to be acceptable (within the context of the PUD). 57 February 9, 2021 Page 10 6. As a part of the Final Plan submission, the submitted landscape plan be amended to add evergreen plantings along the north edge of the shared driveway. 7. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. 8. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 10. Consideration of comments of other City Staff. This recommendation is based on a finding that the proposal, with the conditions cited, is consistent with the requirements for PUD consideration, with the long-term objectives of the recommendations and policies of the St. Anthony Comprehensive Plan. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Location map Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material 58 Dear Land Use Applicant: As a part of the Land Use Permit you are seeking, you will be asked to provide funds to cover the City’s expected costs of review and processing of your request. There are two components to this amount. The first is a base fee, which is a non-refundable amount. This fee covers several expenses, including: • The City’s costs of internal review of your application for completeness; • Ensuring that all required materials are available to properly process your request; • Public hearing notices which must be published in the City’s official newspaper (the St. Anthony Bulletin); • Mailed notice to all neighboring property owners within 350 feet of your property; • This base fee also covers a portion of the City’s costs in preparing staff reviews and reports to the appropriate public officials who will consider and ultimately make a decision on your request. For most applications, this includes the Planning Commission, which prepares an advisory recommendation following a formal public hearing on the matter, and the City Council, which makes the final decision. Other public bodies may be involved as well, depending on the exact nature of your request. The second component of the funds is an escrow amount, above the base fee. While the base fee covers most of the fixed expenses, it is common that staff and consultant review will exceed the base fee. To ensure that the costs of extraordinary review are not borne by neighbors, the City requires the escrow from which to draw those costs. You can minimize the amounts necessary to review your application by making sure it is complete and clear. Properly drawn plans and thorough narrative descriptions all help to streamline the City’s processing, which leads directly to lower costs. Following the final decision on your application by the City Council, staff will account for costs and review the escrow. If any funds remain, those will be refunded to you. It typically takes a couple of months to assemble final invoices before the City’s finance department can reconcile the account. The staff works diligently to finalize accounts as soon as possible, so please be patient. If you are curious as to the status of your escrow, feel free to contact City Hall. Before you begin this process, please consider a pre-application conference (by phone, email, or in person) with City community development staff. We are ready to assist in helping you understand the complexities of the review process, and the standards on which a potential application will be considered. We can also advise you on the materials that will help ensure you have a complete and clear application. City of St. Anthony City Hall 612-782-3301 Thanks for your interest in improving your property and reinvesting in the St. Anthony Village community. 59 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure. Address of Property Involved: _________________________________________________________________________ Property ID Number: _________________________________________________________________________________ Legal Description: ___________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Information Applicant Name: ____________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Address: __________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Telephone Number: ________________________________ Other: ___________________________________ Applicant Fax Number________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Email Address: _____________________________________________________________________________ Property Information Property Owner (if different from above):________________________________________________________________ Owner Address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Owner Telephone Number: ___________________________________________________________________________ Owner Email Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Type of Request (Check All that Apply) Appeal ($100 fee) Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if commercial/industrial) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($500 fee+ $450 escrow if residential; $850 escrow if commercial/industrial) Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow) Preliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow) Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow) Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($250 fee + $1,250 escrow) Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($750 fee + $2,500 escrow) Rezoning ($500 fee + $750 escrow) Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow) Site Plan ($250 fee + $450 escrow) Variance ($500 fee + $450 escrow if residential; $850 escrow if commercial/industrial) 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 Office: (612) 782-3301 Fax: (612) 782-3302 www.savmn.com -For Office Use Only- Planning File Number _____________ Project Number _____________ Application Submittal Date _____________ Application Completed Date _____________ Fee Paid _____________ Receipt Number _____________ Planning Commission Meeting Date _____________ Council Decision _____________ Council Decision Date _____________ LAND USE APPLICATION 2501 Lowry Avenue Ne, St Anthony Village, MN 55418 component of 07-029-23-23-0001 See Attached Site Plan Robert Wall - Development 65, LLC 2445 Nevada Avenue North, Golden Valley, MN 55427 310-994-1610 send all correspondence via email. rwall@development65.com The Village LLC 1907 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 250, Wayzata, MN 55391 (952) 473-1700 bahoyt@gmail.com 4 4 60 Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project): ________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Filing and Information Requirements The City recommends that you contact the planner prior to submission to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Incomplete Applications and Submission Deadline A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 30 days prior to the meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be “complete” it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60-day extension may be obtained if more time is needed. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m., while City Council meetings are held typically the second and fourth Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are subject to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St. Anthony Community Center in the Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418, unless otherwise stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary. 61 Acknowledgement and Signature I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project. __________________________________________________ __________________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date __________________________________________________ __________________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at 763-957-1100 or planner@savmn.com if you have any questions regarding this application. Brad Hoyt 11/16/20 Robert Wall 11/16/20 12 12/16/20 12/16/20 62 MEMORANDUM Tel: 612.879.6000 1301 American Blvd E. Suite 100, Bloomington, MN 55425 www.kaaswilson.com Page 1 of 1 Date: December 18, 2020 Attention: City of St Anthony Village Re: Development 65 Senior Housing Proposal Development 65 is proposing a 135-unit full service senior living building on a 4.35 acre site along the eastern edge of Stinson Parkway, a part of the historic Horace