HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08152000 Meeting Sheet
III III I gill IN I VIIIIIIIIIII
102868
BOX: 27
Folder: PL PACKETS 2000-2004
Document: PL PACKET 08152000
A8441 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 350 B.A.Mittelsteadt,P.E.
��� Bret A.Weiss,P.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55426 Peter R.Willenbeiss,P.E.
Donald W.Sterna,P.E.
tel: 763-541-4800 Ronald B.Bray,P.E.
&Associates, Inc. fax: 763-541-1700
Memorandum
To: Spencer Isom, Assistant City Manager
City of St. Anthony
From: Todd E. Hubmer,P.E. J,W
Project Manager
Date: August 14, 2000
Re: Review of Preliminary Plat of Apache Terrace 2"d Addition
WSB Project No. 1065-010
We have completed our review of the preliminary plat of Apache Terrace 21 Addition as presented
by Harry S. Johnson Company, Inc. Land Surveyors dated June 26, 2000. Based on our review, I
offer the following comments:
• The plat should include a 20-foot utility easement along the east side of Lot 3 over the
existing watermain which runs north to south along the east side of Lot 3.
• It is recommended that a 10-foot utility easement be centered on the lot lines separating Lots 1
and 2 and the lot line separating Lot 2 and 3.
• Please be advised that existing buildings on the properties do not meet current setback
requirements.
It is recommended that the easements be dedicated to the City as part of the preliminary plat process.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at(763) 277-5782.
rim Sys
�v
I
Minneapolis S t . Cloud
Infrastructure Engineers Planners F.tWPWIM1065-011081400-cty.wpd
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITY OF ST.ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under the Minnesota Statutes, that the Planning Commission will hold a regular
meeting on Tuesday,August 15, 2000, at 7.00 pm at the City Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, Saint
Anthony,Minnesota.
NOTE: The Planning Commission has received the staff reports and.recommendations, plus supporting
documentation from the-applicant, through staff for all items on this agenda. This information was
distributed prior to the meeting date. Individual Commissioners and staff also visit the application sites
during the week prior to meetings. As a result of this preparation, items which appear to be routine will
typically be handled very quickly, and discussion on disputed or questionable items can begin from a
position ofgeneral understanding of the issues.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSIDERATION,DISCUSSION,AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Please notify the Chairman prior to the beginning of any meeting of your desire to speak before the
Commission. Your remarks will be limited to five minutes.
I. PUBLIC INPUT
The public may speak at this time on any planning and zoning related matters of a :general nature.
However, there will not be any discussion or action by the Commission at this time.
II. MINUTES
1. Approve July 18 and August 1, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Action requested.
2. City Council's July 25 and August 8,2000 regular meeting minutes. No action required.
3. Parks Commission's August 7, 2000 regular meeting minutes. No action required.
III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL
L. None.
IV. REQUESTS'FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS
1. None.
V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUBLIC HEARING. Petition for Variance. Murphy's Service Center, Inc. (Conoco Gas Station),
350129s Ave., seeks a variance for a larger replacement sign for their business. Action required.
(PP. 1-22)
-a
2
2. PUBLIC HEARING. Application for subdivision/ plat approval. Village North LLP and
Apache Animal Medicine seek to replat their properties into three lots. Action required. (pp.23-
40)
3. PUBLIC HEARING. Petition for amendment to zoning ordinance. Village North LLP seeks to
modify the current zoning requirement for parking in the City's Light Industrial districts. Action
required. (pp.41-70)
4. PUBLIC HEARING. Petition for rezoning. Apache Animal Medicine seeks to rezone a portion
of 2801 37t` Avenue NE from LI to C. Additionally, they are purchasing a parcel of unzoned
land from the railroad and request that it be zoned C to allow for the expansion of the animal
clinic. Action required. (pp. 71-111)
VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS
1. None.
VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS, and/or CONCEPT REVIEWS
1. PRESENTATION. A representative of WSB Engineering will make a presentation regarding the
selection of decorative street lighting along 290' Avenue and elsewhere in the City. Planning
Commission, Staff, and the Consultant have sought public input. Planning Commission to
provide recommendations to City Council. Action required. (p. 112)
VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. New draft antennae ordinance. (pp. 113-133)
IX. COMMISSION INPUT
1. Chair to select a Commissioner as the representative to the upcoming Council Meeting.
2. Commissioners' comments.
X. ADJOURNMENT
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
•3 JULY 18, 2000
4 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance_led by.Chair
6 Bergstrom.
7 ROLL CALL.
8 Present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas,
9 Melsha, Hatch, and Stille.
10 Commissioners absent: None.
11 Also present: Spencer Isom, Assistant City Manager
12 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE
13 FOLLOWING ITEMS:
14 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that there were some additional items to the agenda
15 and those items would be distributed to the Commissioners later in the meeting.
16 I. PUBLIC INPUT.
17 Chair Bergstrom called for input from the audience on items that were not listed on the agenda,
18 and hearing none, moved forward with the agenda.
�9 II. APPROVAL OF JUNE 20, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
20 Motion by Melsha, second by Tillmann,to approve the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission
21 Meeting Minutes with the following modifications:
22 Page 7, Line 2, add: "The proposal is subject to the changes intentionally made by the
23 Development Review Committee."
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL.
26 None.
27 IV. REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS.
28 1. Public Hearing. Hillcrest Development's Preliminary Development Plan for the Apache
29 Plaza.
30 Chair Bergstrom requested a report from Assistant City Manager Spencer.Isom. Isom reported
31 that Hillcrest Development's preliminary development plan for the Apache Plaza includes a
32 rezoning from "C" district to a PUD. The applicant has requested the public hearing be
33 postponed until after a special meeting of the Planning Commission can be held. The
34 Commission at said special meeting would hear Hillcrest's Final Development Plan. The
35 Development Review Committee has asked that a special meeting be held on August 1, 2000 or
6 at such time thereafter as deemed appropriate by the Development Review Committee.
37 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Thomas,to approve the request by Hillcrest Development for
38 the postponement of the public hearing until after a Special Meeting of the Planning
39 Commission to be held on August 1, 2000. This motion also approves the Special Planning
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 2
•
1 Commission meeting for August 1, 2000.
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3 V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS.
4 1. Public Hearing. Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (Frontline Church l.
5 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., and requested a report from Staff.
6 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported that Pastor Bill Arrigoni, representing the
7 Frontline Church and Outreach Center, is asking the City to consider adding a Church as a
8 conditional use in a commercial district. Presently, Churches are a permitted conditional use in
9 all R1, R2, R3, and R4 districts citywide. If this petition were approved, then Churches would
10 also be a permitted conditional use in "C" districts citywide.
11 Mr. Isom continued by stating that the Frontline Church has entered into a purchase agreement
12 for the property located at 2654 Kenzie Terrace in the City of St. Anthony. If the petition would
13 be approved,the Frontline Church would subsequently submit an Application for Conditional
14 Use.
15 Mr. Isom stated that the City has received a completed Petition for Amendment to Zoning
6 Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Commission.either approve or deny the petition. If
7 approved, then Staff would prepare the necessary Ordinance in preparation for the next City
18 Council meeting.
19 Chair Bergstrom introduced Pastor Bill Arrigoni and invited him to address the Commission.
20 Mr. Arrigoni noted that the Church is currently located at a different site,but would like to
21 relocate to St. Anthony and is interested in purchasing the building at 2654 Kenzie Terrace. This
22 process would allow for the Church to grow and to become a part of the community in St.
23 Anthony. Mr. Arrigoni stated that the,Church has much to offer the community and provides
24 ministry to all ages. The heart of the Church, Mr. Arrigoni stated, is to help people and become
25 a positive icon within the community.
26 Mr. Arrigoni said that he has been working with the architect and made sure that the Church
27 could offer the'City an easement to allow for a walking path that would coincide with the City's
28 plans for green space. This was incorporated into the plans after the Concept Review with the
29 Planning Commission in June 2000. Mr. Arrigoni noted that the walking path would be four feet
30 wide. Additionally,the parking would be skirted around to the rear of the building to allow for
31 better traffic flow.
32 Chair Bergstrom invited input from the audience, and hearing none, closed the Public Hearing at
33 7:23 p.m. Bergstrom requested comments from the Commissioners.
�4 Bergstrom stated that he has reservations about any noncommercial use in that district. Melsha
35 stated that this is an issue that does not have anything to do with the Frontline Church, but is
36 more of a public policy issue.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 3
is
1 Stille noted that it is painful to deny the request, but stated that he would like to clarify that the
2 City has a specific policy and although the Church would be an excellent addition to the
3 community, allowing a noncommercial use would change the City's policy and have an affect on .
4 similar future issues.
5 Tillmann echoed Stille's comments and stated that to change the City's policy would not be
6 acceptable.
7 Thomas noted that if the Commission allowed this use, they would be opening up the policy
8 citywide. In other words, the issue could present future problems if the policy was changed.
9 However, he would encourage the Church to continue working with Staff, and he would direct
10 Staff to work in conjunction with the Church to find alternative parcels for their relocation to St.
11 Anthony. Thomas noted that, unfortunately,the property located at 2654 Kenzie Terrace would
12 not be the correct site for the Church and felt that the Commission did not have many options.
13 Hatch commented that the Comprehensive Plan wished for the property in that area to be
14 commercial. Plus, the fact that City would need the.tax base that would come from a
15 commercial building in order to keep the community as it is.
16 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Stille, that the Petition for Amendment to the Zoning
7. Ordinance is denied due to the following findings of fact:
18 1. Current permitted uses for that area are commercial and do not include Churches;
19 2. The City has put forth a significant amount of energy into re-energizing the St. Anthony
20 Shopping Center and would like to continue along the same path;
21 3. The City does not allow non-commercial uses in the St. Anthony Shopping Center;
22 4. The Church would not directly support other commercial entities in the District;
23 5. The conversion of taxable property to nontaxable property would remove a high tax-
24 generating income for the City;
25 6. The changed zoning would have an affect on all commercial properties in the City, which
26 would be undesirable for all commercial uses.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Bergstrom noted that Pastor Arrigoni had a fine organization within the Church and encouraged
29 him to work with Staff in finding an alternative location.
30 He reminded Mr. Arrigoni that this issue would be before the City Council on Tuesday, July 25,
1 2000, and he encouraged him to be present.
32 2. Public Hearing. Application for Conditional Use Permit(Nadi and Roger Abou-Mourad)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
: Page 4
•
1 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m., and requested a report from Staff.
2 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that the applicants, Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad,
3 seek to build a Fuel Mart Car Wash on their property at 3813 Stinson Boulevard NE. According .
4 to City Code,their project requires a permit for conditional use. A concept review was held
5 before the Commission on June 20, 2000. The applicants have taken the Commission's
6 comments into consideration and resubmitted a complete application to Staff.
7 Chair Bergstrom introduced Mr.-Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, consultants for the applicants
8 and invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Habiger noted that the applicants own the
9 property in question, which is adjacent to the current business. The applicants would like to
10 construct an automated car wash facility to work in conjunction with their gas station located on
11 the adjacent property. Furthermore, the property is currently zoned commercial and all
12 surrounding properties are as well. Mr. Habiger stated that there is currently an abandoned free-
13 standing restaurant on this site, and this would be demolished and the new facility would be
14 constructed in its place.
15 Mr. Habiger noted that the landscaping had been improved after the Concept Review at the
16 Planning Commission meeting in June 2000. He noted in detail the landscaping proposed.
17 Additionally,his clients would like to have a future expansion of the property to house a service
18 facility (such as oil changes and repair) and such application will be made at the time they
0-9 propose to go forward with the construction. This is anticipated to take place in approximately
20 one year.
21 Melsha inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Habiger responded that the facility would be
22 open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Sunday.
23 Mr. Habiger clarified for Bergstrom that a pylon sign would no longer be used for the facility.
24 Additionally,Mr. Habiger addressed the issue of noise, and stated that a lawnmower would be
25 more audible than the noise from the facility.
26 Hanson inquired about the surface of the future expansion. Mr. Habiger stated that initially,the
27 surface would be grass.
28 Thomas noted that the City is going through the Village and choosing decorative lighting and
29 inquired if the applicants would be willing to consider some decorative lighting to soften the
30 appearance of the facility.
31 Mr. Habiger felt that it would be possible to tie in the facility's lighting with a master plan.
32 Bergstrom inquired if Mr. Thomas would be willing to coordinate some of the lighting
33 requirements with.the applicant.
34 Hanson suggested that Staff be directed to work with the applicant in tying in the lighting issue
�5 with the rest of the City's plan.
36 Stille noted that the applicants have enhanced the landscaping since the prior Concept Review,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 5
•
1 and inquired if the applicants could tie in the style and coloring with the renovation of Apache
2 Plaza.
3 Bergstrom noted that the final plans'for Apache have not been presented at this time; however,
4 Tillmann noted that much of the appearance of the proposed car wash facility seemed to tie in
5 with the Apache Plaza plans as noted to this date.
6 Thomas wondered if the Commission could incorporate into the permit application an upgrade to
7 the existing building. Additionally, he inquired if Mr. Habiger had met with the Silver Lake
8 Homeowners Association and Mr. Habiger responded that he spoke with Mr. Douglas Jones (a
9 member of the Homeowners Association) by telephone. Mr. Jones at that time did not see the
10 need to meet with the neighborhood as a whole.
11 Bergstrom introduced Douglas Jones, 2505 Silver Lane NE, and invited him to address the
12 Commission. Mr. Jones noted that the applicant's facility would be the fifth such facility in the
13 area. His concern is that the City and community should control the facilities that are added to
14 the community. However, Mr. Jones noted that Roger and Hadi Abou-Mourad are excellent
15 businessmen, and would work well with the community.
16 Additionally, Mr. Jones noted that the Planning Commission and City Council should at some
17 point consider the need for sidewalks in the area. He believed it would be appropriate to set
08 aside land for a sidewalk use so that signage and curb.cuts are allowed for in the area. He
19 continued by stating that there is two-lane traffic on the street close by, and that there are not any
20 sidewalks.
21 Mr. Jones clarified that he would like to see sidewalks on the East Side of Stinson.
22 Jim Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, spoke to the Commission and stated that he would
23 like to see the Planning Commission require certain green space in all future projects.
24 Mr. Jones noted that Mr. Higgins made an excellent point and stated that it might be a good idea
25 to drain the impervious area in the applicant's facility into a grassy area because the storm sewer
26 that runs along that area goes directly into Silver Lake.
27 Chair Bergstrom requested additional input from the audience, and hearing none, closed the
28 public hearing at 7:57 p.m. and requested comments from the Commissioners.
29 Tillmann noted that she was concerned about the hours of operation of the proposed facility.
30 Additionally, she approved of the idea of sidewalks in the area. _
31 Thomas noted that he agreed with the sidewalk suggestion and that the existing property be
32 upgraded and that some type of decorative lighting be incorporated into the facility. Thomas
33 believed that the attractiveness of the area needed to be improved.
034 Stille noted that because the facility s enclosed, he believed there were certain requirements the
ty q
35 facility would need to meet with regard to water issues. Additionally, Stille agreed with .
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 6
•
1 Tillmann that sidewalks need to be implemented. Bergstrom responded that sidewalks have
2 typically been installed during major street reconstruction. Stille noted for the audience's
3 benefit, that the City has applied to the Metropolitan Council.for a grant which would assist the
4 City in being more envisionary,with regard to the site around Apache Plaza.
5 Hanson expressed concern about the hours of operation of the facility.
6 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Tillmann, that the Planning Commission recommend approval
7 of the Conditional Use Permit for Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad for the property located at 3813
8 Stinson Boulevard NE for the following reasons and with the following conditions:
9 Reasons
10 1. The proposed use is listed as one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the zoning
11 district in which it is to be located;
12 2. The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
13 welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or
14 improvements in the vicinity;
15 3. The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to provide a
0 1 service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to
7 the general welfare of the neighborhood or community.
18 Conditions
19 1. The hours of operation may be from 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m., but subject to change if
20 noise issues arise from either residents or other occupants in the area;
21 2. The applicant must consult with City Staff regarding compatible decorative lighting,
22 once that pattern is established, and then arrive at a proposal that would be approved by
23 the Public Works Director;
24 3. The applicant must consult with the Public Works Director to design appropriate
25 infiltration of the stormwater on the site;
26 4. That the applicant repair or refurbish the front of the existing building in concert with the
27 design presented at the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting;
28 5. That the applicant replace the dumpster enclosure to the existing building as the current
29 structure is in disrepair; _
30 6. That the design construction is compatible with the design drawings submitted with the
31 packet dated 6/29/00 as presented in the Commission's agenda package.
02 Voting on the Motion:Bergstrom, Tillmann,Hanson, Thomas, Melsha, and Stille voted aye.
33 Hatch voted nay.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 7
1 The motion carried.
2 Bergstrom noted that this issue would.be before the.City Council at the July 25, 2000 meeting
3 and he encouraged the applicants to be present at that meeting.
4 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
5 None.
6 VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS and/or CONCEPT REVIEWS.
7 1. Concept Review. Murphy's Service Center, 3501 29th Avenue.
8 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported
9 that the applicant, Richard C. Graff, is seeking to replace the business sign at his Conoco gas
10 station located at 3501 29th Avenue NE. The gas station is a commercial business located in an
11 L1 zoning district. The proposed sign exceeds allowable dimensions for L1 zoning. However, it
12 is within the allowable dimensions had his land been zoned C1. The land has been used for a gas
13 station since 1958. Mr. Graff has owned the business since 1973. Therefore,the use is
14 "grandfathered." Staff has discussed this matter with City Attorney William Soth and it was
15 decided that the conditions supporting a variance existed.
16 Bergstrom introduced Mr. Richard Graff and invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Graff
17 reviewed for the Commission the background of his request, and then reviewed the details of the
08 proposed sign.
19 Mr. Graff felt that the current requirements for signage should not apply because his business
20 was grandfathered in many years ago. Mr. Graff reviewed for the Commission that on Memorial
21 Day Weekend, it was noticed that the price sign was bent and split. The St. Anthony Police were
22 called and it was determined that the corner of the sign had been hit by a truck sometime after
23 closing. Mr. Graff noted that the sign cannot be repaired, and that Conoco has several sign
24 designs to go with the new image program. Mr. Graff was present at the Commission's meeting
25 to request a variance for installation of a new sign. The new sign would be installed in the same
26 location and would not be detrimental to other businesses in the surrounding area.
27 Mr. Graff directed the Commission's attention to photographs in the agenda packets which
28 depicted the current sign.
29 Thomas inquired of Mr. Graff if he had any other options with regard to potential signs that
30 Conoco offers. He mentioned this in light of the fact that Mr. Graff s station is so visible within
31 the community. Mr. Graff responded that a certain type of sign is needed for his business, and
32 noted that the proposed sign is an attractive.sign and would be appropriate for his type of
33 business.
34 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Graff for presenting the Concept Review and he suggested that
35 Mr. Graff work with Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom in going forward with this request.
•36 2. Presentation. WSB & Associates Will Present a Selection of Decorative Lighting for
37 29th Avenue.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 8
•
1 Chair Bergstrom introduced Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, and invited him to address the
2 Commission.
3 Mr. Hubmer reviewed for the Commission that the City Council'has approved the installation of
4 decorative street lighting on 29th Avenue. The decision for which type of lighting to be installed
5 has been referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. Therefore,Mr. Hubmer stated
6 that a representative from NSP Outdoor Lighting would be making a presentation to the
7 Commission and would discuss alternatives available for the installation of street lighting. In
8 addition, the City has advertised to the public that this issue would be discussed at the Planning
9 Commission meeting in order to obtain public input and comments from those residents that may
10 be affected by the street lighting.
11 Mr. Hubmer stated that it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will recommend a street
12 lighting style to the City Council for consideration at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting.
13 However, if additional time for consideration is needed, then the issue would be presented at the
14 City Council meeting on August 22, 2000.
.15 Mr. Hubmer continued by presenting a sketch of the proposed area for decorative lighting.
16 Additionally, he directed the Commission's attention to letters dated July 10 and 11, 2000 signed
17 by Mr. Hubmer, which reviewed the background of the issue as well as a time frame for
18 ' consideration.
•19 Mr. Hubmer introduced John Hygrell,NSP Outdoor Lighting, and stated that such department is
20 fairly new for NSP (since the last 7 years). Mr. Hygrell reviewed the options that NSP Outdoor
21 Lighting provides to cities in relation to certain light levels and decorative lighting. Colored
22 photographs were presented to the Commission which depicted various types of outdoor
23 decorative lighting.
24 Questions were fielded to Mr. Hygrell from the Commissioners regarding the best option for
25 lighting in connection with the existing lighting and lighting levels needed in the particular area.
26 Mr. Chris Padush, 3227 Edward, spoke to the Commission and wished to note that none of the
27 pictures presented at the meeting depicted any overhead wiring. However, as soon as overhead
28 wiring is instituted, the appearance of the decorative lighting is significantly decreased. Mr..
29 Padush noted that he would suggest that the Commission bury the utilities to improve the
30 appearance of the lighting.
31 James Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, spoke to the Commission regarding the lighting
32 issue. He was concerned that only one person would be choosing the appropriate pedestrian
33 lighting. However,he stated that he was impressed with the aesthetics that NSP Outdoor
34 Lighting had presented at the meeting. Mr. Higgins would like to have citizen input regarding
35 the final outcome of the proposed street lighting.
�
6 Mr. Hubmer clarified that the meeting was published to approximately 200 residents asking for
37 public input regarding choosing appropriate street lighting and he had anticipated a larger
38 turnout of residents for the meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 9
•
1 Mr. Higgins continued by stating that he hoped that the residents could have input to the decision
2 of decorative lighting. Melsha noted that the way for residents to get involved with the decision
3 . is to,attend the meetings and to speak to the Commission to provide input and opinions.
4 Thomas mentioned that soon there will be a citywide neighborhood get together, and that such
5 night out could bean excellent time to promote discussions regarding the street lighting.
6 Hanson inquired if the Commission had a deadline for a final decision on the design. Mr.
7 Hubmer responded that a final decision would be optimal for presentation to the City Council at
8 the August 22, 2000 meeting.
9 Hatch mentioned a possibility of putting up a display at the VillageFest celebration to provide
10 for public information and input.
11 Tillmann mentioned that the Parks Commission was planning on putting up a display for the
12 current proposed plans of the redevelopment of Central Park. She mentioned the possibility of
13 .putting the lighting display close to the Parks Commission's display.
14 Mr. Hubmer suggested a consensus on the type or style of the lighting and to continue from that
15 point. However, he wanted to caution the Commission about providing for too much light in the
16 residential areas. He has noted concerns from residents regarding lights close to the house and
07 providing for disruption in the residential areas.
18 Mr. Jim McNeely, 2921 33rd Avenue, stated that he was disappointed that the notice that was
19 mailed to the residents invited the residents to attend the meeting at 7:00 p.m., and noted that the
20 lighting issue was placed nearly last on the agenda. Additionally, Mr. McNeely noted that there
21 was not adequate seating for the residents that did attend because of high attendance for another
22 issue at the meeting. He stated that if the Commission wished to encourage attendance for input,
23 that the item be placed closer to the beginning of the meeting as well as provide for appropriate
24 seating.
25 Mr. Hubmer clarified that all the residents on MSA state-aid roads were invited to the meeting to
26 provide input, and he noted his appreciation of the input the Commission has received from the
27 residents in attendance. 'His hope was that the lighting chosen for 29th Avenue would be
28 incorporated into the plan for the rest of the'City. Mr. Hubmer stated that this was the beginning
29 phase of considering options for the City and noted that this was an open format to express input.
30 Mr. Hubmer noted that it would appear an extra meeting would be in order to address this issue.
31 Some residents from the audience noted that lower-level lighting was the preferred choice.
32 One resident inquired about the deadline of August 22, 2000 and how the Commission was
33 planning on obtaining input that the lighting chosen would be the lighting of choice for the entire
�4 community. Bergstrom responded that a possible mailing would be in order announcing a public
35 meeting about street lighting.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes :
July 18, 2000
• Page 10
1 The issue of burying the utility lines was discussed, and Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom
2 noted that he was not aware.of any provision in the City's Code that mentioned any requirements
3 of burying the cables. He would look into the issue and determine if there was such a mention in
4 the City Code.
5 Bergstrom reviewed that the consensus appears that there needs to be more meetings or
6 additional information. Mr. Hubmer noted that a public information hearing should be held, a
7 notice would be sent to residents, and that a representative from WSB,NSP Outdoor Lighting,
8 and some representatives from the Commission would be present. A display board would be
9 available to present the possible options for lighting.
10 Bergstrom asked Staff to submit an article to the Bulletin newspaper announcing the meeting.
11 The next date would be app_roximately July 19, 2000 for the Bulletin.
12
13 Tillmann noted that the format for the public information meeting needed to be planned
14 appropriately. Thomas offered to work with Staff on coordinating the meeting, as well as with
15 WSB & Associates.
16 Mr. Hubmer suggested the public information hearing be held on Wednesday, August 9. Then,
�7 the results of that meeting will be discussed at the August 15, 2000 Planning Commission_
8 meeting and then referred to the City Council at the August 22, 2000 meeting. The consensus
19 was to have the public information hearing on Wednesday,August 9, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
20 Thomas mentioned that he believed it would be a good idea to review the City's codes and
21 consider changing the Code to require underground burying of cables. Bergstrom agreed that it
22 was an excellent suggestion.
23 VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS.
24 1. 2000 Local Water Resources Management Plan Grant Applicati6n.
25 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that there was information provided in the
26 Commission's agenda packets regarding this subject. Mr. Todd Hubmer, WSB,noted that the
27 City did not apply for funds from the Met Council 2000 Local Water Resource Management
28 Grant money. The focus of these funds was for the.drafting of ordinances, wetland functions and
29 value assessments, and lake assessment projects.
30 The City might wish to apply for a grant for erosion and sedimentation control associated with
31 construction sites, and the grant would be available again in 2001. Currently, it had been
32 determined that the grant was not necessary for 2000.
33 2. Report from a Representative of the City's Consulting Engineer(WSB) Regarding
34 Stormwater Issues for 37th Avenue Area/Street Reconstruction Program Update.
45 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that there had been some discussion from residents
6 surrounding Mr. Sperry's prior application for a variance to construct a new home. A citizen had
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
• Page 11
1 inquired about the plan for all stormwater runoff, and in this respect, Isom invited Todd Hubmer,
2 WSB & Associates,to address the Commission.
3 Mr. Hubmer directed the Commission's attention to a letter and attachment dated July 10, 2000
4 which addressed the issue of street reconstruction and provided an update to the program.
5 Bergstrom confirmed that the City has been on record as supplying 100-year flood protection to
6 the residents.
7 Bergstrom requested that Commissioner Hatch be the representative to the City Council meeting
8 on July 25, 2000.
9 Bergstrom also reviewed that a special meeting would be held on August 1, 2000.
10 IX. COMMISSION INPUT.
11 1. Commissioners Comments.
12 Stille inquired about the Livable Communities Grant. In that respect, Assistant City Manager
13 Isom distributed some.follow-up information regarding the grant. Isom requested that a
�4 volunteer attend an upcoming meeting with City's Consultant, John Shardlow, regarding this .
5 issue. The meeting is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 20, 2000. Thomas
16 volunteered to attend the meeting.
17 Hatch thanked Isom for following through on the issue of stormwater runoff.
18 Melsha noted that there was a provision on the enforcement of sign ordinances and he stated that
19 it might be a good idea to consider such in the future.
20 Tillmann noted that one of the residents had been told that, with regard to the street
21 reconstruction,that they would be able to get in and out of their driveways and that has not been
22 possible. She felt it was important that the promises be kept to the residents.
23 Tillmann noted the prior mention regarding green space requirements. She understood that
24 Minneapolis has instituted some green space requirements and she suggested possibly
25 considering the same for St. Anthony.
26 Tillmann mentioned that it would be an excellent idea to have a book of conditional use permits.
27 Such book-- as indexed--would assist with issuing new permits, and enforcing current ones. .
28 Bergstrom inquired if the Planning Commission had been invited to be in the parade. Assistant
29 City Manager Isom noted that he had not been involved in the planning of the VillageFest.
00 City Council member Dick Horst(from the audience)mentioned that the City Council is
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
0 Page 12
1 expecting to participate in the parade and he would encourage the Planning Commission to
2 participate. Tillmann volunteered.to.coordinate the effort for the Planning Commission as Chair
3 Bergstrom would be out of town for that week.
4 Bergstrom noted that he was not comfortable with the process of the street lighting decisions,
5 such as holding a public hearing at the Commission's regular meeting to obtain input.
6 Hatch inquired if the Commission had decided to discuss types of restrictions for
7 telecommunications towers or declaring a moratorium. Bergstrom stated he remembered that
.8 Isom would research the issue. Isom responded that he is currently researching the issue and
9 would report back to the Commission as soon as the research was completed.
10 Horst announced that the_City,Council appreciates all of the excellent work that the Planning
11 Commission had accomplished.
12 X. ADJOURNMENT.
13 Motion by Hanson, second by Stille, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
106 Respectfully submitted,
17 Sue Selseth
18 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
•1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
3 AUGUST 1, 2000
4 7:00 PM
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.
7 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
8 Chair Bergstrom invited the Commission and audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
9 ROLL CALL.
10 Present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas, Melsha, Hatch,
11 and Stille.
12 Absent: None.
13 Also present: Spencer A. Isom, Assistant City Manager.
14 APPROVE AUGUST 1, 2000 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
15 Motion by Bergstrom, seconded by Melsha to approve the August 1, 2000 Special Planning
16 Commission meeting agenda with the following changes:
17 Add: PUBLIC INPUT
18 Chair Bergstrom asked if there was any public input before opening the Public Hearing. There
19 was none.
20 Under IX. COMMISSION INPUT, the date of the next Council meeting is August 22, 2000.
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING
23 ITEM:
24 I. Public.Hearings.
25 A. Hillcrest Development's preliminary and final development plan for the Apache
26 Plaza area that includes a rezoning from "C" district to a Planned Unit
27 Development (PUD).
28 Chair Bergstrom briefly explained the background of the request and that there had
29 been many meetings with the developers, City staff, attorneys and consultants for both
30 the developer and City regarding this issue. He said that reviewing the entire packet
31 was not required. At the Planning Commission's June 20 meeting the rezoning and
2 development plan were reviewed and Commissioners recommended approval to the
3 City Council. The City Council, at their June 27 regular meeting referred the project
Page 2
1 back to the Commission requesting more definition and commitment.from the
2 developers.
3 Assistant City Manager Isom explained that Exhibit A had been excluded from the
4 preliminary and final plans but had been distributed to Commissioners and the public
5 for tonight's meeting. He indicated that John Shardlow, DSU, consultant for Hillcrest
6 Development and William Soth, City Attorney would speak.
7 Mr. Shardlow presented the narrative in Exhibit A. He assured that there has been no
8 misrepresentation by Mr. Tankenoff of Hillcrest Development, but Exhibit A was
9 . merely a narrative of the lists that had been previously submitted for the project, giving
10 more definition of their plans.
11 The narrative (Exhibit A) begins by stating that the uses and activities conducted on the
12 subject property (to be called Silver Lake Centre) shall be the high tech office campus
13 setting including the baseline projects identified in the PUD narrative and that
14 flexibility is integral to the project. As Mr. Shardlow read Exhibit A, he suggested a
15 typo change under "Permitted Uses", the entire paragraph should be stricken under that
16 item and placed at the end of the narrative, with the exception of the last sentence
07 which should be kept under permitted uses and reads: "Only storage as allowed
18 pursuant to the existing Zoning Ordinance in a commercial district will be allowed.".
19 Mr. Shardlow continued with permitted uses as follows:
20 (i) administrative and executive offices for personnel engaged in general
21 administrative, supervisory, purchasing, accounting and other functions related
22 to general office, high technology office, printing and medical businesses;
23 (ii) research, training, synthesis, and analysis facilities and testing laboratories;
24 (iii) restaurants; and
25 (iv) retail and banking.facilities intended to support primarily the tenants and
26 customers within this development.
27 In addition, Mr. Shardlow explained the last paragraph under "Permitted Uses" should
28 be deleted and placed at the end of the narrative.
29 Because lease up is not expected immediately, Exhibit A listed "Accessory Uses" for
30 the property: warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, fabrication, light manufacturing,
31 assembly, processing and similar uses that are incident,,or support to the permitted uses
�2 listed above.
• Page 3
1 "Fallback Uses" was renamed "Interim Uses" in Exhibit A. These include
2 warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, fabrication, light manufacturing, assembly,
3 processing and similar uses that are not incident or accessory to the permitted uses
4 described above and that they shall be allowed as interim uses for ten years-after the
5 date of adoption of the ordinance. Exhibit A also adds under "Interim Uses" is the
6 following: "If any of these uses remain after this period, and the Applicant has
7 completed all of its obligations regarding all landscaping, exterior improvements,
8 drainage improvements and signage as required under the "Minimum Plan" as set out
9 in the PUD narrative, these uses shall become permitted uses within the Silver Lake
10 Centre development.".
11 Shardlow referred to Exhibit O but indicated Exhibits I, J, and K are more indicative of
12 Hillcrest's intentions for the building.
. 13 Shardlow continued to read Exhibit A with the following: "None of these businesses'or
14 activities will cause exterior image or character of the Centre to be downgraded, or
15 have any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The Centre will include all
16 necessary loading areas and mechanical equipment as regulated by the PUD.". In
17 conclusion, Exhibit A states that the existing Herbergers store may stay for a period of
18 8 years.
•19 When asked about differences in the "Preferred Plan" and the "Interim "
e un Plan as it
20 relates to Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Mr. Shardlow responded that Hillcrest was
21 presented an incentive to reach a value for the project, and the higher the value of the
22 property, the higher TIF they will receive. If they reach the "Preferred Plan" they will
23 receive all of the TIF. He reminded the Commissioners and audience that Hillcrest will
24 spend $6 million of their own money toward the concept plan, but of course, cannot
25 guaranty a definitive set of improvements.
26 Commissioner Tillmann asked Mr. Shardlow if existing businesses can remain and if
27 they will be under the new or old uses. Shardlow stated that the process would be
28 reviewed and that Hillcrest needs other uses than permitted uses, as outlined in Exhibit
29 A and the PUD in the event leasing does not reach its anticipated high.
30 Commissioner Thomas wondered if Hillcrest could use TIF if they use the Interim
31 Uses. Shardlow indicated TIF is driven by the value created by marketing the
32 property. Thomas then asked if Exhibit A meant that no Interim Uses would be used
33 for 10 years. Shardlow responded that if Hillcrest is not successful in leasing all of the
34 properties, then that is when the Interim Uses would begin.
35 Commissioner Melsha wondered who came up with the 10 years and Shardlow
X36 indicated he did. He again emphasized that Hillcrest is obligated to do the
7 improvements to the property, as stated in the PUD.
• -- Page 4
1 Commissioner Hatch expressed his concern regarding noise and the exterior of the
2 building. Hatch wondered how the City will enforce these issues. Shardlow referred to
3. Exhibit A which spells out that this project will have hi tech uses.and that the uses
4 inside will not downgrade the aesthetics..
