HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 10162000 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
102870
Box: 27
Folder: PL PACKETS 2000-2004
Document: PL PACKET 10162000
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
MINNEAPOLIS PILLSBURY CENTER SOUTH BILLINGS
NEW YORK 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET CREAT FALLS
SEATTLE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 MISSOULA
DENVER TELEPHONE: (612) 340-2600 .BRUSSELS -
WASHINGTON,D.C. FAX: (612) 340-2868 FARGO.
DES MOINES HONG KONG
ANCHORAGE WILIAM R.SOTH ROCHESTER
N
LODON `612)340-2969 SALT LAKE CITY
FAX(612)340-2644
COSTA MESA soth.william@dorseylaw.com VANCOUVER
October 11, 2000
Michael J. Morrison
City Manager
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Re: City land adjacent to 2917 Anthony Lane North
Accurate Wire Solutions, Inc.
Dear Mike:
I have reviewed the letter from Accurate Wire Solutions, Inc. regarding the property adjacent
to its property at 2917 Anthony Lane North, which it says is owned by the City of St. Anthony and
was originally designated to be a road connecting Anthony Lane North to Ramsey County, which is on
the eastern boundary of their property. Mr. Stoick, President of Accurate Wire Solutions, Inc., states
that the property to which the road would connect is now developed and that the road will not be built.
He asks whether his company could purchase that property from the City to build an.addition on their
building. I am enclosing a portion of the half-section map showing the Company's property as cross-
hatched.
The answer to his question depends on the status of the property owned by the City. If it is just
a piece of land owned by the City and is excess City property, it could be sold to the Company. If it is
a dedicated street, created by a plat or by an easement deed, then it could not be sold to the Company.
From the map, it appears that it clearly was dedicated as a street.
If it is a street, even though it was never constructed as such, it would have to be vacated
according to statutory procedure,for street vacations. If it is vacated, the question of whether any or 0
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
Michael Morrison
October 11, 2000
Page 2
of the property would accrue to the Accurate Wire Solutions, Inc. property depends on how the street
was created. If all of the street property was included in a plat that did not plat any of the property on
the other side of the street, it would all accrue to the Company's property. If on the other hand, it was
platted as a street by the owner of the property on both sides of the street, then half of the street would
accrue to the owner on each side.
V truly you
r
William R. Soth
WRS/ms
Enclosure
-
E
• tt .J: s N 1 1 I �• rP
Z. w •i wi. 4 wn 9t4b t �`t t i r ■-•.fir it ,r i �\
jo
12
$�: Q Y SY i ANTHONY � � • �
e
• i• 'v\. e m ?` v r i: w r i ,s aw ; .0 b' i E%ECUTIvE
40 m
+ 1
-------'--- avE -T Y---•-•-•-• . tri r, i MANOR
■
32N0 .
y ! Cbm.
w w i e• i t ^ APT OWN NO Mi
.�w// .,y .► ��L1,RW�+ .In w ,0 1: .• .:n ,n ,t .ry .in � 9
V W O4`s] U 1 .... ___ '• .' r �' CONOOWNN4S 9 -
• • _ ____ ____ __ _J.._ • ,� • m
�0(YCBi tY nihmoot #
1RN41EN _- _AVE: '■ 1\' •V .,•�..� ^l.f••1 i r i .... - -
w
,
• iINW ;� -•��i � % ;�r ♦RC1 � • -
AV ......N E__ ■--- +w _t
4 y\ � YY :i• .. is .\y • .Y m %' • rr %/ /
p• Y•Y W 9w —
_____
avE N E •_._._._------------------_.-._.__'.- .i, "'• a ". ' i -
i:
i; ffi4• BAY MY
%
Gil won ff '
Bea vB �Iry :i:• � • ' '• '• T
TER ----------- _ rQ 't•s
,.y w iz b4 y 7�'•,�� t? �•i ,t' V' _t
nw s r• '.• is •A O t •• t5i t! + M1� '
. _N_ 1 S �1 •• .s
w •+• 4_r, ... 1 4• 9 2` t 'r
GEA C
,i• ,iw .s .ia •i. t .i• t :ti, •i.r:.V Y�
— 1 .'.`�~ '=----•"-'-- 29T ^ �..�. O'AVE• �...w. N E." [coRO NO 4m
_• N ■
6YE N E ("
(44) REVISED MAY.2000
PLANNING COMMISSION
(3 year terms - appointed by Council)
Name . Starting Date Date Term Ends
Doug Bergstrom 7/93 12/31%00
Christopher Melsha 5/99 12/31/00
Lorin Hatch 5/99 12/31/00
Randy Still 1/99 12/31/01
Todd Hanson 1/99 12/31/01
Bill Thomas 12/99 12/31/02
Kim Tillmann 5199 12/31/02
CITY OF ST.ANTHONY .