Cleveland Grand Rounds, between Lowry Avenue and 27th Avenue in St Anthony Village, Minnesota. Of these 135 senior units, 24 will be memory care, 28 will be assisted living, and 83 independent living. Once the proposed building is complete, Great Lakes Management will become the service provider for the community. Both Development 65 and Great Lakes Management have a proven track record in both responsibly developing and operating senior living communities throughout the MSP metro area. The proposed building layout would stretch north south along Stinson Parkway, with a jog eastward at the intersection with 26th Avenue. Main site access would align with this existing intersection as well, allowing vehicular traffic to easily flow into the established urban framework. Additionally, along a shared easement on the eastern edge of the site, an access road will be constructed to further aid site access for the potential of future developments. Between the access road and the proposed building will be a dense landscape buffer, allowing future residence to have access to peaceful outdoor spaces. The proposed senior living building is 4 stories with an underground parking garage, and will include amenities such as a large club room, multiple dining space, a commercial kitchen, separate memory care dining and lounge space, a memory care garden, and outdoor patio. The primary building materials will include brick, shake siding, and cement fiberboard siding. The brick and siding tones are reflective to what is found on the nearby St Charles Borromeo church and school, assuring the proposed building is complimentary to the existing neighborhood. The building must be large in order to provide needed resident services. However, consistent with Horace Cleveland’s ideas of “buildings in a park”, the façade is broken down into a series of “buildings” that project from the flat primary massing. Lastly, aluminum balconies and light accent trim shall also be featured in the design. The total parking for the development shall include approximately 91 garage stalls and 51 surface stalls, creating a 1.05:1 stall to unit ratio. Per city code, only 1 parking space is required for every 3 retirement home living units, therefore our current plan far exceeds the city requirements. We believe this parking count is more than sufficient to serve all residents, guests, and the building staff needed for the operation of this community. However, 20 proof of parking stalls have been designed into the site plan if the current parking amount is not adequate. Due to this site’s location along the Grand Rounds trail network, special considerations were put into the landscaping design of the site. Boulevard trees are proposed to be planted along Stinson Parkway to maintain its parkway appearance. Additionally, the stretch of drive that runs north of the main entrance parking would be grass paved, limiting the hardscaping visible to the public. Enhanced landscaping would be consistent throughout the site as well. Upon completion of the financing and various other development milestones, the goal for the project would be to break ground in the summer of 2021. The 14-16 month long construction timeline leads to a projected opening in the Fall of 2022. 63 kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Cover Page ST ANTHONY VILLAGE SENIOR LIVING Parking Schedule Type Count Level -1 91 91 Level 1 51 51 142 Total Gross Area Level Area Level 4 34,793 ft² Level 3 34,756 ft² Level 2 33,961 ft² Level 1 38,760 ft² Level -1 39,304 ft² Grand total 181,574 ft² MEMORY CARE • 24 UNITS • (24) Studios ASSISTED LIVING • 28 UNITS • (15) Studios • (13) 1 Bedroom INDEPENDENT LIVING • 83 UNITS • (37) 1 Bedroom • (34) 1+Den • (12) 2 Bedroom Residential Unit Mix Name Count Unit Gross Area ADA Type AL Unit 0-0 6 434 ft²AL Studio AL Unit 0-1 9 508 ft²AL Studio AL Unit 1-0 3 696 ft²AL 1BR AL Unit 1-1 4 651 ft²AL 1BR AL Unit 1-2 3 694 ft²AL 1BR AL Unit 1-3 3 726 ft²AL 1BR IL Unit 1-0 11 726 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-1 5 687 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-2 10 651 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-5 3 763 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-6 2 640 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-8 6 719 ft²1BR IL Unit 2-0 22 943 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 2-1 3 1,071 ft²1BR +D IL Unit 2-2 4 915 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 2-3 2 865 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 2-4 3 857 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 3-1 4 1,212 ft²2BR IL Unit 3-2 8 1,177 ft²2BR MC Unit 0-1 10 429 ft²MC Studio MC Unit 0-2 11 508 ft²MC Studio MC Unit 0-3 1 477 ft²MC Studio MC Unit 1-1 2 599 ft²MC Studio Grand total: 135 135 64 N 0°06'35" W 311.63N 0°06'35" W 225.45L = 3 0 9 .8 9 R =8 5 1 .7 3 =2 0 °5 0 '4 7 "5101 05510S A N IT A R Y S E W E R E A S E M E N T P E R D O C . N O . 2 7 9 4 3 3 5 C E N T E R L I N E O F S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 6 3 A N D S T . A N T H O N Y A N D T A Y L O R S F A L L S R O A D N O R T HE R LY LI N E O F S T A T E H I GH W A Y N O . 6 3 P E R F I N A L C E R T I F I C A T E N O . 1 6 5 2 5 0 0 (F O R ME R L Y K N O WN A S S T A T E H I G H W A Y N O . 6 3 A N D S T . A N T H O N Y A N D T A Y L O R F A L L S R O A D )4' WOOD FENCESTINSON PKWY.K E N Z I E T E R R A CE (C O . R D . N O . 1 5 3 ) 24" 15" 7" 10" 15" 16" 16" 16" 16" 16" 2-8" 28" 14" 14" 2-10" 14" 12" 14" 18" 7" RIM=929.61 INV W=922.5 VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION 8" STEEL GUYSEMIPHORE SIGN 0.90BENCHMARK: TOP NUT OF HYDRANT ELEV.= 935.34 FEET ST BENCH PK F L A G P O L E SS H H H WV WV WV WV WV S S ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST ST GV ST WV S DYH16'GATED FIRE DEPT ACCESS FROM ALLEY ONLY BIKE RACK PROOF OF PARKING (20 STALLS)122'-0" TRANSFORMER 4-STORY SENIOR LIVING BUILDINGSTINSON BLVDSTINSON BLVDMC GARDEN DINING PATIO52 SURFACE STALLS92 UNDERGROUND STALLSSTORMWATER POND STORMWATER POND RETAINING WALL490'-0"62'-0" kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Site Plan 1" = 60'-0"1 Site Plan URBAN GROUP COMMUNITY BUILDING N Parking Schedule Type Count Level -1 91 91 Level 1 51 51 142 65 REF. .. .. SD_1275 SD_126 6 SD_126 7 SD_126 4 SD_1273 SD_127 2 SD_1271 SD_126 2 SD_126 1 MAU 674 ft² Staff 351 ft² Mechanical Room 1 2 23 15 14 13 80 76 75 73 29 30 33 35 27 88 87 86 85 5 6 7 89 12 11 10 72 70 69 68 67 65 64 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 50 51 52 37 38 9 84 66 54 55 56 57 63 62 36 1,883 ft² Resident STO EXHAUST STAIR 8 81 34 Bike Storage SD_126 5 SD_127 4 Restroom SD_126 3 18 19 20 21 22 53 47 48 49 59 60 61 79 83 26 90 91 3 4 92 71 74 STAIR 32 54 LOCKERS @ 4'x5' (~42 @ 5'x5') 362 ft² Building Sto 554 ft² Maintenace RM 16 17 24 25 31 58 77 78 82 STAIRELEV LOBBY TRASH ELEV LOBBY TRASH490'-0"71'-4" 146'-8" Schema 1 Legend 1BR 1BR+D 2BR Circulation Commons Core MC Studio 972 ft² Lobby 1,018 ft² AL Dining 2,164 ft² Kitchen 3,116 ft² IL Dining 1,290 ft² Mail Cafe 1,196 ft² MC Lounge 437 ft² Bistro 1,131 ft² MC Dining FIRE WALL OUTDOOR PATIO MEMORY CARE GARDEN 347 ft² Pvt. Dining PARCEL RRNURSE SUITECLUB ROOM TRASH IT OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE WORK RM CONF. OFFICE RECEPTION ELEV. LOBBY Elec/LV JAN. CLOSET LAUNDRY STAIR STAIR STAIR kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Level -1 & Level 1 1/32" = 1'-0"1 Level -1 1/32" = 1'-0"2 Level 1 Unit Mix by Floor Name Unit Type Count Area Level Total Area Level 1 IL Unit 1-0 1BR 1 726 ft² Level 1 726 ft² IL Unit 1-5 1BR 1 763 ft² Level 1 763 ft² IL Unit 2-0 1BR+D 1 943 ft² Level 1 943 ft² IL Unit 2-2 1BR+D 1 915 ft² Level 1 915 ft² IL Unit 3-1 2BR 1 1,212 ft² Level 1 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-2 2BR 2 1,177 ft² Level 1 2,354 ft² MC Unit 0-1 MC Studio 10 429 ft² Level 1 4,288 ft² MC Unit 0-2 MC Studio 11 508 ft² Level 1 5,593 ft² MC Unit 0-3 MC Studio 1 477 ft² Level 1 477 ft² MC Unit 1-1 MC Studio 2 599 ft² Level 1 1,198 ft² 31 18,467 ft² Level 2 AL Unit 0-0 AL Studio 2 434 ft² Level 2 868 ft² AL Unit 0-1 AL Studio 3 508 ft² Level 2 1,525 ft² AL Unit 1-0 AL 1BR 1 696 ft² Level 2 696 ft² AL Unit 1-2 AL 1BR 1 694 ft² Level 2 694 ft² AL Unit 1-3 AL 