5 Commissioner Hanson asked if Exhibit A replaces Shardlow's previous list and
6 Shardlow indicated he wanted to do a narrative rather than the list because he felt the
7 narrative better clarified Hillcrest's expectations and goals for the property.
8 Commissioner Stille inquired about occupancy and what would be the actual marketing
9 time. Shardlow said they are marketing from this point forward.
10 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Shardlow and asked City Attorney Soth to speak.
.11 Mr. Soth noted that a Development Commission which is comprised of City
12 Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners cannot review the project as it is
13 completed. Staff can only make sure the project complies with the conditions agreed
14 upon.
15 Mr. Soth further clarified the.TIF incentive for Hillcrest. If Hillcrest only does the
�6 minimal improvements, they will see little or no TIF. If the Preferred Plan is reached,
17 Hillcrest will receive TIF accordingly. He stated that if Hillcrest does not perform,
18 they do not receive any TIF.
19 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Soth and asked Anthony Gleekel, a Hillcrest consultant,
20 to speak.
21 Mr. Gleekel indicated he is the primary author of the July 25 Development Plan.
22 Gleekel spoke of Hillcrest's need for flexibility and use of the Interim Uses. He said the
23 new plan is the same as the first plan except the new plan clarifies the landscaping,
24 drainage, signage, traffic and parking issues.
25 Mr. Gleekel responded to an inquiry about baseline comparisons by saying that the
26 Council and others toured other Hillcrest projects similar to Apache and that Hillcrest's
27 projects are highly thought of. He stated a baseline comparison of the internal plan
28 depends on the tenants and that the preferred plan is usually defined by tenants.
29 Mr. Gleekel referred to Exhibit O as the minimum plan and-Exhibits I-K show more
30 building detail. He said there is more detail in this plan than in the first. He indicated
31 the signage somewhat depends on Herbergers and the lighting has not been revised.
32 They are still unsure of what part Herbergers will play in the project. For example, if
�3 Herbergers stays as an Interim Use, they may need additional retail. He concluded by
• Page 5
1 saying that Exhibit A defines where they want to be and that the PUD will incorporate
2 everything.
3 Chair Berg questioned the ten year timetable. Gleekel stated that Hillcrest needs that
4 flexibility and were comfortable with it, but typical leases are usually for 7 years.
5 Commissioner Tillmann asked Mr. Gleekel to address traffic issues. Gleekel explained
6 if retail is eliminated and the preferred hi tech use is successful, improvements would
7 need to be made to the infrastructure. He indicated this issue had been studied and it
8 was determined that even if these proposed uses would generate traffic, it would be less
9 than if the property was entirely retail. Tillmann said her main area of concern is the
10 amount of traffic that would be passing by Wilshire Elementary School. Bergman
11 interjected that the report clearly indicates there should not be a substantial increase in
12 traffic on any of the thoroughfares.
13 Commissioner Thomas indicated the City is applying for a Planning Grant from the
14 Metropolitan Council through their Livable Communities Program. However, the City
15 will not know of its status until December, 2000. He wanted to know if Hillcrest is
16 willing to wait for development of the New Market site. Gleekel said Hillcrest is aware
17 . that.they need to return to the Council for that site.
08 Commissioner Stille referred to Exhibit , the lighting parking plan. Gleekel said
Q g g and P gP
19 the lighting standards have not yet been developed by Hillcrest but assured that lighting
20 will be consistent with the City's plans.
21 Chair Bergstrom listed the three issues which will require Hillcrest to return to the
22 City:
23 1) Signage plan (Mr. Isom indicated the City has a building inspector for this issue
24 and issue #2 below as well).
25 2) Lighting plan.
26 3. Redevelopment of the New Market site.
27 Bergstrom noted that the City is in the process of studying lighting issues on MSA
28 streets within the City and that the Plan should tie in aesthetically with those lighting
29 plans.
30 Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development, stated the community space (about 7,000
31 square feet) concept is still in the Plan, but it is unclear how it would best represent the
32 community, i.e., restaurant, meeting rooms, etc. They, therefore, decided to wait to
33 specify any uses for the community space.
Page 6
1 Chair Bergstrom asked Mr. Gleekel about the signage. Mr. Gleekel responded that
2 certain clients have different expectations on signs and that Hillcrest wants minimum
3 signage. Gleekel also assured Thomas.that the Preferred Plan was made available to
4 the public.
5 Mr. Tankenoff reasserted that Hillcrest not does want to mislead or disappoint the
6 public. He wants the public to know the worst case scenario as well as the Preferred
7 Plan and be up front about all aspects of the project. He feels that Hillcrest and
8 everyone concerned must be clear on what happens if the plan does not work. He feels
9 that Apache is in its present state because this was not done in the past.
10 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Gleekel and Mr. Takenoff. Bergstrom then asked for
.11 public input and that it be limited to 5 minutes for each person.
. 12 Allen Otte, 3508 Skycroft, indicated he has read the plan and toured Hillcrest's other
13 facilities. He feels Hillcrest has done a good job with its other properties. However,
14 as a trained engineer, he indicated the project needs a firmer plan. He compared this
15 project to the one Hillcrest did on Stinson and he would not like to see something done
16 like that project. He said the Preferred Plan is fine, but the Interim Plan is unclear. He
17 predicted this project would fold in 6 months if issues are not made more definite. He .
t8 felt the Planning Commission should table the Plan and until the City knows the status
19 of the Met Council's grant.
20 Perry Thorvig, 3112 Townview, indicated he has been a City Planner for 32 years and
21 has worked on other Hillcrest properties and that they are very good. He does not want
22 Exhibit O at all, but Exhibits I, J, and K are fine. He wants the Plan to be much more
23 detailed.
24 Raymond Haik, 2901 Silver Lake Terrace, stated he has been an attorney for many
25 years and is very concerned and apprehensive about the TIF for this project. He
26 mentioned the $300,000 up front cash payment the City will be required to make; the 9-
27 1/2% TIF note which runs for 18 years. His other concerns related to the Plan which
28 he feels is unclear and the timetable from start to end. He stressed this is not a public
29 improvement and feels the City is in a rush. He added that the TIF should contain a
30 cap. He reiterated that the City has no certainty of what it is getting. He feels the City
31 is getting nothing for this project. He quoted a document by the City Finance Director
32 which said it will be tight getting the $300,000 up front cash and this project should be
33 deferred. Mr. Haik emphasized that flexibility is uncertainty in this case. Mr. Haik put
34 forth many questions about the funding for this project and that the Planning
35 Commission should inform the Council about the risk_. He indicated this issue is US
36 Bank's problem and that it ought to be tabled.
•
• Page 7
1 Doug Jones, 2505 Silver Lane, voiced his concerns about storm water runoff. He
2 stated he could see no dollar amount in either plan conerning this issue. He opined that
3 Silver Lake looks extremely murky due to run off from places like Apache. He feels the
4 City should help with this problem and that one way would be to condemn certain
5 properties for ponding, etc.
6 Gerald Evans, 2916 Silver Lake Court, is in full agreement with Mr. Haik that the
7 Planning Commission should take a strong look at spending this kind of money.
8 Jim McNulty, 2921-33rd Avenue NE, also concurs with Raymond Haik and is worried
.9 that with the present staff, the City will have problems in the future.
10 Jim Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, has been waiting 16 plus years for
11 something to happen at Apache. He had many questions about uses, tax base, and
12 neighbors. He, too, is conerned with TIF and does not want taxes to increase if the
13 project fails. Mr. Higgins said the Plan should be "cast in stone" beforehand and wants
14 the Planning Commission to table the project. The Planning Commission, he added, has
15 never been given the flexibility to plan.
16 Chair Bergstrom asked if the Hillcrest representatives would respond to the comments.
•17 Scott Tankenoff responded to Mr. Otte's concerns by stating that comparing the Stinson
18 project with the Apache project is not an appropriate comparison. He explained that
19 they have done several post-war buildings and Hillcrest has been in business for many
20 years. He added that building components are only as good as the people who put them
21 in - Hillcrest buildings last. Mr. Tankenoff offered that Hillcrest's consultants are
22 available to discuss the Apache project with residents.
23 Referring to the Met Council Livable Communities grant application, Mr. Takenoff
24 stated that that program is not tied in with Apache directly and therefore, Hillcrest has
25 not been waiting for more information on the grant.
26 Chair Bergstrom asked Mr. Soth to respond.to the audience comments concerning TIF
27 for this project. Bergstrom pointed out that that issue was not in the Planning
28 Commission's realm, but the Council's, and that the Planning Commission is only
29 considering the preliminary and final plans and rezoning request at this meeting.
30 Mr. Soth explained that Jerry Gilligan of Dorsey & Whitney, is handling the TIF for
31 this project, so he (Mr. Soth) is not familiar with the specifics. He noted that everybody
32 needs to know that the City is not just handing $4 million in TIF money to the
33 developer. He also commented that statutory requirements state that the Planning
�4 Commission is to consider the Plan and rezoning for this type of project.
. • Page 8
1 Mr. Soth said the Plan is definitive and that the developer is committed to the minimum
2 plan but there is no guaranty on the Preferred Plan. Soth responded to Commissioner
3 Hatch's question on the worst case financial scenario, with a question of his own - if
4 this project does not go forward, what does that mean for the future of the Apache
5 area? Mr. Soth said he was involved with Minneapolis' Block E redevelopment and that
6 project had many of the same issues. As it was with that project, part of the answer is
7 "Is there another project around the corner?".
8 Commissioner Melsha asked about the Preliminary/Final Plan and the PUD. Mr. Soth
9 told him that the Preliminary/Final Plan is what the developer is going to do with the
10 property and the PUD puts it in contract form.
11 Mr. Haik interjected that Apache presently pays $150,000 a year in taxes and stated
12 that the City can do everything with US Bank that it can do with Hillcrest.
13 Commissioner Thomas asked that should Hillcrest begin to use Interim Uses, if that is
14 the time when the developer loses TIF. Mr. Shardlow responded that Interim Uses are
15 not their objective, but the Uses in the Preferred Plan are what they are aiming for. He
16 stated that interim uses are temporary use of the property and it comes down to a
17 judgement call by the City. Hillcrest is committing and defining.
18 Commissioner Hanson asked if the proposed Plan is more restrictive than the current
19 Plan in use. Mr. Shardlow explained that the proposed Plan is more restrictive to retail
20 and less so to light industrial.
21 An in depth discussion about TIF ensued. Mr. Haik and Commissioner Hanson
22 commented on TIF. Mr. Rob_ert Strachota, Shenehon Company, is the TIF consultant
23 for the developer, explained that the value of the property needs to increase to $10
24 million for the Interim Plan and $20 million for the Preferred Plan; currently the
25 property is valued at $5 million. That value is frozen. The worst case scenario would
26 be that the City would receive the same tax money for the next 3 years as it is now
27 receiving. The $20 million value must be reached before the developer can receive all
28 the TIF money. The $300,000 is the City's reimbursement (contribution) to the
29 developer for the $1 million the developer is'spending for storm water improvements.
30 Mr. Jones indicated Mr. Haik has said the City is giving 50% of the money for this
31 project. Jones wanted to know if this percentage is common. Mr. Tankenoff responded
32 that Hillcrest is making a substantial investment and again offered his consultants to
33 residents with questions about the project.
34 Commissioner Hanson wanted his assumption clarified that in this TIF district, as the
5 value of the property increases, the City.would get an increase in tax revenues and a
6 percentage of that would go back to the developer.
0 Page 9
1 Mr. Strachota explained that the City's financial consultant, Springsted, Inc. designed
2 the TIF district to provide an incentive to the developer when the highest Plan is
3 achieved. He also assured Mr. Hanson that there is no bond. In response to Hanson's
4 query, Mr. Strachota said that,once the developer hits $4 million, the City will receive
5 the overages.
6 Mr. Haik handed out to the Commissioners a copy of the St. Anthony HRA Limited
7 Revenue Taxable Tax Increment Note for their perusal and said he wanted it to be
8 included in the record.
.9 Chair Bergstrom gave a 10 minute recess of the meeting at 9:20 PM.
10 The meeting reconvened at 9:30 PM.
11 Chair Bergstrom reminded the Commissioners that they are to be considering rezoning
12 and the Preliminary and Final Plans and cannot make recommendations relating to TIF,
13 whereupon he closed the public hearing at 9:30 PM.
14 When Hatch inquired about the timetable of the Plan, Bergstrom said those issues will
15 be clarified in the PUD agreement. He noted that the Council referred to the Planning
�6 Commission uses-and facility.aesthetics.
17 Commissioner Stille commented that the site has sat in poor condition for a very long
18 time and he supports rezoning the property. He feels there are some issues that he
19 would like to see changed, but is comfortable with the Plan at this poirit. Bergstrom
20 commented that the City has an option to go forward or back to square one.
21 Commissioner Melsha agreed with Commissioner Stille.
22 Commissioner Thomas felt a better job could have been done concerning public input
23 and noted that all of the residents in the audience were against the project. He explained
24 that he feels the City should.wait for the Met Council plan grant to study the northwest
25 quadrant of the City. He feels the City can accommodate Hillcrest. He is not
26 comfortable with the minimum standards but agrees that Hillcrest has economic
27 incentive to higher standards.
28 Commissioner Tillmann commented that flexibility is not a guaranty and that the City
29 must balance what we want with the realities of business.-She feels this is a realistic
30 procedure.
31 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Stille, to recommend approval to the City Council of
�2 the Preliminary and Final Plans that include a rezoning from a_Commercial to a
• Page 10
1 Planned Unit Development zoning district for the Apache Plaza property based on the
2 following:
3
4 • the July 27, 2000 Preliminary and Final Plans
5 • the August 1, 2000 Exhibit A, as modified by John Shardlow
6 • recognizing deferred approvals for the Comprehensive Sign Plan;
7 the Lighting Plan, which must be consistent with City plans; and the
8 redevelopment of the New Market site.
9 Further, the Planning Commission finds that:
10
11 • the proposed Plan is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan;
12 Apache Plaza is an underdeveloped commercial property and.has been in this
13 condition for several years during which time the City has seen no significant
14 interest in redevelopment from developers;
15 • Apache Plaza property represents the most significant underdeveloped asset in
16 the City's non-residential tax base;
recent adjacent development has failed to rekindle the commercial .
redevelopment of the Apache Plaza property;
19 the project developer, Hillcrest Development, has demonstrated a successful
20 history of similar redevelopment in nearby areas;
21 • there are no detrimental impacts to nearby properties;
22 • the proposed project will be of significance to the City through its planned
23 improvements to the building exterior, interior, landscaping, storm water quality
24 treatment, and through general revitalization of a long underused property; and
25 • the proposed project represents reasonable and viable high and low use of the
26 property and that City abandonment of the proposed plan at this time would
27 send a negative message to other potential developers.
28 A few additional questions and comments were made:
29
30 Hanson asked if we change zoning now, will that zoning be forever. Bergstrom
31 answered yes, unless the proposed project failed. At that point, the zoning would
32 return to what it is now. Hanson also wondered if residential for that site is ruled out.
Bergstrom responded it is ruled out for the Apache building itself. Stille said he is still
hopeful that the mixed uses would include residential.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
02 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
3 July 25, 2000
4 7:00 p.m.
5 Council Chambers
6 I. CALL TO ORDER.
7 Mayor Cavanaugh called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
8 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
9 Mayor Cavanaugh invited the Council and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
10
11 III. ROLL CALL.
12 Councilmembers present: Mayor Cavanaugh; Councilmembers Sparks, Thuesen, Horst and
13 Hodson
14 Councilmembers absent: - None
15 Also present: City Manager Michael Momson; Attorney Jerry Gilligan.
16 IV. APPROVAL OF JULY 25,2000 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA.
17 Motion by Hodson to approve the July 25, 2000 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda with the
18 additions mentioned below:
�9 IX. B. 5. 29th Avenue Street Lighting
0 6. Hardin g Street
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 V. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS.
23 A. Appreciation Plaque Will Be'Presented to Jim Wilke, Patriots Marching Band.
24 Due to the absence of Mr. Wilke, Mayor Cavanaugh postponed this item until later until the
25 meeting.
26 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM.
27 Mayor Cavanaugh asked for input from the audience for anyone wishing to address an issue that
28 was not on the usual agenda.
29 - Mr. Scott Tankenoff, Managing Partner of Hillcrest Development, wished to answer any
30 questions that the Council might have regarding the redevelopment of Apache Plaza.
31 Mayor Cavanaugh noted that the issue of Hillcrest Development/Apache Plaza would be
32 discussed later in the meeting as per the agenda and requested that Mr. Tankenoff address the
33 Council at that time.
34 VII. CONSENT AGENDA.
35 Thuesen requested that the Minutes from the City Council Meeting of July 11, 2000 be removed
�6 from the Consent Agenda.
37 Motion by Sparks to approve the Consent Agenda, which consisted of:
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
t Page 2
1 1. Licenses and Permits for Approval;
2 2. Four pages of Verified Claims.
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4 Motion by Horst to approve the July 11, 2000 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented.
5 Voting on the Motion: Cavanaugh, Horst, Hodson, Sparks voted aye.
6 Thuesen abstained due to absence at the meeting of July 11, 2000.
7 The Motion Carried.
8 VIII. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL.
9 A. Resolution 00-058 re: Support of Northwest Youth and Family Services.
. 10 Mayor Cavanaugh provided background information regarding the subject of Northwest Youth
11 and Family Services. Recently,the City was contacted by the Executive Director of Northwest
12 Youth and Family Services regarding funding for the Ramsey County Corrections Contract
13 which enables the program to provide diversion services to juvenile offenders from the
14 community. It was recently learned that the County Manager has proposed a 50%cut to the
15 funds in the 2001 budget.
06 Consequently,Northwest Youth and Family Services has requested that City Councils in the area
q Y� Y 4 tY
17 consider passing Resolution 00-058 in support of continued funding for the program mentioned
18 above.
19 Motion by Sparks to approve Resolution 00-058, a resolution regarding Ramsey County
20 Corrections Contract, wherein the City Council of the City of St. Anthony strongly encourages
21 the Ramsey County Manager and the Ramsey County Board to provide funding at the same level
22 in 2001 as in 2000, the Diversion Services provided through Northwest Youth and Family
23 Services.
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 B. Ordinance 2000-003 re:Amend Ordinance Relating to Lot Coverage and Building_to
26 Land Ratio'(3rd reading).
27 Motion by Hodson to approve the 3rd Reading of Ordinance 2000-003, an Ordinance Relating to
28 Lot Coverage and Building to Land Ratio, Amending Sections 1605 Subd. 44(a) and 1615.05,
29 Subd. 8 of the 1993 St. Anthony Code of Ordinances.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
•
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 3
1 C. Ordinance 2000-004 re: Juvenile Curfew(3rd reading).
2 Mayor Cavanaugh noted for the audience that the proposed Ordinance is simply a rewrite and .
3 update of.the City's existing curfew ordinance. The rewrite is being done in order.to bring.the
4 City's curfew ordinance into compliance with the Hennepin County Ordinance.
5
6 Motion by Thuesen to approve Ordinance 2000-004, an Ordinance Relating to Juvenile Curfew,
7 Amending Section 1105 of the 1993 St. Anthony Code of Ordinances.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 IX. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF.
10 A. Planning Commission Meeting- July 18, 2000.
11 Mayor Cavanaugh welcomed.Lorin Hatch from the Planning Commission. Mr. Hatch began by
12 mentioning that there were two issues to present to the Council at the meeting as set forth below.
13 1. Frontline Church for 2654 Kenzie Terrace; Zoning Ordinance Amendment(Resolution
14 00-059).
15 Mr. Hatch began by explaining that Frontline Church had_requested to City to consider
16 adding a Church as a conditional use permit. Mr. Hatch stated that after significant
G7 discussion and consideration by the Planning Commission, the Commission decided to
8 deny the request due to the findings of fact as presented in the July 18, 2000 Planning
19 Commission Meeting Minutes. Mr. Hatch noted that the vote was unanimous by the
20 Planning Commission to deny the request.
21 However, Bill Arrogoni, the spokesperson for Frontline Church,has requested that the
22 issue be postponed for presentation to the City Council until the Church has had an
23 opportunity to confer with counsel.
24 2. Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad for 3801 Stinson Boulevard, Conditional Use
25 Permit for a Car Wash at 3813 Stinson Boulevard(Resolution 00-060).
26 Mr. Hatch reviewed for the Council that Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad had submitted an
27 application to build a Fuel Mart Car Wash on their property at 3813 Stinson Boulevard
28 NE...According to City Code,:their proj ect requires a permit for conditional use. A
29 concept.review was held before the Commission on June 20, 2000. The applicants took
30 the Commission's comments into consideration and resubmitted a complete application
31 to Staff.
32 Mr. Hatch noted that the Planning Commission approved-the Conditional Use Permit for
33 Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad based on certain reasons and with certain conditions as
34 outlined in-the July 18,2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
•
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 4
1 Horst inquired about the specific objections of the residents and the details of the
. 2 proposed expansion of the facility.
3 Thuesen noted that there had been discussion at the Planning Commission meeting that
4 sidewalks were considered as part of the request. Mr. Hatch explained that sidewalks
5 were discussed; however, it was determined that the Planning Commission was not
6 comfortable imposing a sidewalk restriction on the applicants.
7 Sparks inquired if the City had the ability to deny a specific request due to the fact that
.8 there are several similar-type car washes in the area. Attorney Jerry Gilligan noted that
9 it would not be appropriate for the City to deny a legitimate request based on the fact that
10 there were other car washes in the area.
11 Cavanaugh noted for the applicants that the City is planning on installing sidewalks on
12 the east side of that area, and he would hope that at some point, the applicants would
13 consider installing sidewalks.
14 Hodson inquired about clarification about the recycling of the ground water. Consultant
15 Charles Habiger noted that the water would be recycled through the storm sewer and
6 subsequently through Pigs Eye.
17 Motion by Hodson to approve Resolution 00-060, a Resolution Relating to a Request for
18 a Conditional Use Permit for 3813 Stinson Boulevard, wherein the City Council (in
19 agreement with the findings of the Planning Commission at their July 18, 2000 Meeting),
20 hereby approves the request fora conditional use permit at 3813 Stinson Boulevard.
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 [return to item V. "Proclamations and Recognitions" on the agenda]
23 V. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS.
24 A. Appreciation Plaque will be Presented to Jim Wilke,Patriots Marching Band.
25 Mayor Cavanaugh introduced Mr. Jim Wilke and certain students and members of the
26 marching band.
27 Several students and members of the marching band approached the Council and
28 audience and announced their appreciation and support on behalf of the entire band for
29 Mr. Wilke's 31 years of service and presented Mr. Wilke with a special gift for his
30 dedication.
•
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
Page 5
1 Mayor Cavanaugh then presented to Mr. Wilke on behalf of the City a special Certificate
2 of Appreciation'for his dedication and support to the marching*band and for.his
3 outstanding community service.
4 [return to the regular agenda]
5 IX. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF.
6 B. Engineering Issues (Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, Will Be Present.
7 Mayor Cavanaugh introduced Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, and invited him to address the
.8 Council.
9 Mr. Hubmer explained that there were four items on the agenda to review, and an additional two
10 items that he would like to add to the agenda.
11 1. Sale of Homes on Pahl Avenue (Resolution 00-063).
12 Mr. Hubmer stated that bids were received for the Pahl Avenue Purchase and Removal of
13 Homes Project, and on July 17,2000, the bids were opened and read aloud. A total of
14 three bids were received, and of those three bids, WSB would recommend Otting House
15 Movers of Lakeville, MN, for a total amount of$11,200.00
06 Motion by Horst to approve Resolution 00-063, a Resolution Approving Sale of Homes
17 for Relocation, wherein the City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby approves the
18 sale and relocation of the structures located at 2700 and 2704 Pahl Avenue and awards
19 the sale of said properties to Otting House Movers in the amount of$11,200.00, which
20 bid is deemed to be in the best interests of the City.
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 2. House Demolition and Pahl Avenue Pond Construction(Resolution 00-064).
23 Motion by Horst to approve Resolution 00-064, a Resolution Approving Demolition of
24 Property and Awarding Bid for Demolition and Pond Construction, wherein the City
25 Council of the City of St. Avenue and awards the bid for said demolition and pond
. 26 construction to G.L. Contracting, Inc., at a cost of$67,882.00,which bid is deemed to be
27' in the best interests of the City.
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29 3. Flood Relief Grant Proms.
30 Mr. Hubmer noted that the City had received a total of four applications for participation
31 in the 2000 Flood Relief Grant Program. Each applicant was contacted either by phone
32 or in person to discuss the water problems they have experienced, and to determine their
3 eligibility for participation in the Flood Relief Grant Program.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 6
1 The primary source of watering entering the home for all applicants was found to be
2 through the foundation, floor, and walls. Upon review of the problem, it was
3 recommended that the applicant install basement drain tile systems and/or provide'for
4 positive drainage away from the walls and foundation of the home. These activities are
5 currently not funded by the Flood Proofing Grant Program, thus, all of the applications
6 received in 2000 have not met the qualifying criteria for participation in the program.
7 4. Silver Lake West Evaluation Report:
8 Mr. Hubmer directed the Council's attention to Page 82 of the agenda packets, which
9 depicted a letter dated July 20, 2000 from Mr. Hubmer and reviewed the issue of Silver
10 Lake. Mr. Hubmer reviewed the letter and noted that WSB & Associates has completed
11 a review of the Silver Lake West Evaluation Report dated May 11, 2000 and which
12 report was completed by the Ramsey County Public Works Lake Management Program
13 in cooperation with the Silver Lake West Homeowner's Association and the Rice Creek
14 Watershed District. The objectives of the study were to:
15 * Monitor the inflow to Silver Lake to determine nutrient and water loads
16 * Measure in-lake water quality during the growing season
17 * Evaluate lake management activities to improve water quality
8 - * Facilitate the prioritization and implementation of lake management activities
19 The Study showed that the water quality of Silver Lake West has improved between
20 1986-1999. While the water quality of the Lake has generally improved over the past 13
21 years,the water quality is still poor. The recommendations to improve the water quality
22 further include evaluating and implementing Best Management Practices in the
23 watershed, sweeping streets, public education programs,pond maintenance,evaluating
24 the use of lakescaping techniques along the shore, and continued monitoring.
25 Mr. Hubmer noted that the City has one of the best street sweeping programs in the area
26 which would attribute, in part;to the improved water quality of Silver Lake.
27 5. 29th Avenue Street Lighting.
28 Mr. Hubmer wished to briefly address the issue of the 29th Avenue Street Lighting. The
29 residents in that area met with the Planning Commission at the Commission's last
30 meeting. It was decided to hold a public forum on August 9, 2000 to obtain additional
31 input. Additionally,NSP Outdoor Lighting will give a presentation and bring posters and
32 displays of potential lighting. The residents will have a chance to review lighting and the
33 consensus will be brought to the Planning Commission,.and then presented to the City
34 Council.
35 Mr. Hubmer confirmed that the cables would be buried, and that there would not be
6 additional overhead utilities generated by the decorative lighting. Thuesen stated that
City Council Regular Meeting_ Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 7
1 the issue of burying the cables should be further discussed and further investigated
2 . because maintenance of overhead cables might be easier than underground.
3 6. Hardin S�? treet.
4 Mr. Hubmer noted that the appraisal process is proceeding regarding the Harding Street
5 issue. If the project is to proceed this fall, the schedule is running about 2-3 weeks
6 behind; however, if the project ends up moving to next fall,the current schedule of the
7 project is sufficient.
8 Cavanaugh thanked Mr. Hubmer for his input and attendance at the meeting.
9 X. PUBLIC BEARINGS.
10 Mayor Cavanaugh opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
11 A. Amendment to Tax Increment Financing District#3 - Ramsey Counly(Resolution 00-
12 061 .
13 City Manager Michael Morrison explained that the City would be considering the elimination of
14 certain parcels from the existing Apache Plaza tax increment financing district and the
15 establishment of a new tax increment financing district containing these parcels.
06 The new tax increment financing district is proposed to include the tax parcels which contain
17 Apache Plaza Shopping Center, and the adjacent property consisting of the site of the former
18 New Market Store and the Taco Bell. Since a portion of these parcels is presently included in a
19 tax increment financing district established by the HRA in 1992 it will be necessary to remove
20 these parcels from the existing tax increment financing district prior to including them in the new
21 tax increment financing district.
22 Attorney Jerry Gilligan recommended as a course of procedure to take public testimony, close
23 the public hearing, and then the Council should reconsider the proposed Resolution at a later
24 date in August 2000 in order to resolve some open issues.
. 25 In that respect, Mayor Cavanaugh invited input from the audience through the avenue of the
26 public hearing.
27 Mr. Bob Strakota, consultant for Hillcrest Development, approached the Council. Mr. Strakota
28 explained that the TIF assistance is needed because the property requires significant capital
29 improvements in order to get the property up to par so that remodeling can take place. The $4
30 million of assistance would go into the building structure, and the additional $1 million would go
31 towards correcting the watershed issue. Additionally, Mr. Strakota noted that there were issues
32 with Herbergers as well, and the TIF funds would be used to resolve that problem.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 8
1 Issues surrounding the Herbergers retail store were discussed and the opposition Hillcrest
2. Development has received with the Herbergers store and-how that opposition relates to the TIF
3 issue.
4 Cavanaugh expressed his opinion that the Herbergers issue must be resolved before all of the
5 issues of Apache Plaza are resolved due to the fact that the TIF funds are involved.
6 Cavanaugh thanked Mr. Tankenoff and Mr. Strakota for their input.
7 Raymond Haik, 2901 Silver Lake Court NE, noted that he was present at the meeting to express
8 a concern that he developed after reading the paper and watching previous Council meetings.
9 Mr. Haik stated that he was concerned that the City was embarking on a risky investment. -Mr.
10 Haik further stated that he believed that the City would need to obtain some certainty with the
11 expenditures and zoning in order to avoid the problems that have been experienced in the past
12 with the property known as Apache Plaza. Mr. Haik presented different opinions and options
13 with respect to the potential TIF funding of Apache Plaza.
14
15 Attorney Jerry Gilligan responded to many of Mr. Haik's concerns and clarified some of the
�6 issues that are before the Council.
17 Mayor Cavanaugh noted that he appreciated the comments and concerns that Mr. Haik had
18 expressed.
19 Mr. Gilligan noted that the issue at hand was to determine whether a TIF District would be
20 appropriate. Mr. Gilligan further noted that establishing the TIF District would not denote funds
21 at this point.
22 Mr. Tankenoff approached the Council and attempted to allay some of the concerns of Mr. Haik.
23 Mayor Cavanaugh invited additional input from the audience, and hearing none, closed the
24 public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
25 Motion by Horst to table Resolution 00-061 until August 22, 2000.
26 Motion carried unanimously.
•
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 9
1 B. Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Area#3 and on the Proposed Tax Increment
_ 2 FinancingPlan for Tax Increment Financing District#5 - Ramsey Codnly (Resolution 00-062). .
3
4 Motion by Horst to table Resolution 00-062 until August 22, 2000.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 X. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBERS.
7 City Manager Michael Morrison has noted that the City would be applying for a major grant
8 from the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission to assist with the Central Park Redevelopment
9 project.
10
11 Mornson further reported that SEH has submitted the 33rd Avenue award for MnDOT to the
12 State Department of Transportation.
13 Mornson reported that the City Manager and Mayor would be meeting with the Superintendent
14 of the School, as well as the School Board Chairman regarding funding options for Central Park.
15 Hodson did not have a report.
06 Horst did not have a report.
17 Sparks reported that the Village Fest Committee continues to search for participants for the
18 parade.
19 Thuesen reported that he had drafted a proposed performance report for the City Manager and he
20 would be asking the Councilmembers to review the form and return comments to him for further
21 implementation.
22 Cavanaugh reported that the National Night Out Block Parties event was upcoming, and in that
23 respect, Cavanaugh distributed a list of the blocks signed up to participate. Each
24 Councilmember reviewed the list and chose the blocks that they would each visit during the
25 National Night Out.
26 MI. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
27 None.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 25, 2000
• Page 10
1 XIII. ADJOURNMENT.
2 Motion by Hodson to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4 Respectfully submitted,
5 Sue Selseth
.6 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
7
8 or
9 ATTEST:
10 City Clerk
•
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
•'3 JULY 10, 2000
4 7:00 p.m.
5 I. CALL TO ORDER.
6 Chair Jindra called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance.
7 II. ROLL CALL.
8 Present: Chair Carol Jindra, Commissioners George Wagner, Julie Gebhardt,
9 Colleen Hallada, Daniel Ganley, and Jan Jenson.
10 Absent: None.
11 Also Present: Public Works Director Jay Hartman, Representative from School
12 Board Denise Dunn, Representative from Community Services Diane
13 Skrivseth; Representative from Sports Boosters George Zurbey; City
14 Council Liaison Amy Sparks.
15 III. APPROVE JUNE.12,2000 PARKS COMMISSION MINUTES.
®'6 Motion by Zurbey, second by Hallada, to approve the June 12, 2000 Parks Commission
Meeting Minutes with the-following changes:
18 Page 1, Line 22, change "baseball" to "soccer"
19 Page 4, Line 9, change "July" to "June"
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 IV. DISCUSS CENTRAL PARK REDEVELOPMENT,WATER TOWER PARK AND
22 SILVER POINT PARK PUNCH LIST ITEMS.
23 Chair Jindra introduced Mr. Bob Kost, BRW, and invited him to address the Commission.
24 Mr. Kost stated he would begin the-discussion with Central Park redevelopment, and in that
25 - respect, drew,the Commission's attention to a handout, which depicted the design de-
26 velopment cost estimate of the Park. Mr. Kost stated that some retaining walls have been
27 determined to be needed due to the sloping of the land. This will help with maintenance and
28 with part of the trail system. Upon discussions with the engineer, some mill and overlay
29 work were being considered for the existing park parking lot. Curb repair will be part of the
30 project as well.
31 Mr. Kost continued his report by stating that, since the last meeting, a prefabricated restroom
32 and concessions facility had been considered-- as opposed to the building discussed at an
•33 earlier meeting --and a copy of the photographs for such facility were presented to the
Commissioners. The prefabricated facility depicted in the photographs would be installed
35 and plumbed,together with electricity.
Parks Commission.Meeting Minutes
July 10, 2000
0- Page 2
1 In response to Chair Jindra's question regarding the difference between the prefabricated
2 building as opposed to.what was considered before, Mr. Kost stated that difference is that the
3 prefabricated building has smaller space requirements and is not custom built. It allows for
4 additional flexibility.
5 Mr. Kost mentioned that the trails would be constructed so that maintenance vehicles would
6 be able to drive on the trail as necessary. Jenson mentioned the importance of vehicles being
7 able to have access to the trails for deliveries to the concession stand, among other things.
8 In response to some concern regarding the estimated cost of the redevelopment, Mr. Kost
9 stated that many items on the cost estimate were optional; however, BRW wished to present
10 the Commissioners with the best possible scenario for the Park and allow for reductions from
11 that point.
