Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06181996 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 101460 BOX: 20 Folder: PL PACKETS 1996 Document: PL PACKET 06181996 l CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 18, 1996 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL. III. APPROVAL OF JUNE 18, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. IV. APPROVAL OF MAY 20, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES. V. DESIGNATE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO JUNE 25, 1996 COUNCIL MEETING. VI. PUBLIC HEARING. A. St. Anthony Unocal-76 1 . Conditional Use Permit 2. Setback Variance Request -- Parking 3. Setback Variance Request -- Canopy VII. MISCELLANEOUS. A. Concept Review of Proposed Deck and 3'-Season Porch =- W. Lutterman. B. Concept Review of Proposed Lot Split/Double Bungalow -- Bauer. C. Review of the City's LCA Housing Action Plan. D. Comprehensive Plan Update. 1 . Request for Proposal -- Engineering Consultant VIII. ADJOURNMENT. r STAFF REPORT DATE: June 18, 1996 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant ITEM: Conditional Use Permit -- Unocal'76 Service Station BACKGROUND: Roger Bona, owner of the Unocal 76 Service Station, 2812 - 27th Avenue NE, is proposing to build an addition to his existing service station so that he will be able to expand his auto repair business. The purpose of the addition is to increase the number of repair bays. The conditional use permit is required because of Mr. Bona's proposed expansion of the current use of the building. The proposed expansion is 5,613 square feet, requiring an additional 19 parking spaces. Mr. Bona is proposing to put 21 parking spaces on site and to construct 14 additional parking spaces on an adjacent piece of property that he recently purchased. The old meat market building will be demolished to make way for a portion of the proposed on-site parking. In May, Mr. Bona and his architect presented drawings and plans to City Staff which showed the proposed addition within the City's setback requirements. They also conducted a neighborhood meeting on June 2, 1996. Mr. Dan Dahling of Finn-Daniels Architects indicated that the meeting went well, with the majority of the comments addressing a need for increased landscapping. The residents and business representatives who attended the meeting advised them that they want landscapping that will provide more visual screening that will also muffle the noise. In addition to obtaining a conditional use permit, it is necessary for Mr. Bona to apply for two setback variances. These variances are needed for a proposed 20 x 24 foot canopy he wants to place over an existing gas pump island. He currently has-a canopy for a larger gas pump island as does the Phillips 66 service station across the street. He is-requesting approval for the smaller canopy so that visually it is consistent with his larger canopy and the other service station canopies in the area. Mr. Bona stated that there will be no signage on any of the canopies. The second variance request is for proposed parking within the 10 foot frontyard setback along Kenzie Terrace. As stated in the application letter, Mr. Bona is requesting this parking variance to temporarily park.cars in this space so that they can evaluate the repairs needed to a vehicle. In an attempt to reduce the need to park in the setback, they purchased the lot southwest of the service station and plan to construct a parking area there. This parking will be for employees and overflow. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the conditional use permit be granted based on the conditions listed below. 1.) The parking areas must have striping for all the proposed parking spaces. 2.) No more than 10 cars stored on the site for no more than 48 hours. This would also include the parking area across the alley_ from the business. 3.) Change the property address to reflect business frontage on Kenzie Terrace. With approving a conditional use permit, various additional conditions could be placed upon the business. These additional conditions can include hours of operation, hours of sign illumination, and lighting of the business during evening hours. The proposed conditional use is one that is specifically listed in the City Code (1635.03(d), pg. 16-25) for the zoning district. It is an appropriate use of the property because a similar use exists with the Phillips 66 service station, which is to the south of Unocal 76 on Kenzie Terrace. In granting the conditional use permit, the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the residents or people working in the area. STAFF REPORT DATE: June 18, 1996 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant VZ ITEM: Setback Variance for Canopy -- Unocal 76 Service Station BACKGROUND: Roger Bona, owner of the Unocal 76 service station at 2812 - 27th Avenue NE, is requesting a front yard setback variance of 32 feet in order to construct a 20 x 24 foot canopy over an existing gas pump island. The proposed canopy will be three feet from the property line but will be at the same height as the existing canopy and like the existing canopy, will have no signage. The architect has stated in the application letter that there is no way to expand the center gas pump island because it is too costly. Moving the gas pump to the center location would impact parking on site as well as the flow of traffic on the property. They also stated that there is a public acceptance of canopies over gas pumps and without the canopy, the gas pump island is viewed as obsolete. In June 18, 1993, memo to. City Staff, Attorney Bill Soth identified several potential hardships concerning canopies. He indicated that the cost of moving pumps could be considered a hardship as well as the inability to compete with other service stations should the application be rejected. He said that a canopy is becoming a standard operating practice and can be considered necessary due to the prevalence of self service stations. This memo appears to be the basis upon which St. Anthony has granted variances for gas pump canopies. The City Council approved in the same month a variance request by Jim Sarna for the Stop-N-Save at 3259 Stinson Boulevard based on Mr. Soth's information. Mr. Sarna requested two 12-foot variances for a canopy that he proposed to construct because his service station is situated on a corner. The southern most corner of the canopy -is seven feet from the property line. In October 1993, Dick Freiberg, owner of the Phillips 66 service station, requested a variance of 23 feet in order to construct a canopy over the gas pump island. The City Council approved this variance request and allowed the construction of the canopy over the gas pump island that is similarly situated along Kenzie Terrace. Mr. Freiberg had based his request on previous City Council approval of variances for canopies. Mr. Bona and his architect recently conducted a neighborhood meeting, inviting residents and business owners to attend. Mr. Dan Dahling of Finn-Daniels Architects indicated that the meeting went well. The only comment that came out of that meeting was a need for increased landscapping. The residents and business owners advised them that they wanted landscapping which will provide more visual screening and that will also muffle the noise. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the variance for the gas pump island canopy as requested by Roger Bona, owner of Unocal 76 be approved. Staff's recommendation is partly based upon earlier canopy variance approvals and that this request also demonstrates similar hardships to those discussed by the City Attorney. These hardships include the cost of moving the gas pumps, fuel storage tanks, and accessory equipment; public perception the gas pumps are not working or are obsolete; and canopies are considered by the industry as standard operating practice. These issues were reflected in their application letter as well. STAFF REPORT DATE: June 18, 1996 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant ITEM: Setback Variance for Parking -- Unocal 76 Service Station BACKGROUND: Roger Bona, owner of the Unocal 76 service station at 2812 - 27th Avenue NE, is requesting a 10 foot variance to park in the front yard parking setback along Kenzie Terrace. They are proposing that this area be restricted to temporary parking only for the purpose of parking cars scheduled for repair. Mr. Bona is proposing an expansion of 5,613 square feet, that will require an additional 19 parking spaces. His site plan shows 21 parking spaces on site and two of these parking spaces are in the front yard setback. The old meat market building will be demolished to make way for a portion of the proposed on-site parking. The application letter indicates that the intention is to park only to the property line, leaving the remaining bituminous surface available for a sidewalk. Again, they are basing their argument upon the apparent precedent of the surrounding area. As Mr. Finneman states in the application letter, the area has developed a "historical dependence" on using the parking setback of their property for parking or driveways. The City Council has also approved a similar request for Phillips 66. At the same time that the canopy variance was granted to the Phillips 66 service station, Staff also recommended that they be allowed to have a variance to 0 feet for the purpose of providing limited parking to the property_line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this variance request. Due to the irregular shape of the. property and the nature of their business, the applicant feels it necessary to keep temporary parking on-site. They have purchased property adjacent to the Unocal 76 service station- which is being planned for employee and overflow parking. Only the parking on-site will be used for vehicles scheduled for maintenance and repair. As the application letter states, they considered landscaping the setback, but determined that this effort would be futile because of the snow, ice and salt placed there in the winter from plowing. A more appropriate use was for temporary parking. They will enhance the landscaping at the front of the building to compensate for the amount of parking that is necessary for the conduct of business. June 10, 1996 { Attn: Kim Moore-Sykes 1-- Management Assistant City of St.Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony, MN 5M18-1699 . Re: St.Anthony Unocal-Kenzie Terrace Remodel and Additions Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes,Staff Members,Planning Commission,etc. The Intent of this letter is to support our submittal for remodeling and additions to the Unocal Service facility on Kenzie Terrace. It is our belief that we are creating strong improvements to the present land use of this site as well as strengthening an important service business in the city. We conducted a neighborhood meting on Tuesday,June 4, 1996 at 7:00 p.m.to outline and discuss our intentions. (Attendance list attached.) We received d very positive reaction. Some requests were made for specific landscape applications and we will discuss these issues with city staff shortly. Each neighbor considers the proposed development to be an improvement to the present land use and we anticipate they will join us at the public meetings as advocates. Some of the list of benefits gained by this new development effort are outlined below: - We are removing a decaying building structure(meat market building)form the site. - We are re-establishing larger building and parking setbacks along the residential west property line. - We are improving the landscaping on site. - We are consolidating the gas pumps under similar protection canopies for a more consistent look. - We are reducing the outside blacktop surface area and reducing the number of cars which are parking on this site. (We are also organizing the parking into a more formal arrangement.)We have greatly reduced the amount of parking that was exposed to the north and west residential areas(our building will block the majority of these stalls.) - We are removing machining and service work from the northern most existing service bay thus transferring work related noise to more internal areas. - Our new construction is presenting a narrower single story building edge toward the westerly residential neighbor and we are able to create a new stronger sound barrier wall. - We have located all new overhead door access to this facility as internal on the site as possible with minimum exposure to the outside property views. - The larger complex represents a more diverse range of services,a stronger marketplace niche and a greater marketability of facility;all long term benefits. - All trash and storage will be moved inside of the building. - Our signage applications on site are minimal according to ordinances and they will not be Increased. 