1BR 1 726 ft² Level 2 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 1BR 3 726 ft² Level 2 2,179 ft² IL Unit 1-1 1BR 1 687 ft² Level 2 687 ft² IL Unit 1-5 1BR 1 763 ft² Level 2 763 ft² IL Unit 1-8 1BR 2 719 ft² Level 2 1,439 ft² IL Unit 2-0 1BR+D 7 943 ft² Level 2 6,598 ft² IL Unit 2-1 1BR+D 1 1,071 ft² Level 2 1,071 ft² IL Unit 2-2 1BR+D 1 915 ft² Level 2 915 ft² IL Unit 2-4 1BR+D 1 857 ft² Level 2 857 ft² IL Unit 3-1 2BR 1 1,212 ft² Level 2 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-2 2BR 2 1,177 ft² Level 2 2,354 ft² 28 22,583 ft² Level 3 AL Unit 0-0 AL Studio 2 434 ft² Level 3 868 ft² AL Unit 0-1 AL Studio 3 508 ft² Level 3 1,525 ft² AL Unit 1-0 AL 1BR 1 696 ft² Level 3 696 ft² AL Unit 1-1 AL Studio 2 651 ft² Level 3 1,302 ft² AL Unit 1-2 AL 1BR 1 694 ft² Level 3 694 ft² AL Unit 1-3 AL 1BR 1 726 ft² Level 3 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 1BR 4 726 ft² Level 3 2,905 ft² IL Unit 1-1 1BR 2 687 ft² Level 3 1,374 ft² IL Unit 1-2 1BR 5 651 ft² Level 3 3,254 ft² IL Unit 1-6 1BR 1 640 ft² Level 3 640 ft² IL Unit 1-8 1BR 2 719 ft² Level 3 1,439 ft² IL Unit 2-0 1BR+D 7 943 ft² Level 3 6,598 ft² IL Unit 2-1 1BR+D 1 1,071 ft² Level 3 1,071 ft² IL Unit 2-2 1BR+D 1 915 ft² Level 3 915 ft² IL Unit 2-3 1BR+D 1 865 ft² Level 3 865 ft² IL Unit 2-4 1BR+D 1 857 ft² Level 3 857 ft² IL Unit 3-1 2BR 1 1,212 ft² Level 3 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-2 2BR 2 1,177 ft² Level 3 2,354 ft² 38 29,294 ft² Level 4 AL Unit 0-0 AL Studio 2 434 ft² Level 4 868 ft² AL Unit 0-1 AL Studio 3 508 ft² Level 4 1,525 ft² AL Unit 1-0 AL 1BR 1 696 ft² Level 4 696 ft² AL Unit 1-1 AL Studio 2 651 ft² Level 4 1,302 ft² AL Unit 1-2 AL 1BR 1 694 ft² Level 4 694 ft² AL Unit 1-3 AL 1BR 1 726 ft² Level 4 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 1BR 3 726 ft² Level 4 2,179 ft² IL Unit 1-1 1BR 2 687 ft² Level 4 1,374 ft² IL Unit 1-2 1BR 5 651 ft² Level 4 3,254 ft² IL Unit 1-5 1BR 1 763 ft² Level 4 763 ft² IL Unit 1-6 1BR 1 640 ft² Level 4 640 ft² IL Unit 1-8 1BR 2 719 ft² Level 4 1,439 ft² IL Unit 2-0 1BR+D 7 943 ft² Level 4 6,598 ft² IL Unit 2-1 1BR+D 1 1,071 ft² Level 4 1,071 ft² IL Unit 2-2 1BR+D 1 915 ft² Level 4 915 ft² IL Unit 2-3 1BR+D 1 865 ft² Level 4 865 ft² IL Unit 2-4 1BR+D 1 857 ft² Level 4 857 ft² IL Unit 3-1 2BR 1 1,212 ft² Level 4 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-2 2BR 2 1,177 ft² Level 4 2,354 ft² 38 29,330 ft² Grand total: 135 135 99,675 ft² Total Gross Area Level Area Level 4 34,793 ft² Level 3 34,756 ft² Level 2 33,961 ft² Level 1 38,760 ft² Level -1 39,304 ft² Grand total 181,574 ft² Parking Schedule Type Count Level -1 91 91 Level 1 51 51 142 N Residential Unit Mix Name Count Unit Gross Area ADA Type AL Unit 0-0 6 434 ft²AL Studio AL Unit 0-1 9 508 ft²AL Studio AL Unit 1-0 3 696 ft²AL 1BR AL Unit 1-1 4 651 ft²AL 1BR AL Unit 1-2 3 694 ft²AL 1BR AL Unit 1-3 3 726 ft²AL 1BR IL Unit 1-0 11 726 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-1 5 687 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-2 10 651 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-5 3 763 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-6 2 640 ft²1BR IL Unit 1-8 6 719 ft²1BR IL Unit 2-0 22 943 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 2-1 3 1,071 ft²1BR +D IL Unit 2-2 4 915 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 2-3 2 865 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 2-4 3 857 ft²1BR+D IL Unit 3-1 4 1,212 ft²2BR IL Unit 3-2 8 1,177 ft²2BR MC Unit 0-1 10 429 ft²MC Studio MC Unit 0-2 11 508 ft²MC Studio MC Unit 0-3 1 477 ft²MC Studio MC Unit 1-1 2 599 ft²MC Studio Grand total: 135 135 66 ....Schema 1 Legend 1BR 1BR+D 2BR AL 1BR AL Studio Circulation Commons Core SD_1275 SD_126 6 SD_126 7 SD_126 4 SD_1273 SD_127 2 SD_1271 SD_126 2 SD_126 1 FIRE WALL SD_126 5 SD_127 4 SD_126 3 1,826 ft²Community Rm467 ft² Family Room 434 ft² Lib. 2 Story 487 ft² Activity 871 ft² Fitness 420 ft² TUB 759 ft² Theater Rooftop Deck -Verify w/ StructuralTRASH ELEC/LV. ELEV. LOBBY 542 ft² Salon Elec/LV OFFICELAUNDRY RRACTIVITY DIR. OFFICEFR SD_1275 SD_126 6 SD_126 7 SD_126 4 SD_1273 SD_127 2 SD_1271 SD_126 2 SD_126 1 SD_126 5 SD_127 4 SD_126 3 207 ft² Lounge Schema 1 Legend 1BR 1BR+D 2BR AL 1BR AL Studio Circulation Commons Core TRASH ELEC/LV. ELEV. LOBBY Elec/LV OFFICELAUNDRY SD_1275 SD_126 6 SD_126 7 SD_126 4 SD_1273 SD_127 2 SD_1271 SD_126 2 SD_126 1 SD_126 5 SD_127 4 SD_126 3 Schema 1 Legend 1BR 1BR+D 2BR AL 1BR AL Studio Circulation Core TRASH ELEC/LV. ELEV. LOBBY Elec/LV OFFICELAUNDRY kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Level 2-4 1/32" = 1'-0"1 Level 2 1/32" = 1'-0"2 Level 3 1/32" = 1'-0"3 Level 4 N 67 MAU674 ft² Staff 351 ft² Mechanical Room 12 23 15 14 13 80 76 75 74 73 29 30 3335 27 88 87 86 85 5 6 7 89 12 11 10 72 71 706968676564 39404142434445465051 52 3738 9 84 66545556576362 36 1,883 ft² Resident STO EXHAUSTSTAIRSTAIR8 TRASH81 34 Bike StorageNRR554 ft² Maintenace RM 616059 50 49 48 53 79 83 1820192221 STAIR34 90 91 92 26 25 24 17 16 58 kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Garage - Overall 1/16" = 1'-0"1 Garage Level Plan GARAGE LEVEL • 92 Underground Parking Stalls • Bike Parking • Maintenance Shop • Resident Storage Lockers • Staff Lounge 68 REF... .. 972 ft² Lobby 1,018 ft² AL Dining 2,164 ft² Kitchen 3,116 ft² IL Dining 1,290 ft² Mail Cafe 1,073 ft² Club RmTRASH 1,196 ft² MC Lounge 1,405 ft² Offices 437 ft² Bistro Nurse's Suite1,131 ft² MC Dining FIRE WALL OUTDOOR PATIO MEMORY CARE GARDEN 347 ft² Pvt. Dining M/E508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 NRRRRRRSkills StationPARCELIT429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 915 ft² IL Unit 2-2 1,177 ft² IL Unit 3-2 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 477 ft² MC Unit 0-3 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-1 1,177 ft² IL Unit 3-2 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 599 ft² MC Unit 1-1 599 ft² MC Unit 1-1 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 429 ft² MC Unit 0-1 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 763 ft² IL Unit 1-5 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 508 ft² MC Unit 0-2 STAIRSTAIRkaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Level 1 - Overall 1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 1 Plan LEVEL 1 • 2-Story Lobby • 2 Full Service Dining Rooms • Commercial Kitchen • Staff Offices and Concierge • Club Room • Outdoor Patio • Memory Care Lounge and Dining • Memory Care Garden 69 434 ft² Lib. 2 Story 1,826 ft² Community Rm 487 ft² Activity 542 ft² Salon 434 ft² AL Unit 0-0 508 ft² AL Unit 0-1 508 ft² AL Unit 0-1 508 ft² AL Unit 0-1 696 ft² AL Unit 1-0 467 ft² Family Room 759 ft² Theater 420 ft² TUB FIRE WALL M/E/TRM/E871 ft² Fitness 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 687 ft² IL Unit 1-1 NRRACTIVITY OFFICESTORR719 ft² IL Unit 1-8 1,071 ft² IL Unit 2-1 915 ft² IL Unit 2-2 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-1 1,177 ft² IL Unit 3-2 1,177 ft² IL Unit 3-2 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 749 sf Rooftop Deck VISITG PHY.434 ft² AL Unit 0-0 694 ft² AL Unit 1-2726 ft² AL Unit 1-3 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 857 ft² IL Unit 2-4 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 763 ft² IL Unit 1-5 STAIRSTAIRkaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Level 2 - Overall 1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 2 Plan LEVEL 2 • Lobby Overlook • Theatre • Salon and Spa • Fitness Room • Community Room • Rooftop Deck • Family Room • Activity Room • Library • Medical Charting Area • Community Laundry 70 865 ft² IL Unit 2-3 687 ft² IL Unit 1-1 508 ft² AL Unit 0-1 508 ft² AL Unit 0-1 508 ft² AL Unit 0-1 696 ft² AL Unit 1-0 M/E/TRM/E651 ft² IL Unit 1-2 651 ft² IL Unit 1-2 N1,071 ft² IL Unit 2-1 1,212 ft² IL Unit 3-1 1,177 ft² IL Unit 3-2 1,177 ft² IL Unit 3-2 915 ft² IL Unit 2-2 434 ft² AL Unit 0-0 687 ft² IL Unit 1-1 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 640 ft² IL Unit 1-6 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 943 ft² IL Unit 2-0 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 726 ft² AL Unit 1-3 651 ft² AL Unit 1-1 651 ft² AL Unit 1-1 651 ft² IL Unit 1-2 651 ft² IL Unit 1-2 651 ft² IL Unit 1-2 857 