12 In response to an inquiry by Hallada regarding the cost of the building considered prior to
13 this meeting, Mr. Kost stated that the cost of the custom bathroom/concession stand would
14 have been approximately $50,000 once the fixtures were added. The prefabricated
15 bathroom/concession stand is estimated at$80,000; however Mr. Kost stated that a goal was
•5 to have a building that would have an attractive appearance, durability, and easily
_/ maintained.
18 Mr. Kost and the Commission reviewed a sketch of a floor plan for the bathroom facility and
19 various discussion ensued regarding potential modifications of the floor plan and bathroom.
20 Lighting of the park was discussed, and Koehntop mentioned the possibility that lighting
21 would not be needed on a regular basis due to Daylight Savings Time. He mentioned the
22 potential cost of the lighting as well. Sports Boosters Representative George Zurbey
23 mentioned that most parks are utilized until approximately 10:00 p.m., and due to the fact
24 that it starts to get dark by 9:00 p.m., lights could be an important feature. Jenson agreed,
25 particularly due to the fact that lighting requirements would be needed into the fall as
26 . Daylight Savings Time decreases..
27 The location-- and the amount of lights -- was discussed,bearing in mind the close proximity
28 of the surrounding residents.
29 Jenson mentioned that he would like to particularly discuss lighting on two fields, which
30 would result in a figure of$160,000, as opposed to a figure of$280,000 which was
31 mentioned on the redevelopment cost estimate.
32 Mr. Kost mentioned that the Commission had previously discussed lighting the hockey rink,
and additionally inquired of the Commissioners if lighting on the trail would be considered.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 3
1 Various options for lighting of the hockey rink were discussed, as well as the time of day
2 when the Park would close and the.lights turned.off.
3 Jindra inquired about some potential solar lighting for the trails. Mr. Kost stated that the
4 problem with that type of system is due to the unpredictable weather of Minnesota. It would
5 confuse residents to have lighting at some times, and not others.
6 To review, Mr. Kost confirmed that two fields would utilize lighting, as well as the hockey
7 rink.
8 Mr. Ted Severson, 2504 33rd Avenue NE, was in the audience and noted that he has had
9 difficulty obtaining satisfactory results to his concerns about obtaining the soccer fields that
10 the soccer program needs. He stated that he has talked with City Hall, many residents, and
11 the Parks Commission and is'frustrated by the lack of results.
12 Chair Jindra wished to clarify that Mr. Severson has attended meetings of the Parks
13 Commission and has been allowed to speak substantially about his concerns and the issues
14 surrounding the lack of field space. However, all programs have had to make concessions
15 due to the lack of space and the Commission is working diligently to provide the City with
•�6 the maximum amount of space possible and accommodate both the baseball and soccer
/ programs as well.
18 Jenson wished to clarify that, particularly in connection with Silver Point Park,that a lot of
19 the capacity for the in-house program has been lost. Baseball has had to make concessions,
20 along with the soccer program.
21 Mr. Severson stated that he wanted to be guaranteed a soccer field in order to schedule the
22 appropriate games and practices. Jindra stated that this plan is still in the process of being
23 created and his concerns and communications are being considered, along with other issues.
24 Ganley mentioned that trust and communication must be relied upon, and he felt that both
25 have been provided. Additionally, he stated,that cooperation must be.implemented in order
26 for trust and communication to continue.
27 Mr. Kost clarified that the discussion taking place surrounded a field management issue and
28 was not the issue intended to be discussed at the meeting regarding redevelopment of Central
29 Park.
30 It was determined to continue with the discussion of Central Park redevelopment, and Mr.
31 Kost continued by reviewing the punch list items with the Commissioners. These items
32 included a review of the aggressive skate facility, high school soccer fields, softball fields,
• sledding hill, and other issues.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes _
July 10, 2000
Page 4
1 The implementation of horseshoe pits as noted on the cost estimate was discussed because
2 horseshoe pits.already exist at another park. Other options were considered instead of
3 horseshoe pits..
4 The Commissioners held a discussion regarding the turf to be implemented on the fields.
5 Additionally, Mr. Kost pointed out that the old wading pool would be demolished and a new
6 one built. Furthermore, sand volleyball was discussed for the Park as noted on the cost
7 estimate, as well as shuffleboard.
8 Specific details were discussed and reviewed, such as drinking fountain(s),benches, litter
9 receptacles, bike racks, and park signs.
10 Zurbey inquired if the Commission was being asked to approve the Central Park plan as pre-
11 sented. Mr. Kost mentioned that it would be beneficial to have the plan approved so that it,
12 could be presented as sort of an unveiling at the VillageFest celebration.
13 Zurbey noted that he planned on taking the plan presented by BRW to the Sports Boosters
14 with the understanding that there would be some field rotation and some scheduling
15 information.
•� Jindra wished to state that she appreciated Mr. Severson's attendance and input. She did wish
PP P
17 to clarify, however, that the Parks Commission was not involved in field management and
18 field scheduling.
19 Mr. Severson agreed and noted that he wanted to work together with the residents and the
20 Parks Commission in making Central Park successful.
21 Mr. Kost said that a laminated board with the proposed Central Park redevelopment plan
22 would be made up to place at VillageFest. Comment cards were suggested to be placed
23 appropriately so that residents could make comments about the proposed plan.
24 Jindra mentioned that the timeframe question has been mentioned repeatedly by residents
25 regarding the park. Discussion ensured regarding the.best time to close the park in order to
26 begin reconstruction and it was mentioned that possibly sometime in June 2001.
27 Jenson recommended that Zurbey discuss possible funding issues with the Sports Boosters
28 and the level of commitment of funding in which the organization is interested.
29 Andra reviewed that the Commission would approve the plan as presented with changes as
30 discussed at the meeting, and that a laminated board would be presented at VillageFest
1 depicting the proposed plan. Wagner and Jenson agreed that the City Council should review
: the Plan prior to presenting it as a proposal at VillageFest.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 5
1 It was noted that a City Council meeting was scheduled for Tuesday, July 11, and it was sug-
2 gested that City Council liaison Amy Sparks bring the issue.to the Council at that meeting.
3 Ganley mentioned that this was only a proposed plan. However;Wagner expressed his
4 opinion that the City Council should be aware of the plan prior to presentation at VillageFest.
5 Discussion ensued about the issue of presenting the plan at the VillageFest celebration, and it
6 was determined that it must be clearly stated that the plan was simply a "proposed" plan.
7 Amy Sparks mentioned that she would announce to the City Council at the meeting on July
8 11, 2000 that the Parks Commission was planning on posting the proposed plan at
9 VillageFest. Mr. Kost noted that he and his associate, Augie Wong,would be willing to
10 attend a City Council meeting and explain the plan and developments of Central Park.
11 Jindra noted that Silver Point Park,and Water Tower Park were both on the agenda. Mr. Kost
12 noted that WSB & Associates was in charge of Silver Point Park, and that issue would be
13 tabled.
104 Augie Wong, BRW, noted some punch list items of Water Tower Park that required the
5 Commission's attention. He reviewed a list with the Commissioners and provided an update
16 to outstanding issues. Details such as raising the basketball hoop, and some restriping,
17 bathroom repaving, were discussed. Mr. Wong noted some minor issues that.needed to be
18 reviewed for the playground area.
19 Jindra noted that on May 20, 1999, the remaining play equipment was ordered and is yet to
20 be received. Mr. Wong stated that he has determined that the company is awaiting a safety
21 approval of the remaining equipment. Mr. Wong stated that he planned on meeting with
22 Flannigans (the company from which the equipment was ordered), and with Public Works
23 Director Jay Hartman.
24 Mr. Wong stated he would work with Flannigans to ensure a satisfactory resolution.
25 V. REPORTS.
26 A. Community Services.
27 Diane Skrivseth stated that Community Services does not meet during the summer.
28 B. School Board.
29 Denise Dunn will be attending a meeting on Tuesday, July 11, 2000 and will report back to
30 the Commission at the Commission's next meeting.
• . C. Sports Boosters.
Parks Commission Meeting Minutes
July 10, 2000
• Page 6
1 George Zurbey will be meeting with.the Sports Boosters, will present the proposed plan, and
2 report back to the Commission at the next meeting.
3
4 VI. OTHER BUSINESS.
5 Jindra noted that the Parks Commission's next meeting was scheduled for August 14, 2000.
6 Ganley noted that Hennepin County Parks would occupy a trailer for the VillageFest
7 celebration. He suggested that the Parks Commission coordinate an effort with the Hennepin
s County Parks for VillageFest.
9 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
10 Motion by Ganley, second by Hallada, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12 Respectfully submitted,
13 Sue Selseth
14 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 8/9/00 MEETING DATE: 8/15/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager Iso
RE: Public Hearing. Petition for Variance for Replacing a Commercial Sign for a
Gas Station "Grand fathered" in a Light Industrial Zoning District.
The applicant, Richard C. Graff is seeking to replace the business sign at his Conoco gas station located at
350129'Avenue NE. The gas station is a commercial business located in a L1 zoning district. The proposed
sign exceeds allowable dimensions for L1 zoning. However, it is within the allowable dimensions had his land
been zoned C1. The land has been used for a gas station since 1958. Mr. Graff has owned the business since
1973. Therefore the use is "grandfathered." Staff has discussed this matter with City Attorney Soth and it
was decided that the conditions supporting a variance do exist. Action required.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this petition.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
•
elanning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 7
1 The motion carried.
2 Bergstrom noted that this issue would be before the City Council at the-July 25, 2000 meeting
3 and he encouraged the applicants to be present at-that meeting.'
4 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
5 None.
6 VII. REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS and/or CONCEPT REVIEWS.
7 1. Concept Review. Murphy's Service Center, 3501 29th Avenue.
8 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported
9 that the applicant, Richard C. Graff, is seeking to replace the business sign at his Conoco gas
10 station located at 3501 29th Avenue NE. The gas station is a commercial business located in an
11 L 1 zoning district. The proposed sign exceeds allowable dimensions for L 1 zoning. However, it
12 is within the allowable dimensions had his land been zoned C 1. The land has been used for a gas
13 station since 1958. Mr. Graff has owned the business since 1973. Therefore,the use is
14 "grandfathered." Staff has discussed this matter with City Attorney William Soth and it was
15 decided that the conditions supporting a variance existed.
16 Bergstrom introduced Mr. Richard Graff and invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Graff
reviewed for the Commission the background of his.request, and then reviewed the details of the
proposed sign.
19 Mr. Graff felt that the current requirements for signage should not apply because his business
20 was grandfathered in many years ago. Mr. Graff reviewed for the Commission that on Memorial
21 Day Weekend, it was noticed that the price sign was bent and split. The St. Anthony Police were
22 called and it was determined that the corner of the sign had been hit by a truck sometime after
23 closing. Mr. Graff noted that the sign cannot be repaired,and that Conoco has several sign
24 designs to go with the new image program. Mr. Graff was present at the Commission's meeting
25 to request a variance for installation of a new sign. The new sign would be installed in the same
26 location and would not be detrimental to other businesses in the surrounding area.
27 Mr. Graff directed the Commission's attention to photographs in the agenda packets which
28 , depicted the current sign. „
29 Thomas inquired of Mr. Graff if he had any other options with regard to potential signs that
30 Conoco offers. He mentioned this in light of the fact that Mr. Graff s station is so visible within
31 the community. Mr. Graff responded that a certain type of sign is needed for his business, and
32 noted that the proposed sign is an attractive sign and would be appropriate for his type of
33 business.
34 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Graff for presenting the Concept Review and he suggested that
Mr. Graff work with Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom in going forward with this request.
36 2. Presentation WSB &Associates Will Present a Selection of Decorative Lighting for
37 29th Avenue.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 7/12/00 MEETING DATE: 7/18%00
TO: Planning Commission .
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Concept Review. Petition for VI ariance for Replacing a Commercial Sign for a
Gas Station "Grand fathered" in a Light Industrial Zoning District.
The applicant, Richard C. Graff is seeking to replace the business sign at his Conoco gas station located at
350129 Avenue NE. The gas station is a commercial business located in a L1 zoning district. The proposed
sign exceeds allowable dimensions for L1 zoning. However, it is within the allowable dimensions had his land
been zoned C 1. The land has been used for a gas station since 1958. Mr. Graff has owned the business since
1973. Therefore the use is "grandfathered." Staff has discussed this matter with City Attorney Soth and it
was decided that the conditions.supporting a variance do exist. No action required.
Staff Recommendation: Since this is a Concept Review, staff has no recommendation at this time.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
JUN. -20' 00 (TUE) 13:24 CITY OF ST. ANTHON TEL:612 181 9323 P
Date: D OC
Fee:
R-1. . . . . . . $ 60.00
Other.. . : $100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Variance
Richard Graff
68 E Golden Lake Rd
Circle Pines,MN 550141725
Applicant: EICA,�K Q G . �` R�FF phone: G,��- WSJ i-} g9
Address: 627/ — ..79 7-A A V&
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): 0 in e/ f�
Legal Description of property proposed for variance: n, -e-9--,7.3
Street Address: J V '76 R V&, N E,
Presently Zoned: L-. Iro 'L� Fr x I
Minnesota Statutes and City.Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if
.iecessary,
1. because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
2. The purpose of the proposed variatce is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would gorrect extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Signature VrApplicant
3501 29TH AVE. N.E.
�.. ST. ANTHONY. MINN. 55418
781-4489
1. We are a commercial business,a service station selling auto and truck fuel at
retail. We are grand fathered in as a commercial business in a light industrial
area. Requirements for signage should not apply. We need a price sign to
advertise our fuel prices and.a conoco capsule so the consumer will know
what brand of fuel we sell.
2. It is imperative to my business to have a sign to denote my brand and my
prices. It is not essential for other businesses in the light industrial area.
Without approval of the variance my business would'suffer substantially.'
3. We have been a commercial business at this location since 1973.We were
here before many of the existing businesses were here. Page 14-13 Subd.2 in
a commercial area our sign would meet all requirements which are 150 square
feet. We are asking for 87 square feet,with a maximum height of 23 feet and a
minimum height of 11 feet. We feel the zoning of our location to light
industrial has inflicted a hardship upon us.
•
3501 29TH AVE. N.E.
ST. ANTHONY. MINN. 55418
781-4489
City of St. Anthony June 30, 2000
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony,Mn. 55418
Re: Application for sign variance
Mr Spencer Isom .
I purchased the property of my present business location in 1973. I startded Murphy's
Service in 1958 and over the years it has become a family run business. Six of our twelve
employees are related. My business plan is for it to continue to grow and be an asset to
the community for years to come.
• On Memorial weekend(Sunday,May 28)I noticed our price sign was bent and split
open. St Anthony police were called and it was determined that the comer of it was hit by
a truck sometime after closing. The sign cannot be repaired. Conoco has several sign
designs to go with its new image program. I am applying for a variance of one of their
smallest signs if not the smallest available. The new sign would be installed in the same
location and would not be detrimental to other busineses in the surrounding area.
Sincerely yours,
. �' 'f -
:�,�:.
t�:''•
Y
�'=
.Y' �' y a�1 r_ w I
�... ,F..y.y�i.
��.i::—�i•.
K.d:
sJS .� ..
Y� J
�, _
` � y` � `..
'�;, t.:,
�,`-
:l
j�E.
' 'J � 1 ta �.r � �.
i� 4 t
-�. -t a �t``t=.°<'� •�F�"."'may;ra�3:� !_ -?�-�%� - i
"'� ► mil_ �r r;
—, y J _ J
.I}[.. 7
ft's�'��� _ _
tJr
�,7�
��f�r
scz:-:.-
o�ouo�
���;<,,.
- . - -
_ -- - - -
-
. . � ; •.. ,✓.. ��.-�`''fit
I:S:$:£on ix :f h;�::^•: :�2:x:•7.
:i:{:?•}i: :w
• ..M::. : .....................
w.w.. ..........................................
��•:>:� Mks.
X"
CQ
�...
���•'� ' :, .
r :! :
ma
.:.....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:...:.:.....:.................. .. ...... ................................. .............................................. .....................................
k :_..
N -- Dnoco 8'System 3X Size Service Sign
N 73 In Cabinet
6-12-00 -
9 #: CoOO1254 71 1/4 in Trim
Description:3X size box sign(8'system) 69 in D.O.
-Murphy's Service 58 lie' 0'-1 3/4'
pan de th
Note:Drawing Not To Scale 48 ue•
Colors:
Cabinet-Conoco Red-Spraylat#B-20-3639 D
Copy-White Spraylat#L8-3124 c E � P a
O
0 C: , � .o
C 00 M�
CVO
O
P
U
Z
In
Section
View
(Face Only)
N
N
0
v
1�
D
M
O
�'�^a
.�
mill-I-SEN rn..757ue
„I.00�.6��.Two•1.:�w wsa�ol
Sales:Tom Fry
ate u•'°=..' Acct/Mgr. Newland ,t„a �,IOr,�1,NO. � aTM oc�w oESCMON
b,�.u .a�....a awrcwumv
m-V � Designer Michelle Wilson ,�
CD 0
e®u.,_aW,- g B111-OF MATERIALS n ❑
H'1' Mcquires 1 sign tact per side.) 290.00
"breakplace"
fieadcz .Board Sign 117.50
(include
QGfI/Gt6;cIMijikvIcT custom panel nraphtcsl 142.50
Blank Panel Q clear Red 142.60
)inct 1,13" X 13'1' (Requires I sign face per side.) 265.00
Sign Faces I Product Price Panals ]Red i'bi eaY.v lace I El Green lConoc 86.001
Standard ScrVice Message jr*dw/whl%kttvringj
--!include quote
Custom Sign
81 and
Clear Red 104.501
El
t Font Set = 160 characters, Changer Arm, and Storage Cabinet ED PreMILIM 316.0D
---.- __ _...____I __I
Font Set - EIN0301 4thcr ORed ['braad:place'! EIGrPen (Conoco) 136.00
for Reader Board 8' ID system - 6" BLACK letters, & Storage Cabinet
190.b0
..........
'23'0" eyfftem overall height) iricludirwj headcr bar, mounting plates, and encWs bolls
Prices subiect to chap-ge without notice. Grand Total! -------
your sign here.
a.
�. C)--
LD
h `\\ COO
Ilk,
0
06/16/00 14:96 FAX 595 7401 ZIMMER1fAN SIGN CO fQ
11
hommerman S Co 1 n
0
g
TRANSMITTAL . : . .
Date: Pa e 1 of
To: Company:
From: Peggy Newland Re:
Message: " '
J
9846 Highway 31 East, Tyler, Texas 75705
(903) 535-7400 or (800) 888-1327 Fax (903) 535-7401
06/16/OU 14:37 FAX 535 74U1 ZIXXER5IAN SIGN CO l� .
LUMINOUS SIGN REPORT 12
CALCULATION OF APPROXIMATE BRIGHTNESS
(L) x ( F) x (M]F)
B -
A
WHERE:
B = APPROXIMATE AVERAGE MAINTAINED BRIGHTNESS (FL)
L = TOTAL LAMP LUMENS
OF = LIGHT UTILIZATION % FACTOR,
50% ASSUME FOR SINGLE FACE
70% ASSUME FOR DOUBLE FACE
MF = MAINTENANCE FACTOR (NORMALLY ABOUT 70%)
A = AREA OF SIGN FACE IN SQUARE FEET
APPROXIMATE RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE SIGN BRIGHTNESS
(AVERAGE, FOOTLAMBERT.S)
LOW RANGE = 75 - 175
• MEDIUM.-RANGE _ . 150 - 275
HIGH RANGE = 250 - 350 & ABOVE
SIGN FACE REDUCTION FACTOR & DISTANCE
DISTANCE YELLOW RED BLUE
FROM SIGN LIGHT WHITE FACE FACE FACE
IN FEET SOURCE FACE WHITE WHITE WHITE
COPY COPY COPY
1 100% 25% 11.25% 3.75% 2.50% .
LIGHT INTENSITY OF FACE FACTOR IS DIVIDED BY THE DISTANCE IN FEET FROM SIGN SQUARED
TOTAL UTILIZ. MA1NT. FACE AREA OF NO. OF LUMENS
LUMENS FACTOR. FACTOR FACTOR SIGN LAMPS IN LAMP
0 0.50 0.70 0.0000 0.00 0 0
SIZE OF SIGN IN FEET BRIGHTNESS IN
HEIGHT LENGTH FOOTLAMBERTS
0 0 #DIV/O!
DESCRIPTION OF SIGN SYSTEM BY DATE
06/16/00 14:37 FAX 535 7401 ziMMERHkN SIGN CO
LUMINOUS LAMP CHARTS l�
APPROXIMATE INITIAL LUMEN RATINGS (AVG.)
FOR FLUURESCENT LAMPS
LAMP
LENGTH HIGH OUTPUT SILMLI.N.E POWER GROOVE
(INCHES)
(HO) CW 1 112" SGN 1 112' CW (PG) 2 1/4' GW
24 1700 1200 1150 -
36 2850 2190 1950 -
42 3500 2600 2300 -
48 4300 3300 3000 7000
60 5400 4150 3350 8900
64 5800 4450 3600 -
72 6650 5100 4500 11500
84 7800 6000 5050
96 1 9200 1 6600 . 6300 16000
APPROXIMATE RELATIVE LIGHT OUTPUT OF
COLORED FLUORESCENT LAMPS (BASED ON F40/CW)
• LAMP LAMP LAMP
TYPE PERCENT APE PERCENT TYPE PERCENT
CW 100 GREEN 43 PINK 38
LAMP PERCENT LAMP PERCENT LAMP PERCENT
TYPE TYPE TYPE
BLUE 39 GOLD 73 RED 6
LAMP
TYPE PERCENT
DEEP BLUE 1.4
APPROXIMATE INITIAL LUMEN RATINGS (AVG.)
FOR MERCURY VAPOR LAMPS
WATTS DELUXE WHITE WARM DELUXE
(DX) WHITE (WDX)
50 1575 -
75 2800 -
• 700 4200 -
175 8150 6500
250 12100 9500
400 .22500 20000
1000 63000 58000
06/16/00 14:37 FAX 535 7401 ZIMMERRAN SIGN CO C
14
_. ,L14
2 �, 7�
_ i
i
4�
i
- 1
30.,
IWO
f
GRADE S'6FED
/ 16
S.
s5-ra`•'- �v�- a L. rAN W-
p �sv s
Chs. .7YtiNK
CQVS4}�U RotK l,1MtT1ii' �— 1 kwC,4 Oro F.E
MW - - ---- -
�; tea/
6000
6qL BQQQD r✓ C[} ,
AL
goo 0
coNc s
ra
VW-
Lo- fo' A
hg7 100.1"
s��►s�i �A \0
AP N
L n r- P DF R a4 O Al/�.k4 LTt c GDA4G
CON
• II
-� - — - - _ - ------- _ . . .__. .._VE- n/E. -- ---F- i1 - -- - CaV NrY RC'Ap '•C
2 9 rm A
S. L/NAr S.6 Y'y S'i'c
17
• Subd. 1. Residential. The following signs are permitted in a residential
district:
(1) R-1. R-1A & R-2. . One.identification sign per dwelling .unit per
right-of-way frontage stating the street address; and/or the name
Of the resident: Additionally, one address sign may be located on
the curb in front of each dwelling unit or on a freestanding
mailbox.
(2) R-3 & R-4. Each multiple dwelling complex .(nine or more units)
will be allowed one freestanding sign identifying the complex.
The sign may not exceed 50 square feet in sign surface area. The
sign structure including the sign surface area, may not exceed 150
square feet in area. The highest point of the sign may not be .
more .than 10 feet above ground level.
(3) Each church located within the corporate limits of this City,
subject to approval of size, location and type by the City Manager,
may erect and maintain a maximum of three directional signs
on municipal rights-of-way. No church may erect or maintain
more-than one.such sign at any intersection.
• 4 Each of the following may erect and maintain one ground sign
( ) g Y
subject to the provisions of Section 1400.10 on the property to
which the sign pertains:
(a) Schools and .publicly owned facilities listed in Section 1615.02
(b) and (c); and Section 1616.02 (b) and (c).
(b) Churches, temples, synagogues, and City buildings listed in
Section 1615.03 (a) and (c); and Section 1616.03 (b).
Subd. 2. Commercial and Limited Business. The following signs are allowed
in a "B" Service Office Limited Business District and .."C" Commercial Districts
and may be erected after obtaining.a permit and paying a required license fee.
(1) One identification sign per right-of-way frontage per commercial
establishment. The sign may have no more than 2 square feet of
surface area per lineal foot of business_frontage, up.to a
maximum of 150 square feet. The total area of all wall signs
affixed to a wall may not exceed 15% of the total area of that wall.
(2) A gasoline station will be allowed; in addition to all other
• authorized signs, one pylon sign to identify the gasoline brand.
14-13
This sign may not exceed 30 feet in height, and must have a
minimum clearance of 8 feet from the basic grade level to the
lowest element of the sign surface and may not exceed 150 square -
feet in sign surface area. Such an establishment will be allowed
one price sign for each frontage having a curb 'cut. Such
freestanding sign will be in addition to those signs allowed in
paragraph 1 of this Subdivision.
(3) Upon submittal of a comprehensive sign plan, and subject to
approval of the Council, a shopping center over 75,000 feet may
have major anchor/tenant ground sign(s) depending upon the
number of major anchors. The total sign area shall not exceed
300 square feet.
(4) Upon submittal of a comprehensive sign plan, and subject to
approval of the Council, a shopping center over 75,000 square
feet may be allowed additional wall signs for commercial
establishments that need additional exposure from different
vantage points. The number of additional wall signs will not
exceed one half the total number of commercial establishments
and will be allowed a surface sign area of one—half of that which
• it is allowed. .
(5) A commercial establishment located within a shopping center,
having no outside frontage, will be allowed a surface sign area of
one-half of that which it would be allowed if it had outside
frontage.
(6) Commercial establishments will be allowed, in addition to all'
other authorized signs, one historical identification symbol, not
exceeding 5 square feet in sign surface area.
(7) Subject to approval of the Council, and as a conditional use, a
movie theater may have a marquee. The total sign area for a
marquee sign shall not exceed 200 square feet.
(8) Subject to approval of the Council, and submittal of a
- comprehensive sign plan, a strip mall under 75,000 square feet
and a shopping center over 75,000 square feet may be allowed a
ground sign with a surface sign area not to exceed 150 square feet.
(9) Upon submittal of a comprehensive sign plan, and subject to
approval of the Council, a major anchor/tenant over 50,000
square feet in a shopping center over 75,000 square feet may have
14-14
a wall sign that is up to four times the sign surface area of which
is allowed for other commercial establishments.
(10) : Subject to approval of the City Manager,,a searchlight is
permitted for a special event:
Subd. 3. Light Industrial. The following signs are permitted in a Light
Industrial District and may be erected after obtaining a permit and paying
required license fee.
(1) One business or identification canopy or wall sign per right-of-
way frontage as regulated in Subsection 1400.12, Subd. 2(1) and
one freestanding sign as regulated and permitted in Subsection
1400.10.
(2) In a district zoned for light industrial businesses, signs
containing one square foot for every 100 square feet of ground
floor space will be allowed up to a total sign surface are
s uar
Subd. 4.- Recreational Open Space. The following signs are permitted in a
• Recreational Open Space District and may be erected after obtaining a permit
and paying required license fee.
(1) Subject to approval of the Council, only ground and wall signs
are allowed in this district. The ground sign may have a sign
surface area not to exceed 150 square feet.
1400.13 Adjustments and Appeals.
Subd. 1. Composition. The commission of adjustments and appeals will be
comprised of all of the members of the Planning Commission.
Subd. 2. Powers and Duties. The commission will hear and make
recommendations to the Council regarding:
(1) Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order,
requirement, decision or determination made by an
administrative officer in the enforcement of this Chapter.
(2) Petitions for variances from the literal provisions of ordinances
in instances where their strict enforcement would cause
hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual
• property under consideration. The commission may
14-15
Z®
recommend the granting of such variances only when it appears
upon evidence presented that:
(a) The granting of the variance will not be-detrimental to the
other property in the neighborhood or City; and
(b) A particular hardship to the applicant would result if the
strict letter of the regulations are adhered to; or
(c) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is
based are unique to the sign or to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other
property within the same land use classification.
1400.14 Variances.
Subd. 1. Variances Granted. Variances may be granted by the Council after a
hearing is held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation is made
to the Council. Notices will be given, and a public hearing will be held, in the
manner provided in Subsection 1670.06. The installation of sign(s) must take
place within one year after a variance has been granted by the City Council.
• Subd. 2. Majority Vote. A majority affirmative vote of Council members
� y J
present is required to approve a variance.
Subd. 3. Fee. An application for a variance must be accompanied by the fee
provided in Section 615.
1400.15 Non-Conforming Signs.
Subd. 1. Legal Conforming. All signs existing as of March 10, 1983
conforming to the requirements of this Chapter and not requiring a permit
under the provisions of this Chapter, may be maintained so long as they.
continue to comply with the provisions of this-Chapter, as it may fran time to
time be amended.
Subd. 2. Legal Non-Conforming Signs. All signs existing as of March 10, 1983
which would be prohibited by this Chapter, or which would require a permit
under this Chapter but have not received a permit, w_ill be deemed to be legal
non-conforming signs. Legal non-conforming signs may continue to.exist
without a permit and without constituting a violation of this Chapter until
one or more of the following occurs:
14-16
21
• 1 The sign is structural) altered (except for normal maintenance)
O � Y P
in a way which makes the sign less in compliance with this,
Chapter than it was before the alteration.
(2) The sign is relocated to a .position making it less in compliance.
with this Chapter than it was before the relocation.
(3) The sign is replaced.
(4) Any new primary sign is erected or placed in connection with
the enterprise using the legal non-conforming sign.
1400.16 Enforcement. If a sign is in violation of this Chapter, or is in danger of
falling, or is otherwise a menace to the safety of persons or property, the City
Manager may give to the owner of the property on which the sign is located, written
notice specifying the violation, ordering the cessation of the violation and requiring
either the removal of the sign or remedial work in the time and manner specified
in the notice. In the event of failure to comply with the notice within 30 days, the
City Manager may remove the sign or cause such remedial work to be done. The
cost of the work performed by the City must be paid to the City by the owner of the .
property on which the sign is located. If payment is not made within 30 days after a
• statement for such costs is sent.to the owner, the costs may be assessed against the
property by certifying the costs to the County Treasurer for collection in the same
manner as real estate taxes. If a sign which has been removed is not reclaimed and
costs paid within 30 days after its removal, the sign may be sold or otherwise
disposed of by the City. If a sign is found to be an immediate danger to the public
because of its unsafe condition, it may be removed without notice, and written
notice of removal and reasons for the removal will be given to the owner of the
property on which the sign is located as soon as possible.
•
14-17
N
N i .
,Move ur=
36043
MURPHY'S SERVICE CENTER, INC.
3501 -29TH AVENUE NE. 781-4489
ST. ANTHONY, MN 55418
75-562/960
DATE
PAY
TO THE I
ORDER OF J 4-tZl
EGIST. RED dui 11 •., wi IqU �•,.��.,�:' DOLLARS 0.:
Q . , �
�OMNII�f!/Ilt�i
NaOonal[3ank
{b51 P
. 1501 Wot CamN Nood C—,Roee.70e,h0'1 55113
FOR — - — —
umo36043v x:0960056241: 2005544
23
MEMORANDUM
i
DATE: 8/9/00 MEETING DATE: 8/15/00.
TO: Planning Commission
CC: Public Works Director Hartman
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Public.Hearing. Joint Application for Subdivision/Plat Approval for 2801 and
2501 37`" Avenue, Village North and Apache Animal Medicine. Preliminary
Plat.
Village North LLP,in which Ken Solie is a partner,as owner of the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801
37`s Avenue NE,and Apache Animal Medicine,P.A., as owner of the Apache Animal Clinic,have applied to
replat their properties into three lots in order to expand the size of the lot on which the animal clinic is located,
decrease the size of the lot on which the Industrial Custom Products building is located,and create a new-lot to
the east of the industrial building. The property would be replatted as Lots 1,2,and 3,Block 1,Apache Terrace
2°d Addition,Ramsey County,Minnesota.
The above action requires submittal of a preliminary and final plat in accordance with Section 1500.03 and
1500.04 of the St. Anthony code of ordinances. By copy of this communication and the preliminary plat, I
request Public Works Director Hartman examine and report to me by August 14, 2000 regarding existing and
• required easements. Further,I request that Mr.Hartman request the utility companies do the same.
The Preliminary Plat has been submitted as part of this application. Upon approval by the Planning Commission
and City Council,the Final Plat will be submitted for review. Action Required.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Subdivision and Preliminary Plat to incorporate any
recommendations/requests identified in the reports submitted by the Public Works Director and the utility
companies.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
24
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH BILLINGS
NEW YORK 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET GREAT FALLS
SEATTLE MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA $5402-1498 MISSOULA
DENVER TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600 : BRUSSELS
WASHINGTON,D.C. PAX: (612) 340-2868 FARGO
DES MOINES HONG KONG
ANCHORAGE WILLIAM R SOTH ROCHESTER
(612)340-2969
LONDON FAX(612)340-2644 SALT LAKE CITY
COSTA MESA soth.wilhamQadorseylaw.com VANCOUVER
August 2, 2000
Planning Commission
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Re: Village North and Apache Animal Clinic
• Subdivision and Zoning Approvals
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Village North LLP, in which Ken Solie is a partner, as owner of the Industrial Custom Products
building at 280137'Avenue NE; and Apache Animal Medicine, P.A., as owner of the Apache Animal
Clinic, have applied to replat their properties into three lots in order to expand the size of the lot on
which the animal clinic is located, decrease the size of the lot on which the Industrial Custom Products
building is located, and create a new lot to the east'of the industrial building. The property would be
replatted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Apache Terrace 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
. Since the size of the lot on which the industrial building is located would be reduced;.a question
arises as to whether the lot would have sufficient parking. Currently the owner of the industrial building
leases a strip of land approximately 67 feet wide from the railroad. This adjoins the north lot line and
provides additional parking for the industrial building. The owner originally requested that the City
permit him to include the leased land as part of the property so as to meet the parking requirement. I
must advise you that it is not permissible to include such leased land,-since the railroad has the right to
terminate that lease on rather short notice, and the lease could also be terminated for non-payment of
rent or other factors, in which case the parking would be non-conforming.
• Ken Solie also discussed with Spencer Isom and me the question of whether he might apply for
a parking variance for this lot. We suggested to him that it is unlikely that a variance would be
25
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of St. Anthony Planning Commission
August 2,2000
Page 2
permissible, since hardship is being created by reducing the size of the lot and reasonable use is being
made of the property in its present condition.
We next discussed with him the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance so as to require
less parking for this type of property. Mr. Solie has compiled information regarding parking
requirements in other cities and this will be provided to you. It shows a comparison of the St. Anthony
requirement to the Cities of Arden Hills, Roseville, Minneapolis, New Brighton and Fridley. The current
St. Anthony ordinance is Section 1650.05, Subd. 1(e)(7) which provides as follows: =
(7) Light industrial, manufacturing, testing and research uses must have one space for every
employee on the largest shift or one parking space for every 350 square feet of floor
area, whichever is greater.