2324 UNIVERSITY AVENUE • SUITE 109 • ST. PAUL,MN 55114 • 612-641-1339 • FAX 641-0149 As part of our proposal we are seeking two variances to city ordinances. We believe these variances are reasonable,consistent with historical use,with precedence,and driven by the unique characteristics and restraints of this site. VARIANCE#1: We request the right to.place a 20 x 24 canopy over the existing gas pump island nearest to Kenzie Terrace. In order for this pump island to be valid in public perception it must be sheltered or it Is obsolete. We have no ability to expand the islands at our center site location and we cannot sacrifice the use of this two vehicle location. It represents a pre- existing condition and is similar to the canopy allowance provided for the Philips 66 station to our west. We will not use the canopy for any signage. The canopy edge would be at the same height as our existing canopy and its top edge would locate 3'from the property line(requiring a 7'variance on the 10'front yard setback). VARIANCE#2: A variance is requested to park within the 10'front yard setback that exists along Kenzie Terrace. (We would park to the property line and the balance would remain as sidewalk). As is the case with many business along this road,a historical dependence has developed in the use of these edge areas for parking or drives(example: Philips 66,Lowry Avenue Barbers,Video Update,City Fire Station,Strip Center housing Hair Advantage and liquor store,Center housing State Farm,Custom Liquidators,etc.). We have attempted to remove as much parking from this site as possible(14 spaces on adjacent site B)but this business requires as many cars as possible be held(temporarily)close to the building entry for evaluation discussions and exchange for loaner vehicles. We are surrounded by roads on three sides of this site and pushed to maximum setbacks along the residential western edge and the site is very irregularly shaped;so we have only this one opportunity to position these temporary staging stalls. Rather than placing landscaping in this very hostile buffer(due to snow plowing and salt spray,etc.)setback,we hope to compensate with an enhanced landscape area adjacent (and bermed)in front of our new building as a more controllable green area. Sixty percent of our frontage on Kenzie Terrace is in drive or access lanes to pump islands,we are only requesting this variance for approximately 90' of frontage where parking stalls actually occur. Another compensation measure is the large landscaped green area created in a triangular form edging the exit alley on the adjacent site B. We appreciate your consideration on these matters. Please notify us if you require any additional information. Sincere , ' ark nemann MF/Id encl: List of Neighborhood Meeting Attendees Unocal Site Plan cc: Roger Bona Bernie Frey NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ATTENDEES , June 4, 1996 7:00 p.m. JOE SCHLUENDER 2708-27th Ave NE � RP MARIE SCHLUENDER 2708-27th Ave NE PALMER GUNDERSON 1800-27th Ave NE GARY ZAHRBOCK 2704-27th Ave NE ROBERT STAFFORD 2701 Coolidge St. BEVERLY STAFFORD 2701 Coolidge St. JOHN JADINAK 2805-27th Ave NE HUGH MCSHENY St.Anthony Unocal Manager . 3024 Crestview Drive BERNIE FREY FREY DEVELOPMENT,INC. Project Contractor 4715 Blaisdell Ave S Minneapolis,MN MARK FINNEMANN FINN-DANIELS,INC. Project Architect 2324 University Ave St. Paul,MN ROGER BONA JANE BONA Owners St.Anthony Unocal Kenzie Terrace 2324 UNIVERSITY AVENUE SUITE 109 ST. PAUL,MN 55114 612-641-1339 FAX 641-0149 �.~ L SCHEDULE a 170m OTY. COYO,Mtl,s R07ANN'x,MIt - 41 JUNIPER JUNPERUS As 10•POT a S RODe aNRasls C . n:; • 0 KS ,e'POT SA7DCRERRY sCl Toux 'v�O" ' ''Itla' 15`�'' �qk`.r•^• ` ♦GP R�� �Ir1 A r 'pl\ ■ ` i i O wu tY POT 3 TINT PI11/P p 95 N W4r[ E' �r+� f r!4'6n ADIPM TAWT IAFP' M pig 4 i�II'.ii,.J� L.s>!2ti:T...+~..:r�ia -US •mo w / r■...r as AsYlA16LR ALLISA111N10 M 70 HAW NN1 MY. I,r)rNj✓ • •i� me I-lAr WA WAR am ',,'i I,R'�i- � � 'i f' Pnaur yYn■-Ir■ K i ,lfll r;',4■ I fill .! ■,fir nr■•wr�y r, �jil:i�lil ■■■1K UaR 4 0\ z ' i i r� � aa�r■i1 nu 1 I�ri�r!jjIti i P. , 7 x lio rm WM MAN u•J (ri iii'' ■a �' /' �;�4n 1."�''!!�i5''�.`•7.• n � 1 NORTH J EXIST. ALLEY I f�f4`T'!y1 flr.rllflf"`Ir'1!f!.f'r'1'f'r�'f�1 �f! t r>rr4r ,fr f I. '' I'' q ' 1`` �' `` SITE DATA z p•■IMi R■WI ■ 1,S _, f(rl 11 -L'I:r �y'INy SITE A r � ■ �Ill i 6{.yp�t ;1,� � 81E MEk AM 34 R.0,70 AfJd9 + • ',. lru':J^i'.•hy w is-� MING POOIPIRl1 PRO OM 6147 SO IT 'art'-`) • aaa YLC6,C o■AiRAC[ON Sti ,6N ;�I 1..r ■ ,' w° PAN=momma 17 sous mo 0 SITE It am//mA 33M In n..7s Am r Nd PANW6 160ARfft1 am Ri m C R OF sm Coolm BY PAFJM Sx 4M PLOA PAp01s momma 16 sum /161L1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 18, 1993 TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant ITEM: SARNA PETITION FOR VARIANCE TO INSTALL CANOPY AT 3259 STINSON BOULEVARD In a conversation with Bill Soth, City Attorney, he identified some potential hardships. Soth believed that lot size is a hardship because the movement of the pumps to allow a canopy within the building envelope would take away the parking use of his property. Soth said the cost to move the pumps is a hardship: This is an economic hardship, which can be considered if not considered as the sole hardship. Soth also mentioned that to be comparable to the competition, a canopy is a necessity and a standard operating practice due to the prevelence of self service stations. 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 2 NOVEMBER 9 , 1993 3 PAGE 8 4 5 6 Motion by Marks , second by Fleming to approve the conditional 7 . use permit for "The Hair Solution" at 2906 Pentagon Drive with 8 the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. 9 10 Motion carried unanimously 11 12 2 . — Conditional Use and Variance - R. Freiberg, "Dick ' s St . 1114 Anthony 66" , 2700 Kenzie Terrace 15 16 Commissioner Madden reviewed the requests . The proposed 17 addition of two bays in the service station building requires 18 a variance of 3216" and the proposed canopy requires a 19 variance of 23 feet . The conditional use permit is required as 20 there will be an expansion of the use of the building. 21 22 Councilmember Fleming inquired if the number of inoperable 23 vehicles allowed on the property is the same number as other 24 service stations . 25 26 The City Manager responded that it is the same number as the 27 Bona station . He also stated that the station is located in a 28 very unique site . It is small , contains two right-of-ways and 29 is triangular shaped. Also, a portion of the adjacent bowling 30 alley is located on this parcel . 31 32 Commissioner Madden cited the following conditions recommended 33 by the Planning Commission for approval of the requests : 34 35 a . Parking lot must be striped a minimum of eight spaces . 36 37 b. The canopy lighting must shine down . 38 39 c. Inoperable vehicles may not be stored on the site for more 40 than two weeks . 41 42 d . Removal of roof -sign,. 43 44 e . Where old chain link fence is currently located, new screen 45 fencing will be installed behind the building. 46 47 f . Complete paving on east side of building up to public- 48 right-of way. 49 50 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 2 NOVEMER 9 , 1993 3 PAGE 9 4 5 6 Motion by Marks , second by Enroot.h to approve the conditional _ 7 use permit and variance requests for "Dick ' s St . Anthony 66" 8 with the same conditions as recommended by the Planning 9 Commission and noting that no one appeared to speak against i0 these requests and that a hardship exists because of the 11 unusual shape of the lot . 1.2 13 Motion carried unanimously 14 15 16 3 . Variances - D. Mercil , 3112 Silver Lake Road 17 18 This lot is one of those purchased by the City ' s HRA for 19 scattered site redevelopment . 20 21 Commissioner Madden advised it is buildable but non-conforming 22 by today ' s standards . The variances being requested are as 23 follows : 24 25 front yard variance of seven feet 26 back yard variance of twenty feet 27 lot area variance of 440 square feet , and 28 lot width variance of twenty four feet 29 30 The hardships cited for these variances are as follows : 31 32 to allow the redevelopment of a platted and buildable lot 33 hardship caused by City Ordinances , and 34 the proposed home is of modern standards which requires 35 additional total square footage and different design 36 considerations 37 38 The purchaser is planning to build a three bedroom, split 39 level home which will face Townview Avenue. 40 41 Motion . by Marks , second by Wagner to approve the four 42 variances as listed noting . the hardships and that no one 43 appeared to speak in opposition of the request . 44 45 Motion carried unanimously 46 47 48 4 . Lotsnlit and Variances - W. F. Bauer for 3640/3644 Silver 49 Lake Road 50 1 11, PLANNING COMMISSION- MEETING 2 OCTOBER 19, 1993 3 PAGE 4 4 5 also, no one appeared to speak against this request and there . 6 had already been a similar request approved . 7 8 Motion carried unanimously 9 10 ITZ 1 B. Application for a Conditional Use Permit , Richard B. Z Freiberg, owner, Dick ' s St . Anthony "66" , 2700 Kenzie Terrace 13 C. Petition for a Setback Variance, Richard B. Freiberg, 14 owner, Dick ' s St . Anthony "66" , 2700 Kenzie Terrace 15 16 Mr. Freiberg agreed to have these two issues heard 17 simultaneously. 18 19 The Public Hearings were opened at 7 : 15 p .m. by Chair Faust . 20 21 He read the notice of public hearings for both of these items 22 which appeared in the October 9, 1993 edition of the Bulletin . 23 24 25 The proposed addition of two bays in the service station 26 building requires a variance of 32 ' 6" and the-proposed canopy 27 requires a variance of 23 feet . The conditional use permi-t is 28 required as there will be an expansion of the use of the 29 building. 30 31 The City Manager felt this station is located on a very unique 32 site. It is small , contains two right-of-ways and is 33 triangular shaped . The setbacks normally required for this . 34 type of situation would nearly render the lot unbuildable. He 35 also noted that a portion of the bowling alley building is 36 located on this parcel . 37 38 The required parking spaces cannot be located on the property 39 line but staff is recommending a variance to 0 feet . The pumps 40 �ar will remain in their present location and the canopy will be 41 placed over them. 42 43 Commissioner Madden noted there is no canopy length on the 44 submitted drawing. The canopy will be forty-eight feet . 45 Canopies at two other service stations in the City are smaller 46 in length. 47 48 The City Manager stated that the length can be addresssed as 49 a condition in the conditional use permit if the Planning 50 Commission* so chooses.. .......�..�-..•r�_��'co.+.i�.:z.rw.i:�r - "�ssos�'�' --aer.i.+a:r.:�..<�._ .�-._...�:y�c::..,..'....�.i•a.,r........,r..-..... �;i,.trar+;ims.r:tea-.wca..r:�s.4a .. r... .;y�..4y.r.>.�,..i.:y�.r.-�^Sava+:y.wr+r�K.::.w.r,.+a9�e�•ss. �•e�-•s..�w;,a.........�.- ._ .... �, .,... -...,r:..z �<-.a:.r..r��x��.+w-r��.n.:ru:a-a-:ar.r,s. I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2 OCTOBER 19, 1993 3 PAGE 5 4 5 Mr . Freiberg advised that the pump island will be thirty eight 6 feet long . and needs four feet of canopy on each end to ' be .7 usable. The canopy facia will be thirty six' inches. high and 8 will be only decorative. No advertising nor signs will be 9 placed on the .canopy. The lights will shine down so they will 10 not interfer with any residences . There will be no junk cars 11 stored on the property and the roof signs will be removed. He 12 also stated that the .fencing will be changed and surface 13 blacktopping will be done next year when the weather is 14 better . 15 16 The Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 28 p.m. 17 18 Commissioner Franzese inquired if staff had researched this 19 request pertaining to any hardship. The City Manager responded 20 that the City Attorney had applied a "creative" interpretation 21 for other variances .granted to service stations . It was felt 22 this request could qualify for a hardship because of 'the 23 unusual shape of the lot . 