CC PACKET 03232021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

does not believe a car wash would be an asset to the City as there are three others within 1 ½ 1 miles from this site. Ms. Zahrbock asked who residents would complain to if violations occur 2 and what recourse is available to residents. She questioned the appraiser’s opinion and she 3 believes there would be an impact on property values in the area. Real estate professionals have 4 said there would be an impact. Ms. Zahrbock asked that the application be withdrawn or Council 5 deny the request. 6 7 Mayor Stille stated when the process started there was no opportunity to gain residents 8 comments. He has not spoken to the applicant and directed Council not to speak to the applicant. 9 The City needed to get an independent appraiser to do a study. Mr. Grittman stated the City has a 10 complaint system and residents should file complaints to be registered with Code Enforcement. 11 City Manager Yunker stated residents could send a letter, call or stop by City Hall also to file a 12 complaint. 13 14 Ms. Susan Guthrie, 2616 Pahl Avenue, lives 400 feet from the proposed car wash. She wanted to 15 talk about the process. A CUP is a request and is granted after studying the potential effect on the 16 neighbors. The City has done studies on behalf of the applicant which is in direct violation of 17 Minnesota State Statute 462.3595. By the City doing the studies the Council cannot be impartial. 18 The applicant should have been told which studies are necessary and have the applicant have 19 them conducted. Ms. Guthrie wrote a detailed letter requesting receipt of her letter by return 20 email. She does not want her neighborhood blighted by this land use. A car wash within 75 feet 21 from homes and the condos will negatively impact the neighborhood in regards to air, noise, 22 water pollution as well as property values. There were over 70 residents opposed to this project 23 that submitted letters and emails to the City. The City Planner should not have recommended 24 approval for something that exceeded State noise limits. 25 26 Mr. Tom Deegan, 2616 Pahl Avenue, has been a resident of St. Anthony for 25 years. He 27 referred to MN Statute 462.3595 relating to the City obtaining the studies. He was a fire marshall 28 for the City of Minneapolis and reviewed his job responsibilities. He was never allowed to direct 29 engineers to do a study on behalf of the applicant. He does not believe the applicant was given 30 proper instructions. He takes issue with the appraiser in that the study was similar to one done for 31 a PUD. In the comprehensive plan this parcel was designated for a park. It is not the City’s role 32 to design a project for the applicant. The purpose of the Statute is to avoid litigation. A market 33 analysis should have also been done. He pays some of the highest taxes in the State. 34 35 Mr. Dave Colling, sent in an email a few weeks ago. He wants to speak of the real-world 36 applications at the car wash. At the last meeting, it was mentioned that the residents have a fear 37 of the unknown. He visited Tommy’s car wash and spoke with the residents near the car wash. 38 He said two were management issues and two were design issues. The residents complained 39 about the noise from customer’s cars music and the customer’s speaking to each other. There 40 was a loud recording that was heard every time a car entered. Another issue was garbage that 41 doesn’t make it into the garbage can. Lights reflected off the materials on the outside of the 42 building and forced neighbors to cover their windows. He would like to see this request denied 43 and is willing to work with the City to try to find a solution. 44 45 8