• Mr. Solie is requesting that the requirement be changed to one parking space for every 1,000 square
feet of building floor area.
I would recommend that the ordinance be changed to eliminate any reference to the number of
employees. It is not a good practice to have a parking requirement that changes`with the number of
employees in the building. This raises uncertainty as to what the parking requirement is at any given
point in time, and it also creates an almost impossible situation for enforcement. Based upon the
information provided by Mr. Solie, it does appear that one space per 350 square feet of floor area is
rather conservative. Arden Hills, Roseville and Minneapolis each provide for one space for each 1,000
square feet, New Brighton is at 350 square feet and Fridley is at 400 square feet. If you amend the
ordinance as requested, I would suggest that paragraph 7 be revised to read as follows:
(7) Light industrial, manufacturing, testing and research uses must have one space for every
1,000 square feet of building floor area.
The animal clinic intends to purchase some land from the railroad to add to their property, but
this will not be included in the new plat. I believe that the animal clinic will be requesting that all of its
property be rezoned to commercial. It apparently is not clear what the zoning of their property is now,
but the parcel they intend to purchase from Village North is zoned industrial.
• I believe all of the Village North property is zoned industrial and will remain industrial.
l .
26
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of St.Anthony Planning Commission
August 2,2000
Page 3
Each of the three requests (subdivision, ordinance amendment and rezoning) should have a
separate public hearing. Each of your recommendations to the Council with respect to these-matters
should be in separate motions with respect to the subdivision approval, zoning ordinance amendment
and rezoning.
I hope this answers all of the questions relating to these applications, but if you need any further
information, please let me know.,
V ry truly yours
William R. Soth
WRS/ms
cc: Spencer Isom
27
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2000
• Page 8
1 Motion carried unanimouslv.
2 VI.. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS:
3 None.
4 Chair Bergstrom called for a recess at 8:35 p.m.
5 VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS.
6 Chair Bergstrom called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m.
7 1. Concept Review: 2801 37th Avenue NE.
8 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom reported that Mr.Ken
9 Solie,Owner of Village Properties, seeks to (1) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2,Block 1,
10 Apache Plaza 3rd Addition; (2) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1,Block 1,apache Terrace
11 Addition; and (3) Combine the original parcels remaining after the subdivisions into one lot. A-11
12 land in question is presently zoned LI. The existing industrial building will be on the combined lot.
13 Mr. Solie's intent is to sell the two outer lots.
�4 Isom continued by stating that.City Attorney Soth had been contacted to review this issue,and that
i Mr. Soth had recommended a Declaration of Restrictions-Agreement. Such an agreement.would
6 state,in essence,that the City would approve of the combining of the lots and that the Owner would
17 take that information to the County.
18 Isom introduced Mr. Ken Solie, owner of Village Properties, and invited him to approach the
19 Commission. Mr. Solie stated that he is proposing to subdivide and recombine the land associated
20 with the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801 37th Avenue NE. Mr. Solie stated that with
21 reference to the proposed subdivisions, he is currently leasing a strip of land to the north of the
22 existing building from the CP Railroad to provide convenience parking for tenant employees. This
23 lease has been in place since at least 1979 and discussions with the railroad indicate that it is not
24, likely that the lease would ever be terminated. If it were terminated, however, he would have a
25 difficult-time providing on site parking according to the Ordinance.
26 Consequently,Mr. Solie stated that at worst case, he would be forced to buy the land from the
27 railroad. Various discussion ensued regarding required parking spaces and City ordinance, and
28 options depending upon the outcome of discussions with the railroad.
29 In response to a comment by Hatch regarding the Livable Communities Grant,Bergstrom explained
30 to the audience that the City has submitted a grant request to do a future land study for a large area,
31 but that the City is not targeting any particular parcel. Additionally the Metropolitan Council has
32 grant programs for doing long-term studies. Both of these properties are inside the area,but have
�3 not been specifically targeted by the study.
. 28
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 20,2000
• Page 9
1 Bergstrom noted that Mr. Solie's next step was to coordinate with Assistant City Manager Isom to
2 move forward with the project—The issue would probably be on the Planning Commission's agenda
. 3 - for next month..
4 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Solie for the concept review and presentation.
5 2. Concept Review: 2501 37th Avenue NE.
6 Chair Bergstrom requested a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom reported that the
7 applicant, Dr. Terry Rapacz, was seeking to expand his clinic by purchasing a proposed parcel of
8 land from Mr. Ken Solie, Owner of Village Properties.
9 In this respect,Mr. Art Brown,Prudential Real Estate, approached the Commission and presented
10 the detailed plans for the expansion of Apache Animal Hospital.
11 Jeff Agnes, architect, approached the Commission and reviewed in detail the plans presented. His
12 presentation depicted a 4,000 to 5,000 foot building, and stated that Dr. Rapacz was considering
13 using some residential features for the building in order to coordinate with the residential character
14 of the surrounding area. 'In that respect,Mr.Agnes presented an artist's rendering of the proposed
15 building, which incorporated certain residential features into the exterior.
•
Bergstrom acknowledged that he was in support that the design was of a residential nature, and he
g g
17 is pleased that there would not be any significant grading in the area.
18 Isom noted that currently the Commission is simply looking at rezoning the property and to
19 combining the lots. Once discussions have been accomplished with the railroad, additional
20 information will be obtained and a return to the Commission would be in order.
21 Various discussion ensued about additions to existing buildings that have been grandfathered into
22 the existing Code.
23 Thomas inquired of Mr.Agnes if decorative lighting was planned for the building. Mr.Agnes stated
24 that lighting is part of the architecture planned and.that Dr. Rapacz would enjoy working with the
25 City on attractive and decorative lighting to compliment what the City has planned for the area: . .
26 Thomas inquired if the City needed to be concerned about a building-to-lot ratio. Bergstrom
27 confirmed that required was only for residential property.
28 — Bergstrom encouraged Dr.Terry Rapacz and his staff to work with Spencer Isom in implementing
29 the proposed project.
�0 3. Concept Review: 3259 Stinson Boulevard.
. Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff.
July 12 , 2000
Date:
Fee: $150.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION/PLAT APPROVAL
Apache Animal Medicine PA. 612-781-2734
Applicant: Village North LLp . Phone: 612-781-3381
_ 2501 37th Ave . NE
Address:
2500 39th Ave . . NE #230 St . Anthony,. MN 55421
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Renter, Agent, etc.): Owners
Present Legal Description of Property to be Affected: Lot 1 & Lot 2 ,
A he ,Terrace
Block 1 , Apache Plaza 3rd .Addi.tion & Lot 1 ,Block 1 ��cition
• Proposed Legal Description of Property to be Affected:
Lots 1 , 2 & 3 Block 1 Apache Terrace 2nd Addition
Street Address:
an Ave . NE
Zoning District in Which Property is Located: Light Industrial
None
Specify Any Necessary Easements:
Area of the Plat/Subdivision: 229117 Square feet
Number of Parcels: 3
Attach a copy of the proposed plat showing the proposed name of the plat, the
location within the City, the names of the present owners, the scale, the date of
preparation, the northpoint, surrounding property, all public utilities and easements and
other such necessary information or documentation as is requested by the City
• Manager or the subdivision/platting ordinance.
SEE ATTACHMENT
30
ATTACHMENT TO APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION/PLAT APPROVAL
The applicants are applying to re-plat the subject land according to the attached
survey for the purpose of creating three new lots from the three existing lots in order
to facilitate the sale of the land to the east and to the west of the current blacktop
parking lot associated with the building located at 2801 371h Avenue NE.
With this re-platting, the west land will be available for combination with other land
owned or to be acquired by Apache Animal Medicine PA to allow for expansion of
the existing clinic. Also, re-platting will separate the land to the east for possible
future development. Re-platting also provides for legally describing the land
associated with the 2801 property as.a single parcel.
With reference to the issue of parking on the 2801 site, a companion application to
modify the zoning ordinance to bring the available parking on the remaining land
into compliance is being concurrently submitted.
• This application 'and the accompanying zoning change application are being
submitted in anticipation of a public hearing and final plat approval occurring at the
August Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Ken Solie, Partner - Village North LLP.
Terry Rapacz, Presid t - A nimal Medicine PA
•
08/10/00 THU 13:53 FAX 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY 31
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS PILLS$URY CENTIjR SOUTH BILLINGS
NEW YOKK 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREfi'r GMAT FALLS
sEATTLE MINNEAPOLIS.M114NMSOTA 55402-1498 _ � MIsSOULA
DBNVEIL TELEPHONR: (612) 340-2600 anLlsseLs
,WASHINGTON,D.C. FAX: (612) 340-2868 FAAGO
DES MOINUS IVn.IJAM EL 907Ii HONG KONC
ANCHORAG>3 (612)M&2969 ROCHZSTER
SALT LAKE CITY
LONDON
VANCOUVER
COSTA MESA
August 10, 2000
Planning Commission
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Re: Preliminary Plat of APACHE TERRACE 2`d ADDITION
• Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I have reviewed the Preliminary Plat of APACHE TERRACE 21"'ADDITION being proposed
by Village North LLP (Ken,Solie) and Apache Animal Medicine, P.A_, and have the following
comments:
1. Plat. The land to be subdivided includes Lot 1, Block 1, APACHE PLAZA 3rd
ADDITION, Ramsey County, owned by Apache Animal Medicine, P.A., and Lot 2, Block 1,
APACHE PLAZA 3`d ADDITION, Ramsey County, and Lot 1, Block 1 APACHE TERRACE,
Ramsey County, owned by Village North LLP. The owners have applied to replat their properties into
three lots in order to expand the size of the lot on which the animal clinic is located, decrease the size of
cts building is located, and create a new lot to the east of
the lot on which the Industrial Custom Produ e replatted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, APACHE
the industrial building. The property would b
TERRACE 2"d ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota. 'Lot 1 will be owned by Apache Animal
Medicine, P.A., and the other two lots will be owned by Village North LLP,
2, Zoning and Lot Size. According to a letter dated August 9, 2000 from Harry S.
Johnson Land Surveyors, Lot I is to be zoned C, General Commercial., and the other two lots are to be
zoned LI, Light Industrial. The minimum lot size in the Commercial District is 15,000 square feet and
the minimum lot is 100 feet. Lot 1 meets these requirements. The lot area and vAdtb for the industrial
lots is the same, and the two industrial lots meet those requirements.
08/10/00 THU 19:54 FAX 16129402644 DORSEY WHITNEY
32
DOKSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Planning Commission August 10, 2000
Page 2
3. Access. The Preliminary Plat shows access to all three lots from 37th Avenue
Northeast.
4. Setbacks.
A. Animal Clinic If the animal clinic is zoned Commercial., the front yard must
have a depth equal to the greater of 35 feet or a distance equal to the average of the two adjacent lots.
Since there is no adjacent lot to the west, I would recommend that the 3 5 foot front setback apply.
The survey does not appear to show the distance of the front setback for the existing building, but to the
extent it is less than 35 feet, it would be grandfathered. The side yard setbacks are 10 feet, and those
are clearly met. The rear yard is to have a depth of 20 feet. It appears that a portion of the building is
• much closer than 20 feet from the rear lot line. It too, however,will be grandfathered as an existing
building. As noted in my earlier letter to you, the animal clinic owners intend to acquire a strip of land
from the railroad to add to their property, in which case the rear setback would be met.
B. Industrial Lots. The front setback for the industrial lots is 40 feet or a distance
equal to the average of the setbacks of the structures on the two adjoining lots. Again, the existing
industrial building would be grandfathered. Any new development on Lot 3 would require that this
front setback be met. The side yards are to be 15 feet in width and 40 feet adjoining a street. The rear
yard is to be 15 feet in depth The existing industrial development on Lot 13 0o expansion on Lot
requirement, but it again would be �y new
2 would be required to meet the setbacks.
5, Floor Areas. The floor area ratio within the C District may not exceed 1.0, and the
animal clinic meets this requirement. The floor area ratio for the industrial lots may not exceed 1.5 and
the existing industrial building meets this requirement. There is no building on Lot 3, but any new
building would be required to meet these floor area requirements.
6. Lot Covera e. Based on the letter from the Surveyor, the existing animal clinic building
would cover only 3.08% of the new Lot L According to the surveyor, the existing industrial building
would cover 49% of Lot 2. No building is located on Lot 3.
•
08/10/00 THU 13:54 FAX 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY r'
33
DORSEY WHITNEY LLP
•
Planning Commission August 10, 2000
Page 3 .
7. Easements. Under Section 1500.05, Subd. 2, easements must be provided for utilities
and drainage where necessary. Certain existing easements are shown on the Preliminary Plat. If the
City's engineers determine that any additional easements are necessary, the easements must be at least
10 feet wide for utilities and must have continuity of alignment with existing easements. If any additional
easements are necessary they should be shown and dedicated in the final plat.
8. Parking. The parking requirements were discussed in my letter to you dated August 2,
2000.
9. Title. We must be provided with information regarding the title to the animal clinic
property in the form of a commitment for title insurance or title insurance policy, to show the ownership
and any mortgages and easements on the property. We have that information for the Village North,
LLP property in.the form of a marked up commitment for title insurance, but we will need a copy of the
• final title insurance policy to check the status of easements and mortgages. Two existing utility
easements are shown on the Preliminary Plat, but a utility easement to the City dated January 25, 1980
and recorded January 29, 1980 as Document No. 2069908, does not appear to be shown. It needs to
be shown if it still exists.
10. City Expenses, The plat and final resolution approving the plat should not be signed by
the City and delivered to the owner until all fees, including the City's engineering fees and legal fees, are
paid.
If you have any further questions on this, please let me know.
ery truly yours
William R Soth
WRS:ms
cc: Michael J. Mornson
Spencer Isom
•
B-09-200 3:41PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344
34
HARRY S: JOHNSON
LAND SURVEYORS
August 9, 2000 1 of 2
Spencer Isom
Assistant City Manager
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Re: Preliminary Plat of APACHE TERRACE 2ND ADDITION.
Dear Spencer,
At the request of Ken Solie of Village Properties, I am submitting the following additional
information for the submittal of the Preliminary Plat application on the above referenced
site.
*Zoning & setback information.
• Proposed Lot 1, Block 1, APACHE TERRACE 2'ADDITION(250.1 37th Site) .
Zoning:C, General Commercial
Building setbacks: Front yard must have depth equal to the greater'of 35 feet or a
distance equal to the average of the two adjacent.lots.
Side yard. Interior side yards 10 feet in width.
Rear Yard. 20 feet in depth
Proposed Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, APACHE TERRACE 2ND ADDITION(2801 37°i Site)
Zoning: LI Light Industrial District
Building setbacks: Front yard must have depth equal to the greater of 40 feet or a
distance equal to the average of the setbacks of structures on the two
adjoining lots.
Side.yard. Interior side yards 15 feet in width. 40 feet adjoining a
street
Rear Yard. 15 feet in depth.
Tower setback: No setback restriction for non residential property in zoning
regulations, 15 feet from property line as Per Assistant City Manager.
Harry S. Johnson Co., Inc.
• 170 West 79'"Street
Bloomington, MN 55454
tele(952)884-5341
fax(952)884-5344
e=mail:tomQhsjsurveyors.com
8-09-200 3:42PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 35
HARRY S. JOHNSON
LAND SURVEYORS
2 of 2
The existing building at 280137 th Ave. NE is a permitted no conforming building per
variances approved by the City of St. Anthony as follows.
A 17 foot front yard building setback variance to allow the expansion to be compatible with
symmetry of the existing building.
A 15 foot rear yard setback variance. Allowing zero setbacks along rear property line.
The above referenced variances allow the existing building to conform to all existing
building set backs.
*BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREAS & PERCENTAGE OF LOT AREA COVERAGE:
2501 37TH Avenue building footprint area=2239 S.F.
250137 TH Avenue Lot Area(proposed Lot 1)= 72765_ S.F.
Percentage building coverage ° 3.08%
2801 37h Avenue building footprint area=66466 S.F.
2801 37`h Avenue Lot Area(proposed Lot 2)= 134273 S.F.
Percentage building coverage= 49%
(Proposed Lot 2)= 134273 S.F.
No building on site
Percentage building coverage = 00%
Any questions, concerns or additional requests regarding the above information please
contact our office.
Thank you,
Thomas E. Hodorff, L.9
Minn. Reg.No. 23677
cc: B.Soth, K.Solie;R.Ogren
• Harry S. Johnson Co., Inc.
170 West 791"Street
Bloomington, MN 55454
tele(952)884-5341
fax(952)884-5344
e-mail:tom@hsjsurveyors.com
i
36
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 6/13/00 MEETING DATE: 6/20/00 -
TO:, Planning Commission ..
FROM; Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Concept Review. 280137' Avenue, Subdivision of Two Lots and Combining
Two Resulting Lots.
Ken Solie,Owner of Village Properties seeks to: (1)Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2,Block 1,Apache
Plaza 3`d Addition; (2) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1,Block 1,Apache Terrace Addition; and, (3)
Combine the original parcels remaining after the subdivisions into one lot. All land in question is presently zoned
U. The existing industrial building(2801 37`s Avenue)will be on the combined lot(see#3 above). Mr. Solie's
intent is to sell the t*vo outer lots created by the above referenced subdivisions of land. 1-3 above will require
two separate subdivision applications and a"Declaration of Restrictions"agreement drafted by the City Attorney
for combining parcels of land.
Staff Recommendation: Since this is a Concept Review, staff has no recommendation at this time.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
37
• St. Anthony
Village Properties, LLP
2500-3.9th Avenue NE
Suite 230
Minneapolis, MN .55421.
June 14, 2000
Spenser A. Isom
Assistant City Manager
St. Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Dear Mr. Isom,
With reference to our recent meeting, this letter.outlines our plans to subdivide and
• recombine the land associated with the Industrial.Custom Products building at 2801
37`h Avenue N.E. The attached drawing, marked Exhibit A ,shows the land as it is
currently platted in two parcels with the existing building located partly on each
parcel. Our proposal involves three actions to clean up the existing land
descriptions as they relate to the improvements and to separate the land at the east
and west ends of the property for future sale and development. Exhibit B shows the
reconfigured layout.
Action 1, Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2, Block 1, Apache Plaza 3rd
Addition lying to the west of the existing black top parking lot. This land is
designated as Lot 1 New Subdivision_ (NS) on Exhibit A and as LOT 1 on Exhibit B. .
It is currently proposed that Apache Animal Hospital will purchase this land from_
the applicant for the future development.of an addition to the existing building to
the west of the property. The area of the subdivided property is approximately
12000 square feet.
Action 2. Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1, Block 1, Apache Terrace
Addition lying to the east of the existing blacktop parking lot. This land is
designated as Lot 3 NS on Exhibit A and as LOT 3 on Exhibit B. This subdivision
anticipates the possible sale of this property for future development. The area of the
subdivision property is approximately 66000 square feet.
38 ,
Action 3. It is further proposed that the portions of the original parcels remaining
after subdivision be combined into one lot designated as Lot 2 NS on Exhibit A and
LOT 2 on Exhibit B, thus positioning the existing improvement on one legally
described' lot.- It is anticipated that.this action will be accomplished administrative
by_the execution of;a Declaration of Restriction to..be.prepared by the City Attorney,
The area of this land is approximately 133,000 square feet.
I understand that each of these actions will be considered separately by the City,
however, they are being submitted here as a package as they are closely related
activities. Additional actions by the buyers of the west land are also expected
concurrent with this proposal regarding rezoning and perhaps other issues.
With reference to the proposed subdivisions, please note that we currently lease a
strip of land to the north of the existing building from the CP Railroad to provide
convenient parking for tenant employees. This lease has been in place since at least
1979 and discussions with the railroad indicate that it is not likely that the lease
would ever be terminated. If it were terminated however, we would have difficulty
providing on site parking according to the Ordinance. A package of previous
correspondence is attached providing background on this issue and as the January 4,
2000 memo concludes, the worst case is.that we_would be forced to buy the land
from the railroad. Accordingly, we do not feel that this issue should, be a factor in
approving the subdivision proposals.
For expediency, draft copies of subdivision applications are attached for review and
comment.
Thank you f�r your consideration.
inc y
Kenneth Solie
•
•
TE. M'AR�t rcr.l�l...,.._ ,om.,,..•-....
—r NEAPOLIS & SAU�TI.IS•Y:...::.., a. ,TMrL :l:p
MIN _
' .n.0.unnnTll.nannnYn IY M1 /' lww MG p.p60])'�l• ----- LL
.. tai.L�7� ••i;�.,: r • YOM. Il _10•UIWM1!ABLY(., 7
LLI
fccc CA
Ypi-
4w .• MN]COOL IOM.77
•'r.4f 1 •;'anfGy,..7'`!• .T-;.":• 011 SLAW. 1 I PEA OOG 10.7).G)]0
�iY S1 _
f .. 1'�•'-ilyY•Yr:7 R ita _ b•tmTv CSCYLM, 1
` f- Y000 re-.` .. w• - : ' 7.•.. !7001 LOT 1 I Keam. .5)7674! W..
r-
G l.( OLOCK OLOG. � !I +. ;�.:;.'y ',,,:'.="''..z.•` :J:
.a•\ =15, w r 'LOT 2 B ^c l•t•` • >rr ural,lr TE.•R+
�.'•• 1 •:�'!1 rp' (i L 1J Lal 7 Lm 1 (66.572 S.C) %1 '.•� :L+om.W. W7e.ai.Y• A' ,. •ff'A':G'•,E; ;lti•••, ;1;4
.. •�.. .YCw..ti{
1 -
- -
... Aru71E PLA7a' ,3kDC� _ �.� 7.755 'I
a - --
a1,,;.T: a
T
I
N' .
1071.0 ••: - f K�\•.�• ) " :' ,• .;r.. �-B.lK SMI/.tu.). 1030.4
r•1-, -675.50---
� �I'� �s:a,;,.,•:. 1 37TW'VENUE N.E. rpc .W ---------- -----{.I.aO------- --------
•Sr1 �,kr C%
Jt o- tt.?:��•�l I
C /�T111 J
APFLe
T Ail
—� 4,a?c ':T/k 3 rd AFL ace
AREA OF SITE = 211 ,039 S.F. (4..845 ACRES) NOTE: ON EXISTING IE UTILITY ECASEMENCS 6.66'
ON PRIDrO U7W. f O. 1457
• OfSf.RIDCD IN DOC. N0. 1637DJ2
LEG END +
• i
O Om11110 U101&%9N. lac(r0111/UNOUS) .
• rnorosm lawgll 1
O om7wa rw.at Q7,'�,(bcaolws) i
-0N vow"roll T!'rll7[NaK 0011 '1 ,
l
L4z N�
W
' `p
n -
�'r•� , •1 r 1 ----------
M.3EOW C 106..17 . I .om.Irp
u,_6,rx• .69..
4329 LOT 3
• , nr +. 7 _ "•"++ CONCRETE OLOCK &•DRICK DUILDINC .1
�.L.— �..�.. \-�. •.rr.l. r
_...:N� E979S)'M Iri..11
.. :1.j•rr a -),r.Lr7vC._ .-_.v............ .In-rT..r-.
ft-- • •-
a Iw`Tni.r :.r 1
...w.....tee.r..m mo.� •
V l.._.r.a r4Y!A n,eq�7 Ow\Yr.�,. L�.rw.r•.�...•..�.w rr r
•r�.r r..rwr.ter r..rw�
l or r L-o i
DoT 3
a�
41
MEMORANDUM
• DATE: 819/00 MEETING DATE: 8/15/00
TO: Planning Commission /
FROM: Assistant City.Manager Isom
RE: Public Hearing. Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance, 2801 37"'
Avenue, Village North Properties.
Village North LLP,in which Ken Solie is a partner,as owner of the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801
37''Avenue NE,have requested to amend the zoning ordinance so as to require less parking for LI districts. Mr.
Solie has compiled information regarding parking requirements in other cities. It shows a comparison of the St.
Anthony requirement to the Cities of Arden Hills,Roseville,Minneapolis,New Brighton and Fridley.
City Attorney Soth supports approval of Mr. Solie's petition for the reasons stated in Mr. Soth's August 2,2000
communication. Mr. Soth recommends amending Section 1650.05,Subd. 1(e)(7)of St.Anthony's ordinance as
follows:
(7) Light industrial,manufacturing,testing and research uses must have one space for every 1,000
square feet of building floor area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the petition. See City Attorney Soth's 8/2
communication to Planning Commission.
•
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
42
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH BILLINGS
NEW YORK 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET GREAT FALLS
SEATTLE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $5402-1498 MissOULA
DENVER TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600 BRUSSELS
WASHINGTON,D.C. - 'FAX: (612) 340-2868.'' - FARGO -
DES MOINES HONG KONG
ANCHORAGE WILLIAM R.SOTH ROCHESTER
(612)340=2969
LONDON FAX(612)340-2644 SALT LAKE CITY
COSTA MESA soth.wilham@dorseylaw.com VANCOUVER
August 2, 2000
Planning Commission
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Re: Village North and Apache Animal Clinic
Subdivision and Zoning Approvals
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Village North LLP, in which Ken Solie is a partner, as owner of the Industrial Custom Products
building at 2801 37`h Avenue NE, and Apache Animal Medicine, P.A., as owner of the Apache Animal
Clinic, have applied to replat their properties into three lots in order to expand the size of the lot on
which the animal clinic is located, decrease the size of the lot on which the Industrial Custom Products
building is located, and create a new lot to the east of the industrial building. The property would be
replatted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Apache Terrace 2"d Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Since the size of the lot on which the industrial building.is located would be reduced, a question
arises as to whether the lot would have sufficient parking. Currently the owner of the industrial building
leases a strip of land approximately 67 feet wide from the railroad. This adjoins the north lot line and
provides additional parking for the industrial building. The owner originally requested that the City
ermit him to include the leased land as part of the property so as to meet the parking requirement. I
must advise you that it is not permissible to include such leased land,since the railroad has the right to
terminate that lease on rather short notice, and the lease could also be terminated for non-payment of
rent or other factors, in which case the parking would be non-conforming.
Ken Solie also discussed with Spencer Isom and me the question of whether he might apply for
• a parking variance for this lot. We suggested to him that it is unlikely that a variance would be
43
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of St. Anthony Planning Commission
August 2,2000
Page 2
permissible, since hardship is being created by reducing the size of the lot and reasonable use is being
made of the property in its present condition.
We next discussed with him the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance so as to require
less parking for this type of property. Mr. Solie has compiled information regarding parking
requirements in other cities and this will be provided to you. It shows a comparison of the St. Anthony
requirement to the Cities of Arden Hills, Roseville, Minneapolis, New Brighton and Fridley. The current
St. Anthony ordinance is Section 1650.05, Subd. 1(e)(7) which provides as follows:
(7) Light industrial, manufacturing, testing and research uses must have one space for every
employee on the largest shift or one parking space for every 350 square feet of floor
area, whichever is greater.
Mr. Solie is requesting that the requirement be changed to one parking space for every 1,000 square .
feet of building floor area.
I would recommend that the ordinance be changed to eliminate any reference to the number of
employees. It is not a good practice to have a parking requirement that changes with the number of
employees in the building. This raises uncertainty as to what the parking requirement is at any given
point in time, and it also creates an almost impossible situation for enforcement. Based upon the
information provided by Mr. Solie, it does appear that one space per 350 square feet of floor area is
rather conservative. Arden Hills, Roseville and Minneapolis each provide for one space for each 1,000
square feet, New Brighton is at 350 square feet and Fridley is at 400 square feet. If you amend the
ordinance as requested, I would suggest that paragraph 7 be revised to read as follows:
(7) Light industrial, manufacturing, testing and research uses must have one space for every
1,000 square feet of building floor area.
The animal clinic intends to purchase some land from the railroad to add to their property, but
this will not be included in the new plat. I believe that the animal clinic will be requesting that all of its
property be rezoned to commercial. It apparently is not clear what the zoning of their property is now,
but the parcel they intend to purchase from Village North is zoned industrial.
I believe all of the Village North property is zoned industrial and will remain industrial.
44
IDORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of St. Anthony Planning Commission
August 2,2000
Page.3
Each of the three requests (subdivision, ordinance amendment and rezoning) should have a
separate public hearing. Each of your recommendations to the Council with respect to these matters
should be in separate motions with respect to the subdivision approval, zoning ordinance amendment
and rezoning.
I hope this answers all of the questions relating to these applications, but if you need any further
information, please let me know.
V ry truly yours
William-R. Soth
WRS/ms
cc: Spencer Isom
•
Date: July 13 , 2000
•
Fee:.$100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Village North LLP . - Ken Solie , Partner
Applicant:
Address:
2500 39th Avenue NE #230 Phone: 612-781-3381
Request for change regarding: (check appropriate item(s))
x
Restrictions upon buildings, structures, or amenities
Permitted uses
Conditional uses
Tight Industrial 12-�01 37Affected zoning district: . .
Proposed changes) and reason(s) therefor:
Modify the current zoning requirement for parking
in the Light Industrial Classification from one
space for each 350 square feet of building area to
one space for each 1000 square feet of buiding
area .
See attached for justification
(use additional sheet, if necessary)
•
Signature of Applicant
46.
•
ATTACHMENT TO PETITION FOR AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE
Paragraph 1650.05 of the St. Anthony Zoning Ordinance. provides that in a Light
Industrial zoning district, on-site parking be provided at the rate of one parking
space for each 350 square feet of gross floor area or one parking space for each
employee on the largest shift, which-ever is greater.
Our company, Village North LLP, owns the Industrial Custom Products building at
2801 37`h avenue N.E. and is applying separately, with the Apache Animal Clinic to
replat the land owned by each of these parties to provide for the sale and
redevelopment of land to the east and the west of the blacktop parking lot at the
2801 site. Village North currently leases approximately 58000 square feet of land _
from CP Rail to provide adjacent parking to the building. The land remaining with
2801, along with the leased land, provides sufficient on-site parking to meet zoning
requirements as currently stated, after separation of the land as described in the re-
platting application. Should the railroad unexpectedly fail to renew our lease on its
expiration on December 31, 2002, we will be unable to meet the zoning requirements
without the separated land. The railroad land is available for-purchase now and
maybe available for purchase if the lease is terminated, but the, economics of
purchase are very unfavorable. For background, a memo is attached describing the
railroad position.
Our company feels that the current zoning requirement does not reflect the actual
parking requirements of the present or any foreseeable future use of the building and
further, that the Zoning Ordinance is significantly more restrictive than similar
parking requirements in adjacent communities. We have researched parking
requirements for similar zoning classifications in several surrounding communities
and the results are summarized in the attached table. Complete copies of the
ordinance are available for review. As the table shows, St. Anthony, along with
New Brighton, has'the most restrictive requirement.
The current use of the 2801 building is for plastic fabrication, which is a low-
density operation with large machines and heavy material and finished product
storage. The tenant, in an attached letter, has stated that he will not require more
than 70 parking spaces for his operations. Because of the nature of the St. Anthony
market, the nature of the subject property and the nature of the local labor market, it
is unlikely that the subject property, will ever be used for any high density
manufacturing purpose and that even at its highest density use, there would ever be
• 200 plus employees at the site.
47
Because of these facts, we request that the Zoning Ordinance requirements for
parking in the Light Industrial District be changed to a level more consistent with
surrounding communities and with the present and probable future use of the
property.
The proposed change is to one, space*for each 1000 square feet of building area, as it
is Roseville, Arden Hills and Minneapolis.
Attached is our surveyor's estimate of parking that can be provided on the current
parking surface without the leased land. As the drawings show we can park 94
vehicles on the site. The building has a foot print area of 66458 square feet and 2nd
floor office and lunchroom area of approximately 6000 square feet for a total of
72458 square feet. With the proposed revision to the Ordinance, we would be
required to provide 72 spaces and we would be in excess of compliance by 22
spaces. With reference to the Ordinance requirement to have a total parking lot area
of 300 square feet per parking place, we estimate we have 37000 square feet of
parking surface as compared to 94 stalls times 300 square feet or 28000 square feet
required. With approval of the requested Ordinance change, we will engage the
surveyor to provide the City with parking lot detail as maybe required.
We have discussed the= proposed ordinance change with Scott Tankenhoff of
• Hillcrest Development who is presently involved in the only other significant
development activity in St. Anthony at Apache. Hillcrest is supportive of the
proposal. Considering that there are no other development sites in St. Anthony for
light industrial use, the proposed change in the Ordinance will not create
unanticipated future issues.
We ask your support in the requested action to permit the continued redevelopment
of the Apache area at both the animal clinic site and any future development that
might accrue to the east involving the proposed Lot 3 and the now vacant Amoco
site.
7�
Kenneth Solie Date
Community Category Parking Requirement
One space for each employee on the largest
Light Industrial, shift or one space for every 350 square feet of
St. Anthony Manufacturing, Etc.
floor area, whichever is greater
One space for each employee on the largest
Other Business or shift plus one space for each company vehicle
Arden Hills Industry or one space .for each 1000 square feet of
building area, whichever is greater
Two parking spaces for every three' employees on
Roseville Industrial Districts the largest shift or one space for every 1000
square feet, whichever is greater .
One space for each 1000 square feet up to
Minneapolis Light Industrial 20,000 square feet and one space for each 2000
square feet above 20,000 square feet
One space for each employee on the largest
Manufacturing or shift or one space for each 350 square feet
New Brighton processing p
whichever is greater
One space for each 400 sgaure feet *of
Fridley Manufacturing manufacturing space (not gross building area)
I�
49
07/12/2000 11:01 INDUSTRIAL CUSTOM PRODUCTS 612 7 81 4584 NO.93
r
INDUSTRIAL
CUSTOM
PRODUCTS
July 12, 2000
Ken Solie
Village Properties
2500 39`h Avenue NE, Suite 230
Minneapolis, MN 55421.
Dear Ken:
The purpose of this letter is to document Industrial Custom Products estimate of
future parking a turements,for your use with St. Anthony Village. Over the remaining
term of our 2.5Feear lease, we would not expect to use more than 70 parking spaces for
any single shift at this facility.
Please let me know if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
Herb Houndt
We arm O.-ci rrev- Y129C ec�
Vs 4 r
0
•�arc..S i �n, .C' Sao-v..
04
.
4-o-re 4 4 �L
7-12-200 2:50PM FROM HARRY S JOHNSON CO 612 884 5344 _
0
HARRY S. JOHNSON .W .
LAND SURVEYORS
July 12, 2000
Ken Solie
Village Properties
2500 39`h Avenue NE
Minneapolis, MN 55421
Re: Parking stall (Proof of parking)280137"' Avenue Site, St. Anthony, MN.
Ken,
The attached drawings show the parking stalls available if striped at present above
referenced site using proposed lot 2 of future subdivision.
Total stalls available using standard stall sizes 9'x 1q' and standard drive widths is 94 stalls
Questions or additional requests please contact our office.
Thank You,
Thomas E. Hodorff
Harry S. Johnson Co., Inc.