24 25 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if there was going to be a 26 pylon sign . Mr. Freiberg stated there was . 27 28 Motion by Franzese, second by Madden to recommend to the City 29 Council granting of the conditional use permit and the 30 variance to accommodate the expansion of the building 'and the 31 addition of a canopy as per the ' staff recommendations , there 32 was no one who appeared to speak against these requests , a 33 hardship exits because of the unusual shape of the lot and 34 including the following conditions : 35 36 1 . Parking lot must be striped a minimum of eight spaces . 37 38 2 . The canopy lighting must shine down 39 40 3 . Inoperable vehicles may not be stored on the site for more 41 than two weeks . 42 43 4 . Removal of roof sign 44 45 5 . Where old chain link fence is currently located, new screen 46 fencing will be installed behind the building. 47 48 6 . Complete paving on east side of building up to public- 9 right-of way. 5 , Motion carried unanimousl-S* . ain thon illa e Administrative Offices 3301 Silver.Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 (612) 789-8881 FAX (612) 781-9323 June 6, 1996. Mr. Greg Dahling FINN-DANIELS ARCHITECTS 2324 University Avenue, #109 St. Paul, MN 55114 VIA FAX: 641-0149 Dear Greg: I am writing this letter as a follow-up to yesterday's discussion regarding the letter that is required as part of the variance application process. I had indicated that by statute, the Planning Commission has to make a recommendation on a variance based upon hardship criteria. The discussion of hardship has to relate to problems of the site, i.e., topography or shape of the parcel that makes it necessary to request a variance. Aesthetics or economic hardship alone are not acceptable reasons for requesting a variance. You indicated during our telephone discussion that a revised letter will be forwarded to our office by Friday. Once we have received your revised letter, the City will have 60 days by which an action must be taken on the variance requests that you are submitting on behalf of Roger Bona, owner of the property in question. Should a situation arise whereby the City is unable to,act on these requests within 60 days, we are required to submit to you in writing that we are extending the 60-day time limit and the reasons for this extension. Please call me if you have additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, Kim � oore-Sykes, Management Assistant City of St. Anthony CITY OF ST. ANTHONY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE PETITION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 7:05 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast comer) for the following purpose: Applicant: Finn-Daniels Architect, St. Paul, MN Property Address: St. Anthony Unocal 2812-27th Avenue NE Proposal: 1) Request for a 10 foot setback variance to allow continued parking where it presently exists (zero setback from front property line); 2) Request for a 7 foot variance to allow placement of a canopy over an existing pump island 3 feet from the property line; 3) Request for a conditional use permit to allow expansion of existing station and the addition of a 14 car parking lot. Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at said time and place. Questions-regarding this matter may be referred to the Management Assistant 789-8881. Auxiliary aids are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk at 789-8881 to make arrangements. Kim Moore-Sykes Management Assistant Publish: St. Anthony Bulletin June 5, 1996 Date: Fee: $130.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Applicant: F►r!.-� DAi«s Phone: (A-iaaf!� Address: 23?� ll�l�v����� vE lob �. Pmt, ; MCI 551 Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): ►�� �r Street address and/or legal description of property in question: Zoning district in which property is located: U Conditional use proposed:_ 5TV"-Vj CRJ Sty A!' (NM X, P 14 r-pe Pie u,„�% ter- r„�� 5 Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions be satisfied before a conditional use may be authorized: Please respond to these conditions, using additional sheets, if necessary. 1) The proposed conditional use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the zoning district in which it is to be located. 2) The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity,or injurious to property values or improvements in-the vicinity. 3) The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or commu Signature of applicant: � 5- 2#961 * 130 . 0 0 C;i Fee: 100= (R-1............$ 60.04 Other..........$100.00) CITY OF ST. ANTHONY Petition for Variance Applicant: F1r4,� L .t►s S I�G�+rc-�vr� Z4 Address: S;r MA 5stiid Phone: Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.):Amja�/ Ae nN.r-- Street address and/or legal description of properly petitioned for variance: Zoning district in which property is located: Request: 10 �u�l� � a�a� �P K��r, (w+ ,$ 1T OLU&Rt v-r t3X1 � i}i 5 Id 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 necessary. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel of land involved, 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 variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to Increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct 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 City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of.land. Signature of Applicant 5422i9as * 100 . 00 ,6K Fee: 00 (R-1.............$ 60.00 Other.........$100.00) CITY OF ST. ANTHONY Petition for Variance Applicant: F►r4'� ►s Pcec,�r� 2324 u-1►v6`o_$ s�' A�� �o"S Address: St-, Pnru��, MA 5t;i 4 Phone: 6241- N,xg Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): AP_c_ rM"_g-/,Ae'- Ma-r Street address and/or legal description of property petitioned for variance: Psma-�� Suevb^f. Zoning district in which property is located: C— Request: _1n /sari A C,aJo" - o .T+imr- sirs UJO U u o V-r_ • =+4e flpoA --w 1.,•-I 137 •.//a2►rac f^�a.. -�t� 1 v' FQ�-� `�rr� 5� +c .P-�c ,�,.# 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 necessary. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel of land involved, 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 variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the.parcel of land, but would correct 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 City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signature of Applicant . ain th ills e on Administrative Offices 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418=1699 (612) 789-8881 FAX (612) 781-9323 . May 30, 1996 Finn-Daniels Architects 2324 Unviersity Avenue, #109 St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Sir: Your request for two setback variances and a conditional use permit have been received and will be submitted to the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 7:05 P.M., or as soon thereafter as possible. Your presence or that of a representative is required at that meeting. The Planning Commission will then make their recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision on your application. If you or a representative are not present at the Planning Commission meeting on the above date, the policy of the Planning Commission is to automatically table the request. Sincerely, oore-Sykes Management Assistant Enclosure: Notice of Hearing cc: Roger Bona AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I,_ C�rN hereby certify that I placed the attached Notice of Hearing for in the U.S. Mail on the below specified date. Date: 5-31 -74, Signature: C&9[m� LJ ;OR 2812 - 27th Avenue NE St. Anthony Shopping Center E. Nelson/R. Ferguson It. Anthony Unocal-76 CB Commercial 2708 Pahl Avenue Rod Johnson St. Anthony, MN 55418 7760 France Ave. S., #770 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Warren G. Paranto Paul Archambault George W. Loahr :712 Pahl Avenue 2716 Pahl Avenue 2800 Pahl Avenue ;t. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 3rian Thuesen Linda LaBelle Virgil Larson !804 Pahl Avenue 2808 Pahl Avenue 2813 Pahl Avenue ;t. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 ,uba Perchyshyn Mr. & Mrs. Robert Stafford Dorothy McCormick !817 Pahl Avenue 2701 Coolidge 2709 Coolidge it. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 Zobert Levandowski Michael Johnson Marcel Byzewski 1715 Coolidge 2817 Coolidge 2701-27th Avenue NE 3t. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 fohn H. Davis Earle L. Upgren Angeline Rippin ?705-27th Avenue NE 2709-27th Avenue NE 2713-27th Avenue NE 3t. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 Benita Berry-Froemming John Jadinak Gordon M. Culhane 2801-27th Avenue NE 2805-27th Avenue NE 2700-27th Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 Gary Zahrbock Joseph Schlunder Gary & Barbara Goldsmith 2704 27th Avenue NE 2708-27th Avenue NE 2712-27th Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 Palmer Gunderson 2800-27th Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 Fee: (R-1............$ 60.00 Other.........$100.00) CITY OF ST. ANTHONY Petition for Variance Applicant: W; Il i d- -S(-,Sa,) C u7�'�rw.a.►J Address: Z,/ B3 Ggnr-T rj)Q. _ Phone: W) Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): b wticX, Street address and/or legal description of property petitioned for variance: 3`-f 3 (120r;i tb2tui5� ( Lor 1 , BWuc 1 , A c1���t1•i S A-ar� ,-n01j) Zoning district in which property is located: Si. A,to,)Y Request: L)►n,,4,j� - Arz S e 7-0 A-U-o w C.,o-' arz.uc n o..j 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 necessary. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel of land involved, 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 variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct 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 City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signature of Applicant 1665.06 Van • Subd. 1. ARpli� can. An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply with the Zoning Code, or of property on which such a structure is proposed to be constructed, may apply for a variance upon payment of the fee specified in Subsection 615.07. Subd. 2. Council Approval. Variances to the dimensional provisions of the Zoning Code may be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, after a hearing is held by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Variances will not be granted Nvith respect to uses. A majority affirmative vote of Council members present is required to approve a variance. Subd. 3. Evidence. No variance will be granted unless the evidence presented discloses all of the following facts: (a) The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this Subsection. (b) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because: (1) The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance. The circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the owner. (3). The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (4) Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship. (c) The circumstances causing the hardship are unique to the individual property under consideration. (d) The granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. Subd. 4. Planning Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission.will consider the application at a public hearing at any regular or special meeting. Notice for the hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115. The Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, -,viu make a recommendation to the Council as follows: (a) Recommend that the variance application be granted because the evidence considered at the meeting supports each of the findings required'under Subdivision 3 of this Subsection. _•� 1647 June 11, 1996 Planning Commission City Of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418 Dear Commissioners: As owners of the property located at 3433 Croft Drive, St. Anthony, we are requesting a variance from the rear set back described in the Zoning Code in order to construct a porch and deck on the rear of the dwelling. .Because the house is located on a corner (S.E. corner of Croft and Downers), the set backs have restricted placement of the dwelling so as to preclude any additional structure without issuance of a variance to the Zoning Code (see attached certificate