ft² IL Unit 2-4 726 ft² IL Unit 1-0 434 ft² AL Unit 0-0 694 ft² AL Unit 1-2 763 ft² IL Unit 1-5 STAIR STAIR kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Level 3-4 - Overall 1/16" = 1'-0"1 Level 3 and 4 Plan LEVEL 3 & 4 • Medical Charting Area • Community Laundry • Resident Lounge 71 SD_127 5 SD_126 6 SD_126 7 SD_126 4 SD_127 3 SD_127 2 SD_127 1 SD_126 2 SD_1261 SD_126 5 SD_127 4 SD_126 3 RWLODRWLODRWLODRWLODRWL OD RWLODRWLODRWLODRWLODRTURTURTU RTU FLAT ROOF MEMBRANE, TYP. FLAT ROOF -1-STORY FLAT ROOF MEMBRANE, TYP.NFLAT ROOF MEMBRANE, TYP. FLAT ROOF MEMBRANE, TYP. FLAT ROOF MEMBRANE, TYP.PORTE COCHERE - FLAT ROOF RWL OD RWL OD kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Roof Plan 1/16" = 1'-0"1 Roof Plan 72 Exterior Material Tag Key 4.1 BRICK MASONRY 5.1 BALCONY - ALUMINUM RAIL - COLOR: CHAMPAGNE 7.1 CFB SHAKE SIDING - COLOR: B.MOORE - POLO BLUE 8.1 MAGIC PAK GRILL - COLOR: CUSTOM PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING FIELD COLOR 7.4 CFB TRIM - COLOR: SW7636 ORIGAMI WHITE 7.3 CFB PANEL SIDING - COLOR: SW7636 ORIGAMI WHITE 7.2 CFB LAP SIDING - COLOR: SW7641 COLLONADE GRAY 4.2 SPLIT FACE BLOCK MASONRY 4.1 5.1 8.17.47.3 7.27.4 7.1 49'-9"4.1 5.1 7.1 7.37.2 7.4 47'-6 3/4"7.4 Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level -1 88'-8" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Level 4 133'-5 5/8" Truss Brg. 142'-6 3/4" 4.15.1 7.1 7.47.3 7.2 7.47.4 4.2 52'-3 1/8"Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Level 4 133'-5 5/8" Truss Brg. 142'-6 3/4" 4.1 5.1 7.17.47.3 7.27.4 47'-6 3/4"45'-6 3/4"4.15.1 7.1 7.47.3 7.27.4 4.1 5.1 7.17.47.3 7.27.4 45'-6 3/4"47'-6 3/4"4.1 5.1 7.17.47.3 7.27.4 45'-6 3/4"kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Exterior Elevations 3/32" = 1'-0"4 West Elevation 3 3/32" = 1'-0"2 West Elevation 1 3/32" = 1'-0"1 South Elevation 3/32" = 1'-0"6 West Elevation 5 3/32" = 1'-0"7 North Elevation 3/32" = 1'-0"3 West Elevation 2 3/32" = 1'-0"5 West Elevation 4 73 Exterior Material Tag Key 4.1 BRICK MASONRY 5.1 BALCONY - ALUMINUM RAIL - COLOR: CHAMPAGNE 7.1 CFB SHAKE SIDING - COLOR: B.MOORE - POLO BLUE 8.1 MAGIC PAK GRILL - COLOR: CUSTOM PAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING FIELD COLOR 7.4 CFB TRIM - COLOR: SW7636 ORIGAMI WHITE 7.3 CFB PANEL SIDING - COLOR: SW7636 ORIGAMI WHITE 7.2 CFB LAP SIDING - COLOR: SW7641 COLLONADE GRAY 4.2 SPLIT FACE BLOCK MASONRY Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Level 4 133'-5 5/8" Truss Brg. 142'-6 3/4" 4.1 5.1 7.1 7.47.37.2 7.4 47'-6 3/4"4.1 5.1 7.17.47.27.4 45'-6 3/4"45'-6 3/4"4.1 5.1 7.17.47.27.4 Level 1 100'-0" Level 2 111'-1 7/8" Level 3 122'-3 3/4" Level 4 133'-5 5/8" Truss Brg. 142'-6 3/4" 4.1 5.1 7.17.47.3 7.27.44.2 45'-6 3/4"4.15.1 7.17.47.3 7.24.1 51'-7 1/8"kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Exterior Elevations 3/32" = 1'-0"1 East Elevation 1 3/32" = 1'-0"2 East Elevation 2 3/32" = 1'-0"3 East Elevation 3 3/32" = 1'-0"4 East Elevation 4 3/32" = 1'-0"5 East Elevation 5 74 kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Exterior Rendering 75 kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Exterior Rendering 76 kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Exterior Rendering 77 kaas wilson architects St Anthony Village - Senior Exterior Rendering 78 CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 9, 2021 2501 Lowry Avenue NE Development 65 –Preliminary Plan PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD -ZONING 79 PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –SURROUNDING PARCELS, ETC. PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –MAIN LEVEL PLAN 80 PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –WEST ELEVATION CONCEPT PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –FRONT ENTRY PERSPECTIVE 81 PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –ELEVATIONS PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –GARAGE LEVEL PLAN 82 PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –LANDSCAPE CONCEPT 83 PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –PUD CONSIDERATIONS Building height (code is 35 feet/3 stories); applicant proposes approximately 46 feet and 4 stories. Lot coverage/impervious surface (R-4 code limits this to 50%); applicant’s proposal is approximately 50.5%. Density (R-4 code limits this to approximately 24 units per acre, Comprehensive Plan calls for 20-40 units per acre); applicant is proposing approximately 28 -32 units per acre. PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1. An access easement shall be in place to accommodate the easterly shared access road with the Urban Grove development site to Kenzie Terrace. Proof of such access easement shall be provided to the City as a part of the final PUD documentation. 2.Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 3.The City finds that the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the facility. 4.Final PUD Plans demonstrate compliance with ADA parking supply requirements (for disabled persons). 5.City Officials find the proposed four-story apartment building heights to be acceptable (within the context of the PUD). 6.As a part of the Final Plan submission, the submitted landscape plan be amended to add evergreen plantings along the north edge of the shared driveway. 7.As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. 8.Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 9.The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. 10.Consideration of comments of other City Staff. 84 PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD –CITY COUNCIL ACTION Consideration of approval for a Preliminary Plan PUD St. Anthony Village Senior Housing as presented by Development 65, and with conditions, including those recommended by staff and Planning Commission. PRELIMINARY PLAN PUD -PROCESS Preliminary Review with Community Development Committee (staff) Sketch Plan Review by Joint City Council and Planning Commission Preliminary Plan PUD Application – Public Hearing at Planning Commission; Consideration by City Council Financial Assistance Review and Consideration –HRA/City Council Final Plan PUD –City Council 85 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 86 1 Charlie Yunker From:Stephen Grittman <sgrittman@nacplanning.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:35 AM To:Nicole Miller; Charlie Yunker Subject:RE: Online Form Submittal: Public Comments for Planning Commission Meetings Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. FYI Hello Ms. Labossiere – Thank you for submitting your comments regarding this project. I will see that they are included in the record at the public hearing being held by the Planning Commission this evening. -Steve G. Stephen Grittman St. Anthony City Planner Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 320 Golden Valley, MN 55422 763-957-1100 (office) 651-726-7293 (direct) From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 7:10 AM To: planner@savmn.com Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comments for Planning Commission Meetings Public Comments for Planning Commission Meetings First Name Patty Last Name LaBossiere Phone Number 6127708804 Email Address plabossi@yahoo.com Address 2653 Stinson BLVD City St. Anthony State MN 87 2 Zip Code 55418 Public Comment Lowery Grove potential Senior living development - I am concerned with a few areas of this location, as the enter/and exit onto 26th AVE NE, the traffic already is heavy and there are a lot more children and young adults that are out and about. So I am asking that this entryway be permanently closed to vehicle traffic, and continue to only have traffic continue to use the Lowery. I also am not a fan of the idea that the builders came up with having the fire trucks to use the alley for emergency calls, A LOT of people use that alley for walking to the strip mall, and just walking. Also the sirens would be disrupting everybody living on the alley, this makes no sense at all. They said it was "suggested" by the Fire Marshall, this does NOT have to be this way. Right where the potential entry for the fire truck in the alley are 4 families with children that play in their back yards. And the alley is way to small width wise to have fire trucks to have to get to