170 West 791"'Street
Bloomington, MIN 55454
tele(952)884-5341
fax(952)884-5344
e-mail:tom@hsisurveyors.com
_- - ---- ---------- ------- ---- -
d
a - L
CENTERLINE EXISIING RR TRACK-�- -��
WOODS EDGE��s�`I:-� �J
` L -
v L- WOODS EDGE TRASH C
o rm`�r E 903 Q6
4N BITUMINOUS N 8438 00 90
I,(D =
fO
o STEEL STAIRS
:z Z ---
0
z
p N
(� - BUILDING FOOTPRINT AR
Y
Of
Y r m n ITIr�\
10� z /-
f'� _ n 1016.
'a -----N 89°59'55" W 1954. 72 -----
N n � r II I �- I �� I--> TI I
In - _ - - - - - - -' ---- - - -
;N I�r1
N
cq SAN. M.I 1.
T STORM M. RIM=�35U.4
B.
--_---� HIM-952.0 I of?M M.I-I.
IM=951.8 \ RIM=950.6
C'A AI .. -- ---- -- --- -- --------- ----
WOODS EDGE -- -
L
BITUMINOUS ` / o ' 31
f 62
STEPS
MPACTOR —
co
i Lo
OD
06
06 , , i - - - - �
0
U a a
i 0 j STEPS cn
Z
0
0 CD
I- - U I I Y Y > �-
} = r a m -<
A 66458 S. F. n � n � � I I r . -s1—
0
TELI
LL S }
a
N - _—
N
RIM *q8,,l �. C.13. 9 C.R. `x(1.
53 54
3sed .
nthony :hat
Urge Properties, LLP Isis
arly
2500-39" Avenue NE, Suite 230 and
Minneapolis, MN 55421
)ing
on
iary 4, 2000 the
!and
Lroad Lease / Parking Issue at 2801 37th Ave. NE way
ride
:n: Ken Solie
this date, I discussed the current land leasing
losophy of CP Rail with David Drach of CP (612-347-
4) . He stated as follows:
All new leases and lease renewals are being done on a
month to month basis with 30 days notice. This is CP
Rail policy and there are no exceptions .
It is CP Rails position that they want to sell any land
t is not essential to . railroad operations . Their
price is the market value of neighboring land
without regard to the land-locked nature of the
parcels . They feel that while the land has no value to
the public, it has "market value" to the owners of
contiguous property. Drach said They will hold the
property for 80 years before they will sell it at less
than market value" .
Drach sees no reason that CP Rail would not renew our
lease in the future. He stated that the only reasons
for lease termination are for cause (non payment of
rent) or if the railroad had a need for the land for
business purposes : He did . not see any .pending railroad
need for this land An the future. I asked him to
document this in. a letter, He refused.
He stated that he thought there was a 100 feet wide
strip through this area that could be available for
lease but it seems clear that their preference would-be
to sell .
om his discussion, it seems that the worst case scenario
u e that CP Rail refuses to renew our lease at its
pir tion for the purpose of forcing us to purchase the
• Date: July 13 , 2000
Fee: $100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance
Village North LLP . - Ken Solie , Partner
Applicant:
Address:
2500 39th Avenue NE #230 Phone: 612-781-3381
Request for change regarding: (check appropriate item(s)) -_
x
Restrictions upon buildings, structures, or amenities
Permitted uses.
Conditional uses
Affected zoning district: Light Industrial
•
Proposed changes and reasons therefor:
Mnrii fv fho niIYYCnt
1894
SAINT ANTHONY 2801 PARTNERSHIP FIRSTAR BANK OF MINNESOTA,N.A.
2500-39TH AVE NE,NO 230 ST.PAUL,MN 55101
ST.ANTHONY,MN 55421 75-15221910
PAY TO THE 06
ORDER O7F�,
07U U /U,{/ [,t / - DOLLARS
MEMO..
_ op
- . RIZED SIGNATURE.,
11'001894��' `i09 LO L5 2 241: x!'846305 '. a79��'.
-. .. . ....
SECURITY FEATURES INCLUDED.DETAILS ON BACKS
•
Signature of Applicant
56
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 6/13/00 MEETING DATE: 6/20/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Concept Review. 280137' Avenue, Subdivision of Two Lots and Combining
Two Resulting Lots.
Ken Solie,Owner of Village Properties seeks to: (1)Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2,Block 1,Apache
Plaza 3`a Addition; (2) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1,Block 1,Apache Terrace Addition; and, (3)
Combine the original parcels remaining after the subdivisions into one lot. All land in question is presently zoned
U. The existing industrial building(2801 37h Avenue)will be on the combined lot(see#3 above). Mr.Solie's
intent is to sell the two outer lots created by the above referenced subdivisions of land. 1-3 above will require
two separate subdivision applications and a"Declaration of Restrictions"agreement drafted by the City Attorney
for combining parcels of land.
Staff Recommendation: Since this is a Concept Review, staff has no recommendation at this time.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
•
57
• St. Anthony
•.
Village Properties, LLP
2500-39`h Avenue NE
Suite 230
Minneapolis, MN 55421
June 14, 2000
Spenser A. Isom
Assistant City Manager
St. Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Dear Mr. Isom,
With reference to our. recent meeting, this letter outlines our plans to subdivide and
• recombine the land associated with the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801
37`h Avenue N.E. The attached drawing, marked Exhibit A ,shows the land as it is
currently platted in two parcels with the existing building located partly on each
parcel. Our proposal involves three actions to clean up the existing land
descriptions as they relate to the improvements and to separate the land at the east
and west ends of the property for future sale and development. Exhibit B shows the
reconfigured layout.
Action 1, Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2, Block 1, Apache Plaza 3rd
Addition lying to the west of the existing black top parking lot. This land is
designated as Lot 1 New Subdivision (NS) on Exhibit A and as LOT 1 on Exhibit B...
It is currently proposed that Apache Animal Hospital will purchase this land from
the 'applicant for the future development of'an addition to the exist..ing building to
the west of the property. The area of the subdivided property is approximately
12000 square feet.
Action 2. Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1, Block 1, Apache Terrace
Addition lying to the east of the existing blacktop parking lot. This land is
designated as Lot 3 NS on Exhibit A and as LOT 3 on Exhibit B. This subdivision
anticipates the possible sale of this property for future development. The area of the
subdivision property is approximately 66000 square feet.
5
Action 3. It is further proposed that the portions of the original parcels remaining
after subdivision be combined into one lot designated as Lot 2 NS on Exhibit A and
LOT 2 on Exhibit B, thus positioning the existing improvement on one legally
described lot. It is anticipated that this action will be accomplished administrative
by, the execution of a Declaration o.f Restriction to be prepared by the City Attorney,
The area of this land is approximately 133,000 square feet:
I understand that each of these actions will be considered separately by the City,
however, they are being submitted here as a package as they are closely related
activities. Additional actions by the buyers of the west land are also expected
concurrent with this proposal regarding rezoning and perhaps other issues.
With reference to the proposed subdivisions, please note that we currently lease a
strip of land to the north of the, existing building from the CP Railroad to provide
convenient parking for tenant employees. This lease has been in place since at least
1979 and discussions with the railroad indicate that it is not likely that the lease
would ever be terminated. If it were terminated however, we would have difficulty
providing on site parking according to the Ordinance. A package of previous
correspondence is attached providing background on this issue and as the January 4,
2000 memo concludes, the worst case is that we would be forced to buy the land
�. from the railroad. Accordingly, we do not feel that this issue should be'a factor in
approving the subdivision proposals.
For expediency, draft copies of subdivision applications are attached for review and
comment.
Thank you fc}r your consideration.
inc y
Kenneth Solie. ..
STE. M' Rat. =.>.—:�,....� ..,.;. .1�•I-o.
MINNEAPOLIS & SAUL t /clltt
,..11S t\'+lpnp1.11.u1u:.u;:1l l.lmll°PI u1o1.n PM01•M(
�,11y11111p1111.1111T1 I!PVC—` /' 1-1 MICA p.)9�2l4)1• ----
3x" ruct ." Y
!'
ymlm.r.:n .81. is,r' t-L to —
C:':•-' •t�� ',L 1'( 10'VIII"Ul5[VCMI
' 1 j:�:) :. .._^rvA.,•{,r.1+•y.��:�.p,: T 1oa..n I I .
�.•:,. an swr. --I I"—'P[p oot.NO 114613e
i 1. '.:2.,'!•.}:, R u6
LOT 1 - I--30 vw"(ASt.C.1 g W..
- a,..a P(e Mc. 1]]3671 .-,
M00069.2. ]04 .; :.'L•y.'a ,C. K .i`\.:� .L,';. ,�+1i -:.;.. •.�
?,t) .` - C x 1. ^c,.c•. -•..11 c BLOCK BLOC. !a vl.,"usrio.r_,.`- '{ E A;P a:.Y. 11 E I IT' a,. X.: J:.
,� 'i' y � 1J ,OI) ,m 1 ( 6.3 7 s. I(I pot.•pla]aou ,Y• 0
.. 1 1 .l!., ••troll CAL sw/. 44" al -
a 1 ... A!) C21� PLAZA' •]RO''�P u Ica..[u - 2:365
In.w
• R .r•n2 .a4:.��': :)": •�r.mla'mi.:.: _ .r:e•:11;; 1.POaow1.I.ao�p I a
1071.0 •S.U[);+:/a SCt.31 10364 \ - iK .s.
� smo . -——---—--————————--
3 f '; AV ENUE N.E. -------•-----66.2I6.w.,0------------_
occe
rd
AREA OF SITE = 21 l ,039 S.F. (4..845 ACRES) NOTE CII PRIV IE UT NC ENCROACHES EIT 6.6e
ON PRIDCD Dor. NO.M14NT Lily
OfSf.R10[D W D0/:. N0. ,6378)7
LEGEND
■ M POSM GTCN ft-W 11- 6 Cumay.
O OOiTlwo CATCH INSfI. me('ComfcTiol)S) _ ,
• PROM=IwNat • t
O oUTM 6we101[ Q�^'a.loccwuous) j
f• 1�
-0M POetA 2OlL ..:1. am"10H(OOw
' S
�s z Ns
Ld,�l- 3 Ns
Pro oSel
• I - -----------—
n ___ -----
C` tea. nuUl �.------------------ Vii...'... .
, i u
• �•r.+ N�•Sp'pp'C 106a.77 u
.69. P-a3z9.�1N•4_., ,.o�;.°...'"" , ,.T LOT 3
u'�61�• r nT S 9 L07...1� `) " 'r...-. � � L�r 'Z CONCRETE OIOCK h ORICK DUILOINC /��������������� '�1 ""°"""
/ oo. ..1. a.v l �Ir• •�!- � ••• .:�v'. .'•�n na � - ii � 1 _ i. � y r.
�a.n a+ ir• .1 C.
.1
� �r
-------------------- - ------ --- ------------- ------------_=—_---'�--- ---------- 'r__
V a Y a rye.a1.4>•..tqa.w.q l\y....-... �..•..1 T.w w.r��.w��wr. � -
L oT► Lo l Z,
DoT 3
61
St. Anthony
Village Properties, LLP
2500-39`h Avenue N E,. Suite 230
MiAneapolis, M-N .5542.1
January 4, 2000
Railroad Lease / Parking Issue at 2801 37th Ave . NE
From: Ken Solie
On this date, I discussed the current land leasing
philosophy of CP Rail with David Drach of CP (612-347-
8254 ) . He stated as follows :
1 . All new leases and lease renewals are being done on a
month to month basis with 30 days notice . This is CP
Rail policy and there are no exceptions .
• 2 . It is CP Rails position that -they want. .to sell any .land
that is not essential to railroad operations . Their
asking price i-s the market value of neighboring land
without regard to the land-locked nature of the
parcels . They feel that while the land has' no value to
the public, it has "market value" to the owners of
contiguous property. Drach said "They will hold the
property for 80 years before they will sell it at less
than market value
3 . Drach sees no reason that CP Rail would not- renew our
lease in the future . He stated that the only reasons
for lease termination are for cause (non payment of
rent) or if the railroad. had a need for the land for,
business purposes . He did. not see any pending rai.lroad-
need for this land in the future . I asked him to
document this in a letter, He refused.
4 . He stated that he thought there.-was a 100 feet wide
strip• through this area that could be available for
lease but it seems clear that their preference would be
to sell .
•
From this discussion, it seems that the worst case scenario
would be that CP Rail refuses to renew our lease at its
expiration for the purpose of forcing us to purchase the
62
• land at a price of about $2 . 00 per square foot . Our leased
area is about 58000 square feet. It seems more likely that
they would renew the lease on a month to month basis
without a definite termination date. This is particularly
true considering that. . we are the only - buyers . and
considering that we would not willing pay market price .
From this, I conclude that the proper approach going
forward is to assume that CP Rail will renew the lease on
its expiration, on a month to month basis, with the
recognition that we could be forced to purchase the land
for market rate at some point. It seems clear that one way
or another, we will have access to this land to provide
parking for the existing faculty.
•
63
•
VILLAGE P R O.P. R T- ---,.l E S 2500-39th Avenue NE #230.
Minneapolis, MN 55421
September 12, 1996
Larry Hamer
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. 'Anthony, HN 55418
Dear Larry,
As you know, our Company leases land from CP Rail to
provide parking for -the Industrial Custom-Products (.ICP)
• Building at 2801 37th:-'Avenue,North Bast. Our lease with CP Rail
continues to October, -2002' and,we- have requested CP' Rail to
extend the lease to the maximin possible term per the attached
letter.
It is very unlikely that Q Rail .will ever terminate this
lease, however, in that. event we `would not be able to meet the
City's parking -requirements 'on the existing remaining paved
surface, and would need to.;provide overflow parking'on the
undeveloped land to the -east-;and w±est .of the paved areas. The
need to reserve this ;land:'for.'parking •in the scenario severely
limits our ability to develops the parcels.
The parking ordinance requires approximately 190 spaces
for the facility. 'The attached -drawings 'indicate that we can
provide approximately 103 spaces without- the rail land. We
have reviewed the current usage of the building and find that
the use is 50 percent for warehouse and 50 percent for office
and manufacturing. Using- this we believe that our
• obligation is to provide one parking space for each employee or
one space for each 350 square feet of actual manufacturing
64
area. After removing-unutilized_Space. such -as lobbies, breE
• areas, restrooms...etc, .-we :have."65000.. square feet of productive
area or 32500 square -feet of-' manufacturing and office space
requiring 93 spaces. Further -per. the attached ICP letter,
ICP will not require more.than' 85 .spaces during the term of
their lease.
Longer range, -it would-*be- our 'intent to limit future tenant
parking by lease 'restrictions- to- that' which we can provide on
existing. surfacs or by' sharing parking with the east or west
developments.
Accordingly, we request the City to review this plan and
to agree that they will *permit utilization of the property
conditioned on pur- demonstration that this use will not require
more parking than we can- provide. our request is made to
reduce concerns of our tenant and lender that the City might
prohibit use of the building if the qP Rail land is lost.
Please call me at 781-3381 with questions and we
• appreciate your cooperation..
Than o
Kenneth Solie
•
65
VILLAGE .RROP-EkTIES , ' 2500 39th Avenue NE #2;
Minneapolis, MN 55421
September 12, 1996
David. Drach
CP' Rail System
105 South 5th Street
Suite 1380
Minneapolis, MN 55402•
Dear David,
As we have discussed, our lease with. CP Rail on the land
to the north of 2801. 37th Avenue. North' East runs - for about 6
years from now. The land is -used to- provide parking for the
Property. Without this .land we cannot .meet City. parnq
requirements. This - situation •is causing concern }�
n for our -
tenants 'and our lenders because 'of the remote possibility that
we could loose our lease with CP. Rail axid therefore the City
could limit or prohibit the .use of the*.building. .
I understand that you can. l9ase this land for up to a 10
year period and such a lease- would' greatly help in reducing the
above concerns. Accordingly, •I •am requesting that you. rewrite
and extend our lease-to the maximum possible term.
Please call me at •781-3381 with questions and I appreciate
your cooperation.
Thank You,
Kenneth Solie
"J;.l,y.:.f.j:19;t;;' ;ry�:l.:�: '•:•�� ' •i�.` 1•':.•ii�:.��, :..r � F.1..�.'y'.i. `�v .: •`i'' ','"•' -
' i'• .i •� �1.=�! (.•J_"..�. r;: .. :. ;:'��t) y �h r �(�'•1-•,t. .t•'!1`f 4j ': ,:, is
- /�,• •K,,1 �.�'/ r� ;);•�•�!'.,'. .'�(!�'•r'r•L;.111 e•;r�•�t., ( .n�il•'�r,'�y'.�� �''S �'d f� '' '' , � i `+.+(/ ��il:• - 1'�
fir. , ;. t.,. ,..�'•� '�:',: Ir�...1!•.'t' •�!'• {� + ..?T 1, l�'
"tit }�'' ,l •• ,�•`,•�.,. z'\'.rl'�ia�ti'n!'• '(/' ��.yl!`j ;� ,1. '� �+r/;
�\,}; :, `.4.J.= .::! Nil' '�• :�i. �:..1,1�:f'r 1;' �,' •• � C •;S t• r.• :'.ctrl, r_l`�.[•:
.1'-•� •y ;i�.:!ti.'j',�'j'ti, •! .r.' `�5r.;4��`!��r�<jSf 1�,•'t', ,'�. 't" 14
LIN
r .'l;, .�• /t:!."i. � .�:' :1.'Y 4i'. ,ii'( illr�'Yr,rCL�4/n• /' _ K.: - ..
11. d � 'i � 't ,y11�}(,..,=.!try.��f:, �''. '-i!•f.�•' :( .. ...
j ~ r -. l tom' /'•.�' 4 ,t..,,,. `
E ,
7-TH
�-ra
b
- E PL FENCE . f
AROUND PROPANE � .
TAIL AREA-
e_-'C B �• -1 �J , 1_- ^.� _ _ __ ...._... 1. - -____. ..._ - -_.-_ `` -__."-1�"_���_.
UTILI
RF
0
VJJ
JTI
y -�•S:,i„�r-..•rte �-"^Y.7 .. ' :�1 rf :=° . \
I:�j. '•.. /J�/ n: .� It t- }. '._•..�t�`. .,. '. /`,: •. .
h
rye_• .Gn[ VV'•
- •�.Y- �lA\- 'T _=r1'•`:- ".�Y '.r= ',,�,. �-i t i!Y 7• .f���•• J � .��. =:Y:
-t`'t Za'S•ci��j,_�- `yv`-•� •����� r'= ,'' �. d;'w�`7 t •Y: �:�l.il� �l" -•�-� -{.- "r _ •_i.+;.
�)M
0 9' y:_r -� "'1:'-_ :-L-'s: i - ^N; --_. :.'•��i� y c•.T.:.�`- il:Cdr.:: . :?.:._'.;',
cY. r.•
'J: .�\:`I' .1^'� 1{:-�:•T/5�:.� ♦��.� '� i' -,�� fyln ii!tiy: - t 'L_ :M-.a, _ _r. -w`P:.
r '1..,�i:` �':1�Ii y�j.:"4:-�t"�r - :9'. .Yl�lr.':• •..ti.•• ••v�..;_���1: -�r
_ 7� � 'f •_1r ;f� r. r d:^�•fV��+ .'`..:� ..� _,.. .•`. '� .. `fir ^�1 �'. .. .
jr' •'�,: •" rfi. r I � '�✓ ' r._ '• ;•L�_r-jam :'i; � s,:�' ;r, `��
C. "i•a a'�... ,�. .yam.{:` ��41• L �„ :�. 1.
CT(/'•�j �//�:� .' C'Y f��J��i '• .. •� •�•. - '.`•'- _' .._ �� ..
[7a-
IV
-J•' •i- S l \.J 1Y1' �• :`S• ��'. ,..:.1.�•• `:-��ri,'' L' �����
a
68
INDUSTRIAL • .
CUSTOM
PRODUCTS
September 3, 1996
Ken Solie
Village Properties
2500 39th Avenue NE, Suite 230
Minneapolis, MN 55421
Dear Ken:
The purpose of this letter is to document Industrial Custom Products estima te of
• future parking requirements for your use with St. Anthony Village. Over the ••
remaining term of our 7 year lease, we would not expect to use more than 75 to 85
parldng spaces for any single shift at this facility.
Please let me know if any additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
Doug Stearley
2801 37th Avenue NE • Minneapolis, Minnesota 554214217 • 612/781.2255
69
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2000
Page 8
1 Motion carried unanimously..
2 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
3 None.
4 Chair Bergstrom called for a recess at 8:35 p.m.
5 -VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS.
6 Chair Bergstrom called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m.
7 1. Concept Review: 2801 37th Avenue NE.
8 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom reported that Mr.Ken
9 Solie, Owner of Village Properties, seeks to(1) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2,Block 1,
10 Apache Plaza 3rd Addition; (2) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1,Block 1, apache Terrace
11 Addition; and (3) Combine the original parcels remaining after the subdivisions into one lot. All
12 land in question is presently zoned LI. The existing industrial building will be on the combined lot.
13 Mr. Solie's intent is to sell the two outer lots.
4 Isom continued by stating that City Attorney Soth had been contacted to review this issue,and that
Mr. Soth had recommended a Declaration of Restrictions.Agreement. Such an agreement would
6 state,in essence,that the City would approve of the combining of the lots and that the Owner would
17 take that information to the County.
18 Isom introduced Mr. Ken Solie, owner of Village Properties, and invited.him to approach the
19 Commission. Mr. Solie stated that he is proposing to subdivide and recombine the land associated
20 with the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801 37th Avenue NE. Mr. Solie stated that with
21 reference to the proposed subdivisions, he is currently leasing a strip of land to the north of the
22 existing building from the CP Railroad to provide convenience parking for tenant employees. This
23 lease has been in place since at least 1979 and discussions with the railroad indicate that it is not
24 likely that the lease would ever be terminated. If it were terminated, however, he would have a
25, difficult time providing on site parking according to the Ordinance.
26 . Consequently, Mr. Solie stated that at worst case, he would be forced to buy the land from the
27 railroad. Various discussion ensued regarding required parking spaces and City ordinance, and
28 options depending upon the outcome of discussions with the railroad.
29 In response to a comment by Hatch regarding the Livable Communities Grant,Bergstrom explained
30 to the audience that the City has submitted a grant request to do a future land study for a large area,
31 but that the City is not targeting any particular parcel. Additionally the Metropolitan Council has
32_ grant programs.for doing long-term studies. Both of these properties are inside the area,but have
3 not been specifically targeted by the study.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 70
June 20,2000
0 Page 9
1 Bergstrom noted that Mr. Solie's next step was to coordinate with Assistant City Manager Isom to
2 move forward with the proj ect. The issue would probably be on the Planning Commission's agenda
3 for next month.
4 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Solie for the concept review and presentation.
5 2. Concept Review: 2501 37th Avenue NE.
6 Chair Bergstrom requested a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom reported that the
7 applicant, Dr. Terry Rapacz, was seeking to expand his clinic by purchasing a proposed parcel of
8 land from Mr. Ken Solie, Owner of Village Properties.
9 In this respect,Mr. Art Brown, Prudential Real Estate, approached the Commission and presented
10 the detailed plans for the expansion of Apache Animal Hospital.
11 Jeff Agnes, architect, approached the Commission and reviewed in detail the plans presented. His
12 presentation depicted a 4,000 to 5,000 foot building, and stated that Dr. Rapacz was considering
13 using some residential features for the building in order to coordinate with the residential character
14 of the surrounding area. In that respect,Mr.Agnes presented an artist's rendering of the proposed
15 building, which incorporated certain residential features into the exterior.
• Bergstrom acknowledged that he was in support that the design was of a residential nature, and he
_., B g g PP
17 is pleased that there would not be any significant grading in the area.
18 Isom noted that currently the Commission is simply looking at rezoning-:the property and to
19 combining the lots. Once discussions have been accomplished with the railroad, additional
20 information will be obtained and a return to the Commission would be in order.
21 Various discussion ensued about additions to existing buildings that have been grandfathered into
22 the existing Code.
23 Thomas inquired of Mr.Agnes if decorative lighting was planned for the building. Mr.Agnes stated
24 that lighting is part of the architecture planned and that Dr. Rapacz would enjoy working with the
25 City on attractive and decorative lighting to compliment what the City has planned for the area.
26 Thomas inquired if the City needed to be concerned about a building-to-lot ratio. Bergstrom
27 confirmed that required was only for residential property.
28 — Bergstrom encouraged Dr.Terry Rapacz and his staff to work.with Spencer Isom in implementing
29 the proposed project.
0 3. Concept Review: 3259 Stinson Boulevard.
Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff.
71
MEMORANDUM
• DATE: 8/9/00 MEETING DATE: 8/15/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Public Hearing. Petition for R ning,250137' Avenue, Apache Animal Clinic.
Apache Animal Medicine,owner of the Apache Animal Clinic, are purchasing some land from the railroad and
from Village North,LLP to add to their property. Presently,the railroad property is unzoned and the Village
North parcel is zoned LI. The petition is a request to have the above referenced parcels and their existing
property all zoned to C. The City's zoning map is incorrect and shows their existing property as LI. This
comprehensive request will correct the error. Action required.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the petition. See City Attorney Soth's 8/2
communication to Planning Commission. ,
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
72
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH BILLINGS-- - -
NEW YORK 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET GREAT FALLS
SEATTLE MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402-1498 MISSOULA .:
DENVER TELEPHONE: (612).340-2600 . BRUSSELS
WASHINGTON,D.C. FAX: (612) 340-2868 FARGO
DES MOINES HONG KONG
ANCHORAGE WILLIAM R.SOTH ROCHESTER
(612)340-2969
LONDON FAX(612)340-2644 SALT LAKE CITY
COSTA MESA soth.wllllam @dorseylaw.com VANCOUVER
August 2, 2000
Planning Commission
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Re: Village North and Apache Animal Clinic
• Subdivision and Zoning Approvals
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Village North LLP, in which Ken Solie is a partner, as owner of the Industrial Custom Products
building at 280137'Avenue NE, and Apache Animal Medicine, P.A., as owner of the Apache Animal
Clinic, have applied to replat their properties into three lots in order to expand the size of the lot on
which the animal clinic is located, decrease the size of the lot on which the Industrial Custom Products
building is located, and create a new lot to the east of the industrial building. The property would be
replatted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Apache Terrace 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Since the size of the lot on which the industrial.building is located would be reduced, a question
arises as to whether the lot would have sufficient parking. Currently the owner of the industrial building
leases a strip of land approximately 67 feet wide from the railroad. This adjoins the north lot line and
provides additional parking for the industrial building. The owner originally requested that the City
permit him to include the leased land as part of the property so as to meet the parking requirement. I
must advise you that it is not permissible to include such leased laltd,-since the railroad has the right to
terminate that lease on rather short notice, and the lease could also be terminated for non-payment of
rent or other factors, in which case the parking would be non-conforming.
• Ken Solie also discussed with Spencer Isom and me the question of whether he might apply for
a parking variance for this lot. We suggested to him that it is unlikely that a variance would be
73
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of St. Anthony Planning Commission
August 2, 2000
Page 2
permissible, since hardship is being created by reducing the size of the lot and reasonable use is being
made of the property in its present condition.
We next discussed with him the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance so as to require
less parking for this type of property. Mr. Solie has compiled information regarding parking
requirements in other cities and this will be provided to you. It shows a comparison of the St. Anthony
requirement to the Cities of Arden Hills, Roseville, Minneapolis, New Brighton and Fridley. The current
St. Anthony ordinance is Section 1650.05, Subd. 1(e)(7) which provides as follows:
(7) Light industrial, manufacturing, testing and research uses must have one space for every
employee on the largest shift or one parking space for every 350 square feet of floor
area, whichever is greater.
• Mr. Solie is requesting that the requirement.be changed to one parking space for every 1,000 square
feet of building floor area.
I would recommend that the ordinance be changed to eliminate any reference to the number of
employees. It is not a good practice to have a parking requirement that changes'with the number of
employees in the building. This raises uncertainty as to what the parking requirement is at any given
point in time, and it also creates an almost impossible situation for enforcement. Based upon the
information provided by Mr. Solie, it does appear that one space per 350 square feet of floor area is
rather.conservative. Arden Hills, Roseville and Minneapolis each provide for one space for each 1,000
square feet, New Brighton is at 350 square feet and Fridley is at 400 square feet. If you amend the
ordinance as requested, I would suggest that paragraph 7 be revised to read as follows:
(7) Light industrial, manufacturing, testing and research uses must have one space for every _
1,000 square feet of building floor area.
The animal clinic intends to purchase some land from the railroad to add to their property, but
this will not be included in the new plat. I believe that the animal clinic will be requesting that all of its
roperty be rezoned to commercial. It apparently is not clear what the zoning of their property is now,
t the parcel they intend to purchase from Village North is zoned industrial.
I believe all of the Village North property is zoned industrial and will remain industrial.
74
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
City of St. Anthony Planning Commission
August 2,2000
Page 3
Each of the three requests (subdivision, ordinance amendment and rezoning) should have a
separate public hearing. Each of your recommendations to the Council with respect to these matters
should be in separate motions with respect to the subdivision approval, zoning ordinance amendment
and rezoning.
I hope this answers all of the questions relating to these applications, but if you need any further
information, please let me know.
V ry truly yours
William R. Soth
•
WRS/ms
cc: Spencer Isom
•
•I O 75
R E A L T Y
G R O U P
August 4, 2000
Spencer A. Isom
Assistant City Manager
Saint Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN,55418-1699
RE: Apache Animal Medicine rezoning application
Dear Mr. Isom:
Enclosed please find two copies of the Petition for Rezoning for Apache Animal
Medicine P.A. We are requesting a rezoning and a zoning of the entire parcel that is and
will be occupied by the expanded animal hospital. The rezoning and zoning request is
predicated on the fact that the .parcel immediately to the east of the existing animal
hospital, which we have optioned, is presently zoned light industrial, the railroad parcel
• immediately to.the north is un-zoned and according to the City of St. Anthony's current
zoning map, the existing animal hospital is in a light industrial zone. Upon further review
by our surveyor, Harry S. Johnson Company, they have determined that the placement of
buildings on the zoning map is incorrect and I have enclosed copies of`the zoning map
and survey with the buildings placed, as they actually exist. It is our intent; pending City
approval of our zoning request, to include all three parcels as Lot 1 on the new plat. The
current survey is designed to accomplish that purpose and the new legal description is
included on the survey.
Apache Animal Medicine, PA, has entered into a binding purchase agreement with the
railroad to acquire the railroad right-of-way immediately to the north and northeast of its
current site. It is our understanding from the railroad that all necessary approvals have
been secured and closing will soon be scheduled.
Furthermore, by acquiring both the parcel immediately to the east and the railroad parcel,
the animal hospital will be able to complete the project in accordance with city required
building and parking set-backs as well as the required number of parking spaces under
the code for this type of facility. Attached you will find the following documentation:
1. Petition for Rezoning.
2. Statement outlining why the request is being made.
3. Survey.
4. Section of Zoning Map with building locations identified.
P.O. BOX 14463 612-644-4969 OFFICE
MINNEAPLOIS, MN 55414-4463 612 43 PAGER
®6
5. Site plans (L-2) identifying the current and proposed building and also showing
driveways, curb cuts, ingress and egress on the property.
6. Landscape plan (L-1) showing the entire parcel which will be owned by Apache
Animal Medicine with site improvements including fencing and dumpster
enclosures.
7. Storm water retention and drainage plans.
8. Copy of purchase agreement with the railroad.
As you requested, I am also submitting a copy of the foregoing to Bill Soth for his review
and comment. I believe the foregoing documents represent a complete application, but in_
the event that you need further information, please call me at 612-210-7573. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Raymond n PM
•
•
77
Date: August 4 , 2000 - -
Fee: $225.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Rezoning
Applicant: Apache Animal Medicine Phone: 612-781 -2734
Address: 2501 - 37th Avenue, NE, Mi nnea nn 1 i c, MN
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Buyer
Legal Description of property proposed for rezoning:See attached survey,
Street Address: A part-ion of 2801 -47t-h Avanile NR and dnail read
right-of-way.
Presently Zoned: Light industrial and unzoned.
• Change Zoning to: Commercial.
1. Attach a statement to this petition stating why this zoning change is requested.
2. If an entire parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned, submit a map or plat with this
petition showing the land proposed to be rezoned and all lands within 350 feet of its
boundaries.
3. If a portion of a larger parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned, submit a preliminary
plat prepared in accordance with sections 1500.01 through and including 1500.03 of
the St. Anthony Code of Ordinances with this petition. A copy of which is included in
this packet.
Signature o
Signature of Owner (if different from Applicant)
•
78
The proposed rezoning is being requested for the express purpose of
expanding the Apache Animal Hospital, which currently occupies the site
immediately to the south and west of the parcels under consideration. The
animal hospital could not expand without purchasing and rezoning these
parcels:
•
•
79
•
OEM
v,c.arY wp •r Mp.P.rr J1
------1 -- V.•.pam1 TO.o-a _ -
1 u�.e.vaa.a rr.a. -
�`� • P-
a.trtp.m
U..trt.d ralb w
J Lbwt Wt1.eY
t•x Po:w.
q7 tr.htd-
• 041.Vdw
C� I • Ori0lar n.. 60 60 O 60 m0 b0
1 O
Oa.Snew t1.
S7� O Ca.a.0 !GALE M FEET
is c-oI
19.71.2
0031.2 P•Ut7ti�of nw TM of RA
_.per__ 1wtt.ly tatlaur
m75,77'
9wN mLmao s ==yi�t_=���_ _�'°� ,. 1��
lli�li'i i i i;1/ i 1 I ; ± ,� ,X
.a.jy�tPt6 mm \ wml ' 1 ,; 1 I 1 7 .I , /11. •1 I '4 a Is s41 ma
ta► V
`�'°k'°'� (�,�,,, �14C LIJ
//\ ��- 1 11617 E! 9P asrR T71 n= 1111 11 \11/."'. • � �
�/ 1 / .d y k'� �w y' J4w I1111j l �aYT
1 I I r
4 1 ' ' �°°°'m+°,." �a�
s
� '3�r- ,,,---i---- _.'�/SI g �'��-$" 1. _=� �vT i i 71 I 1 119.IIa1`L�s. "\\ t°�11• �J �
f� ,a _ ��x•,•---max /�}!�i_ - . _ J 1 2801 3 A
yIL. 1�
f I L' i tom Zr^C _
' -- _ -- - ,tti41 a ' _� •
b 1
-
���
L80ALDE9CRPT10N �ULNOM zomm eE�OFWATION Ow•7s ARU+I[cn
NAM I ROMM IAMM- .-L it rM��!r\�!.....1•t•a � Rurt57 1e9..U Lk l hbrbl.l t A Cal r-K Wep.M.rM 11P Sf..tdm� .
W L Y L YUC PLAM JA MEMIL Rw.q OrY 19.rr. Pa dt7 d sL MIM7.Plumb.D.at-t }HT -LLP.ME 470 F9.t A.a...NW' ..