of survey). The depth of the lot is 90 feet, and the rear yard is 25 feet. Strict enforcement of the Zoning Code in this case will cause undue hardship because it will be impossible for us to improve the property in a usable way. We purchased the house in November of 1992, and have had no control over the .design or placement of the dwelling. A porch and deck addition such as we propose is in appropriate porportion to the size of the house (see attached drawing) and compares favorably to others in the surrounding neighborhood (see attached elevations). When the project is complete, the resulting dwelling including the porch and deck will occupy 2861 square feet of a total property square footage of 11, 586. This is 24.7% of the total area--well below the 35% maximum. The project is planned for completion in two phases. Phase one, to be completed in the summer of 1996, includes the porch foundation and decking, the contiguous deck, and appropriate landscaping. Phase two is scheduled for completion in summer of 1997 and includes finishing of the walls and roof structure of the porch itself. Both phases will be completed within the limitation of the granted variance. We believe that granting a variance in this situation is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code, and we appreciate your consideration in this matter. .Yours Truly, C. Willaim Lutterman Susan C. Lutterman 1 . E �,a es'X40 kJ- 3 o 1�✓ —� EGAN , FIELD & NOWAK _ SURVEYORS _ 2825 HARRIET AVE. E F MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA N CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY For ANDY GAWEL j 35TH A �► . • I i T 'y I- aD t M' M f: 11.1 �.I __ 23.0 36011 d PropoSed 0 N M Ln _ I o / !jam SCALE : 1" 30 ' CY i 23.33 • - 30 Iron 90.0 Iron 30 3429 DESCRIPTION : Lot 1, Block 10 AMUNDSEN 'S ADDITION . We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the. boundaries of the land above described and of the location of all building$ i_f .any', thereon, and - all visible encroachments, if- any, from or on said land. Dated this 11th day of November ,1971 EGAr LD b ,►'{©1 A eyo File' No 2001 Book No 1937 - 43 b9 Y 9110 , '24 ' 10" 3010" 231911 • s T i G f� S.. a to a 30' 0 Q LO Pao N 1�J , .o DWELLING 22'11 2'9 1'6 1' 1'2 5" 1'11 T 9" ti 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 '4 114 7" 1'8 9fl 71' 10"6' _ "' 57 o ti 1'4 L -1 1 UL co D14 `-° CD ti f` Ll Ll Ll Ll Ll 111 11 Ll H M fining F oom I oor Kftche door 8"8" 18 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 1'4 9" 1'4 1'4 1'4 ,� 22'11 w �- ---- ------ ��_ � �J --- -- ------ --- s � ^' IL9l SK ttt }—E�t�..tl 111L �E�1GI I�..011�-y 018 &Z oz— .tl U cfl SIFI � � Y A U L W L i Q� j x P°PC .81 Y Y 61L OIZ I U 45 I � IIZ Ol. I I�LB B. iLK- 4— 181 M. 1186. Y. .8t F EK�—�1 118L Date: T P-) 9"76 v Fee: $225.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Rezoning Applicant: Aw�co-d +W I-b nrene E K P u eg e i— Phone: g'9 a 1p y Address: .3421f yn v d i ny 3t AIE . 5r ,410'h ar y MAI f--Cy/r Qj Status of Applicant (Owner,pB,,u'y�per, Lessee, etc.): ►" �p ,n Oat PAA-t D$ ot X /�,�1.� `l otM,� tlJ �Z�p /30 Legal Description of prope proposed for rezoning: 2 " Street Address: 3,(r,3 / An d+n ST 4 N�A Presently Zoned: R e5 I de n-'+a� b yl e �m Proposed Zoning change to: e r d e x ri a d -106 -A YK I I 1/ 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 of Applicant Signature of Owner (if different from Applicant) 06 =14=96A *225 . 0 0 15' CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Rezoning We request that the property at 3631 Harding Street N.E. St. Anthony, Legal Description "That part of Lot 2 lying North of the South 41 feet thereof and West of the East 130 feet thereof, Block.2, 'Gardena Acres"' be rezoned from one family residence to two family residence. We make this request for the following reason. Our children are now grown and we, as two people, reside in a five bedroom home. Two of the bedrooms, bath, family room, utility room, etc. are on the lower "walk-out" level. We have been renting this area out to two professional adults. We would like to avoid sharing our kitchen with them or providing kitchen facilities illegally. For this reason we request rezoning. There would be no structural changes in the building. A two family residence is adjacent to the north of our home. Respectfully submitted, Howard W. &Dorene E. Krueger - J, �F 0 ro T /3, 13 ' Gara,� 2 ,q M (LhIV � I-lQV,chnj SrPEE 7' ��� Howard Kruger ?(P3f Hardt IT, A 5-t. A-A-/tio-ny, MAI ssy/S' 197.02 ... r 1. :: 7 AVE (� � 3!a r9�f NE . , OWN 1 ;e........... loo. ...... .; 600 eo 1 100 ( 19 (20) ie 7 ; 1 1 ° 1 ' (76) 1 v — ( 146) ; (69) - T�tUC PISKY ( 147) (68) ' ' W ' Z L1J 129.71 129. .2e 1 17C 260 Z ' 97. 16 ' �' _ I 2 •----- ---- -----------L- - ' HOW�tYl KF11paPt - ( ) ---I+------------T- 14 T _ 3631 H ( 1} o (71) 2 .4 ,� 2 2 (70) $ 129.79 I ►- 77 -----------------�-- 3 A DM ---------- -----------------\-- ---5-------- ------- i \ 130 - ° ( 140) ( 14 NA:52 13� ' 129.67 i (22) \ ( 8) (73) (72) 28-2j74 i ................. 170 --- ------------ --------------------- --------264. ------------------- --------.3 (67) 10 e (23) ,, (79) Q (74) (75) ------ ------- •--------------- ----------- --- 130 ` --264.76 --i-----------` a- 1 1-30 2 �{ (64) (24) (65' Nd 264 e7 — ^ ( 133). ( 125) �. (8�) 0 170 ------ ---------y-- ----------- (25) ------------------�- -------------- -- 101,B (62) (63; 130 �, ( 126) ' I) v, 21i.23 9 ( 132) g 1 F 626) ------------------- ---------------------}=----�------ 2 5 (82) / e 10 � ( 127) (60) G 130 --J-----------�---- ( 131) 170 290.47 ' 130 ( t 28) ' v Q 2 0 1 6 130 ; MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 1996 TO: Michael Morrison, City Manager Planning Commission FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant ITEM: Proposed Conditional Use Changes Bill Soth called me this afternoon regarding his thoughts on the proposed conditional use changes. He said the only problem he could see with the proposed changes were with deleting pool/billiard halls and motorcycle sales as a permitted conditional use. He foresees problems will flatly denying these two uses any ability to function in the City. If a legitimate motorcycle business or pool hall comes into town, the City will be challenged. The same principles would apply as with adult use business. If they are legitimate, it is very difficult to successfully prohibit them from opening their doors. Bill's advice was to review and treat these uses in.the same fashion as we would adult businesses. I would also like to suggest adding "of animal hides" at (vv) between "tanning" and "done" so that in twenty years there is no confusion as to the kind of tanning the ordinance meant to control. cndtluse.mem -- ' �- N, 1� the new law,Minnesota cities now have the city ty notifies the applua ith 10 More thoughts 60 days to make three kinds of deci- business days after receiving th1�2.� on the new 60- sions:zoning,septic system and MUSA application,and only if the rejectioZ? s�����N, line decisions. (The MUSA line is the based on the applicant's failure-ta 0 day limit metropolitan urban service area comply with pre-existing city require- boundary in the seven-county metro- ments.An applicant may waive politan area. Property within this area time limits. KAREN COLE is served by metropolitan sewage To comply with the new scat te, ittes treatment facilities.)Cities may extend must not only take action within the the 60-day period for an additional 60 time limit, they must also notify the A quick review of the days if they give written notice of the applicant within the time limit. If a city basics extension and the reason for it before denies an application, it must give By now,most cities are aware that a the initial 60-day period expires. If the written reasons for its decision"at the new state statute adopted last year- proposer's application is incomplete, time it denies the request."It is likely Minn.Stat.§ 15.99-sets a time limit the city may reject the application and sufficient if the city provides formal for certain land use decisions. Under restart the 60-day time clock but only if written notice after the meeting at Five questions cities`should cons%der r' Cities should ask themselves a the League research staff or.froin the- info'rrrtation needs.A written applica number of keyquestions to make author `' `_- ': '` tion form or checklist that represents -sure they can comply with Minn Stat : 2. How broadly will the city; city policy is sufficient. § 15.99: �nterpretahe`scope of the laws The`city may wish to be expansive 1. Should the city modify its ;'The scope of Minn.Stat:§'15.99 is in defining its information require procedures? .•` : not completely clear.While.it is dear ments.-It is always possible for the Cities should evaluate their that the law- applies to certain -. city to waive a requirement not _ procedures so they will-comply with applications such as reionings,`- `. needed for a particular project.The the new time limits. It:maybe helpful variances; which action is taken. Cities should What about other state the environmental review requirements always be certain,though, that notice is or federal requirements? that are set by state law. given within the time limit set by the How do these basic requirements Understanding these environmental new statute.Many cities take prelimi- under the new statute apply when a requirements requires us to wade into nary action at one meeting,and proposal requires the approval of other the alphabet soup of state statutes and formally approve reasons for their government bodies or when environ- rules addressing the Environmental decision at a subsequent meeting.This mental statutes apply?The new statute Quality Board(EQB), Environmental approach is probably acceptable as answers some of these questions and Impact Statements (EISs) and Environ- long as the final approval and notifica- raises some doubts about others. mental Assessment Worksheets tion occurs within a reasonable period (EAWs). Under the state Environmen- and before the time limit set by the What about tal Policy Act(Minn. Stat. Ch. 116D) new statute. environmental review? and rules that were adopted by the The penalty for failing to meet the What if state law requires the EQB,government bodies must prepare new time limits is harsh:automatic preparation of environmental docu- environmental documents under approval of the application. It is ments?The new statute provides that certain conditions.Two different kinds important for all cities to understand the time limits are extended if a state of environmental documents may be how the new statute works to avoid statute requires a"process"to occur required:EISs or E--�Ws.Environmental inadvertent approval of land use before the city acts on the application Impact Statements are full evaluations applications.The basic requirements of when that"process"will make it of the environmental effects of a the new statute are discussed in greater impossible for the city to act within 60 proposal and of alternatives to it.The detail in the April 1996 issue of days.The statute's use of the word purpose of the EIS under state law is to Minnesota Cities magazine. "process"is undoubtedly a reference to help determine whether or not a opportunity to waive information S. What steps w-ill the city take to ` need not be elaborate to be: requirements not needed fora ensure that the record is tom effective. particular application. plete? On judicial review, a cou ter.._ - 4. What grounds should the. If the sta'ndards set out by the:_; inquire whether any record evidence use for extensions? Supreme Court in the case of supported the city's decision:If the1 The new law allows a'cit to ,- Swanson v.-Ci y ty of Bloomington X421. 'only record evidence was generated f° extend the 60-day time limit for . N.W.2d 307 (Minn.-1988)'are met,. by the applicant,the answerTto_that period u to an additional 60 das if - - udicial review of the city's question ma well be "no.-"- vent P P Y 1 tY yam. ' the city gives a written notice before will be confined to the record that': simple and inexpensive staff_:analyses the initial 60 days run that notifies was developed before the city.::,-`.'.-.­ are better than no city anal sissancl .• Y .. P. Y Y Y, ._,.,.. the applicant of two things:-the Because the timetable under the new may provide_a sufficient basisfor,the reason for the extension and the'.,: statute will be more compressed,the city's decision. length of the extension.The fact that city must give early thought to-,, the city mustspecify a reasonsu = identifying and do_cumentin an Endnote ests that a blanket extension would concerns raised b the project. if it . . 