the an emergency off the alley way. Currently when we get huge rain falls the entire 4 way stop at 27th & Stinson floods out as the drains cannot handle the water flow, when this happens my basement at the north side will then flood out, with this said if this building is put in they will remove the small hill that is south of my garage and water will flow even more when it rains, and no a standing pond will not work for this situation. Also the water table is high in the area and if they put a underground garage many people will flood out in NE MPLS as well as my home. I am asking you all this question, if this building is built...does this give the rest of the open land density to build a much larger high rise? The fact that this unit wanting to have a restaurant and store is not a good idea, I am not interested in listening to constant running of vents and hoods, and food smell having all of this is opening up a door for more industrial buildings. All in all I am asking that this building NOT be built where they want it, it is way to close to the parkway and needs to be set back and the parking lot facing Stinson is ridiculous. I am asking that the builders either set this unit away from Stinson, or build somewhere else as we already have a few 88 3 senior living building in the very area. Thank You for reading this, Patty Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. 89 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 90 CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 21-021 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAN STAGE PUD, FOR THE SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE SENIOR HOUSING PROJECT, A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OF UP TO 155 DWELLING UNITS AT 2501 LOWRY AVENUE NE WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Development 65 LLC for a the St. Anthony Village Senior Housing PUD, redeveloping the subject site from single family residential to a multiple family residential development of up to 155 dwelling units at 2501 Lowry Avenue NE, legally described as follows: See Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately 4.25 acres and is located along the east boundary of Stinson Parkway and west boundary of the Urban Grove manufactured home park; and WHEREAS, the property is currently vacant; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the project would be consistent with the St. Anthony 2040 Comprehensive Plan related to the conversion of this property from single family residential to multiple family residential use; and WHEREAS, the density of the proposed project at 32-36 units per acre is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan density range for such use; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2021 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plan PUD with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as identified below; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution for approval: 1. The property is located in an area of mixed commercial and residential use. 2. The proposed improvements to the property are consistent with the character of the neighborhood in which it is located. 91 3. The various aspects of the proposed development are consistent with requirements of the City’s high density housing requirements, or are supported by the goals and objectives of the requirements for PUD consideration, and the long-term expectations of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With the modification to the site plan under conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property. 5. The proposed PUD will accommodate reasonable use without negative impacts on neighboring property nor on public improvements and services. NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff report and approves Preliminary Plan for the St. Anthony Village Senior Housing PUD as shown on the plans submitted on December 17, 2020, at 2501 Lowry Avenue NE: 1. An access easement shall be in place to accommodate the easterly shared access road with the Urban Grove development site to Kenzie Terrace. Proof of such access easement shall be provided to the City as a part of the final PUD documentation. 2. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 3. The City finds that the proposed parking supply is adequate to serve the facility. 4. Final PUD Plans demonstrate compliance with ADA parking supply requirements (for disabled persons). 5. City Officials find the proposed four-story apartment building heights to be acceptable (within the context of the PUD). 6. As a part of the Final Plan submission, the submitted landscape plan be amended to add evergreen plantings along the north edge of the shared driveway. 7. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. 8. Issues related to grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. Passed in regular session of the City Council on the 9th day of February 2021. ____________________________________ Randy Stille, Mayor 92 ATTEST:____________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Review for Administration: ____________________________________ Charlie Yunker, City Manager 93 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 94 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Stille and St. Anthony Village City Council Charlie Yunker, City Manager From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner Date: City Council Meeting – February 9, 2021 NAC Project No. 323.01 - 20.14 Request: Resolution Approving the Planned Unit Development Agreement Stinson Apartments Property Address: 3725 Stinson Blvd. Property PID: 31-30-23-33-0209 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Stinson Apartments project at the above address. The applicants have completed the required conditions for Final Plan PUD approval, and execution of the attached PUD Agreement is a requirement of both the Zoning Ordinance and the City Council’s approval. The City Attorney’s office has reviewed the agreement and has approved its form and content. RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1. Motion to Adopt Resolution 21-022, approving the PUD Agreement for Stinson Apartments, and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. ALTERNATIVE CITY COUNCIL ACTION 2. Motion to deny the agreement. In the event of a denial, the City Council must state its findings related to denial on the record. 3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. A motion to table should be accompanied by the specific information requested of staff or the developer necessary to make a recommendation. 95 February 9, 2021 Page 2 ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: PUD Agreement 96 4823-5307-7972\2 Planned Unit Development Agreement This Planned Unit Development Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated February 9, 2021, by and between the City of Saint Anthony Village, Minnesota, a Minnesota statutory city under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “City”), and Stinson Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (“Developer”). Recitals: WHEREAS, Developer is the owner of certain vacant land within the corporate limits of the City having an address of 3725 Stinson Boulevard and legally described on the attached Exhibit A (the “Property); WHEREAS, the Property is located within the Silver Lake Village PUD zoning district; WHEREAS, Developer made application to the City for (i) approval of the construction of a multiple family residential development on the Property consisting of 38 dwelling units in a single building (the “Project”) and (ii) a related amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD; WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Resolution 20-089, adopted December 8, 2020, the City approved the final development plans for the Project and the final plan for an amendment to the Silver Lake Village PUD by creation of the Stinson Apartments PUD Sub-District; WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2020-04, amending Title XV of the St. Anthony City Code, known as the zoning ordinance, and amending the Silver Lake Village PUD to create the Stinson Apartments PUD Sub-District for the Project; WHEREAS, the City zoning ordinance and City Council Resolution 20-089 requires entry into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and the mutual obligations and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1. PUD Conditions. This Agreement incorporates specific conditions to the City’s approval of the Project and final plan PUD as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, some of which, as of the date hereof, have been satisfied as indicated on Exhibit B. 2. Plans. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Property shall be developed in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City and which are described in Exhibit C attached hereto (collectively, the “Plans”). The full Plans shall not be attached to this Agreement, but are on file with the City. If the Plans vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written terms shall control. 3. Security Requirements. Developer shall provide a cash landscaping security in the amount of $18,916.00 to secure all plantings onsite shown on the Plans. The City shall hold the escrow for a minimum of two growing seasons and shall promptly release the escrow following such second growing season and an inspection and confirmation that all proposed plantings are in good health and condition. Developer shall promptly remove and replace all dead and diseased plants and other vegetation in accordance with the Plans. 97 2 4823-5307-7972\2 4. Right to Proceed. Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct public or private improvements, or any buildings on the Property until all of the following conditions have been satisfied: (a) This agreement has been fully executed by both parties and filed with both the City Clerk and the Ramsey County Recorder’s office. (b) All required securities (described in Section 3) has been received by the City. 5. Other Permits and Approvals. Developer shall secure all necessary approvals and permits from all appropriate federal, state, regional and local ju risdictions prior to the commencement of construction of the Project. 6. Compliance. All development and construction activities of the Property will be in compliance with the City Code, the Plans, and the terms and conditions of this Agreement. No material deviations from the approved plans and specifications will be permitted unless approved in writing by the City. To the extent of any inconsistency between this Agreement and City Code, this Agreement shall control. All labor and work shall be done and performed in a good and workmanlike manner. 7. Maintenance. Developer shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by Developer, subcontractors, their agents or assigns. Prior to any construction in the Property, Developer shall identify in writing a responsible party and schedule for erosion control, street cleaning, and street sweeping. All site improvements, including, without limitation, lighting, signage, landscaping, and paved surfaces, constructed on the Property shall be maintained in good repair. 8. Default and Remedies. Upon default by Developer, or its successors in interest, the City may take whatever action at law or in equity as may appear necessary or desirable by the City to enforce performance and compliance with any obligation, agreement or covenant contained within this Agreement. Further, upon default by Developer, the City may take one or more of the following actions with respect to the portion(s) or parcel(s) of the Property involved in the default (the “Default Property”): (a) initiate an amendment to the City’s comprehensive land use plan for the Default Property; (b) initiate rezoning of the Default Property to a zoning classification consistent with the amended land use designation; (c) declare null and void any building and site plan approvals or development contracts for the Default Property; (d) refuse building or other permits for the Default Property; or (e) stop work on the Default Property, through the issuance of stop work orders. 9. Developer’s Warranties. Developer hereby represents and warrants to the City: (a) Developer does and will have full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform hereunder and that such entry and performance does not and will not violate any right of any third party or create any liability to any third party. 98 3 4823-5307-7972\2 (b) Developer has fee title to the Property or has obtained consents to this Agreement, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the property; that there are no unrecorded interests in the property; and that Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. 10. Indemnification; Attorneys’ Fees. Developer shall indemnify and hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by Developer or third parties for damages sustained or costs and damages incurred by the City resulting from Developer’s acts or omissions in the development of the Project, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, to the extent that such damages are not caused by the acts or omissions of the City, its officers, employees, and agents. In the event the City is successful in litigation to enforce the terms of this Agreement, Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in litigation and subsequent enforcement of this Agreement, including reasonable engineering and attorneys’ fees. Notices. Required notices to Developer shall be in writing and shall either be hand delivered to Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: Stinson Apartments LLC c/o Interstate Development Corporation 6390 Carlson Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Attn: Legal Notices Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall either by hand delivered to the City Manager, or mailed by certified or registered mail, in care of the City Manager at the following address: Saint Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418 With a copy to: Dorsey & Whitney LLP Suite 1500, 50 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Attention: Jay R. Lindgren 11. Assignment. Developer may not assign this Agreement without the written permission of the City Council. 12. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Property or the Project and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. References herein to Developer, if there be more than one, shall mean each and all of them. 13. No Waiver. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City’s failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a waiver or release. 99 4 4823-5307-7972\2 14. Recitals; Exhibits. The recitals hereof are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference, including the definitions set forth therein. All exhibits referred to in and attached to this Agreement upon execution are incorporated in and form a part of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 15. Severability. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. 16. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed and delivered shall be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. 17. Completion. Upon the performance of all of Developer’s obligations hereunder, the City will execute a Certificate of Completion in the form attached hereto as Exhibit D, which may be recorded by Developer, at Developer’s expense. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank; signatures on following page(s)] 100 [Signature Page to Planned Unit Development Agreement] 4823-5307-7972\2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this Agreement to be duly executed in their names and on their behalf, all on or as of the date first above written. Saint Anthony Village, a Minnesota statutory city By: Randy Stille Its: Mayor AND By: Charlie Yunker Its: City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______ day of ___________, 202___, by Randy Stille, Mayor, and Charlie Yunker, Acting City Manager, on behalf of Saint Anthony Village, a Minnesota statutory city. Notary Public Expiration Date of Commission 101 [Signature Page to Planned Unit Development Agreement] 4823-5307-7972\2 Stinson Apartments LLC. a Minnesota limited liability company By: Name: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _____ day of ___________________, 202___, by Eric J. Simmer, as the President of Stinson Apartments LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of company. ___________________________________ Notary Public Expiration Date of Commission THIS DOCUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 102 A-1 4823-5307-7972\2 Exhibit A Legal Description Real property situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 1, Apache Plaza, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. and The North 70 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Pillsbury Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) Property PID: 313023330209 103 B-1 4823-5307-7972\2 Exhibit B PUD Conditions The following conditions were attached to the City Council’s Preliminary Plan approval and are incorporated herein: 1. Access-related issues shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. The Engineer has approved the access design, subject to final review. 