L lr ..rlr r b •ar.Ar•a.ea . t� .. -
I....1•m5.y.r.a.l.w R110VIR to d n0 mAi1Ct m1161 RA[tll[WL 1t(ah 6F�01 tam (012)7E�RlEI. w...pol4 NN 06121 mh-.P.k 101 56101
myrtta .mb-t IF.Rat 9d1. tl.nhm6 JW"AV-
_ cd-rear s.m.s►13 rn gem p..pstr or (Bi l)7M-J3M (912P35-3=
- - ZL w L rw9T RA7A r mnol 1tta�aW tR..�6 yl�a®..-�m.r-tam w 0151FJ! 40NE7OE
m L b t.wioa tptPe7....a�d.4 tw.sr W!.rw.W2A_SOC w
W 1 w .�..i✓.r_L/I.w A•ey1.AMnd Na.tpNd Nat•p S.Ir1.1.eh IOi/7Lwp.
r.etosr..w r_a t.w a 11Y atw•�r.r r 9..ta mh-p"YI 55421 tft-k M WN 561'20
ee
yTAb.NtrB L Mrba 7.r a... •uw ae'r 9+7+A�I Gt•.t Twr7 R4*- wt-b Th-H".ff
aMi.w~.K•u.�s 7�.P 1 a 19.r..ai�e r+ (m 2)751-2n1 (Y62)56a-s7tt
9.r..N r..m t![..•wl.IN r twP.m+N..rr r rPOT R.vA r"wk r... F
d.th.= •e•r L r a....m w1�WM.1 r�Pr. r tlY val 1....49n. 9mwtt1Y71/ -cpm E1/0�t
u tw M M w M . r-0 . r
O M.MMa sn[G ~R-17 r
RAlA JO 11L00 r b 6..tdb.�1 a...r tJl W 1 W 1 iiUC 0.AtA 10�Ga1a1 P.0.Bm 14467 621 Ra�.�et�e A-
SL -
cll.awM,�p..p•��pLy�.9. r rtl.+�r 9.rr r r re9.1 a.e.w.w 9+vim m�r.s Imtegdy w SsIt�1155 9R. L
m a.!C.+.an rrt rrr
_mw"eeL aLa M.aa t.n.ra..M. aentok R.f PVC -t ft 161 511/ ..
.tM�t9�wr ad....vr v.1 b�A mn1)9 Om 32R�
.P�s ar.e�m ea P..L I.flm rN w.r 9w. (512}77s-11 a
sea•.i�r�]s i+.i m e�r+.l.am�ru u.s��a�.��t. fast!658-9732 .
.ew.+n.t r w•.+•1..r1.r.uu>........1.�.r..q.u.r.r tt el01TJi/Of\E70i1! -
mr r 6..+.1 r..P.+•• Ptttla w P.1.Ca--wd
49 FWW
_• 4951 t1..t TAR
UK
91 543
5 125
n MTtm atn t Arbl-Beat 0
V L L a w L M.aT tR.ltoc 90 m•aa•P�•awRl'I�tttsr (96216T/-4275
-- axi+/Er PREPARm 6Y: arFxr Prloj=me PRt1A=U=ATM B00a a 4 Mm If91 ILn ID.
1 Nat+7ertly ntat 11tr....�001.1 1�..P,ga.a y1a 'r '°°"' HARRY S JOHNSON CO. INC. PRELIMINARY PLAT y��y�
:rt•. m7 O►at.P.+rm...9t.t 1 a>n.biz R•O.tw•5 1aM LAND SURVEYORS EF3TNVEST REALTY of 3TTH AVENUE SITE 2e9e224rrooc G4NVGG4
77..,>..ea..i•..a 9r w1..1 r..tmm 170 W. 79TH S7. a 8T.ANTHONY.1pNNE30TA DRAM a7
BLOOMINGTON. MN. 95420 VILLAGE PROPERTIES APACHE TERRACE 2ND m" lesl 0.16 1tF 11�
Ir,ar�c 11•av,r w ,� (612) 884-5341 ADDfT10N 77Qr OF I
1$57W?
I<..l R••Ne zw"
4� t.
•
C
c�r� •
Spill
\ M
= Z
r _� rr . ar ® - r ° - -
s W vl
NEW PROPEL LINE . . r ' `s' ^^
f O n =
rrrr � rN N ��ojg� -
- r r • { J n 2 N N
rrrr -1 EXIST.
D(5) WOODED EXIST.
® r RELIEF o
66' REA (6
io
C(1) ( )
� 12 4
6 HT. CONC. IG 5' SETBACK
m
CHAIN INK W/CEDAR FINISH g'
�� FENCE TRASH ENCLOSURE (8)
Z
a z 5,572 S.F.
x EX USE AREA ;-'"'VitOPOSED 4
10 „. wli` "EW BLDG.
- y��.i:��` \ :' ''u5• •��� �� �__ ---------g�4)
,LINE OF EXIST. 'y�' �'�' ® - -- --__-_- �-�------- _ G(5) 19 STALLS
%f.' �.
ai
ASPHALT in GATE $' VAN (NEW
[(4)80. i C(1 � I
EXIST, i
•
BEDS )T 2220 S.F. Go `D 24' 18'
EXIST. BLDG. `"� B(�) 66' B(�) D(5) 3 XIST. s
11 STALLS ( ) WOOD FENCE 'r. COTTON OD Q
(EXIST.) �• B 10 78' F(4) GROVE I m
18' 24' 18'. - ---== - - -- -- m (6)5) N
EXIST. SIDEWALK -G(4). 1) L I MONUMENT �o
MONUMENT TO BE REMOVED I _____ _LINE OF__EXIST,____,COBRA EDGING W/ROC
(8) SIGN (5) --- GRAVEL MULCH—TYPICAL SIGN
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE B(6
B(4) NEW 28'
CURBCUT
EXIST. COTTONWOOD ABANDONED
GROVE CURBCUT
37TH AVE. N.
BUILDING AREA: 7,792 S.F. NEW PLANTING SCHEDULE PLANTINGS REMOVED
-STALLS REQ'D: 40 STALLS NO. QUANTITY COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS QUANTITY COMMON NAME APPROX.SIZE
4 PER VET (5) A 12 BLUE SPRUCE 6'-0-HT. B&B 11 BLUE SPRUCE 30'
+ 1 PER EMPLOYEE(20) B 47 GOLDFLAME SPIREA 3 GAL. POTTED 2 ASH 35'f
STALLS PROVIDED: 41 STALLS C 3 SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB 1-1/2.0 B&B 2 BLUE SPRUCE 25't
D 15 A W.SPIREA 2 GAL- POTTED
E 6 VARIEGATED DOGWOOD 3 GAL POTTED
F 4 MISS KIM LILAC 3 GAL POTTED
G 19 MINT7ULIP JUNIPER 5 GAL POTTED
H 3 BURNING BUSH 30' POTTED
LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN
0
1' = 30' c
0
z
82
� � s
I �. � ____— -. — ♦x'310 m
,CEO es ot
F * _ — — _ woo . a0sr. ■
low
TE_
ir MT.c011c. at t) Y 3013AM
/"� .�•�`• Od�AREA S.372 S.F. - �.. z
ROPOSED .^1
' .�'��• y(L KIN BLDG. �I If
19 STALLS I$
' n t
Ek6T. �y., 1 I le c4)
_ naEw �a ts• c
BEOS (y) Eris..S.F.EO. I y �rzi
J 1 ' -
m (E7�OST.) �• v000 IENCE 1. I -dw
z .� AREA IV 2s• IS' •I y) t)
N fe) uarautxr Iy �RE 4 e EoeR+e tr sm '
u+ie EL
tALDI-
!" t81E -------
!rA 21r
Liam.cmmml000
------------------------------------------------ 37TH AVE. N. -------- ----------------------------
----- -------------------------------------------- ---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUILDING AREA: 71792 S.F. NEW PLANTING SCHEDULE PLANTINGS REMOVED
..STALLS REQ'D: 40 STALLS •
APPROX.SIZE
4 PER VET (5) NO. QUANTM COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS QUANTITY COMMON NAME
20 A 12 BLUE SPRUCE 6'-0'HT. B&B 11 BLUE SPRUCE 30'±
+ 1 PER EMPLOYEE
(20)) B 47 GOLDFLAME SPIREA 3 GAL. POTTED 2 ASH 35'*
STALLS PROVIDED: 41 STALLS c 3 SPRING SNOW FLOWERING CRAB 1-1/2.0 B&B 2 BLUE SPRUCE 25'±
D 15 A.W.SPIREA 2 GAL. POTTED
E 6 VARIEGATED DOGWOOD 3 GAL POTTED
F 4 MISS KIM LILAC 3 GAL POTTED
G 19 MINT JULIP JUNIPER 5 GAL POTTED
1
H 3 BURNING BUSH 30' POTTED
LANDSCAPE/SITE PLAN
0
I' = 60' o
0
it 9' I
It} r r tj
irlly 4 I N r I r kut
4
1 1 1 r
ul •Ir 1 !�._,V. . .:� , , Imo' ! A r ��.
;�; :i . ;� ',� ••� I,IC!', 1 tl' r ' 1 ;� f{,l{ "!ff �r� J�, P'+e�'`
r
i 37
I'1
�r
1 `�� f ,, � � �� it L �r�l 1 -7. 1 ���!�� �It `�.��k`;�• lr ���
�l. �,. i ;` ¢`' '�s•� �, ;,1 !sit �,�� a ' ��5;.� Y 'r, �;
IT
I.A,
W
0:116,
� ''
v 1 t ,�; E � �a1.1•,
I'tirM'. �1,"II r *t � I: # ,� I ! �•��1• � '� �' �1 ` `}r'
l,� 4 •1u r, •� ! i., �;• ��l,�M�fi ICI; � , , I ;6� � I
,. is l�l� � 1• .� ''�` I`'ir�
r•! }� y 1 at
t11�
/
'�r �3'• '.Y.`tr. 1 .fir
l..Jdu
S H_E Efi D A TAE = _P R 4 JF C=T S--T-E:- N=OD:-E-
•1• ..:7v,-omI W,..11,•,...=•�.7. 1
70.. • •
�,•�v
CWM E.r'GLNEERriG . -
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 84
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
LIU3 N PLAT NLNG
CONSTRUCTION SERIME5
MEMORANDUM
.DATE: August 2, 2000
TO: File 10320
FROM: Don Shaffer
SUBJECT: Stormwater Drainage for Apache Plaza Animal Hospital Addition
HKS Project No. 10320
The proposed development consists of a building addition to the existing animal hospital located north of
37`h Avenue in St. Anthony, Minnesota. Included with the building addition,a new parking area will be
constructed on the east side of the addition. Also,the parking area west of the existing building will be
increased.
Existing Conditions:
An existing animal hospital and associated parking are located on a 1.55-acre parcel of land. Access to the
site is from 37`h Avenue NE.
Stormwater for the site currently drains overland to the north to a ditch along the railroad, east to an
adjacent parcel of land and south to 37`h Avenue NE. Approximately 1.05 acres drains to the north, 0.29
• acres drains to 37`h Avenue NE and 0.21 acres drains to the east. The drainage areas are shown on the
attached drainage area map.
Storinv.ater draining from this site is carried east in the gutter to a catch basin approximately"300 feet
from the east property line.No catch basins are located on 37'y Avenue NE adjacent to this site. City" staff
indicated that the storm se«"er system in 37`h Avenue NE is at capacity and that any additional drainage
could not be accepted by the system.
Develoned Conditions
It is proposed to construct an addition to the existing building, new parking area on the east side of the
addition and increase the parking are on the west side of the existing building. The attached site plan
indicates the proposed construction.
Stormwater for the majority of the developed site will be carried overland and directed to the north.
Storm% ater drainage from the west parking lot will be carried to 37`h Avenue NE. However, the
stormwater from the east parking lot will be directed away from 37`�Avenue NE and carried to the north.
Also, t!ie amount of stormwater carried to the adjacent parcel to the east will be decreased.
The stornnwater on the parking lots-will drain overland to the north curb line. Curb cuts%vill be provided
to permit the stormwater to drain over the grass area to the ditch along the railroad tracks. Riprap will be
placed at tl e crab cuts to minimize erosion and also to help in dispersing the water.
HKSASSOCIATL_`I.`•(,
• 821 R_kYNOND ANINUE SUIT ill
ST.PALZ,-%1N;;;"
PHONE 651165 9.9-9' F.A-x 65"O;•)-
. E-�Ltil: infu3hls��:uciu:::• : ..:.
August 2,2000 85
Apache Plaza Animal Hospital Addition
Page 2
r•
Drainage calculations are attached showing the flows for the one-year,ten-year and 100-year rainfall
events.The calculations are summarized in the table shown below:
One Year Event . 10 Year Event 100 Year Event,
Drainage Area Existing Developed Existing Developed Existing Developed
Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions Conditions
North to the tracks 0.2 cfs 0.5 cfs 0.7 cfs 1.3 cfs 1.4 cfs 2.3 cfs
South to 37"Avenue 0.6 cfs 0.3 cfs 1:1 cfs 0.7 cfs 1.8 cfs 1.3 cfs
NE
East to the adjacent 0.1 cfs 0.0 cfs 0.2 cfs 0.1 cfs 0.5 cfs 0.2 cfs
parcel
As can be seen,the discharge rate of stormwater directed to 376 Avenue NE and to the east is reduced
with the developed conditions. However,the discharge rate to the north is increased.
A submission to the Rice Creek Watershed district is required. Since this parcel is part of a parcel of land
greater than 5.00 acres, it is required to submit an application to the Rice Creek Watershed District. This
submission will be made no later than August 10, 2000 so it can be on the August 23`d regularly
scheduled meeting.
Silt fence will been installed. Turf establishment such as seeding and/or sod will be placed as soon as
possible when construction of the and parking areas are completed.
Data for Apache Animal Hospital Page = 86
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 3 Auc_
HydroCAD 3.20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Applied Microcomputer Systems
WATERSHED ROUTING
3
O
O
W
1
2 3 F2i 3 �
O5UBCATCHMENT ❑ REACH �PCMD I I LtNK
•
•
Data for Apache Animal Hospital `�d r age 2 ��
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems / 3 Aug
HydroCAD 3.20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 1 Existing conditions to RR ditch
ACRES CV
.05 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
1.03 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE I•I 24-HOUR,
1.08 66 RAINFALL= 5.9 . IN
PEAK= 1.4 CFS @ 12.54 HRS
VOLUME= .19 AF
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.1 HRS
Method Comment Tc (min)
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Ll 10.2
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=85' P2=2.8 in s=.04
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 40.6
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=215' 22=2.8 in s=.008
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 4 .2
Unpaved Kv=16 .1345 L=360' s=.008 ' /' V=1.44 fps
Total_ Length= 660 ft Total Tc= 55 .0
SUBCATCHMENT 2 Existing conditions to 37th Ave ne
S CN
.16 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
13 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE 17 24-HOUR
.29 82 RAINFALL= 5 .9 IN
PEAK= 1 .8 CPS @ 11.90 HRS
VOLUME= .03 AF
SP _`i= '-0-20 HRS, a-= .1 HRS
rte- -_-- Tc (m'
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 1 .0
Smc_=._ surfaces n= . __ L=30' P2=2. - _- s=.022
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 3 . :
22v' ?2 = . : _
sur_t_es n= . _1 _= = =.005
S:LkLLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 7
a.,- Kv=20 .3232 _ S=.CC, % =1.-5- 'ps
3:5 5 .5
SUBCATCHMENT 3 Existing conditions to the east eroperty
=cS �Di
.21- 7 ;�_'• . _..�� � �ac�s SCS =.-2J METHOD
-1 _PE-
.5 C7S
V2LC t,
TR-55-SHEET FLOW L1 23; . -
' Data for Apache Animal Hospital `e? �i A") a ��
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 3 Aug
HvdroCAD 3.20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Applied Microcomputer Systems
• SUBCATCHMENT 4 Developed conditions to ditch on RR
ACRES CN
.42 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
.85 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE II 24-.HOUR
1.27 75 RAINFALL= 5.9 IN.
PEAK= 2 .3 CFS Q 12.52 HRS
VOLUME= .31 AF
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.1 HRS
Method Comment Tc (min)
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 10.2
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=85' P2=2.8 in s=.04
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 40.6
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=215' P2=2.8 in s=.008
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 4 .2
Unpaved Kv=16 .1345 L=360' s=.009 ' /' V=1.44 fps
Total Length= 6600 ft Total Tc= 55.0
SUBCATCHMENT 5 Developed to 37th Ave NE
A--R=S CN
.08 . 95 Impervious SCS TR-20 METHOD
• .18 65 Pervious TYPE II 24-HOUR
.26 74 RAINFALL= 5 .9 IN
PEAK= 1.3 CFS Q 11 .90 FRS
V0LLPME= .06 Lz
SPAN.— 10-20 HRS, d"-=.1 ._RS
a - Tc - n
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 1 .
-_.. surfaces r.=.011 L=30 22 in 3= .022
TR-55 SHEET FLOW. L2 3 . 9
,..7o.--_n surfaces n= .011 L=220 ::2=2 . ,'- ir. S=.005
SHALLOW CONCENTR.ATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 .%
Kv=20 .3232 L=�5' S= .006 fps
-_- -- 365 ft T—al
SUBCATCK'MENT 6 Developed to the east property
C";
5 65 Pervious S--S _._-20 METHOD
'T'L?: I I 2-,-' -FOU -
_ _.,-20 ?S,
TR-55rSHEET FLOW L - • -
Data for Apache Animal Hospital Y Page 499
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 3 Aug
HydroCAD 3 .20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUSCATCHMENT 1 Existing conditions to RR ditch
ACRES CN
.05 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
1.03 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE 'II 24-HOUR
1.08 66 . RAINFALL= 4 .2 IN
PEAK= .7 CFS Q 12.57 HRS
VOLUME= .10 AF
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.1 HRS
Method Comment Tc (min)
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 10.2
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=85' P2=2 .8 in s=.04
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 40.6
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=215' P2=2.8 in s=.008
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 4 .2
Unpaved Kv=16 .1345 L=360' s=.008 ' /' V=1.44 fps
Total Length= 660 ft Total Tc= 55.0
SUBCATCH4ENT 2 Existing conditions to 37th Ave ne
ACRES CN
.11 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
• 13 15 PerV4 )US sur.fa--- TYPE II 24-HOUR
.29 82 RA1D;?A1LL•= 4'.2 IN
P7-AK 1. 1 CFS CB 11 .50 HRS
VJL7•?E_ .05 AF
S?=`;= 10.-20, HRS, Y_=.1 HRS
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 1 .0
-.__:ih Sur.3_eS ^._ • -- _=3 P2=2 . :; _.. ==.022 ,
i
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 3 .5
rl= '3_1 =220 =2=2 . 7 _Jr _=. 00O ,
SKA-Z LO'ri CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 .7
_..� Xv=2 322 _=15 S=. CC_ /' V=1 .57 =os
Tr-) a_ L_�_ 3315 '__ Tc:a'
Su`?CATCFTMSE`TT 3 Existing conditions to the east property
21 15 .c_ . _Z- _._-20 E HOD
i•'P= _7 2=-OUR
VOL A
-2 3
• _-- -
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 __ .
Data for Apache Animal Hospital `U wvPage
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 3 Au 90
HydroCAD 3 .20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUBCATCHMENT 4 Developed conditions to ditch on RR
ACRES CN
.42 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
.85 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE -II 24-HOUR
1.27 75 RAINFALL= 4 .2 IN
PEAK= 1.3 CFS Q 12.53 HRS
VOLUME= .17 AF
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.1 HRS
Method Comment Tc (min)
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 10.2
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=85' P2=2.8 in s=.04
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 40.6
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=215' P2=2.8 in s=.008
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 4 .2
Unpaved Kv=16 .1345 L=360' s=.008 ' /' V=1.44 fps
Total Length= 660 ft Total Tc= 55 .0
SUBCATCHMENT 5 Developed to 37th Ave NE
ACRES CN
.03 95 Imce_viaus SCS TR-20 L-EETHOD
• 13 65 Pervious TYPE II 24-HOUR
.26 74 RAINFALL= 4 .2 IN
PEAK= .7 C=S 11 . 91 -_.-
VDLU?,I1' .03 AF
1C-2-- HRS,
^,!etho0d - f r
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Ll 1 .
ST:c-it __fa--es = . J11 L P2=2 . - in _=.G22
TP-55 SHEET FLOW L2 _ .
Sm:ccth surra_es r.. _1 L=2I3' ?2=2 . _ S
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3
P?ve3 :w=20 .3232 L=65' c=.GO; ' P =_ .57 f c s
SUBCATCF-ME:iT 6 Developed to the east property
_..,P-
CF_
'J
TR-55 SciE3T FLOW LI = . .
e
Data for Apache Animal Hospital ` �e"'•
/fi Page age 91
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 3 Au _:
HydroCAD 3 .20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Applied Microcomputer Systems
SUSCATCHMENT 1 Existing conditions to RR ditch
ACRES CN
.05 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
1.03 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE• II 24-HOUR'
1.08 65 RAINFALL:= 2 .8 .IN
PEAK= .2' CFS @ 12.64 HRS
VOLUME= .03 AF
SPAN= 10-20 HRS, dt=.1 HRS
Method Comment Tc (min)
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 10.2
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=85' P2=2 .8 in s=.04
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 40.6
Grass : Dense n=.24 L=215' P2=2 .8 in s=.008
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 4 .2
Unpaved Kv=16 .1345 L=360' s=.008 ' /' V=1.44 fps
Total Length= 660 ft Total Tc= 55.0
SUBCATCHMENT 2 Existing conditions to 37th Ave ne
1_R__S CN
_6 95 Imoervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
• .3 65 Per•ious su--faces TYPE II 24-HOUR
.29 82 RAINFALL= 2 .8 IN
PEAK= 5 C2J ? 1 _ :r.J
V0LC?dE A=
°�`!= -20 -^J, d: -
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1
.. su_i:aces. ?2=2 . - _.. s=.022
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2
jfb�_:.. surL3--es % -- —=220' c2=2 . : in 5= i
S:iaLLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3
..v=20 . 3392 _=-5' s=.005 V fgs
SUBCATCi-alENT 3 Existing conditions to the east property
Jt_.J !:.-20 �'I-_-:J D
jV=7 TT
TR-55 SHEET FLOW Ll _
-74-,
Data for Apache Animal Hospital Page
Prepared by Applied Microcomputer Systems 3 Au, 5102
HvdroCAD 3 .20 000754 (c) 1986-1994 Anolied Microcomputer Svstems
SUBCATCHMENT 4 Developed conditions to ditch on RR
ACRES CN
.42 95 Impervious surfaces SCS TR-20 METHOD
..85 65 Pervious surfaces TYPE •II 24-HOUR
1 .27 75 RAINFALL= 2.8 IN
PEAK= .5 CFS @ 12 .55 HRS
VOLUME= .08 AF
SPAN 10-20 HRS, dt=.1 HRS
Method Commen-- Tc (min)
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 10.2
Grass: Dense n=.24 L=85' P2=2 .8 in s=.04
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2 40 .6
Grass : Dense n=.24 L=215' P2=2 .8 in S=.008
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 4 .2
Unpaved Kv=16 .1345 L=350' s=.008 ' /' V=1.44 fos
Total Lenc_":= 650 fc� Total To= 55 .0
SUBCATCHMENT 5 Developed to 37th Ave NE
CRS CN
.08 95 ITcervicus SCS T:.-20 METHOD
• i8 65 2e r V .011 5 TYPE 71 21-HOUR
2 74 RAI�iF��L= 2 .8 iL,
_E:K= 3 CFS C- 11. 31 r.R
VOL'-7. -_ .02 r:F
ERS, FRS
T-• i- '•.
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L1 1 .0
_- Sur=aces -- =2 . _ _-- -_ . 2_
TR-55 SHEET FLOW L2
S ._----'n surfaces r.= . J11 ._7.=221.
SHALLOW CONCENTRATED/UPLAND FLOW L3 .
f,-=20 .3232 _=55' s
--_-- -= 3.� -- -_ T:,=
Si73CATC=NT 6 Developed to the east property
C\_
- -- E -- 2 0 T
T-R-55 SHEET FLOW L; - • -
93
GR wo a EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1 1. CONIAI cR vAu maxr Uspa STATE DIE cmf vffm Two v1xwK
i DAYS PRIOR TO E7K"A110N/W6TId1CrI K FOR MITY L=Tl0l6 TWI CITIES
METRO AREA:454-0002 OR Tpl-FREE 1-800-252-118&
-- 2. CONTRACTOR 94ALL FIELD VERIFY THE LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF E1IISTONG
• �__ - - - ~- UTIIff0 AND TOPOMAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO STMT OF.SITE QV&C THE
1 - CONTRA FOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFT'THE RtOlCr EMiNEER OF ANY
01SI7tEPM CNES OR VARIATIONS
3. CONTRACTOR 94ALL INSTALL ALL EROSION CONTROL.MEAAAES PRIOR TO
COMIUMMDO OF GLIDING OKRAT10N S AND M/AINTM UNTL ALL AREA ALTERED
OWN THE SITE HAVE BEEN RESTORED.
C 4. SUITABLE GRIMING WTMAI SHALL CONSIST OF ME SOT.ENCWNIERED ON THE
�- SITE WITH D(CEPTION OF"TOPS OEM ORGANIC MATERIAL AND OTHER UNSTABLE
MAMVL STOCOU TOPSOIL AND GRAIULAR FILL AT LOCATIONS DIRECTED BY
CONTRACTOR
SILT FENCE & SUBGIUDE EXCAVATION SWLL BE ah=L.ED IMMEDIATELY LATER aCAVATION TO
HELP OFFSET ANY STABILITY PROBIEkS DUE TO WATER SEEPAGE OR STEEP SLOPES
WHEN PL•A014G NEW SURFACE MIATETEAL AOUACENT TO DUSTNG PAVE)".THE
aUVATai smALL.E BAt,ff41•EO PROMPTLY TO Am uNOEIMINING OF THE
asrlNC PArEUENT.
- . •_ 95- 954 _ _•^_A__- -•99• - _ -- " Q CONTRACTOR SHALL 1EESTABI.SH TURF AS Soa+AFTER!GRMNG.AS
COHOITION6 PERMIT.WITH SOO OR SEEDING NO STRAW MULCH,DISK ANCHORED.
tom\ - - --- _ -- •-_ _ �__ - - --- .=- -- _ -...�•r-= F (bIDTH.CTION ENTRANCES BULL ff SURFACED'RAH CRUSTED ROC)(ACROSS
•Cu Y' FULL WIDTH.FROM ENTRANCE POINT A FIFTY AL WITHIN IN C0 INSTALLATION DON DUKE
95' CuRa cur- .•, � �
-- - _ _._. - -• _ REFER ro ROD(CONSTRUCTION DEUt FOR F6rAL1AnON PROCEDURES
• RE ENR7A►NCE
& CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE(4'6@L DEPTH COMPACTED)TOPSOIL TO ALL
CURB CUT�/ AREAS TO BE SOOOED OR SEWED
CU.YD vw
-'• _ -9S
SOX _ i •` ` _--_ 1 ,'(n•P) 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPORMILE FOR ALL HORRONTAL AND VERTICAL
4q ..• •� •y� ` \ 10. ALL aCESS MATERIAL INTUIU D IS SURFACNG.CM07EM ITEMS.ANY
a i 1 p POSED 1 `1 ABA DCl EO UTL TY ITDAS.NO OTHER UNSTAME MATERA S SHALL BECOME THE
~` NEW BLDG. �; / PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF THE
FFE=9!�O,( �` . CN&IRUCTION SITL
11. REFER TO SITE PLAN FOR MOST CURRENT HORIZONTAL pMETNSAN6 AND SITE
-�a';'/ -:3._ lop) L' LAYOUT. �
`•�� �j 3E BOX .956- �- O irAa:$�f
• � � 'y � � � � � 12. REFER TO UILUIY PLAN FOR SANITARY SEWER MAIN,WATER MAIN SEANCE
� . LAYOUT AND ELEVATIONS AND CASTING AMID STRUCTURE SG£tX1LE
11 ALL SPOT ELEVATON6 ARE M TOP OF PAVEMENT OR GUTTER UNE.UNLESS
NOTED OTHERWISE
`l � _---ice-was+���a�..-._��-•. �-__r�•�-._- ---•• --- --- �� - - - 1 �..�r_:. -_ _ ..... ...
Ar ..............
- - f'.�.w" . _ ...W__ __ _. __ _ _.._. _•A ._-. .. .. . __..�_..._ ._......... ............................. -_.........._.-_..-_......-...._...•.-
................_-__.....-......- _ y°
� - . _.. -: ��,.�✓:vas U. b�G
i
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SCALE: 1" = 30'
i to
. �� � � �Gr✓^+ors
1N41N1A
No. wre er Dmu AMR AENgiON I Nrq a q m b ae.m Po+m q+� ft eN Ab PRELIMINARY CITY PAW. NO. DRAIYM BY: Kure
OY¢f0'KID®SD(c eat R,Aeeeoa A,mu.. .
eI d m I a.oy 1®!R-A g d Lew GRADING. DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN By 8/02/00
W409CAn AYCRrYLCIVlZ Sate/100 em ft V.d 4 Met of K..da
100=11I S"AL SLAYIm SL P4uL MN 00114 STATE PAW. NO. DESIGNED eY: SHEET
v1�4N RANwm T.1:4161-4169-11M ,,,•� APACHE ANIMAL
KbNSmmom SSRYtCMB F4=4161-416410691 HOSPITAL ADDITION MKS PRW. NO. CHECKED eY: C
act Ra c ST. ANTHONY. MINNESOTA 10320 DS
C 94
A � �5:
P L
i A C H L ,. EXSW BO MMW N O TOPOf RW&Hd0V10ED BY
__ -- - -_ -- _--.— 2. E105W UTM LO mxm WEED or
LSB� RY AD - __ __-
AND THE CITY OF AS-SAT ORAX'M UTILITY UXaTIOG TO
I .�-_...•---
BE FED VFfLF'ED PRIOR TO cxc,,VATgNJCT7tSTT4JCT10N.
PIS
!
W. NE SWt/4 SEC.31, T.30; R.23. _�
I
!- PROPOSED PARCEL O BE
--• ^'- PURCHASED =ROM RAILROAD
NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN PLATTI,:G
-- r
g5- - __• _954 _- _ 95�'- ✓-...
_ _p _ -• -_- _ -y�: ,�R�` - 4� - -_..... _•\\ _ �yi WOODED r _ /• •/
' MET4L'TRAIN CF DSSIIVG r .Z ,.•g� 3 5� 'v / _'_ ._ `—--/' ;% Z.
9 C3
R= 32 � ,_' - 61.71 To.rHus� PROPOSED
-
9
O
�.l �' o�
X6.13 12 �ARE . B
TEL E. 80:< C/.�- �A 9c6('�:- -\` ' z DA
� .\ - .-�- GREEN AREA
i �
: Z96
__
SAN. M.H. SAN. M.H. SAN. M.H. C.B.
RIM=957.1 RIM=955.5 STORM M.H. RIM=952.9 RIM=951.8
SAN. M.H. RIM=955.4
RINI=957.1
j^'� � ;J fir✓�oss �.Z�4
112 Q qe
LEG -.L DESCRIPTInN
^C -
-NER:`,L NOTES
b_..
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
_ `a--i-,7zN. SCALE: 1" = 30'
I _ _ 5.2i- o• �a• eo• oo•
X101111
ND- DATE BY >QC APPR REOS01 cm mwDaawa 821 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND C11Y PR6l.N0. DRAWN BY: DATE
Ra�mooA A+.aw
LANDUAn Aecr�RS SwLa/100 TOPOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARY SURVEY PIP 8/02/00
c1YMDa1QRA1=01® SL P.ul.YN m114 APACHE ANIMAL STATE PRO''•NO. D=km B'•` SHEET 'Z
umw PL1NKm r•k Mel-aaa--W sa AK/DS/CH
eopommaN eavmcm ►.s "I-a"-oul HOSPITAL ADDITION N,cs PRw.NO. CHEMED Dr.
ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 10320 AX/DS/CH
:OT.M ;OOC T YwS rv.•a n.
95
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
Canadian Pacific Railway
P.O. Box 530
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440
Attn: Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.S.
1. BUYER AND SELLER: The undersigned (Buyer) offers to purchase certain
Property(as defined in paragraph 3) at St. Anthony, Ramsey County, Minnesota from Soo
Line Railroad Company, doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway (Seller).
2. ACCEPTANCE: This offer shall be void if not accepted by Seller within 90 days
of its date. The accepted offer is sometimes referred to as "this agreement."
3. PROPERTY: The Property consists of the land shown in approximation on
Exhibit A (the Land) and the improvements thereon (the Improvements) (collectively, the
Property); provided, however, that the Improvements do not include those improvements
• which are excluded from the purchase by other provisions of this offer. The legal
description of the Land will be generated from the survey described in paragraph 14.
4. DEED: RESERVATIONS AND COVENANTS, BILL OF SALE: The Property
will be conveyed at the closing by quit claim deed. Upon written notice from Buyer
requesting same, given at least 10 days in advance of the closing, Seller will deliver at the
closing a quit claim bill of sale for any personal property included in the purchase. The
following reservations and covenants will be included in the deed (in these reservations
and covenants, Seller is referred to as Grantor, Buyer is referred to as Grantee, and the
Property is referred to as the real property):
As used in this paragraph, "Appurtenant Parcel' means real estate or real estate
interests which are: (a) owned by Grantor as of the date hereof.and (b) located
adjacent to (though not necessarily contiguous to) the above-described real
property. Grantor reserves unto itself, and its successors and assigns, a
permanent, non-exclusive easement in,over, under, and upon the above-described
real property for the continued use, access to, maintenance, and renewal of such
existing public and private utilities as are needed to serve-the Appurtenant Parcel,
including, but not limited to, sewers, drains, water mains, conduits, 'steam lines,
compressed air lines, pneumatic lines, gas lines, oil or gasoline pipelines, wires,
• FORM 900.1197.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -1-
Ga§t-aidlana fta flo Railway
6
cables, electric lines, signal and communication lines, and telephone or telegraph
• lines (and other data transmission lines). Said easement shall be appurtenant to,
and for the benefit of, the Appurtenant Parcel.
r
5. [not applicable]
6. [not applicable]
7. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price of the Property is $139,656.00, net to
Seller, except for commissions, if any, set forth in section 22.
8. CLOSING: Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 9, this transaction shall
close at a mutually agreeable time and place no later than 90 days after Seller's
acceptance of this offer.
9. GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAL: If Seller is required to obtain governmental
approval or exemption in lieu thereof(collectively, Authorization) in order to consummate
this transaction,this agreement shall be contingent upon the granting of Authorization, and
Buyer will cooperate with Seller to obtain Authorization. If Authorization is not obtained
within 180 days after Seller's acceptance of this offer (the Contingency Period), this
agreement shall automatically terminate at the end of the Contingency Period. If
• Authorization is not obtained prior to. the expiration of the time period specified in
paragraph 8, the date for closing shall be delayed to a date no later than 15 days after
Authorization is obtained; however, under no circumstances shall the closing be delayed
to a date later,than 180 days after Seller's acceptance of this offer. If this agreement
terminates pursuant to this paragraph, Seller shall refund the Deposit, without interest.