9 Y P j 1. Underthe,Swanson case;-'tffd-- not ass muster.A blanket extension does'not do so,the statutory time ` S_'v P rY.. , courts limit their review to:evt=:: that is equally applicable to all cities 'period slip b and the. "'� r , q Y PP P- Y P Y dente that was presentedWihe and to all applications would"swal- ''before:the city may be confined to'': city and do not consider new low"the general statutory 60-day material developed and presente8.by ;`evidence if.two requirements are rule, and would ignore the require the_applicant, even if real concerns met. First,-a complete record must ment that a reason be provided for are posed by the proposal. In'that:.,. be;available showing whatth e'_tity the extension. - : case, a city s decision to deny-a! , including apes or, What constitutes sufficient:., proposal would likely not survive '. transcripts of planning'commission 7-� grounds for an extension?The need review.by the courts. - and city council proceeding T " to collect further information-6n an To make sure that the record is-,. Second,the city's considerat on'- r application or to conduct further balanced and that the city is not,; : _:: _.- :must have been "full and fair`_"r anal sis because of its size or com boxed into approvals,the ci should gg Y PP tY � The Swanson decision suggests�. plexity, or because of the sensitivity - systemize a way to identify:e6nce-rns that standard is met where'the '. with a proposal and to develo �-' of the affected area, are solid ;: p p p.. ': property owner has been.given - grounds for an extension. Grounds record evidence documenting.those sufficient,o ortunit to resent for an extension could also include concerns where appropriate.A ood PP Y P.�."- 9 relevant material to the-tity,and circumstances that distin uish'one time for staff to identify the need for fY has been given the opporEunity to city from cities in general.The any record evidence would be'at.or answer questions and react'to the argument could be made that,while following any pre-application`. '`:= testimony of other particip is :.' N- the 60-day limit was intended to. meeting with staff, or during the; ...These two standards are ex`plafned - . apply to cities in general, it was not initial 10-day period for evaluation'of more fully by the court in,thye intended to apply to a particular city applications.Any staff analysis or Swanson decision. [ or under specific circumstances. other analysis generated by the city -<- proposal should be approved,and the status of the city's comprehensive more citizens is received and if the whether changes or modifications plan.Similarly,a city must prepare an proposed project"may have the should be required.The Environmen- EAW for construction of 20 or more potential for significant environmental tal Assessment Worksheet,on the other residences in a shoreland and flood effects."Even though these EAWs are hand,is a six page checklist intended plain area if the city has not adopted -labeled"discretionary," their prepara- to quickly analyze some of the impor- certain state-required ordinances or tion is required when certain tests are tant environmental impacts of a plans.Other requirements of the rules met.The preparation of a discretionary proposal.One of the purposes of an require the mandatory preparation of EAW suspends the 60-day time limit for EAW is to determine whether the an EAW for other kinds of projects. city action under Minn.Stat. § 15.99. preparation'of a more elaborate and When a mandatory EAW must be Thus, the 60-day period for city action time-consuming EIS is warranted.An prepared and the EAW cannot be under the new statute is suspended if EAW may also help identify environ- completed within the 60-day time limit an EAW is required, either because the mental problems that may be ad- set by Minn.Stat.§ 15.99,subdivision proposal falls within a mandatory dressed in evaluating whether or not a 3(d)of the new statute clearly applies category or because the city determines proposal should be approved. and the 60-day time limit is suspended. (either on its own or in response to a EAWs are required under several In that case, the city's deadline for citizen petition) that the proposal "may circumstances.First,some projects fall acting on the permit application is have the potential for significant within"mandatory categories"for EAW extended until 60 days after comple- environmental effects." preparation that are defined by state tion of the environmental review Cities have considerable leeway in rules.State toles governing the process. deciding whether the potential for preparation of EAWs and EISs are In addition to mandatory EAWs,cities environmental effects justifies the found at Minn. Rule.Ch.4410.For may also require discretionary EAWs. preparation of a discretionary EAW. example,mandatory preparation of an State rules require that a.discretionary Cities should be careful,however,to EAW is required for the construction of EAW shall be prepared when a city . avoid using the EAW process in the 100 new homes in a city if a compre- determines,either on its own initiative absence of any real concern about hensive plan that meets certain or in response to a citizen petition, that environmental effects simply to buy requirements has not been adopted. a project"may have the potential for more time for city action under the Greater or lower thresholds for EAW significant environmental effects."The new 60-day statute.This approach preparation may apply under the rules EQB's rules provide that the local unit could be viewed as a misuse of the state depending on the location of the of government must order the prepara- environmental requirements and could proposed residential development,and tion of an EAW if a petition from 25 or be the basis for a court challenge.In . 1 . 1 - 1 1 CELEBRATING OUR 25TH YEAR, PROVIDING MINNESOTA WITH THE BEST PRODUCTS AND SERVICESI ♦PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ° ♦SITE FURNISHINGS ♦TRAFFIC SIGNS ♦TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS Whatever the job—athletic fields, CONSULTING AND PROJECT PLANNING golf courses,schoolyards, roadside ♦INSTALLATIONS mixes to D.O.T. specs—Peterson AND MUCH MOREI Seed Company can help you choose the right seeding mixture.We'll also CALL TODAY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION provide expert advice for any projects PETERSON SEED C4 Helping your seed business grow. EmEARL F.ANDERSEN,INC. that involve seeding.Call today,and 9808 JAMES CIRCLE ask us for your free seed guide. BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 a��.,P•...,^^5..d�.,m,.,^�.�^.. 612-884-7300 MN WATTS: 1-800-862-6026 MAY 1996 38 general,however,state requirements local approvals for the location of a I for environmental review provide an proposal be granted before state appropriate"escape hatch"from the approvals for design details are , 60-day limit that is available if a considered. IT S OtT proposal"may have the potential for To play it safe and to avoid any fA significant environmental effects." automatic approvals under the new - statute,cities should live within the new What if state or federal time limits for all applicable city • approvals are required? approvals,whether or not state or Sometimes a proposed development federal approvals are also required.It. requires state or federal approvals in will be the rare case-if there are any at � addition to city action.How does the all-where a state or federal approval w new statute apply then?One provision must come first.If a city believes it is of the new statute provides that the 60- confronted with such a case,it should M day time limit for city action is ex- not rely on subdivision 3(e) to delay tended if an application submitted to a city action on a proposal without first city requires the prior approval of a consulting the city's attorney. state or federal agency.In that case, the Questions about how the new law city's deadline for acting on the applies will continue to arise and be application is extended until 60 days resolved as cities acquire more expert- coo .ilia after the required prior approval is ence under the new law. Cities with granted. questions about how the law applies in d When does this provision give cities a particular case should contact their extra time to act?The statute can be city attorney,the League research staff read in two different ways.Under one or the author. It i reading,cities may wait until after all state or federal approvals are granted. For a copy of this article that includes The better and safer view,however,is legal cites,please contact League of that the escape valve provided by this Minnesota Cities,Communications Team, provision applies only in cases where (612)281-1200 or(800)925-1122. g'G something about the state or federal " permit requirements requires that such a Karen Cole is an attorney at Popham +.. �]�,, permit be granted before local approv- Haik Schnobrich&Kaufman who of 411e OrUlll`CLr� als are given. In conversations with practices in the areas of public sector V UL state and federal agency staff,we have and commercial representation,with a been unable to identify any state or focus on land use disputes.Karen may For Performance and federal approvals that meet this test.In be reached at(612)3342501,or via fact,state agencies may prefer that the Internet at ColeK @popham.com. FlexiblV We just released our new PACE software modules for muncipalities and utililities,a new generation of MUNICIPAL & RECYCLING CLIP ART integrated software unequalled for Are your publications saddled with generic, managing information. Out-of-the- ordinary clip art? Finally, clip art specifically from Dynamic Arts ordinary features include fourth gen- designed for your publishing arena! eration technology,instant inquiry, quick jump flexibility...and more! ...w • Developed by municipal experts for all For PACE-setting Q in municipal departments °• • Unique,original graphic images software,call toll-free 1643-8831. • Professionally drawn Line Art ♦ High resolution,PCX images,IBM compatible • Over 80 images per disk Disk Price Send check to: Recycling $20.00 Dynamic Arts Your 320 E.Maple#223 Pub cation Municipal $20.00 Precision Com uter S stems Birmingham,MI .� p y 48009 Demo Disk 10 Images qt 4501 S.Technology Drive h� Flee Brochure �tn1E Sioux Falls, SD 57106 Recycling $5.00 Call(810) \'t 1 1 642-8489 � I 605-362-1260 Municipal $5.00 or contact us of q Before... AFTERI 800-643-8831 Dynorts®aol.com MINNESOTA CITIES/MAY 1996 39 s rin 91 ® As sure a sign of spring as a newly returned robin is the flurry of activity surrounding lawn care, spring cleaning and home-fix up chores. .may.. As you tackle your spring projects, here are a - -' - few things to keep in mind. A past honoree, this St. Louis Park home amply displays the criteria for winning an Evergreen Award: exceptional landscap- ing that is easily visible to neighbors and passersby. Complaints Needn't Blossom In The Spring An unfortunate sign of spring is we can be proud to call"home." from the premises;they may not cling bins away as soon as pos- the increase in complaints that Here are some of the most com- be stored outdoors under a tarp, sible after collection. City Hall receives about neigh- mon causes of concern. on an open trailer or on a lawn. Noise bors who fail to act neighborly. Pet Poop Garbage Cans Power equipment (lawn No one appreciates their neigh- When walking dogs, owners Your garbage won't end up mowers, leaf blowers, construc- bor's garbage blowing onto are required by City ordinance on your neighbors' lawns if the tion equipment) may be operat- their lawn, stepping on animal to pick up their dog's excrement cans have tight-fitting lids or ed only from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. feces caused by thoughtless pet and place feces in a waste you use bungee cords to secure on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to owners, or worrying about the receptacle on their own proper- the lids. If possible, set garbage 10 p.m. on weekends and holi- effect of an unkempt home on ty. cans out in the morning rather days. the neighborhood. Cats should not be permitted than the night before collection. A loud party can be declared Please be a good neighbor to roam through neighborhoods Overnight, dogs and raccoons a nuisance between 11 p.m. and and keep St. Louis Park a place and defile other residents' are very adept at tipping over 7 a.m. on Sunday through yards. cans and dragging out the Thursday and between midnight Is Landscaping Overgrown Hedges garbage. and 7 a.m. on Friday and p g Please trim overgrown trees, Put garbage cans and recy- Saturday. In Your Plans? hedges and shrubs: especially those that block views of inter- Low Interest Loans Available If landscaping is on your spring sections or overhang streets and "to do" list, consider aiming for alleys. Overgrown plants look For Remodeling Or Fix-Up an award winning project. unsightly, pose traffic hazards Because of the important role and scratch vehicles. Low interest home improve- enhancements—patios, decks, that landscaping plays in main- Home Exteriors ment loans of up to$15,000 are fireplaces, saunas, etc.