2. In recognition of other development sites within the Silver Lake PUD which were developed at densities less than 40 units per acre, the City finds the proposed residential density (44.7 units per acre) to be acceptable. The Preliminary Plan approval included this finding. 3. The City finds that the proposed 20-foot building setback along 38th Avenue NE will not negatively impact adjacent properties and is therefore considered acceptable (within the context of the PUD). The Preliminary Plan approval included this finding. 4. The City finds that the proposed parking supply (and the deficit based on Ordinance requirements) is adequate to serve the parking demand generated by the proposed apartment building. The Preliminary Plan approval included this finding. 5. The City finds that the limited size of the subject and target tenant base justify an off-street parking supply which does not include covered spaces (within the context of the PUD). The Preliminary Plan approval included this finding. 6. In consideration if the limited site size and previous site development conditions, the City finds the proposed impervious surface coverage of 76.7 to be acceptable. The Preliminary Plan approval included this finding. It is further noted that the City Engineer and the Watershed District will continue to monitor construction permitting to manage this aspect of the project. 7. Impacts associated with the proposed impervious surface coverage shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. See comment for Item 6. 8. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a lighting plan be submitted for review which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. A lighting plan has been submitted that meets this condition. The City’s nuisance code specifies a maximum of 1.0 footcandles of light at the property line – the proposed plans show less than this (and mostly 0 footcandles) around the property. 9. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, a signage plan be submitted for review which demonstrates compliance with City requirements. The applicant has submitted a signage plan consisting of a single “Blade Sign” along the west (Stinson) frontage – a total of approximately 28 square feet. This sign is within the allowances for wall signage in the R-4 District. 10. As part of the Final PUD Plan submission, details shall be provided related to the proposed trash enclosure design. The updated plans show a trash enclosure to be constructed of concrete block, covered with fiber cement siding and aluminum doors. This should be specified to match the colors of the fiber cement and trim on the principal building. 104 B-2 4823-5307-7972\2 11. Issues related to grading, drainage, stormwater management and utilities shall be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Those reviews will continue through final permitting. 12. The applicant enter into a PUD agreement with the City and post all the necessary securities required by it. Staff will work with the City Attorney’s office on the any agreements necessary to document the terms of the PUD in addition to the Council’s resolution and PUD District Amendment Ordinance, attached. The Ordinance amends the Silver Lake PUD District by referring to this Final Plan approval, and defaults to the R-4 District for other related baseline standards if applicable. 13. Consideration of comments of other City Staff. At this point, additional staff comment would apply to construction and permitting documents. 105 C-1 4823-5307-7972\2 Exhibit C Plans The following plans submitted to the City on November 17, 2020: 106 D-2 4823-5307-7972\2 EXHIBIT D Form of Release of Planned Unit Development Agreement (attached) 107 D-3 4823-5307-7972\2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AGREEMENT THIS CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION (“Certificate”) is made effective as of ___________________, 20__ (the “Effective Date”) by the CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE, a Minnesota statutory city under the laws of the State of Minnesota ("City"), for the purposes of confirming that the construction obligations of Developer contained in that certain Planned Unit Development Agreement dated _______________, 20__, filed __________________, 20__, with the Ramsey County, Minnesota Recorder as Document No. ________________ (the “PUD Agreement”) affecting the real property legally described on Exhibit A, have been performed by Developer. NOW, THEREFORE, the City does hereby confirm that the obligations of Developer to construct the Project in accordance with the provisions of the PUD Agreement and the Plans (as defined in the PUD Agreement) have been fully performed and satisfied. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has executed this release effective as of the Effective Date. St. Anthony Village, a Minnesota statutory city By: Its: Mayor AND By: Its: Acting City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ______ day of ___________, 202___, by__________________, Mayor, and _______________________, Acting City Manager, on behalf of Saint Anthony Village, a Minnesota statutory city. Notary Public Expiration Date of Commission DRAFTED BY: MESSERLI & KRAMER P.A. 100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 108 D-4 4823-5307-7972\2 Exhibit A Real property situated in the State of Minnesota, County of Ramsey legally described as follows: Lot 8, Block 1, Apache Plaza, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. and The North 70 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Pillsbury Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) Property PID: 3130233302 109 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 110 CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 21-022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE STINSON APARTMENTS WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony approved the final plan PUD on December 8, 2020 for the Stinson Apartments located at 3725 Stinson Boulevard; and WHEREAS, a condition of the approval is to complete a Planned Unit Development Agreement; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saint Anthony Village hereby approves the Planned Unit Development agreement with Stinson Apartments LLC. Adopted this 9th day of February, 2021. ______________________________________ Randy Stille, Mayor ATTEST:____________________________ Nicole Miller, City Clerk Review for Administration: _____________________________________ Charlie Yunker, City Manager 111 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 112 Our Mission is to be a progressive and welcoming Village that is walkable, sustainable and safe. 