10. ESCROW: Should the parties agree to close in escrow, Buyer will pay all fees
and charges in connection with the escrow.
11. DEPOSIT:PAYMENTOF PURCHASE PRICE: Buyer encloses$14,000.00(the
Deposit) in the form of a certified check or cashier's check payable to Seller. Seller shall
refund the Deposit, without interest, if this offer is not timely accepted by Seller; otherwise,
the Deposit shall be applied to the purchase price. The balance of the purchase price shall..
be paid to Seller at the closing by a certified or cashier's check payable to Seller.
12. ENCUMBRANCES: The Property will be conveyed subject to facts which would
be disclosed by a comprehensive survey, rights and claims of parties in possession, rights
of the public, and easements, leases, licenses, and permits. Buyer may object to the
marketability of Seller's title on the basis of such matters.
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-Ol.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -2-
4Qah?ad1,V" paciff- Railway
97
13. JUDGMENT LIENS: Any judgment against Seller which may appear of record
• as a lien against the Property shall be settled and satisfied by Seller within 30 days after
9 P
it becomes final and unappealable, and Seller shall indemnify Buyer, and Buyer's title
insurer, for any loss sustained by either of them as a result of Seller's failure to have any
such judgment.lien so settled and satisfied.. Buyer may object to the marketability of
Seller's title on the basis of such matters.
14. SURVEY: Buyer shall, at its expense, have a survey of the Land prepared by
a surveyor registered in the State in which the Land is located. If the Land is registered
(i.e., Torrens) land, or if a certified survey is required by law, the survey shall be duly
certified. The survey shall show the location of all known easements and improvements,
including (but not limited to) all railroad tracks. The survey shall also show the location of
all Seller's railroad tracks within 50 feet of the outer boundaries of the Land. If the purchase
price requires a certification as to square footage, the same shall be certified by the
surveyor. The survey shall be subject to Seller's approval, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. Buyer shall deliver the survey to Seller no later than 45 days-after
Seller's acceptance of this offer. Seller shall have 10 days in which to disapprove the
survey by giving notice to Buyer of the matters which render the survey unacceptable. If
Seller fails to give such notice, the survey shall be deemed approved. If Seller gives such
notice, Buyer shall make a good faith attempt to remedy such matters and shall, within 10
days of Seller's notice;deliver a revised survey to Seller. Seller shall have 10 days in which
• to disapprove the revised survey by giving Buyer notice of the matters which render it
unacceptable. If Seller fails to give such notice, the survey shall be deemed approved. If
Seller gives such notice, this agreement shall thereupon terminate unless Seller, at its
option, shall agree in writing to permit Buyer to make additional revisions to the survey. If
this agreement is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, Seller shall refund the Deposit
without interest; provided, however, that Seller may retain the Deposit, as liquidated
damages, in the event such termination results from Buyer's bad faith failure to comply with
the spirit and intent of this paragraph.
15. SUBDIVISION PLATS: Buyer will be responsible for preparing, at its expense,
any survey or plat required by any governmental authority (including any survey or plat of
Seller's property contiguous to the Land, where such survey or plat is required in
connection with or as a consequence of, Buyer's purchase of the Land). The survey or plat
shall not be filed or recorded until Seller has approved it.
16. RIGHT OF ENTRY: During the first 45 days after Seller's acceptance of this
offer, Buyer(and its employees, agents, and contractors) may enter the Property and, to
the extent necessary to effectuate the purposes of this paragraph, Seller's land in the
vicinity of the Property (such land,and the Property being referred to, collectively, as the
Site), for the purpose of conducting soil tests, environmental tests, and a survey, subject
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -3-
98
to the following conditions:
(a) Buyer shall give Seller reasonable advance notice of the date and time of
each entry and the nature of the activities to be conducted on the Site at
each such date and time:
(b) Seller may elect to be present during the conduct of such activities and to
monitor same. Such monitoring shall not relieve Buyer of any liability under
this paragraph 16.
(c) Prior to entering the Site, Buyer shall secure the permission of any tenant
then in possession of same.
(d) Upon the completion of its activities on the Site, Buyer shall remove any
debris resulting from such activities and shall restore the Site to the condition
it was in prior to the commencement of such activities.'
(e) Buyer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees (as
defined below) from and against all Claims arising out of, resulting from or
relating to any loss of(or damage to) any property or business or any injury
to (or death of) any person, where such loss, damage, injury, or death
• actually or allegedly arises (whether directly or indirectly, wholly or in part)
from: (a) any action or omission of Buyer (or its employees, agents, or
contractors) while on the Site pursuant to this paragraph 16; or (b) the
exercise by Buyer (or its employees, agents, or contractors) of the
permission granted by this paragraph 16;or(c)the release of any Hazardous
Substance(as defined in paragraph 29)resulting(directly or indirectly,wholly
or in part) from any action or omission of Buyer(or its employees, agents, or
contractors) while on the Site pursuant to this paragraph 16. Indemnitees
means Seller, its subsidiaries, affiliated companies and parent companies,
and their directors, officers, employees and agents, including without
limitation Soo Line Corporation, Tri-State Land Company, Tri-State
Management Company, The Milwaukee Motor Transportation Company,
Hiawatha Transfer Company, and Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
(f) Buyer (and its employees, agents, and contractors) shall comply with all
applicable laws while on the Site.
(g) Buyer will not commence any environmental testing until its work plan for
such testing has been-approved in writing by Seller, which approval shall not
be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Buyer will provide Seller
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -4-
90
with complete copies of the test data and test reports as soon as they are
available to Buyer.
(h) The cost of any test or survey will.be borne solely by Buyer.
(i) Test holes shall be located no closer than 10 feet from the nearest rail of any
railroad track located on or -adjacent to the Site. Drilling equipment and
related equipment shall not be placed closer than 10 feet from the nearest
rail of any such track.
Q) While on the Site, Buyer (and its employees, agents, and contractors)shall
comply with Seller's safety rules, including any requirement regarding the
use of flagmen. All costs associated with compliance with such rules shall
be borne by Buyer. If Seller shall incur any costs in connection therewith,
Buyer shall reimburse Seller within 30 days afte(receipt of Seller's invoice.
(k) Unless disclosure is required by court order or applicable law, Buyer shall
maintain,and shall cause its employees,agents,and contractors to maintain,
the confidentiality of all information pertaining to any environmental test
performed on the Site.
• (1) If any mechanic's or materialmen's-lien, or similar lien, is asserted against
the Site, the Property, or any other property of Seller or the Indemnitees as
a result of the exercise of the permission granted in this paragraph 16, Buyer
shall immediately satisfy and/or obtain the release of such lien, all at Buyer's
expense, and Buyer shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the
indemnitees from and against all Claims arising out of or connected with
such lien.
17. TITLE MATTERS: Seller makes no warranty or representation with respect to
the marketability or quality of its title and is not under any obligation to furnish abstracts of
title, title reports, or title insurance policies in respect of the Property. Buyer shall have 45
days after Seller's acceptance of this offer in which to raise objections-to the marketability
of Seller's title. If Buyer objects to Seller's title, it must give Seller notice within such 45-day
period, specifying the precise nature of the alleged title defects. The notice must be
accompanied by evidence of the alleged defects, in the form of a copy of an abstract of title
or a title company's title commitment. If Buyer fails to give proper or timely notice, it shall
be deemed to have waived its right to object (except that defects which arise subsequent
to the 45-day period shall not be deemed waived unless.Buyer fails to give Seller notice
of same promptly after it learns, -or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
learned, of them); furthermore, even if Buyer gives proper and timely notice, it shall be
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-Ot.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -5-
100
• deemed to have waived its right to object on the basis of then-existing defects not specified
in the notice. Seller shall have 45 days or until the closing, whichever is less (the Cure
Period), in which it may, if it so chooses, attempt to cure any defect specified in a timely
and otherwise proper notice. Seller has no obligation or responsibility whatsoever to cure
(or attempt to cure) any title defect. If Seller shall undertake to'cure or-attempt to cure any
title defect, it may withdraw from such undertaking at any time without penalty; such
undertaking shall not create, nor shall it under any circumstance be construed to create,
any obligation whatsoever on the part of Seller to cure any such defect. If Seller is unable
or unwilling to cure any specified defect, Buyer may terminate this agreement by giving
Seller notice of termination at any time prior to the actual delivery and acceptance of the
deed,which notice shall state that this agreement is being terminated by reason of Seller's
failure to cure title defects. If Buyer gives proper and timely notice of termination, Seller
shall refund the Deposit, without interest, and shall reimburse Buyer for the actual amount
paid by Buyer for the abstract of title or title commitment, provided that the abstract or
commitment is delivered and assigned to Seller. By accepting delivery of the quit-claim
deed, Buyer shall be deemed to waive any and all uncured title defects.
18. REAL ESTATE TAXES: The total real estate tax bill payable in the year in
which the date of closing occurs will be prorated on a per diem basis as of the closing,
using the most recent tax bill; such proration shall be final and binding on Seller and Buyer
and there shall be no post-closing adjustment. There will be no proration to the extent the
payment of such taxes has been assumed by a lessee under a lease that will be assigned
to Buyer or merged into the purchase.
19. TRANSFER TAXES AND FEES: Buyer will purchase, affix, and cancel any and
all documentary stamps in the amount prescribed by statute, and will pay any and all
transfer taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, and fees incidental to the transfer of
the Property or the recordation or filing of the deed.
20. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: Buyer will assume responsibility for paying any
special assessment (or installment thereof)where the due date for payment is on or after
the date of this offer, irrespective of the date of the improvement.
21. NOTICES: Notices permitted or required by this agreement must be in writing
and shall be deemed given when delivered in legible form to the business address of the
party to whom addressed. If delivered at the closing, a notice shall be deemed given when
hand-delivered to the party's representative at the closing.The business addresses of the
parties are as follows:
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -6-
101
Seller--
mailing address: P.O. Box 530
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Director, Real Estate.Marketing, U.S. .
delivery address: 501 Marquette Avenue
Suite 804
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.S.
telecopier: (612) 347-8170
Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.S.
Buyer--
mailing address:
Attn:
•
delivery address:
Attn:
Telecopier:
Attn:
Notices not given in the manner or within the time limits set forth in this agreement are of
no effect and may be disregarded by the party to whom they-are directed.
22. REAL ESTATE BROKERS: If any real estate broker or agent can establish a
valid claim for commission or other compensation in connection with this transaction, Seller
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -7-
raeffl-f'z Railway
102
shall be responsible for such commission or other compensation up to ten percent of the
sales price. Any commission or compensation in excess of ten percent shall be paid by
Buyer.
23. LEASES: At and as of the closing, Seller will assign to Buyer Seller's rights, and
Buyer will assume Seller's obligations, under any lease which: (a) was granted by Seller
(or its predecessors in interest) as lessor, (b) is known to Seller, and (c) includes or
burdens any portion of the Property; provided, that if Buyer is the lessee under such a
lease,that lease shall merge into the purchase as of the closing.And further provided, that
if a lease includes property other than the Property, the assignment and assumption (or
merger) shall be limited to the leasehold interest in the Property. The assignment and
assumption contemplated by this paragraph shall be limited to rights and obligations
accruing as of and after the closing. Prepaid rentals shall be prorated on a per diem basis
at and as of the closing. In the event of a.partial assignment or merger, rentals in respect
of the period from and after the closing shall be adjusted between Seller and Buyer on the
basis of the square footage of the land area of their respective interests in the leased
premises; provided, however, that where the rental was established on a basis other than
square footage, the adjustment shall be determined using such other basis. Seller will
provide a copy of each such lease to Buyer within 30 days after Seller accepts this offer.
At the closing, the parties will execute an assignment and assumption agreement
incorporating the terms of- this paragraph and identifying such lease or leases.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller reserves to.itself 100% of the gross revenues
attributable to any fiber optic agreement of whatever nature, including gross revenues in
respect of any renewal term or extended term contemplated by said agreement.
24. EASEMENTS, LICENSES, AND PERMITS: At and as of the closing, Seller will
assign to Buyer Seller's rights, and Buyer will assume Seller's obligations, under existing
easements, licenses, and permits (collectively, instruments) which: (a) were granted by
Seller (or its predecessors in interest), (b) are known to Seller, and (c) include or burden
any portion of the Property. There shall be no proration of prepaid rentals, prepaid fees,
or other prepaid charges in respect of any such instrument. If such an instrument pertains
in part to property other than the Property,the assignment and assumption shall be limited
to the interest the instrument creates in the Property. In the event of, such partial
assignment, the rentals, fees, and other charges which come due after the closing shall
be allocated between Seller and Buyer on the basis of the square footage of the land area
of their respective interests in the property affected by the instrument; provided, however,
that where the rental, fee, or other charge was established on a basis other than square
footage, the adjustment shall be determined using such other basis. The assignment.and
assumption contemplated by this paragraph shall be limited''to rights and obligations
accruing as of and after the closing. Seller will provide a copy of each such instrument to
Buyer within 30 days after Seller accepts this offer. At the closing, the parties will execute
• FORM 900.1l97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -8-
P-80106 fiWallway
1®3
• an assignment and assumption agreement incorporating the terms of this paragraph and
identifying such instrument or instruments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller reserves
to itself 100% of the gross revenues attributable to any fiber optic.agreement of whatever
nature, including gross revenues in respect of any renewal.term or extended term
contemplated by said agreement.
25. AS IS: ALL FAULTS: NO REPRESENTATION BY SELLER: Buyer agrees to
accept the condition of the Property, including specifically without limitation, the
environmental and geological condition of the Property, in an "AS-IS" and with "ALL
FAULTS" condition. Buyer's acceptance of title to the Property shall represent Buyer's
acknowledgment and agreement that: (i) Seller has not made any written or oral
representation or warranty of any kind with respect to the Property (including without
limitation express or implied warranties of title, merchantability, or fitness for a particular
purpose); (ii) Buyer has not relied on any written or oral representation or warranty made
by Seller, its agents or employees with respect to the condition or value of the Property;
(iii) Buyer has had an adequate opportunity to inspect the condition of the Property,
including without limitation any environmental testing, and to inspect documents applicable
thereto, and Buyer is relying solely on such inspection and testing; and (iv) the condition
of the Property is fit for Buyer's intended use. Buyer agrees to accept all risk of Claims
(including without limitation all Claims under any Environmental Law and all Claims arising
at common law, in equity or under a federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation)
• whether past, present or future, existing or contingent, known or unknown, arising out of,
resulting from or relating to the condition of the Property, known or unknown, contemplated
or uncontemplated, suspected or unsuspected, including without limitation the presence
of any Hazardous Substance on the Property, whether such Hazardous Substance is
located on or under the Property, or has migrated from or to the Property.
26. RELEASE: Buyer, for itself, its directors, officers, stockholders, divisions,
agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors,and assigns and anyone acting
on its behalf or their behalf hereby fully releases and forever discharges Seller from any
and all Claims(including without limitation all Claims arising under any Environmental Law
and all Claims arising at common law, in equity or under a federal, state or local statute,
rule or regulation), past, present and future, known and unknown, existing and contingent,
arising out of,.resulting from, or relating to the condition of the Property, and Buyer hereby
waives any and all causes of action (including without limitation any right of contribution)
Buyer had, has -or may have against Seller and its respective directors, officers,
stockholders, divisions, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors and
assigns, grantors or anyone acting on its behalf or their behalf with respect to the condition
of the Property, whether arising at common law, in equity or under a federal, state or local
statute, rule or regulation. The foregoing shall apply to any condition of the Property,
known or unknown,contemplatedor uncontemplated,suspected or unsuspected, including
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -9-
Raeffle Railway
104
• without limitation the presence of any Hazardous Substance on the Property,whether such
Hazardous Substance is located on or under the Property, or has migrated from or to the
Property.
27. INDEMNITY: Buyer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller and
its respective directors, officers, stockholders, divisions, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries,
predecessors, successors and assigns, grantors or anyone acting on its behalf or their
behalf for, from and against any and all Claims (including without limitation all Claims
arising under any Environmental Law and all Claims arising at common law, in equity or
under a federal, state or local statute, rule or regulation) past, present and future, existing
and contingent, known and unknown arising out of, resulting from, or relating to the
condition of the Property. The foregoing shall apply to any condition of the Property,
known or unknown,contemplated or uncontemplated,suspected or unsuspected,including
without limitation the presence of any Hazardous Substance on the Property,whether such
Hazardous Substance is located on or under the Property, or has migrated from or to the
Property, regardless of whether the foregoing condition of the Property was caused in
whole or in part by the Seller's actions or inactions.
28. ENVIRONMENTAL: PARTIES' RIGHT TO TERMINATE: Either party may
terminate this agreement at any time prior to the delivery of the deed if it determines,in the
exercise of its discretion, that circumstances related to Hazardous Substances render the
sale inadvisable.ln the event of such termination, Seller will refund the Deposit,.without
interest. The closing of the sale, if it occurs, is not, and shall not be construed as, an
actual or implied representation or warranty by Seller as to the condition of the Property
or the absence of Hazardous Substances.
29. DEFINITIONS:
"Claim" or "Claims" means any and all liabilities, suits, claims, counterclaims, causes
of action, demands, penalties, debts, obligations, promises, acts, fines, judgments,
damages, consequential damages, losses, costs, and expenses of every kind (including
without limitation any attorney's fees, consultant's fees, costs, remedial action costs,
cleanup costs and expenses which may be related to any claims).
"Environmental Law" means the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.,-the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321 et seq., the
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §
2601 et seq., all as amended from time to time, and any other federal, state, local or other
governmental statute, regulation, rule, law or ordinance dealing with the protection of
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -10-
105
human health, safety, natural resources or the environment now existing or hereafter
enacted.
"Hazardous Substance"or"Hazardous Substances"means any pollutant,contaminant,
hazardous substance or waste, solid .waste, petroleum product, distillate, or.fraction,
radioactive material, chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity,
polychlorinated biphenyl or any other chemical, substance or material listed or identified
in or regulated by any Environmental Law.
30. LITIGATION EXPENSES: In any action brought in connection with this
agreement,the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its litigation expenses,including,
but not limited to, court costs, disbursements, witness fees, experts' fees, and attorneys'
fees.
31. TIME OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence of this agreement.
32. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: If Buyer fails to
perform any of the terms or conditions of this agreement within the specified time limits,
Seller may, at Seller's option, declare this agreement terminated and retain the Deposit as
agreed liquidated damages, or have this agreement specifically enforced. Likewise, if
Sellerfails to perform any of the terms or conditions of this agreement within the specified
time limits, Buyer may declare this agreement terminated (in which event Seller shall
• refund the Deposit, without interest), or Buyer may have this agreement specifically
enforced. The rights and remedies granted to the parties in this paragraph are intended to
be cumulative to all other rights and remedies available to the parties (whether under this
agreement, at law, in equity or otherwise); accordingly, the exercise by either party of any
such right or remedy shall not preclude it from exercising any other such right or remedy.
33. COMPUTATION OF TIME: For the purpose of computing the time period's
specified in this agreement, Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays shall be counted.
However, where the last day for performing any act falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, that act may be performed on the next succeeding day which is not a Saturday,
Sunday, or legal holiday.
34. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties with respect to the sale and purchase of the Property. Buyer has not
relied on any statements or representations by Seller except as are set forth in this
agreement.
35. NON-ASSIGNABILITY: _Buyer shall not in any manner assign or transfer its
rights under this agreement, voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise,
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-Ol.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -11-
1®6
without the advance written consent of Seller. Any attempted or purported assignment or
• transfer by Buyer without such consent shall be void. Subject thereto,this agreement shall
inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns of the respective parties.
36. SURVIVAL OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The terms and conditions of this
agreement shall survive and be in full force and effect after the delivery of the deed, and
shall not be deemed to have merged therein.
37. SURVIVAL OF INDEMNIFICATION, LITIGATION EXPENSE AND
CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS: The indemnification, litigation expense, and
confidentiality provisions of this agreement shall survive its termination.
38. APPLICABLE LAW: This agreement shall be governed by, and construed in
accordance with, the laws of the State in which the Land is located.
39. SEVERABILITY: Each provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and
word of this agreement shall apply to the extent permitted by applicable law and is
intended to be severable. If any provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word
of this agreement is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity
shall not affect the legality or validity of the remainder of the agreement.
• 40. RAIL SERVICE• NO OBLIGATION: Nothing 9 in this agreement is intended to
create, nor shall it be construed to create, any express or implied obligation on the part of
Seller to provide (or continue to provide) rail service to Buyer and/or the Property. Nothing
in this agreement is intended to prevent or limit, nor shall it be construed to prevent or limit,
the discontinuance, by Seller, of rail service over any railroad line or trackage by which rail
service is or may be provided to Buyer and/or the Property.
41. WELL AND SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM DISCLOSURES: Seller certifies
that to the best of Seller's knowledge there are no wells on the Property. Seller states that
to the best of Seller's knowledge there is no individual sewage treatment system, as
defined in Chapter 115.55 of the Minnesota Statutes, on or serving the Property.
42. [not applicable]
43. HEADINGS: The paragraph headings used in this agreement are used solely
for the purpose of convenience. They are not intended to, and do not, modify or limit the
wording of the paragraphs to which they are appended,.and they shall not be used or
construed as guides to the interpretation of said paragraphs.
• FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN -12-
1®7
44. OFFER DATE: This offer is dated
20
OFFER: ACCEPTANCE:
Ap arhp Animal Medicine , PA SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
(Buyer's name as it should appear in
deed)
By Director Real Estate Marketing, U.S.
Its President Date:
Type of company, e.g., corporation,
partnership:
_ Corporation
State of incorporation or formation:
Minnesota'
Not Assignable Without Consent
•
FORM 900.1/97.STD.00180-01.otp
OFFER TO PURCHASE RAMSEY COUNTY.MN- -13-
1®8
'• 74439
REMITTER
ntAn!h:!�ny Park State Bank
2265 Coma Amu•651-523-7800.SL Paul.MN 68108 22-70/880
DATE .l"I.l.'•:':(.1;3" :ft (:ii:J
PAY TO THE ......:.:. .. .:�.....:,.�
ORDER OP l'1'li'i l''iFlll F'fii"TI''[i' frH"Gll�f'I�IC; :l-,:I+4:I:IL)fJ"!Il'4: �
$`
J n 9 a s�,�at �. ° ' �� _ DOLLARS
/imdocrunrnG�ta�mmu�lo-co�a•�ac�inurtd mnuaa-�ritG.�aGirti�iitr,andm�rgb/Fi.�ifur�ti[��i,'a�suecr i�G�%r�iJ�ia�uirmu�r/LGrdirtt�mco�
r
10 CASHIER'S CHECK
PJP
11'07443911' X1.1:0960007001:054009 10 11'
APACHE ANIMAL MEDICINE, P.A. EXPLANATION AMOUNT zz-7o/sso
APACHE ANIMAL HOSPITAL
2501-37th AVENUE N.E. 612-781-2734 8 v
MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55421
PAY
AMOUNT DOLLARS
OF CHECK
DATE TO THE ORDER OF DESCRIPTION CHECK AMOUNT
NUBER
o�v r R7 Z� t' l �
DR.RAPACZ Q !
ST.ANTHONY PARK BANK-612/647-0131
2260 COMO AVENUE-ST.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55108
em
11601854211' 1:0960007001: 10 7 5 5 3 10011'
110
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 20, 2000
• Page 8
1 Motion carried unanimouslv.
2 VI._ POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
3 None.
4 Chair Bergstrom called for a recess at 8:35 p.m.
5 VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS.
6 Chair Bergstrom called the meeting to order at 8:45 p.m.
7 1. Concept Review: 2801 37th Avenue NE.
8 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom reported that Mr.Ken
9 Solie, Owner of Village Properties, seeks to (1) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 2,Block 1,
10 Apache Plaza 3rd Addition; (2) Subdivide the land associated with Lot 1,Block 1,apache Terrace
11 Addition; and (3) Combine the original parcels remaining after the subdivisions into one lot. All
12 land in question is presently zoned LI. The existing industrial building will be on the combined lot.
13 Mr. Solie's intent is to sell the two outer lots.
�4 Isom continued by stating that City Attorney Soth had been contacted to review this issue, and that
5 Mr. Soth had recommended a Declaration of Restrictions.Agreement. Such an agreement would
6 state,in essence,that the City would approve of the combining of the lots and that the Owner would
17 take that information to the County.
18 Isom introduced Mr. Ken Solie, owner of Village Properties, and invited`him to approach the
19 Commission. Mr. Solie stated that he is proposing to subdivide and recombine the land associated
20 with the Industrial Custom Products building at 2801 37th Avenue NE. Mr. Solie stated that with
21 reference to the proposed subdivisions, he is currently leasing a strip of land to the north of the
22 existing building from the CP Railroad to provide convenience parking for tenant employees. This
23 lease has been in place since at least 1979 and discussions with the railroad indicate that it is not
24. likely that the lease would ever be terminated. If it were terminated, however, he would have a
25 difficult time providing on site parking according to the Ordinance.
26 Consequently;Mr.-Solie stated that at worst case, he would be forced to buy the land from the
27 railroad. Various discussion ensued regarding required parking spaces and City ordinance, and
28 options depending upon the outcome of discussions with the railroad.
29 In response to a comment by Hatch regarding the Livable Communities Grant,Bergstrom explained
30 to the audience that the City has submitted a grant request to do a future land study for a large area,
31 but that the City is not targeting any particular parcel. Additionally the Metropolitan Council-has
grant programs for doing long-term studies. Both of these properties are inside the area,but have
032
33 not been specifically targeted by the study.
111
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 20,2000
Page 9
1 Bergstrom noted that Mr. Solie's next step was to coordinate with Assistant City Manager Isom to
2 move forward with the project. The issue would probably be on the Planning Commission's agenda
:.3 for next month.
4 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Solie for the concept review and presentation.
5 2. Concept Review: 2501 37th Avenue NE,
6 Chair Bergstrom requested a report from Staff. Assistant City Manager Isom reported that the
7 applicant, Dr. Terry Rapacz, was seeking to expand his clinic by purchasing a proposed parcel of
8 land from Mr. Ken Solie, Owner of Village Properties.
9 In this respect,Mr. Art Brown,Prudential Real Estate, approached the Commission and presented
10 the detailed plans for the expansion of Apache Animal Hospital.
11 Jeff Agnes, architect, approached the Commission and reviewed in detail the plans presented. His
12 presentation depicted a 4,000 to 5,000 foot building, and stated that Dr. Rapacz was considering
13 using some residential features for the building in order to coordinate with the residential character
14 of the surrounding area. In that respect,Mr.Agnes presented an artist's rendering of the proposed
building, which incorporated certain residential features into the exterior.
Bergstrom acknowledged that he was in support that the design was of a residential nature, and he
17 is pleased that there would not be any significant grading in the area.
18 Isom noted that currently the Commission is simply looking at rezoning"the property and to
19 combining the lots. Once discussions have been accomplished with the railroad, additional
20 information will be obtained and a return to the Commission would be in order.
21 Various discussion ensued about additions to existing buildings that have been grandfathered into
22 the existing Code.
23 Thomas inquired of Mr.Agnes if decorative lighting was planned for the building. Mr.Agnes stated
24 that lighting is part of the architecture planned and that Dr.Rapacz would.enjoy working with the
25 City on attractive and decorative lighting to compliment what the City_has planned for the.area.
26 Thomas inquired if the City needed to be concerned about a building-to-lot ratio. Bergstrom
27 confirmed that required was only for residential property.
28 — Bergstrom encouraged Dr.Terry Rapacz and his staff to work with Spencer Isom in implementing
29 the proposed project.
�0 3. Concept Review: 3259 Stinson Boulevard.
Chair Bergstr om asked for.a report from Staff.
112
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 8/9100 MEETING DATE: 8/15/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom/
RE: Presentation. WSB &Associates Will Present a Selection of Decorative Lighting
for 29' Avenue and Various Future Locations Throughout St. Anthony.
Mr. Hubmer, of WSB & Associates, will discuss the results of the Villagefest information booth and the
August 9, 2000 public information hearing. Possible action.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
113
MEMORANDUM
• DATE: 8/9/00 MEETING DATE: 8/15/00
TO:. Planning Commission /
FROM: Assistant City Manager Isom
RE: Sample Ordinances for Revising the City's Antennae Ordinance.
The Planning Commission has expressed its dissatisfaction with the existing Antennae Ordinance. Commissioner
Hatch presented the Commission and staff with an ordinance from the City of Shoreview. Additionally,staff has
located another ordinance from the City of Dublin, CH. Staff is prepared to redraft the City's existing ordinance
in either format. Please review each ordinance and come to a consensus of the Commission on which ordinance
is preferred. Staff will then proceed,with the assistance of City Attorney Soth, in developing a new antennae
ordinance. Direction requested.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
•
114
Record of Ordinances
• An ordinance amending the Codified Ordinance of the City of Dublin to adopt new regulations that are consistent with the Telecommunications Act
of 1996 governing wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of Dublin and repealing several sections of the zoning code which are no
longer applicable.
WHEREAS,increasing competition in the telecommunications industry,especially in the market for wireless
telecommunications services,is increasing the demand for antenna sites on Towers and other Antenna Support Structures
necessary for providing wireless service;and
WHEREAS,the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves the authority of the City to regulate the placement,construction
and modification of Towers, Support Structures and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and to protect the health,safety
and welfare of the public;and
WHEREAS,consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996,a prohibition on the placement of Towers and Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in certain areas of the City,as provided in this Ordinance,will not prohibit any person from
providing wireless telecommunications services in violation of the Act;and
WHEREAS,the City desires to maintain a high character of community development,to protect and preserve property,to
promote the stability of property values,and to protect real estate from impairment of destruction value for the general
community welfare by regulating the location of Towers within the City.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Dublin, State of Ohio, of the elected
members concurring that;
• SECTION I. PURPOSE
A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate the placement,construction and modification of Towers and Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public,while at the same time
not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the
City.
SECTION II. CITY OBJECTIVES
The following are the City's objectives:
A. To comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to include any of the follow-on rule making and/or rule
interpretations by the appropriate state and federal agencies and/or courts.
B. To work pro-actively with the various wireless telecommunications service providers to ensure rapid and reliable
deployment of their services/technologies,while minimizing negative impacts on the City.
C. To direct the location of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the City.
D. To make available appropriate City owned property and structures for wireless telecommunications facilities.
E. To minimize adverse visual impacts of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities through careful design,
siting,landscaping,and innovative camouflaging techniques.
F. To promote and encourage shared uselco-locations of Towers and Antenna Support Structures as a primary option
rather than construction of additional single-use Towers.
• G. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties caused by Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities by
ensuring such structures are soundly and carefully designed,constructed,modified,maintained and removed.
115
Page 2
H. To the greatest extent feasible,ensure that Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are compatible ana
• surrounding land uses.
I. To the greatest extent feasible,ensure that proposed Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are designed
in harmony with natural settings and in a manner consistent with current development patterns.
J. To protect the community from inappropriately placed Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and the
general proliferation of such structures.
SECTION III. APPLICABILITY
A. All towers, Antenna Support Structures and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,any portion of which are located
within the City,are subject to this Ordinance.
B. Except as provided in this Ordinance,any use being made of a pre-existing Tower or Antenna Support Structure on
the effective date of this Ordinance(herein"Nonconforming Structures")shall be allowed to continue,even if in
conflict with the terms of this Ordinance. All re-construction or modifications to a Non-conforming Structure being
undertaken,shall be required to conform with this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this Ordinance,the following terms,phrases,words,and their derivation shall have the meaning given
herein. when consistent with the context,words used in the present tense also include the future tense;works in the plural
number include the singular number,and words in the singular number include the plural number. All capitalized terms used
in the definition of any other term shall have their meaning as otherwise defined in this Section. The words"shall"and"will"
• are mandatory and"may"is permissive. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning.
"Alternative Tower Structure"means man-made trees,clock towers,bell steeples, light poles,and similar alternative-design
mounting structures that camouflage or conceal the presence of antennas or towers.
"Antenna"means any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on a tower building or structure and used in
communications that radiate or capture electromagnetic waves,digital signals,analog signals,radio frequencies(excluding
radar signals),wireless telecommunications signals.
"Antenna Support Structure"means any building or other structure other than a Tower which can be used for location of
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
"Applicant"means any Person that applies for a certificate of zoning compliance or other approval pursuant to Sections VI and
VII of this Ordinance.
"Applications"means the process by which an Applicant submits a request and indicates a desire to be granted approval of an .
antenna and/or tower under the provisions of this Ordinance. An Applications includes all written documentation,verbal
statements and representations,in whatever form or forum, made by an Applicant to the City concerning such a request
"Ci 'means the City of Dublin,a municipal corporation,in the State of Ohio,acting by and through its City Council.
"Code"-means the Code of Ordinances of the City.
"Co-location"means the use of a wireless telecommunications facility by more than one wireless telecommunications provider.
"Conditional Use"means a use,although often desirable,which will more intensely affect the surrounding area in which it is
located that the permitted uses of such zoning districts. A conditional use is allowed in zoning district through a permit granted
• by the Planning and Zoning Commission after a public hears.
"Council"means the City Council.
116
Page 3
"Emergency" means a reasonably unforeseen occurrence with a potential to endanger personal safety or health or cause
substantial damage to property,that calls for immediate action.
"Engineer"means any engineer licensed by the State of Ohio.
"Equipment Shelter and/or Cabinet"means the structure in which the electronic receiving and relay equipment for a Wireless
Telecommunications Facility is housed. -
"FAA" means the Federal Aviation Administrations,and any legally appointed,designated or elected agent or successor.
"FCC: means the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed,designated or elected agent or successor.
"Height or Above Ground Level(AGL)" means,when referring to a tower or other structure,the distance measured from the
finished grade at the base of the tower/structure to the highest point on the tower or other structure,including
the base pad and any antenna
"Microcell"means the lines that connect a provider's towers/cell sites to one or more cellular telephone switching offices,
and/or long distance providers,or the public switched telephone network.
"Monopole"means a support structure constructed of a single,self-supporting hollow metal tube securely anchored to_a
foundation.
"Multi-use Tower"means a self supporting lattice,guyed or monopole structure constructed from grade which supports more
than one Wireless Telecommunications Facility.
"Open Space'means land devoted to conservation or recreational purposes and/or land designated by a municipality to remain
undeveloped(may be specified on a land use map).
• "Person"is any person,firm,partnership,association,corporation,company,or other legal entity,private or public,whether
for profit or not-for-profit.
"Pre-existing Towers and Pre-existing Antennas"means any tower or antenna for which a building permit or special use permit
has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance,including permitted towers or antennas that have not yet
been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired.
"SSvecial Permit"means a permit issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a land use which has unique characteristics
relative to location,design, size,operation or need for public services.