—are not taining healthy neighborhoods The siding of homes and available to qualifying house- eligible. and boosting community pride, garages should be in good holds whose annual gross The loans are part of the the Evergreen Award program repair. Broken, rotten or buck- income is less than$41,000. Minnesota Housing Finance was initiated to honor well land- led exterior walls, windows or Interest rates are based on Agency's efforts to promote scaped homes. doors must be repaired. household income, and repay- affordable housing. Borrowers The Evergreen Award recog- Chipping and peeling siding trient terms are based on the work directly with participating nizes homes with exceptional should be either repainted or amount loaned and the house- banks, credit unions and other plantings of flowers, shrubs and covered with vinyl or another hold budget. private lenders. trees that are located in front or type of exterior covering. Home rehabilitation loans For more information about side yards. To qualify, the land- Vehicles are restricted to work that the loans or a list of lenders,call scaping must be easily visible to No cars or vehicles—opera- improves the home's basic liv- St. Louis Park Housing passersby. ble or not—may be parked on ability or energy efficiency Coordinator Yvette Quarfot at Award nomination forms are front lawns. (room additions, kitchen or 924-2196. Quarfot is also avail- available by calling 924-2519. Vehicles that aren't street bathroom remodeling, roofing, able to answer questions about Judging occurs in late summer o9erable or have expired license insulation, furnace replacement, buying, rehabilitating or remod- and awards are presented by the tabs must be stored inside an wiring or plumbing). Recre- eling a St. Louis Park home. City Council in the autumn. enclosed garage or removed ational projects or home IPau 4 Park Perspective May 1996 City of Blaine 9150 Central Avenue NE hL Blaine MN 55434 Fax (612) 784-3844 FAX TRANSMITTAL COYER SHEET Sent to Fax#' Date: `� I To: ^'e ye'_ se From: Cathy Sorensen Planning Secretary Number of pages, including this cover page: IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE PAGES PROPERLY PLEASE CALL: 785-5180 " Message: 1,lGj.) ..F' ��., LIZ/ L Ov Z011T0'd 17b82 b8L Z19 3NIdnH d0 A113 80:91 9665-TZ-AUW May 21, 1996. St. Anthony Planning Commission and Staff I wanted to thank the Planning Commission and staff for the opportunity of working with you over the past few months. I learned much about the City of St. Anthony, and was continually impressed with the Commissioners and staff—St. Anthony is very fortunate to have such a dedicated;knowledgeable group of individuals working for them. Thank you again;I enjoyed working with you. Sincerely, Cathy Sor orensen -o Z0iZ0'd pb8£ b8L Zi9 3NIU19 JO AM 80:St 966T-SZ-AUW July 1, 1996 (Name of Company) (Individual at Company) (Street Address) (City, State, Zip) RE: Request for Proposal for Comprehensive Plan, City of St. Anthony Dear (Individual): The City of St. Anthony invites you to submit a proposal for assisting the City in developing a Comprehensive Plan. The current approved Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1979. CONTENT The City of St. Anthony is a first-ring suburb which is both in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. Essentially, the City is at build-out, with a completed water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure. The issues the City wishes the selected firm to focus on include: 1. Residential Redevelopment: Residential structures were largely completed in the 1950's and 1960's, and many will be in need of redevelopment in the near future. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the City is in the midst of a significant residential turnover, with housing being sold by "empty-nesters" to young families. We feel the need for hard demographic evidence to identify any trends, as well as recommendations regarding the City's response to whatever the residential demographics show. All such work will need to be compatible with the City's Liveable Communities Action Plan, currently being developed by the City under the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. 2. Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment: The commercial and industrial areas of the City have been developed since the 1960's, and will be in need of redevelopment soon. We request that this need be examined and recommendations made as to appropriate planning on behalf of the City. 3. Land Use/Zonings The existing Comprehensive Plan recommended a number of_land use changes, which have largely been implemented. We wish assistance in identifying current land use incompatibilities and future land use issues which the City can facilitate through land use planning and/or zoning changes. 4. Emeraina and Other Issues: The City wishes an analysis and resultant advice from a planning firm regarding emerging municipal land use planning including, but not necessarily limited to, telecommunications and access to public right-of-ways. PROCESS AND TIME FRAMES Written responses to this Request For Proposal, including proposed scope, schedule, and budget, must be received at the City offices by August 1, 1996. Proposal review and reference contacts will take place during August, 1996, and short-listed firms will be formally interviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 1996. The Planning Commission will make its selection recommendation for City Council award on September 24, 1996. The selected firm will then participate in a joint Planning Commission/City Council project kickoff meeting on October 15, 1996. We expect that the,selected firm will provide monthly personal updates at the Planning Commission meeting, with occasional reporting to the City Council. BUDGET The City currently has $5,000 budgeted in the FY 1996 budget to begin the Comprehensive Planning update process. The costs contained in the proposal of the selected firm will be incorporated into the City's 1997 budget. The Comprehensive Plan update must be completed by December, 1997. GENERAL Copies of the current Comprehensive Plan may be reviewed at the City offices during normal working hours. Please refer all questions to Doug Bergstrom, Planning Commission Chairman, at 635-9100 (w) or 789-1498 (h), or Michael Mornson (City Manager) or Kim Moore-Sykes (Management Assistant) at 789-8881. Sincerely, Douglas J. Bergstrom Chairman, Planning Commission cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Mike Mornson, City Manager MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 1996 "To: Michael Mornson, City Manager Planning Commission FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant ITEM: Proposed Conditional Use Changes Bill Soth called me this afternoon regarding his thoughts on the proposed conditional use changes. He said the only problem he could see with the proposed changes were with deleting pool/billiard halls and motorcycle sales as a permitted conditional use. He foresees problems will flatly denying these two uses any ability to function in the City. If a legitimate motorcycle business or pool hall comes into town, the City will be challenged. The same principles would apply as with adult use business. If they are legitimate, it is very difficult to successfully prohibit them from opening their doors. Bill's advice was to review and treat these uses in the same fashion as we would adult businesses. I would also like to suggest adding "of animal hides" at (vv) between "tanning" and "done" so that in twenty years there is no confusion as to the kind of tanning the ordinance meant to control. cndtluse.mem - �1(`=_:111- =O�W�=a..r•- -,-� s—�.�� --r� the new law, Minnesota cities now have the city s the a licaithin 10 More thoughts y pp 60 days to make three kinds of deci- business days after receiving the�j��� on the new 60- sions:zoning,septic system and MUSA application,and only if the rejec�i0 is line decisions. (The MUSA line is the based on the applicant's failure-ttf day limit metropolitan urban service area comply with pre-existing city require- boundary in the seven-county metro- ments.An applicant may waive politan area. Property within this area time limits. KAREN COLE is served by metropolitan sewage To comply with the new stat te, ities treatment facilities.)Cities may extend must not only take action within the the 60-day period for an additional 60 time limit,they must also noto the A quick review of the days if they give written notice of the applicant within the time limit.If a city basics extension and the reason for it before denies an application, it must give By now,most cities are aware that a the initial 60-day period expires. If the written reasons for its decision"at the new state statute adopted last year- proposer's application is incomplete, time it denies the request."It is likely Minn.Stat. § 15.99-sets a time limit the city may reject the application and sufficient if the city provides formal for certain land use decisions. Under restart the 60-day time clock but only if written notice after the meeting at Fwe questions c�t�es should consider. s fy Cities should ask themselves a the Lea ue research staff or from the' information needs.A written a- lica g Y ._� F .,_ ,a �r -PP - number of key-questions to make author:: = tion form or checklist that represents ;! Y sure they can comply with Minn Stat'. 2. How broadly will:the'city city policy is sufficient. o. § 15.99: Anterpret ahe`scope of the law? '.The city may wish to be expansive 1. Should the city modify its , -;The scope of.Minn.Stet.§`15.99 is in defining its information require -procedures? not completely clear:While.it is clear --ments..lt is always possible for the Cities should evaluate their -L.that the law applies to:certain -. city to waive a requirement not procedures so they will compty'with -•---applications such as rezonings, needed for a particular project.The the new time limits. It maybe helpful :.variances;and conditional use city may not, however, restart the to map out a typical timeline'for-the.:: permits,there is room for some time clock by imposing new require- processing of an application so that '.. disagreement when it comes to some ments that may be appropriate for a processing of the application fits=: other approvals like preliminary plat particular application but which were within the new deadlines. Modifica and comprehensive plan approvals.A not"previously adopted." tions may be necessary For example,.._.city that'wants to be conservative -In defining information require �. a city that presently'requires two or ;-should interpret the'law expansively- . ments,the city should review applica three hearings for rezonings may .. . ..,to apply to all of these approvals tions that have been received over, want to,consider eliminating one of untiLthe Legislature or the courts _'perhaps,the last five years.Were � . the hearings. .:~ r �::" address these:ainbiguities. `� there instances where additional Requiring'a preapplication meet 3.'What�nforrnation will be `information was needed or requested ing with staff as a`requirement for a required for each kind of affected . by the city?The city may also wish to- •complete application is another application?