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 • www.savmn.com St. Anthony Village Planning Commission Draft 2021 Work Plan General Items 1.Review and Recommend Actions on Land Use and Development Applications 2.Monitor Common Planning and Zoning Issues for Follow-up 3.Maintain Training Opportunities on Land Use Issues 4.Maintain Communications with City Council as to Land Use Policy Specific Tasks A.Undertake Implementation of Comprehensive Plan Policy and Land Use Objectives 1.Reconcile conflicts between proposed land use plan map and zoning map. 2.Update Zoning Districts, where needed, to better address contemporary development patterns and demand. a.R-4 District – Density, Building Size, Site Planning Expectations b.Industrial District – Land Uses, Architectural Standards, Site Planning c.Commercial District – Land Uses, Architectural Standards, Site Planning 3.Update Zoning Regulations, where needed, to implement specific Comp Plan goals, as well as common zoning issues. a.Accessory building regulations (Ongoing) b.Review dimensional standards in R-1 Districts to maintain intended neighborhood character, and promote existing residential reinvestment c.Others as identified throughout year. 4.Address Sign Regulations, including Temporary Signs 5.Research and Review Lighting Regulations B.Monitor Emerging Planning Issues and Address as Needed See attached list 113 Category Item Time Frame Land Use and Zoning Topics • Short-term rental pressure (AirBnB, e.g.). 0-2 years • Housing maintenance code issues, esp. for single- family rental housing. 0-2 years • Blending of commercial and industrial enterprises (e.g. small scale: brewery taprooms, and similar “maker” spaces that encourage both manufacturing and storefront retailing in the same space. 0-2 years • Residential Solar installations – visual impacts 0-2 years • Non-exclusive residential density (e.g., Minneapolis elimination of single-family zoning). 2-5 years • Future reconversion of overbuilt senior housing units following baby-boom generation. 5-10+ years General • Conflicts between public engagement efforts and declining civil discourse. Ongoing • Expanding impacts of religious land use and assembly use – especially religious land uses in traditional residential settings. Ongoing • “Amazon Effect” – variable pressures on existing commercial spaces due to online e-commerce. 0-2 years+ Transportation Topics • Bicycle/Scooter rentals 0-2 years • Autonomous vehicles – changes foreseen due to automobile storage and remote garage storage. 2-5 years • Car-sharing – long term impacts on possible reduction in overall automobiles-per-household in high car-sharing areas. 2-5 years 114 Website Nov Dec Jan Total Visitors 4,129 1,960 4,998 St.Anthony/CTV Landing (Page Views)66 68 114 St.Anthony –Meeting 101 225 288 St.Anthony –City Council 67 68 81 Social Media Nov Dec Jan CTV Facebook posts 75 55 49 CTV Facebook Total Likes 1692 1693 1706 January 2021 Programming, Website & Social Media PROGRAMMING •PRODUCTION SERVICES: •St. Anthony Quarterly Report, SAPD 1/25 [401 FB Views] •City of St.Anthony Goal Sessions,1/13 -1/15 •St. Anthony/New Brighton Schools Town Hall, Live 1/27 •St.Anthony HS Boys/Girls Basketball,Live 1/22 &1/29 •Compass Program Series •Lack of Broadband,Live 1/14 •Food Insecurity in North Suburbs, Live 1/28 •Cities Speak (4 shows) featuring city and communications officials {Rick Montour, Erika Scheider, Kari Neidfeldt Thomas} •Governor Address Translation (Spanish, Hmong, Somali) Live 1/6 •NEW PROGRAMS on CTV CHANNELS (124 Total) = 155 hours of programming •CITY MEETINGS (45 Total): 7 –St. Anthony city meetings + web streams •NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION -Next Meeting –2/18 •RAMSEY COUNTY BOARD MEETINGS: 4, [LIVE Tuesdays, Ch. 19 –9am] •SANB 282 SCHOOL BOARD MEETINGS: 1, 1/5 [Live Ch. 16 & web] •RICE CREEK WATERSHED Meetings: 2, 1/13 & 1/26 •ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING: •Chamber Check In (4 shows) partnership w/TC North Chamber 115 THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 116 Date Type Staff Present February 23 Regular Administration Annual Report Adoption of Strategic Plan City Council City Manager March 9 Regular Planning Commission Items from February Liquor Annual Report Liquor License Renewals GreenCorp Member application-resolution CTV Presentation Public Works Annual Report 2021 Parks and Environmental Commission Work Plan- (motion only) CUP-Car Wash City Council City Manager Liquor Op Manager Public Works Director March 23 Regular Police Annual Report Wyland Water Challenge 2021 Street Project Call for Hearing on Improvements, Call for Hearing on Assessments, Order Preparation of Assessments Development 65, final PUD agreement, approval of development agreement, TIF Public Hearing MNDOT Master Partnerships City Council City Manager Police Dept City Engineer April 13 Regular Planning Commission Items from March Quarterly Donations & Grants Fire Annual Report Spirit of St. Anthony Award Arbor Day Proclamation Earth Day Proclamation Public Hearing-Budget Calendar City Council City Manager Fire Dept Finance Director April 27 Regular Debt Levy Presentation-Public Hearing 2021 Street Project Public Hearing, Order Improvements, Adopt & Confirm Assessments, Award Contract for Construction, Call for Sale of GO Bonds Presentation from Nine North-Dana Healy City Council City Manager City Engineer May 11 Regular Planning Commission items from April Insurance Renewal Tort Limits - Consent Order 2022 Feasibility Study 2021 Street Project-Approve Sale of Bonds City Council City Manager City Engineer May 25 Regular Salo Park Concert Series Chamber of the Year and Business of the Year Finance Annual Report City Council City Manager Finance Director June 8 Regular Planning Commission Items from May Welcome Initiative City Council City Manager June 22 Regular Audit Presentation City Council City Manager Finance Director July 13 Regular Planning Commission items from June Quarterly Donations & Grants City Council City Manager FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 2021 117 Date Type Staff Present FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS July 27 Regular Liquor Operations Mid Year Report VillageFest Presentation Quarterly Goals Update Wyland Mayor's Water Challenge Night to Unite Presentation Night to Unite Proclamation City Council City Manager Liquor Op Mgr Police Chief August 10 Regular Planning Commission items from July Approve 2022 Feasibility Study and Order Plans and Specs City Council City Manager August 24 Regular Budget Presentation Students in Leadership-Consent SANB #282 Presentation City Council City Manager Finance Director September 14 Regular Planning Commission items from August 2022 Preliminary Operating Budget and Levy-Public Hearing Kiwanis Peanut Day Union Contracts City Council City Manager Finance Director September 28 Regular Fire Prevention Presentation Spirit of St. Anthony Award City Council City Manager Fire Dept October 12 Regular Planning Commission items from September Quarterly Donations & Grants Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Waste Hauler Accounts-Consent Agenda Preliminary Certification of Delinquent Utility Accounts-Consent Agenda Quarterly Goals Update 1st Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater-Public Hearing City Council City Manager October 26 Regular 2nd Reading Water, Sewer, & Stormwater-Public Hearing Approval of CIP City Council City Manager Finance Director November 9 Regular Planning Commission items from October Authorizing polling places for 2022 Final Reading and Adoption Water, Sewer, & Stormwater City Council City Manager November 23 Regular Fire Prevention Poster Winners Students in Government Presentation PD Body Cam Audit Water Conservation Poster Winners 2022 Fee Schedule City Council City Manager December 14 Regular Planning Commission items from November Appoint Parks and Planning Commissioners and Chair/Vice Chairs Setting Salary of City Manager Authorizing Transfers & Closing of Specified Funds Setting the 2022 City & HRA Budgets and Final Property Tax Levy -Public Hearing 2022 Street Project Approve Plans & Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids City Council City Manager Finance Director City Engineer December 28 Regular City Council City Manager 2022 118 Date Type Staff Present FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS January 11 Regular Planning Commission items from December Housekeeping Resolutions Resolution for the Street Improvement Bond Reimbursement Quarterly Donations & Grants City Council City Manager January 25 Regular Public Works Snow Plowing Operations presentation NYFS Agreement Outside Orgs-Council City Council City Manager February 8 Regular Planning Commission items from January Public Hearing-Budget Calendar and Process 2022 Planning Commission Work Plan- (motion only) City Council City Manager Finance Director 119