"Tower"means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas for
telephone,radio and similar communication purposes including self-supporting lattice towers,guyed towers,or monopole
towers. The term includes radio and television transmission towers,microwave towers,common-carrier towers,wireless
telecommunications towers,alternative tower structures,and the like. The term includes the structure and any support thereto.
"Viewshed"means the area surrounding a Wireless Telecommunications Facility or Antenna Support Structure,within which
the Facility or Structure is visible from off site.
"Wireless Telecommunications Facilities"means any cables,wires,lines,wave guides,antenna,microwave dishes and any
other equipment or facilities associated with a the transmission or reception of communications as authorized by the FCC
which a Person seeks to locate or has installed upon a tower or Antenna Support Structure. However,the term Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities shall not include.
1. Any satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less which are located in an area zoned industrial or
commercial;(Section 153.095.B(4)shall be applicable.)
• 2. Any satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter,regardless of zoning category;(Section
153.095.B(4)shall be applicable.)
3. Antennas used by amateur radio operators. (Section 153.096.1)shall be applicable.)
117
Page 4
• SECTION V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall be treated as permitted uses subject to administrative approval,special
permit uses,or conditional uses in a variety of zoning districts contingent upon a number of requirements being met.
These criteria are in place in a attempt to minimize adverse.health,safety,public welfare or visual impacts through co=
location,siting,design and construction,while upholding the intent of Section I
1. The City's intent is to provide incentives for Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers that seek to
further the City's following priorities:
a. Co-locate on/with other existing towers/structures/facilities or locate on existing structures(public
or private.
b. Design new towers for multiple users,wherever possible.
C. Locate towers in the least obtrusive manner given present and evolving technology.
2. The following table summarizes the City's zones and priorities with the required process:
a b c d
District Co-location on New Multi-User New Tower Single Alternative Tower
Existing Antenna Tower(public or Use Structure*
Support Structures or Private Property) (Public or Private) .
• Towers(Public or
Private)
All Residential Districts Administrative Conditional Conditional Use Administrative*
Use
Commercial Districts Administrative Special Permit Conditional Use Administrative*
Industrial Districts Administrative Administrative Special Permit Administrative*
Planned Non- Administrative Conditional Use Conditional Use Administrative*
Residential Districts
SO and OLR Districts Administrative Special Permit Conditional Use Administrative*
Exceptional Use Non- Administrative Conditional Use Conditional Use Administrative*
Conforming and Special
Districts
Architectural Review Conditional Use and Conditional Use and Conditional Use and Conditional Use and
District ARB approval ARB approval ARB approval ARB approval
• The goal ofAlternative Tower Structures is to camouflage the lower/antenna installations. If it is the
determination of the Zoning Administrator that this essential criterion has not been met, a certificate of
zoning compliance shall be denied. The applicant shall be entitled to pursue approval through the
Conditional Use procedures. (See Section T17.B.4)
B. The following requirements apply to all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regardless of the zoning district in
which they are to be located. These general standards are to be supplemented with the specific regulations for
nonresidential and residential districts as set forth in Section V herein.
• 1. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for an antenna and/or tower shall provide to the City an inventory of its
existing towers,antennas,or sites planned and/or approved for towers or antennas,that are either within the
118
Page 5
jurisdiction of Dublin or within two miles of the border thereof,including specific information about the locations,
height,and design of each tower. The City may share such information with other applicants applying for
administrative approvals or special use permits under this ordinance or other organizations seeking to locate antennas
within the jurisdiction of Dublin provided,however,that the City is not,by sharing such information,in any way
representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable.
2. Towers. Towers and antennas shall meet the following requirements:
a. Tower Color and Finish. Towers shall either maintain a non-contrasting gray or similar color or have a
galvanized steel finish unless otherwise required by the City or any applicable standards of the FAA or
ODOT.
b. Compatible Design. At a tower site,the design of the buildings and related structures shall use materials,
colors,textures,and screening so as to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the surrounding
environment,as approved by the City
C. Antenna Color. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower,the antenna and supporting
electrical and mechanical equipment must be a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with,
the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive
as possible,as determined by the city.
d. Lot Size and Setback. For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies
with district development regulations,a minimum setback of 100 feet from all property lines shall apply.
The dimensions of the entire lot shall control,even though the antennas or towers may be located on lease
parcels within such lot.
• 3. _ Fencing. Any fencing shall comply with the.City's code.
4. Landscaping. Buffer plantings shall be located on the site as deemed appropriate by the city and in accordance with
the city's landscape code.
5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted,unless required by the FAA or other applicable
authority. If lighting is required,the lighting alternative and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to the
surrounding views.
6. State or Federal Requirements. All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA,the
FCC,and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If
such standards and regulations are changed,then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this ordinance
shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six(6)
months of the effective date of such standards and regulations,unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by
the controlling state of federal agency. Failure to bring towers and antennas into compliance with such revised
standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense.
7. Building Codes: Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity of towers,the owner of a tower shall ensure that
it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable state or local building codes and the applicable
standards for towers that are published by the Electronics Industries Association,as amended from time to time. If,
upon inspection,the City concludes that a tower fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a
danger to persons or property,then upon notice being provided to the owner of the tower,the owner shall have thirty
(30)days to bring such tower into compliance with such standards. Failure to bring such tower into compliance
within said thirty(30j days shall constitute grounds for the removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense.
8. Non Essential Services. Towers and antennas shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to this ordinance and shall
not be regulated or permitted as essential services,public utilities or private utilities.
9. License to Operate. Owners and or operators of towers or antennas shall submit copies of all franchises,certifications,
licenses,and permits required by law for the design,construction,location and operation of wireless communications
119
Page 6
• in Dublin. Owners and/or operators shall be required to maintain same and to provide evidence of renewal or
extension thereof when granted.
10. Public Notice. Public notices shall be given in accordance with the City Zoning Code.
11. Sigis. No signs shall be allowed on an antenna or tower. A sign shall be posted indicating the emergency contact
phone number. Ant identification signage shall be in accordance with the City sign code.
12. Multiple Antenna/Tower Plan.Dublin encourages the owners of towers and antennas to submit a single application
for approval of multiple towers and/or antenna sites.
13. Building Permits. The installation of any tower or antenna shall require the compliance with all local building
regulations. No installations shall be allowed,without securing all applicable building permit.
14. Historic Register/District. Any application to locate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on a building or
structure that is listed on a historic register,or is in a historic district,shall be subject to review by the City's
Architectural Review Board in addition to any other required review processes.
15. Underground Equipment Shelters. Underground equipment shelters will be required where appropriate screening of
shelter cannot be accomplished.
16. Accommodation. The City encourages all towers to be constructed or reconstructed to accommodate multiple users.
17. Maximum Height. No Tower,including antenna shall exceed 200 feet as measured from grade at the base of the
tower.
• SECTION VL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
A. General. The following provisions shall govern the issuance of administrative approvals for towers and antennas.
1. All Towers and Wireless Communications Facilities will require a certificate of zoning compliance and
applicable building permits prior to installation.
2. Each applicant for administrative approval shall apply for a certificate of zoning compliance and provide the
information to address Sections VII.B.1.through VII.B.6 of this ordinance. The applicant shall pay anon-
refundable fee as established by the city's annual Fee Ordinance to reimburse the City for the costs of
reviewing the applications.
3. The application shall be reviewed for administrative approval to determine if the proposed use complies with
Section VI of this ordinance as well as all applicable requirements of the underlying zoning district. It is
understood that any underlying height restrictions shall not apply.
4. In all cases,the City will approve or deny such application within sixty(60)days of receipt. If the City fails
to respond within said sixty(60)days,then the application shall be deemed to be approved.
5. In connection with any application for certificate of zoning compliance,in order to encourage co-location,
the City may allow the reconstruction of an existing tower not to exceed the maximum heights in accordance
with Section VI.B.3.
6. If a certificate of zoning compliance in connection with an administrative review is denied,the applicant
shall be entitled to file an appeal within 20 days after the decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Broad
of Zoning Appeals,specifying the grounds,in conformance with Section 153.235.
B. Facilities Sub'ect to Administrative Approval. The following uses may be approved by the City after an
administrative review has been conducted. Approval following the administrative review shall constitute issuance of
12®
Page 7
a certificate of zoning compliance. Information consistent with Section VII B below should be submitted to
accompany the application for certificate of zoning compliance.
I. Locating antenna on existing building or other antenna support structure,public or private.Any antenna
intended to be attached to a structure other than a tower may be approved as an accessory use to any
commercial, industrial,professional,office,institutional,or similar structure,provided.
(a) The antenna is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
(b) The antenna does not extend more than twenty(20)feet above the highest point of the supporting
structure;
(c) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
(d) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
(e) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
2. Co-locating antennas on an existing or reconstructed towers,public or private. The City may approve an
antenna which is to be located on an existing or reconstructed tower. This furthers the goal of minimizing
the adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers. Co-location of antennas by more than
one carrier on existing towers shall take precedence over the construction of new towers,provided such co-
location is accomplished in a manner consistent with the following.
a) A tower which is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the co-location of an additional .
• antenna shall be designed to be consistent with the existing tower and to be as unobtrusive as
possible.
b) Height.
(i) An existing tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height,not to exceed 200 feet,to
accommodate the co-location of additional antenna or in accordance as follows:
(A) For two users,up to one hundred-thirty(130)feet in height;
(B) For three users,up to one hundred-fifty(150)feet in height;
(C) For four or more users,up to two hundred(200)feet in height
(ii) The additional height shall not require an additional setback from the property lines,
provided the tower meets the minimum setback requirements(100 feet);
c) On-site Location
(i) A tower which is being rebuilt to accommodate the co-location of additional antennae may
be relocated on site as long as it meets the minimum setback requirement.
(ii) After the tower is built to accommodate co-location,only one tower may remain on site.
d)The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
• e The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
121
Page 8
• f) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning district
requirements.
3. Locating a new multi-use tower or antenna,including the placement of additional buildings or other
supporting equipment used in connection with said tower or antenna,on.a industrial site. The City may .
approve a new tower or antenna on an industrial site where other less obtrusive measures are not feasible.
With a goal toward minimizing the adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers,co-
location of several carriers will be required. New towers and antennae shall be consistent with the following:
a) Height
(i) For two users,up to one hundred-thirty(130)feet in height;
(ii) For three users,up to one hundred-fifty(150)feet in height;
(iii) For four or more users,up to two hundred(200)feet in height.
b) Towers must be set back a minimum distance of 100 from any adjoining lot line;
C) Guys and accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirement;
d) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
e) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
f) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
4. Locating any alternative tower structure. The Zoning Administrator may approve the location of an
alternative tower structure on private property,provided the site is an conformity with the goals set forth in
Sections I and II of this ordinance. Approval by the City Manager shall also be required for such structures
to be located on public property. The objective here is to encourage ingenuity and the use of innovative
methods to camouflage such facilities. If it is the determination of the Zoning Administrator that the
proposed facilities have not been reasonably disguised or camouflaged,a certificate of zoning compliance
shall be denied. The applicant may then proceed with the filing of an application for Conditional Use,per
Section V11 of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. CONDITIONAL USE AND SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
A. General The following provisions shall govern the issuance of conditional use permits for towers or antennas by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and of special permits for same by the Board of Zoning Appeals:
1. If the tower or antenna is not subject to administrative approval under Section VI of this ordinance,then a
conditional use or special permit shall be required for the construction of a tower or the placement of an
antenna ,
2. Applications for conditional use under this Section shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of
Section 153.236 of the Zoning Ordinance except as modified in this Section
3. Applications for special use permits under this Section shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of
the Section 153.090 Zoning Ordinance except as modified in this Section.-
122
Page 9
4. In granting a conditional use or special permit,the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Zoning
Appeals,as applicable,may impose conditions to the extent the body concludes that such conditions are
necessary to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed tower on adjoining properties.
5. Any information of an engineering nature that.the applicant submits whether civil,mechanical,or electrical,
shall be certified by a licensed professional engineer.
6. An applicant shall submit the information described in this Section and a non-refundable fee as established
by the City's annual fee ordinance to reimburse the City for the costs of reviewing the applications.
B. Towers.
1. Information required. In addition to any information required for conditional use or special permit
applications under the Zoning Ordinance applicants for a conditional use or special permit for a tower shall
submit the following information:
a. Complete application form.
b. A scaled and dimensioned site plan(not less than one inch equals 50 feet)clearly indicating the
locations,type and height of the proposed tower, on-site land uses and zoning,adjacent land uses
and zoning(including when adjacent to other municipalities),adjacent roadways,proposed means
of access, setbacks from property lines,elevation drawings of the proposed tower and any other
stnuctures,topography,parking and other information necessary to assess compliance with this
ordinance.
C. Legal description of the parent tract and leased parcel(if applicable).
® d. The setback distance between the proposed tower and the nearest residential property.
e. The separation distance from other towers described in the inventory of existing sites submitted
pursuant to Section V.B. 1. shall be shown on a map. The applicant shall also identify the type of
construction of the existing towers(s)and the owners/operator of the existing tower(s),if know.
f. A landscape plan showing specific landscape materials,locations and installations sizes.
g. Method of fencing,if any, including height,material,style, and color and,if applicable;the method
of camouflage and illuminations.
h. A description of compliance with Sections V.A.,V.B. 1-17,VIII(b) (4),and all applicable federal,
state or local laws.
i. A notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the tower will accommodate
collocation of additional antennas for future users.
j. Identification of the entities providing the backhaul network for the tower(s)described in the
application and other wireless telecommunications sites owned or operated by the applicant in the
municipality.
k. A description of the suitability of the use of existing towers,other structures or alternative
technology not requiring the use of towers or structures to provide the services to be provided
through the use of the proposed new tower.
2. Factors Considered in Granting Conditional Use or Special Permits for Towers. In additional to any
standards for consideration of conditional use or special permit applications pursuant to the Dublin Zoning
Ordinance,the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following
factors in determining whether to application should be approved. The Commission(Board)may waive or
123
Page 10
reduce the burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if it determines that the goals of this
t ordinance are better served thereby:
a. Height of the proposed tower;
b. . Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries;
c. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
d. Surrounding topography;
e. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
f. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of
reducing eliminating visual obtrusiveness;
g. Proposed ingress and egress;and
h. Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures,or alternative technologies not requiring the
use of towers or structures,as discussed in Section VII.B.3 of this ordinance.
3. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers,Other Structures, or Alternative Technology. New towers shall be
approved only when other preferable alternatives are not available. No new tower shall be permitted unless
the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission or Board that no existing tower,
structure or alternative technology is available to fill the communication requirements. An applicant shall
submit information requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Board,of Zoning Appeals related
to the availability of suitable existing towers other structures or alternative technology. Evidence submitted
to demonstrate that no existing tower, structure or alternative technology can accommodate the applicant's
proposed antenna may consist of any of the following:
a. No existing towers or structures are located within the specific geographic limits,which met applicants
engineering requirements.
b. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements,
and have insufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment.
c. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause frequency interference with the antenna on the existing
towers or structures,or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the
applicant's proposed antenna.
d. The fee,costs,or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or
structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new
tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.
e. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures
unsuitable.
f. The applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or
structures,such as a cable microcell network using multiple.low-powered transmitters/receivers attached
to a wireline system, is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna
development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable.
g. The applicant provides documentation that other tower owners were contacted in writing in pursuit of
the provisions(of Section VII.B.3 a through g)above.
124
Page 11
. 4. Setbacks. The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers for which a special use permit is
required;provided,however,that the Planning Commission may reduce the standard setback requirements if
the goals of the ordinance would be better served thereby:
a. Towers must be set back a minimum distance of 100 feet from any adjoining lot_line.
b. Guysand accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements.
5. Fencing. Any fencing shall comply with the City's code. However,that the Planning Commission or Board
of Zoning Appeals may waive such requirements,as it deems appropriate.
6. Landscaping. The following requirements shall govern the landscaping surrounding towers from which a
special use permit is required;provided,however,that the Planning Commission may waive such
requirements if the goals of this ordinance would be better served thereby.
a. Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view
of the tower compound as determined by the Planning Commission.
b. In locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal,the landscaping requirement
may be reduced or waived.
C. Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum
extent possible. In some cases,such as towers sited on large,wooded lots,natural growth around
the property perimeter be sufficient buffer.
• SECTION VIII. BUILDINGS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT STORAGE
A. Antennas Mounted on Structures or Rooftops. The equipment cabinet or structure used in association with antennas
shall comply with all applicable building codes. Additionally,such equipment shall be sited and designed to minimize
its visual impact and be screened to its full height.
B. Antennas Mounted on Utility Poles or Light Poles. The equipment cabinet or structure used in association with
antenna shell be located in accordance with the following.
1. In residential districts,the equipment cabinet or structure must be located behind the required building line
and at least 30 feet from all lot lines. The cabinet/structure shall be designed to minimize its visual impact
and shall be screened to it full height with evergreen material. Plants at installation shall be a minimum of
three feet in height.
2. In commercial or industrial districts the equipment cabinet or structures shall be located at least 15 feet from .
all lot lines. The structure or cabinet shall be screened by an evergreen material with an ultimate height of
eight(8)feet and a planted height of at least three feet.
C. Antenna Located on Towers. The related unmanned equipment structure shall not exceed the maximum height
allowed in the district,and shall be located and screened in accordance with the zoning district requirements in which
located.
D. Equipment Siting Requirements. The requirements of Section VIII A through C above may be modified by the
Planning Commission or Board of Zoning Appeals as applicable to encourage collocation.
• SECTION IX.ABANDONMENT OF TOWER
A. All providers utilizing towers shall notify the City in writing of any Tower facility locate in the City whose use will be
discontinued and of the date this use will cease. If the use of the facility is discontinued for 180 days,a designated
125
Page 12
local official may declare the facility to be abandoned. (This excludes any dormancy period between construction
and the initial use of the facility.) The facility" owner/operator will receive written notice from the City and be
instructed to either reactivate the facility's use within 180 days;or dismantle and remove the facility. If reactivation
or dismantling does not occur within that period,the City will remove that facility or cause it to be removed and
assess
the costs to the owner/operator. In the-case of a multi-use tower,this provision does not.become effective until all
users cease use of the tower. However,the City may cause the abandoned portions of systems on the multi-use tower
to be removed in accordance with this provision.
B. The City must provide the Tower owner three(3)months notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Planning
Commission before initiating action to remove the facility. After such notice has been provided,the City shall have
the authority to initiate proceedings either to acquire the Tower and any appurtenances attached thereto at the then fair
market value,or in the alternative,to order the demolition of the Tower and all appurtenances.
C. The City shall provide the Tower owner with the right to a public hearing before the Planning Commission,which
public hearing shall follow the three(3)month notice required in Paragraph.B. All interested parties shall be allowed
an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing.
D. After a public hearing is held pursuant to Section C,the Planning Commission may order the acquisition or .
demolition of the Tower. The City may require Licensee to pay for all expenses necessary to acquire or demolish the
Tower.
SECTION X. NONCONFORMING USES
A. Conforming Use. Towers that are constructed,and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of
this ordinance shall be deemed to constitute the conforming uses or structures. This shall be the case even when such
new facilities are being added to a non-conforming installation.
B. Pre-existing Towers. Pre-existing towers shall be allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist. Routine
maintenance(including replacement with a new tower of like construction and height serving the same purpose)shall
be permitted on such pre-existing towers. A replacement tower must be constructed within 180 days of removal of the
initial facility. New construction other than routine-maintenance on a pre-existing tower shall comply with the
requirements of this ordinance.
C. Rebuilding Dammed or Destroyed Nonconforming Towers or Antennas. Notwithstanding Section X,bona fide
nonconforming towers or antennas that are damaged or destroyed may be rebuilt without having to first obtain
administrative approval or a special permit. The type, height,and location of the tower onsite shall be of the same
type and intensity as the original facility approved. Building permits to rebuild the facility shall comply with the then
applicable building codes and shall be obtained within 180 days from the date the facility id damaged or destroyed. If
not permit is obtained or if said permit expires,the tower or antenna shall be deemed abandoned as specified in
Section IX.
SECTION XI. NON-WAIVER
A. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from exercising any right or remedy it may have in
law or equity to enforce the terms and conditions of this Ordinance.
SECTION XII. SEVERABILITY
A. If any provision of this Ordinance or the Application of any provision of this Ordinance to any person is,to any
• extent,held invalid or unenforceable by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this Ordinance and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding. In case of such
an event,this Ordinance and all if its remaining provisions shall,in all other respects,continue to be effective. In the
event the law invalidating such and Ordinance provision is subsequently repealed,rescinded,amended or is otherwise
changed so that the provision which had previously been held invalid or unenforceable,no longer conflicts with the
126
Page 13
laws,rules or regulations then in effect,the previously invalid or unenforceable provision shall return to full force and
effect.
SECTION XIII. CONDITIONAL USE SECTIONS
A. If any provision of this Ordinance or the Application of any provision of this Ordinance to any person is,to any
extent,held invalid or unenforceable by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this Ordinance and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding. In case of such
an event,this Ordinance and all if its remaining provisions shall,in all other respects,continue to be effective. In the
event the law invalidating such and Ordinance provision is subsequently repealed,rescinded,amended or is otherwise
changed so that the provision which had previously been held invalid or unenforceable, no longer conflicts with the
laws,rules or regulations then in effect, the previously invalid or unenforceable provision shall return to full force and
effect.
SECTION X11. CONDITIONAL USE SECTIONS
A. The existing Code Sections 153.019B, 153.02 113, 153.022B, 153.02313, 153.024B, 153.02513, 153.02613, 153.02713,
153.02813, 153.029B, 153.03013, 153.031B, 153.03213, 153.033B shall be amended to include"wireless -
communications facilities"as conditional uses in all applicable Districts.
SECTION XIV. REPEALER
A. Sections 153.06 A through C shall be repealed by this ordinance. Any additional ordinances or parts thereof in
conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict
• SECTION XV. EFFECTIVE DATE
A. This Ordinance shall go in to effect on the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this day of 2000
Mayor—Presiding Officer
Initiated by: Department of Service
Division of Planning
ATTEST:
I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance were posted in the City of
Dublin in accordance with Section 731.25 of the Ohio Revised Code
City Clerk,Dublin,Ohio
• I, Clerk of Council,hereby-certify that the foregoing is a true copy of
Ordinance duty adopted by the Council of the City of Dublin,Ohio,on the day of
S k d fla-\t 127
amateur radio tower/dish antenna permit and a Building Permit shall be
�.- issued upon the execution of a amateur radio tower/dish antenna
Agreement. The terms of the amateur radio tower/dish antenna agreement
shall include the following:
(a) A list of the conditions of approval to the amateur radio tower/dish
antenna Permit:
(b) A statement indicating that failure to comply with the conditions of
approval shall result in the removal of the tower/antenna structure.
(c) A statement indicating that the expenses incurred by the City to enforce
the provisions of the amateur radio tower/dish antenna Agreement shall be
reimbursed by the applicant.
(d) A statement which requires the applicant to utilize the procedures
established by the FCC to resolve any complaints received relating to
interference allegedly caused by the amateur radio tower/dish antenna.
(e) A statement indicating that the amateur radio tower/dish antenna permit
shall be valid during the term of the amateur radio tower/dish antenna
agreement and only while the applicant resides on the property.
(f) An application fee in an amount prescribed from time to time by City
Council resolution on file with the City Manager.
(4) Review and Revocation. The City Planner shall inspect the property at least
annually for compliance with the provisions of the amateur radio tower/dish
antenna agreement. If the permittee is not in compliance with the terms of the
Agreement, a hearing shall be scheduled before the City Council for the
purpose of determining whether to terminate the Agreement. The.hearing
shall be preceded by ten (10) days mailed notice to occupants of property
within 350 feet of the lot on which the amateur radio tower/dish antenna is
located.
(5) Removal of amateur radio tower/dish antenna. Use of the amateur radio
tower/dish antenna shall be discontinued upon termination of the amateur
radio tower/dish antenna Agreement and prior to the transfer of title for the
property on which the tower is located. The property owner shall, at its cost,
reduce the height of the,antenna to that allowed without a permit and shall
disassemble and remove the amateur radio tower/dish antenna within thirty
(3)0) days of termination of the amateur radio tower/dish antenna Agreement,
or the purchaser of the property shall apply for a new permit.
(D) Broadcast Tower Permit. Broadcast towers are allowed irr'the (T) Tower District
only and must obtain a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 202.072.
(E) Wireless Telecommunication Tower/Antenna Permit.
200- 138
128
(1) Application. Applicants for a Wireless Telecommunication Tower/Antenna
! Permit shall apply to the City Planner. A completed application shall include
the following:
(a) A sketch drawn to scale acceptable to the City Planner which illustrates
the parcel on which the tower/antenna will be located, buildings located-
on the parcel, buildings located within 100 feet or within the height
radius of the tower, whichever is greater of the parcel and the location
of the proposed antenna.
(b) A sketch drawn to scale acceptable by the City Planner which illustrates
the tower/antenna's relative size and visibility from adjoining property.
(c) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer which:
describes the tower/antenna height and design including a cross-section
and elevation; documents the height above grade for all typical
mounting positions for co-located antennas and the minimum
separation distances between antennas; and describes the tower's
capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it can
accommodate.
(d) Mailing addresses for all property owners of record located within 350
feet of the subject property.
(e) An application fee in an amount prescribed from time to time by City
Council resolution on file with the City Manager.
(f) Confirmation.that the applicant is properly licensed.by the FCC, or is
the authorized representative of a wireless telecommunication provider.
(g) That portion of the applicants proposed lease with the property owner,
or other form of agreement between applicant and property owner,
which contains terms as deemed appropriate by the City Planner.
(2) Administrative Review. An application for a wireless telecommunicaton
tower/antenna permit shall be approved administratively by the City Planner
under the following circumstances:
(a) the location of the tower is being proposed in a non-residential zoning
district; and
(b) the base of a free-standing tower is at least 250 feet from a residential
property line or the projected base (as determined by extending the
tower base down vertically to the ground) of a tower on a building is at
least 250 feet from a residential property line.
(3) City Planner Determination. In those circumstances-where the applicant is
eligible for administrative-review, the City Planner shall either approve or
reject the application based upon a written determination that the application
complies or does not comply with the tower compliance standards (see
Section 207.110(E)(5-15)). If the decision is to approve and the proposed
tower is located on a parcel directly adjacent to a residentially zoned property,
200- 139
129
a notice of intent shall be sent to all property owners within 350 feet of the
perimeter of the property. Written comments will be requested within 10
days, reviewed, and a final determination made by the City Planner within 30
days of date of the City Planner's receipt of a completed application. The
City Planner's final determination shall be forwarded in writing to the
applicant and property owners within 350 feet of the perimeter of the
property. The applicant or property owner within the 350 foot notification
radius may appeal the City Planner's decision by filing a notice of appeal with
the City.Manager within 10 days of the date on the notice of the City
Planner's decision. The notice of appeal shall indicate why the appellant has
concluded that the City Planner's decision was not based on a proper
evaluation of the tower compliance standards. The City Manager shall place
the appeal on the next available City Council agenda. If the City Planner's
decisions is to approve, and there are no appeals, the City Planner shall report
the decision to the Planning Commission and City Council and the applicant
shall enter into an agreement as defined in Section 207.110(E)(4)(b).
(4) Planning Commission/City Council Review. Applications for a wireless
telecommunication tower/antenna permits located in residential zones, except
those eligible for administrative review, shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
(a) Planning Commission Review. Upon receipt of a completed application,
the City Planner shall schedule a hearing before the Planning
Commission which shall be preceded by ten days mailed notice to the
record owners of property located within 350 feet of the parcel on which
the tower/antenna will be located. The Planning Commission shall make
findings based upon the tower compliance standards and shall submit its
recommendations to the City Council.
(b) City Council Review. Upon receipt of Planning Commission
recommendations, the City Council shall review the application. The
City Council may approve the application subject to conditions, table its
review until a date certain, or deny the application for a wireless
telecommunication tower/antenna permit. If the application is denied, the
City Council shall state its reasons. If the application is denied,the City
Council shall state its reasons. If the application is approved by the City
Council, a Wireless Telecommunication Tower/Antenna Permit and a
Building Permit shall be issued upon the execution of a Wireless
Telecommunication Tower/Antenna Agreement. The agreement or a .
summary of the agreement approved by the City Planner, in a recordable
form, shall be signed by the applicant and property owner and the terms
of the agreement shall include the following:
(1) A list of the conditions of approval to the Wireless
Telecommunication Tower/Antenna Permit.
200- 140
130
(2) A statement indicating that failure to comply with the conditions of
approval shall result in the removal of the tower/antenna structure.
(3) A statement indicating that the expenses incurred by the City to
enforce the provisions of the Wireless Telecommunication
Tower/Antenna Agreement shall be reimbursed by the applicant.
(4) A statement which requires the applicant to utilize the procedures
established by the FCC to resolve any complaints received relating to
interference allegedly caused by the Wireless
Telecommunication/Tower Antenna.
(5) A statement indicating that a wireless telecommunication tower
which has not been used for twelve (12)successive months shall be
deemed abandoned and may, at the sole discretion of the City, be
required to be removed in the same manner and pursuant to the same
procedures as for dangerous or unsafe structures established by
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 463.16.
(6) A statement indicating that the removal of any unused or abandoned
tower or portions of towers shall be the responsibility of the property
owner.
(7) A statement requiring the permittee to notify the City that the
tower/antenna continues to be in operation. The notice of continuing
operation shall be sent to the City Planner annually by certified mail
during the last two weeks of the month of December.
(5) Collocation Requirements: Except as herein and after provided, wireless
telecommunication towers/antennas within the City shall comply with
the following collocation requirements:
(a) all proposed wireless telecommunication towers/antennas must be
located on an existing tower or building that exceeds 75 feet in
height and is located within a quarter mile of the site being
considered by the applicant.
(b) all proposed wireless telecommunication facilities shall be designed,
structurally,electrically, and in all respects, to accommodate both
the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one
additional user if the tower is over 75 feet in height.
(c) all proposed wireless telecommunication facilities must be designed
to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to
accept antennas mounted at various heights.
(6) Exceptions to Collocation Requirements: The City Council may waive
any or all of the collocation requirements if it is determined that:
(a) the planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of the
existing or approved tower or building, as documented by a qualified
and licensed professional engineer, and the existing or approved
200- 141
131
tower cannot be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate
�. planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.
(b) the planned equipment would cause interference materially
impacting the usability of other existing or planned equipment at the
tower or building as documented by a qualified radio frequency
engineer and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable
cost.
(c) existing or approved towers and buildings within the applicant's
search radius cannot or will not accommodate the planned equipment
at a height necessary to function reasonably as documented by a
qualified radio frequency engineer.
(d) other unforeseen reasons make it infeasible to locate the planned
telecommunications equipment upon an existing or approved tower
or building.
(7) Wireless Telecommunication Tower/Antennas Design Requirements.
Proposed or modified wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall
meet the following design requirements:
(a) Towers and antennas shall be designed to blend into the surrounding
environment through the use of color and architectural treatment.
(b) wireless telecommunication towers shall be of a monopole design
tunless the City Council determines that an alternative design would
better blend into the surrounding environment.
(8) Setbacks. Wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall conform
with each of the following minimum setback requirements:
(a) In all residential zoning districts wireless telecommunication
towers/antennas shall comply with the setbacks of the underlying
.zoning district.
(b) In all commercial, office, high tech and industrial zoning districts,
towers may encroach into the rear or side yard setback areas,
provided that the rear or side yard property line abuts another
commercial, office, high tech industrial zoned property and the
tower does not encroach upon any easements.
(c) Wireless telecommunication towers/antenna shall not be located
between a principal structure and a public street.
(9) Setback Modifications. A required setback may be reduced or the towers
location in relation to a public street modified, at the sole discretion of
the City Council when:
(a) the tower is integrated into an existing or proposed structure such as
a church steeple,power line support device, or light standard.
200- 142
132
(b) the City is provided with a licensed professional engineer's
certification that the tower is designed to collapse or fail within a
distance or zone shorter than the setback distance required herein
above.
(10) Height. Wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall conform with
the following height requirements:
(a) In all residential zoning districts, the maximum height of any tower
including all antennas and other attachments, shall not exceed one
foot for each one foot the tower is setback from a residential
dwelling unit up to a maximum of a 150 feet.
(b) In all non-residential zoning districts towers/antennas shall not
exceed 175 feet in height above ground for a freestanding
tower/antenna, and 175 feet in height above ground as measured by
the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a building on which the
tower/antenna is located, including all antennas and other
attachments.
(11) Lighting. Wireless telecommunication towers/antennas shall not be
illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights unless
such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other federal or state authority for a particular tower.
When incorporated into the approved design of the tower, light fixtures
used to illuminate ball fields,parking lots or similar areas may be
attached to the tower.
(12) Signs and Advertising. The use of any portion of a wireless
telecommunication tower/antenna for signs other than warning or
equipment information signs is prohibited.
(13) Accessory Utility Buildings. All utility buildings and structures
accessory to a tower shall be architecturally designed to blend in with the
surrounding environment.. .
(a) In residential districts, accessory utility'buildings shall meet the
minimum setback requirements and all other accessory building
requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(b) In all commercial, office, high tech and industrial zoning districts,
accessory utility buildings may encroach into-the rear or side yard
setback areas, provided that the rear or side yard property line abuts
another commercial, office, high tech, and industrial zoned property
and the accessory utility building does not encroach upon any
easements.
200- 143
133
(14) Ground-mounted Equipment. All ground-mounted equipment accessory
to a tower shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except
where a design of non-vegetative screening better reflects and
complements the architectural character of the surrounding
neighborhood. .
(a) In residential districts, ground-mounted equipment shall meet the
minimum setback requirements of the underlying zoning district.
(b) In all commercial, office, high tech and industrial zoning districts,
ground-mounted equipment may encroach into the rear or side yard
setback areas, provided that the rear or side yard property line abuts
another commercial, office, high tech, and industrial zoned property
and the ground-mounted equipment does not encroach upon any
easements.
(15) Interference with Public Safety Telecommunications. No wireless
telecommunication facility shall interfere with public safety
telecommunications. All wireless telecommunication towers/antennas
shall comply with FCC regulations and licensing requirements.
207.120 Design Review for Substandard Residential Lots
(A) Plan Required. Approval is required by the Planning Commission for any
construction, reconstruction or expansion of a structure on a substandard
riparian lot except as allowed by Section 205.080(J)(2)(a).
(B) Submittal Requirements. Applications for residential design review shall be
made on forms provided by the City Planner, who shall forward completed
applications to the Planning Commission. The following shall be submitted
with a completed application form.
(1) Survey-prepared by a qualified and licensed surveyor, including the
'location of adjacent structures relative to the front property line and the
Ordinary High Water level.
(2) Site plan identifying the proposed improvements
(3) Grading, drainage and utility plans
(4) Impervious surface coverage calculations (existing and proposed)
(5) Building elevations
(6) Landscape plan as required by the City Planner.
(C) Notification. Property owners within 150 feet of the property shall be.
notified of the request in writing at least ten days in advance of the Planning
Commission's consideration of the request.
200-144