_ take into account the impact of ' procedural change cities may want to :..Cities may restart the time'clock project location, scale and design on _.consider.Such a meeting gives cities 10 business days of a,written : information needs. For example, it the opportunity to that T ` request if an application:does not `may be appropriate to require more applications:are complete, and.to ::contain "ail information required by or different information for applica waive'appIication requirements that. ..law or by a previously adopted rule, tions in particular parts of the city may not be necessary for a particular ordinance or,policy." (Emphasis that involve wetlands, lakeshore or _proposal added.)The`city may always request more densely developed areas., be'::- 'In addition,cities should also p.ut additional information-from the Similarly,.more in may be procedures in for monitoring applicant once the 10-day period has needed for larger projects :r the deadlines,so that deadlines are - passed if;for example,:new issues :.The'citymay wish to require a'pre µ not missed inadvertently:A log arise. Once the 10-day period passes; : application meeting with the city's =3 should be prepared that flags the key :however,the city may not restart the_ . _ staff as a prerequisite for a complete _ deadlines for:each application,= ' ' _ statutory time clock:Cities should, application.This will enable the city '....., including the 10-day deadline:for=':' therefore,carefully specify in writing to work with the applicant to ensure_,•,:- specifying additional information and: all information required for each that all needed information is n.. the deadline. or approval or. .',;.:;'kind of application.The city need not- submitted.This pre-application`:.:::_.:,: denial.A sample Jog is available from enact an"ordinance specifying its meeting also gives the city the which action is taken. Cities should What about other state the environmental review requirements always be certain, though, that notice is or federal requirements? that are set by state law. given within the time limit set by the How do these basic requirements Understanding these environmental new statute. Many cities take prelimi- under the new statute apply when a requirements requires us to wade into nary action at one meeting,and proposal requires the approval of other the alphabet soup of state statutes and formally approve reasons for their government bodies or when environ- rules addressing the Environmental decision at a subsequent meeting.This mental statutes apply?The new statute Quality Board(EQB), Environmental approach is probably acceptable as answers some of these questions and Impact Statements (EISs)and Environ- long as the final approval and notifica- raises some doubts about others. mental Assessment Worksheets tion occurs within a reasonable period (EAWs). Under the state Environmen- and before the time limit set by the What about tal Policy Act(Minn. Stat. Ch. 116D) new statute. environmental review? and rules that were adopted by the The penalty for failing to meet the What if state law requires the EQB,government bodies must prepare new time limits is harsh:automatic preparation of environmental docu- environmental documents under approval of the application.It is ments?The new statute provides that certain conditions.Two different kinds important for all cities to understand the time limits are extended if a state of environmental documents may be how the new statute works to avoid statute requires a"process"to occur required:EISs or EAWs.Environmental inadvertent approval of land use before the city acts on the application Impact Statements are full evaluations applications.The basic requirements of when that"process"will make it of the environmental effects of a the new statute are discussed in greater impossible for the city to act within 60 proposal and of alternatives to it.The detail in the April 1996 issue of days.The statute's use of the word purpose of the EIS under state law is to Minnesota Cities magazine. "process" is undoubtedly a reference to help determine whether or not a 7. opportunity to waive information S.What"steps will the city take to- need not be elaborate requirements not needed for-a - ensure that the record is com effective. .. ` particular application. -: plate? _ On judicial review, a court may°." 4. What grounds should the city If the standards set out by the:., inquire whether any record evidence - F use for extensions? Supreme Court in the case of supported the city's deusion If the The new law allows a city to Swanson v. City of Bloomington'421_ o kerat nly record evidence was geed extend the 60-day time limit for a._ N.W.2d 307 (Minn.-1988)'are met,..,.. 'by the applicant,the answer_td that . period up to an additional 60 days if judicial review of the city's_decision question may well be "no."E'veii,. z� the city gives a written notice before will be confined to the record that': simple and inexpensive staff:anal ses �' the initial 60 days run that notifies was developed before the city.,."..: are better than no city analysis.,and the applicant of two things:'the Because the timetable under the new may provide'a sufficient basisfo_ahe x reason for the extension and the'--- statute will be more compressed,the city's decision. length of the extension.The.fact that city must.give early thought to k _ ` the city mustspecify a reason s'6 = identi in and document' an Endnote F gents that a blanket extension-Would concerns raised by the project. If it 1. Under the Swanson case the not ass muster.A blanket extension does'not do so,the statutory time, " P rY, courts limit their review to:evi-'",° that is equally applicable to all.cities eriod,ma sli b and the record " ' " ' q Y PP P. Y slip'by - dente that was presented#oche_ and to all applications would°swat- 'before the city may be confined to city and do not consider new low" the general statutory 60-day- :r:":"material developed and presented.by •.'";evidence if.two requiremet) are rule, and would ignore the require the.applicant,even if real concerns 'met. First, a complete record must ment that a reason be provided for are posed by the proposal. ln'that be available showing whg�tFe_city the extension. case, a'city s decision to denya considered, including to es7or :,,.`- g pep FY7. What constitutes sufficient proposal would likely not survive transcripts of planning"comssion grounds for an extension?The need review by the courts and city council proceedings ``. ti;; to collect further information'•on an To make sure that the record is ,.' Second,the city's consideration.. y> application or to conduct further `­ balanced and that the city is not- :must have been "full and fyeTr analysis because of its size or com-- boxed into approvals,the city should .The Swanson decision suggests ,: plexity, or because of the sensitivity -'systemize a_way to identify,concerns . that standard is met of the affected area, are solid, _:_ _.' with a proposal and to develop " en P P P'.`' property owner has been given"- ; grounds for an extension. Grounds record evidence documenting those sufficientopportunity to-present 4 for an extension could also include concerns where appropriate.A_good relevant material to the"ci ,-and r' circumstances that distin uish'one time for staff to identify the- for u' 9 fY has been given the o otaunt to city from cities in general.The-_:�- ` . any record evidence would be'at�.o'r answer questions and readl6ihe _ argument could be made that,while following any pre-application ;.testimony of other partinpants' the 60-day limit was intended to meeting with staff,or during the These two standards are explained apply to cities in general, it was not initial 10-da Y P eriod for evaluation`of more fully by the court in the w?- intended to apply to a particular city applications.Any staff analysis`or` Swanson decision. tC :.: or under specific circumstances. other analysis generated by the city _ i proposal should be approved,and the status of the city's comprehensive more citizens is received and if the whether changes or modifications plan.Similarly,a city must prepare an proposed project"may have the should be required.The Environmen- EAW for construction of 20 or more potential for significant environmental tal Assessment Worksheet,on the other residences in a shoreland and flood effects."Even though these EAWs are hand,is a six page checklist intended plain area if the city has not adopted labeled"discretionary," their prepara- to quickly analyze some of the impor- certain state-required ordinances or tion is required when certain tests are tant environmental impacts of a plans.Other requirements of the rules met.The preparation of a discretionary proposal.One of the purposes of an require the mandatory preparation of EAW suspends the 60-day time limit for EAW is to determine whether the an EAW for other kinds of projects. city action under Minn.Stat. § 15.99. preparation of a more elaborate and When a mandatory EAW must be Thus, the 60-day period for city action time-consuming EIS is warranted.An -prepared and the EAW cannot be under the new statute is suspended if EAW may also help identify environ- completed within the 60-day time limit an EAW is required,either because the mental problems that may be ad- set by Minn.Stat.§ 15.99,subdivision proposal falls within a mandatory dressed in evaluating whether or not a 3(d)of the new statute clearly applies category or because the city determines proposal should be approved. and the 60-day time limit is suspended. (either on its own or in response to a EAWs are required under several In that case, the city's deadline for citizen petition) that the proposal"may circumstances:First,some projects fall acting on the permit application is have the potential for significant within"mandatory categories"for EAW extended until 60 days after comple- environmental effects." preparation that are defined by state tion of the environmental review Cities have considerable leeway in rules.State rules governing the process. deciding whether the potential for preparation of EAWs and EISs are In addition to mandatory EAWs,cities environmental effects justifies the found at Minn.Rule.Ch.4410.For may also require discretionary EAWs. preparation of a discretionary EAW. example,mandatory preparation of an State rules require that a discretionary Cities should be careful,however,to EAW is required for the construction of EAW shall be prepared when a city avoid using the EAW process in the 100 new homes in a city if a compre- determines,either on its own initiative absence of any real concern about hensive plan that meets certain or in response to a citizen petition,that environmental effects simply to buy requirements has not been adopted. a project"may have the potential for more time for city action under the Greater or lower thresholds for EAW significant environmental effects."The new 60-day statute.This approach preparation may apply under the rules EQB's rules provide that the local unit could be viewed as a misuse of the state depending on the location of the of government must order the prepara- environmental requirements and could proposed residential development,and tion of an EAW if a petition from 25 or be the basis for a court challenge.In . I . 1 I - 1 1 CELEBRATING OUR 25TH YEAR, 1 PROVIDING MINNESOTA WITH THE BEST PRODUCTS AND SERVICES! ♦PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 1 ♦SITE FURNISHINGS ♦TRAFFIC SIGNS ♦TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS Whatever the job—athletic fields, ♦CONSULTING AND PROJECT PLANNING INSTALLATIONS golf courses, schoolyards, roadside mixes to D.O.T. specs—Peterson AND MUCH MOREI Seed Company can help you choose the right seeding mixture.We'll also CALL TODAY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION provide expert advice for any projects PETERSON SEED CO Helping Four seed business grow. EARL F.ANDERSEN,INC. that involve seeding.Call today,and 9808 JAMES CIRCLE ask us for your free seed guide. ' BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 612.-884-7300 MN WATTS: 1-800-862-6026 —•---. _ .__.__'_7 =S I MAY 1996 38 .. general,however,state requirements local approvals for the location of a I for environmental review provide an proposal be granted before state appropriate"escape hatch"from the approvals for design details are , 60-day limit that is available if a considered. '.. IT S OtT proposal"may have the potential for To play it safe and to avoid any significant environmental effects." automatic approvals under the new statute,cities should live within the new What if state or federal time limits for all applicable city •�, approvals are required? approvals,whether or not state or Sometimes a proposed development federal approvals are also required.It requires state or federal approvals ih will be the rare case-if there are any at addition to city action.How does the all-where a state or federal approval w new statute apply then?One provision must come first.If a city believes it is of the new statute provides that the 60- confronted with such a case,it should day time limit for city action is ex- not rely on subdivision 3(e)to delay tended if an application submitted to a city action on a proposal without first city requires the prior approval of a consulting the city's attorney. s state or federal agency.In that case, the Questions about how the new law ° city's deadline for acting on the applies will continue to arise and be application is extended until 60 days resolved as cities acquire more expert- �9 .kso after the required prior approval is ence under the new law.Cities with �� granted. questions about how the law applies in When does this provision give cities a particular case should contact their extra time to act?The statute can be city attorney,the League research staff read in two different ways.Under one or the author.r reading,cities may wait until after all state or federal approvals are granted. For a copy of this article that includes The better and safer view,however,is legal cites,please contact League of that the escape valve provided by this Minnesota Cities,Communications Team, provision applies only in cases where (612)281-1200 or(800)925.1122. N something about the state or federal _ permit requirements requires that such a Karen Cole is an attorney at Popham + . Ulll permit be granted before local approv- Haik Schnobrich&Kaufman who Out. of Llle Or `f als are given. In conversations with practices in the areas of public sector state and federal agency staff,we have and commercial representation,with a been unable to identify any state or focus on land use disputes.Karen may For Performance and federal approvals that meet this test.In be reached at(612)3342501,or via fact,state agencies may prefer that the Internet at ColeK @popham.com. Flexibly We just released our new PACE software modules for municipalities and utililities,a new generation of MUNICIPAL & RECYCLING CLIP ART integrated software unequalled for Are your publications saddled with generic, managing information. Out-of--the- ordinary clip art? Finally, clip art specifically from Dynamic Arts ordinary features include fourth gen- designed for your publishing arenal eration technology,instant inquiry, quick jump flexibility...and more! • Developed by municipal experts for all municipal departments For PACE-setting performance in • Unique,original graphic images software,call toll-free 1-800 443-8831. • Professionally drawn Line Art ♦ High resolution,PCX images, IBM "�" `_ compatible ♦ Over 80 images per disk { Disk Price Send check to: Recycling 20.00 Dynamic Arts Your y g $ Municipal $20,00 320 E.Maple#223 PubOcallon Birmingham.MI Precision Computer Systems 48009 �• q� 4501 S.Technology Drive g Demo Disk 10 Imaes h� Recycling $5.00 Free Brochure � ru�F Sioux Falls, SD 57106 Call(810)642-8489 \Ik I 605-362-1260 Municipal $5.00 or concoct us at .1 Dynarts@col.com Before... AFTERI 800-643-8831 MINNESOTA CITIES!MAY 1996 3__--,> :..'-"_^_ 39 Pc-+-k-'s ra�ro�n 4 'all -.Sp It ring. in l g As sure a sin of spring b P g as a newly returned robin is the flurry of activity surrounding lawn care, spring cleaning and home-fix up chores. As you tackle your spring projects, here are a few things to keep in mind. A past honoree, this St. Louis Park home amply displays the criteria for winning an Evergreen Award: exceptional landscap- ing that is easily visible to neighbors and passersby. Complaints Needn't Blossom In The Spring An unfortunate sign of spring is we can be proud to call "home." from the premises;they may not cling bins away as soon as pos- the increase in complaints that Here are some of the most com- be stored outdoors under a tarp, sible after collection. City Hall receives about neigh- mon causes of concern. on an open trailer or on a lawn. Noise bors who fail to act neighborly. Pet Poop Garbage Cans Power equipment (lawn No one appreciates their neigh- When walking dogs, owners Your garbage won't end up mowers, leaf blowers, construc- bor's garbage blowing onto are required by City ordinance on your neighbors' lawns if the tion equipment) may be operat- their lawn, stepping on animal to pick up their dog's excrement cans have tight-fitting lids or ed only from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. feces caused by thoughtless pet and place feces in a waste you use bungee cords to secure on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to owners, or worrying about the receptacle on their own proper- the lids. If possible, set garbage 10 p.m. on weekends and holi- effect of an unkempt home on ty. cans out in the morning rather days. the neighborhood. Cats should not be permitted than the night before collection. A loud party can be declared Please be a good neighbor to roam through neighborhoods Overnight, dogs and raccoons a nuisance between 11 p.m. and and keep St. Louis Park a place and defile other residents' are very adept at tipping over 7 a.m. on Sunday through yards. cans and dragging out the Thursday and between midnight Is Landscaping Overgrown Hedges garbage. and 7 a.m. on Friday and Please trim overgrown trees, Put garbage cans and recy- Saturday. In Your Plans? hedges and shrubs: especially those that block views of inter- Low Interest Loans Available If landscaping is on your spring sections or overhang streets and "to do" list, consider aiming for alleys. Overgrown plants look For Remodeling Or Fix-Up an award winning project. unsightly, pose traffic hazards Because of the important role and scratch vehicles. Low interest home improve- enhancements—patios, decks, that landscaping plays in main- Home Exteriors ment loans of up to$15,000 are fireplaces, saunas, etc.—are not twining healthy neighborhoods The siding of homes and available to qualifying house- eligible. and boosting community pride, garages should be in good holds whose annual gross The loans are part of the the Evergreen Award program repair. Broken, rotten or buck- income is less than$41,000. Minnesota Housing Finance was initiated to honor well land- led exterior walls, windows or Interest rates are based on Agency's efforts to promote scaped homes. doors must be repaired. household income, and repay- affordable housing. Borrowers The Evergreen Award recog- Chipping and peeling siding ment terms are based on the work directly with participating nizes homes with exceptional should be either repainted or amount loaned and the house- banks, credit unions and other plantings of flowers, shrubs and covered with vinyl or another hold budget. private lenders. trees that are located in front or type of exterior covering. Home rehabilitation loans For more information about side yards. To qualify,the land- Vehicles are restricted to work that the loans or a list of lenders,call scaping must be easily visible to No cars or vehicles—opera- improves the home's basic liv- St. Louis Park Housing passersby. ble or not—may be parked on ability or energy efficiency Coordinator Yvette Quarfot at Award nomination forms are front lawns. (room additions, kitchen or 924-2196. Quarfot is also avail- available by calling 924-2519. Vehicles that aren't street bathroom remodeling, roofing, able to answer questions about Judging occurs in late summer o9erable or have expired license insulation, furnace replacement, buying, rehabilitating or remod- and awards are presented by the tabs must be stored inside an wiring or plumbing). Recre- eling a St.Louis Park home. City Council in the autumn. enclosed garage or removed ational projects or home P;,,_e 4 Park Perspective btay 1996 City of Maiuze 9150 Central Avenue NE Blaine MN 55434 E Fax (612) 784-3844 FAX TRANSMITTAL COYER SHEET Sent to Fax#: Date: o�I To: Are' se" From: Cathy Sorensen Planning Secretary Number of pages, including this cover page: C IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ANY OF THE PAGES PROPERLY PLEASE CALL: 785-5180 Message: G�.► �r�.:F t i., L r. �����„�� VX L .` L i s 4_ Ov Z0VT0'd' 0082 08L ZT9 3NIVIS d0 AM 80:9T 9661—TZ—AUW May 21, 1996 St. Anthony Planning Commission and Staff I wanted to thank the Planning Commission and staff'for the opportunity of working with you over the past few months. I learned much about the City of St.Anthony, and was continually impressed with the Commissioners and staff—St.Anthony is very fortunate to . have such a dedicated,knowledgeable group of individuals working for them. Thank you again;I enjoyed working with you. Sincerely, .G+� �`C' •'GEC-� . Cathy orensen 'q Z0iZ0'd bb8£ 08L ZI9 3NId-19 d0 AIIO 80:SS 966T-tiZ-AdW July:1, 1996 (Name of Company) (Individual at Company) (Street.Address) (City, State, Zip) RE: Request for Proposal for Comprehensive Plan, City of St. Anthony Dear (Individual): The City of St. Anthony invites you to submit a proposal for assisting the City in developing a Comprehensive Plan. The current approved Comprehensive Plan was completed in 1979. CONTENT The City-of St. Anthony is a first-ring suburb which is both in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. Essentially, the City is at build-out, with a completed water, sewer, and transportation infrastructure. The issues the City wishes the selected firm to focus on include: 1. Residential Redevelopment:, Residential structures were largely completed in the 1950's and 1960's, and many will be in need of redevelopment in the near future. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the City is in.the midst of a significant residential turnover, with housing being sold by "empty-nesters" to young families. We feel the need for hard demographic evidence to identify any trends, as- well as recommendations regarding the City's response to whatever the residential demographics show. All such work will need to be compatible with the City's Liveable Communities Action Plan, currently being developed by the City under the requirements of the Metropolitan Council. 2. Commercial/Industrial Redevelopment: The commercial and industrial areas of the City have been developed since the 1960's, and will be in need of redevelopment soon. We request that this need be examined and recommendations made as to appropriate planning on behalf of the City. 3. Land Use/Zoning: The existing Comprehensive Plan recommended a number of land use changes, which have largely been implemented. We wish assistance in identifying current land use incompatibilities and future land use issues which the City can facilitate through land use planning and/or zoning changes. 4. Emerging and Other Issues: The City wishes an analysis and resultant advice from a planning firm regarding emerging municipal land use planning including, but not necessarily limited to, telecommunications and access to public right-of-ways. PROCESS AND TIME FRAMES Written responses to this Request For Proposal, including proposed scope, schedule, and budget, must be received at the City offices by August 1, 1996. Proposal review and reference contacts will take place during August, 1996, and short-listed firms will be formally interviewed at the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 1996. The Planning Commission will make its selection recommendation for City Council award on September 24, 1996. The selected firm will then participate in a joint Planning Commission/City Council project kickoff meeting on October 15, 1996. We expect that the selected firm will provide monthly personal updates at the Planning Commission meeting, with occasional reporting to the City Council. BUDGET The City currently has $5,000 budgeted in the FY 1996 budget to begin the Comprehensive Planning update process. -The costs contained in the proposal of the selected firm will be incorporated into the City's 1997 budget. The Comprehensive Plan update must be completed by December, 1997. GENERAL Copies of the current Comprehensive Plan may be reviewed at the City offices during normal working hours. Please refer all questions to Doug Bergstrom, Planning Commission Chairman, at 635-9100 (w) or 789-1498 (h), or Michael Morrison (City Manager) or Kim Moore-Sykes (Management Assistant) at 789-8881. Sincerely, Douglas J. Bergstrom Chairman, Planning Commission cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Mike Morrison, City Manager