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN under the Minnesota Statutes,that the Planning Commission wits nota a regular meeting on
Tuesday, October 16, 2000, at 7:00 pm at the City Council Chambers,3301 Silver Lake Road,Saint Anthony,Minnesota.
NOTE: The Planning Commission has received the staff reports and recommendations, plus supporting
documentbtion from.the applicant, through stafffor all items on this agenda..'This information was distributed prior
to the meeting date...,Individual Commissioners and staff also visit the application sites.during the week prior to
meetings. As a result of this preparation, items which appear to be routine will typically be handled very quickly,
and discussion on disputed or questionable items can begin from a position ofgeneral understanding of the issues.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
CONSIDERATION,DISCUSSION,AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Please notify the Chairman prior to the beginning of any meeting of your desire to speak before the Commission.
Your remarks will be limited to five minutes.
L PUBLIC INPUT .
The public may speak at this time on any planning and zoning related matters of a general nature. However, there
will not be any discussion or action by the Commission at this time.
11 MINUTES
1. Approve September 19,2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Action requested.
2. City Council's September 26 and October 10, 2000 regular meeting minutes. No action required.
3. Parks Commission's October 2000 regular meeting minutes. No action required.
III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL
1. None.
2. Mayor Dennis Cavanaugh would like to address the Commission on various issues.
IV. REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS
1. None.
V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Concept Review.Proposed Walgreen's Store at the corner of Silver Lake and 37d'Avenue (pp. 1 - 4.A).
2. Concept Review. Accurate Wire Solutions, Inc. is proposing to purchase City-owned property (right-of-
way)at the northeastern termination of Anthony Lane. (pp. 5 - 6).
VL POSTPONED APPLICATIONS
1. None.
2
VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS,and/or CONCEPT REVIEWS
1. None.
VIM CONTINUED BUSINESS
1. Subcommittee to schedule first meeting regarding the study/development of new Antennae Ordinance in
preparation for future,Commission and Council consideration. Action requested (pp. 7 - 18).
IX. COMNIISSION INPUT
1. Chair to select a Commissioner as the representative to the upcoming Council Meeting. Action requested.
2. Commissioner Bill Thomas would like to inform the Commission regarding available state grant money
programs. (p. 19).
3. Commissioners' comments.
X. ADJOURNMENT
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
• 3 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000
4 7:00 p.m.
5 CALL.TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. .
6 The meeting'was called to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice
7 Chair Melsha.
8 ROLL CALL.
9 Present: Vice Chair Melsha; Commissioners Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas,
10 Hatch, and Stille.
11 Commissioners absent: Chair Bergstrom, Commissioner Thomas
12 Also present: Spencer Isom, Assistant City Manager
13 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION,AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
14 ITEMS:
15 None.
16 I. PUBLIC INPUT.
17 Vice Chair Melsha invited any person from the audience to speak to the Commission regarding items
18 that are not.on the usual agenda.
18.9 II. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST
20 15,2000.
21 Motion by Hatch,second by Hanson,to approve the August 15,2000 Planning Commission Meeting
22 Minutes with the following modifications:
23 Page 5, Line 9, delete "City Attorney Soth"and replace it with"Chair Bergstrom"
24 Page 5, Line 24, change "prevent"to "present"
25 Page 7, Line 1, delete "Stille voted aye."
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27 III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL.
28 None.
29
30 IV. REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS.
31 None.
32 V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS.
33 A. Public Hearing - Application For Subdivision/Final Plat Approval --Village North LLP
34 and Apache Animal Medicine Seek to Replai'Their Properties Into Three .Lots.
35 Vice Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. and requested a report from Staff.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000
Page 2
1 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported that the owner of Apache Animal Clinic has ap-
plied to replat the properties into three lots in order to expand the size of the lot on which the
3 animal clinic is located, decrease the size of the lot on which the Industrial Custom Products
4 building is located, and create a new lotto the.east of the industrial building. .The property
5 would be replatted as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Apache Terrace, 2nd Addition, Ramsey County,
6 Minnesota.
7 Isom directed the Commission's attention to a letter dated September 19, 2000 from City Attor-
8 ney Soth. Isom noted that the Commission can consider this application as long as it is in
9 compliance with the nine items noted in City Attorney Soth's letter of September 19,2000.
10 Isom noted that the Staff and City Attorney had noted that they could proceed with the prelimi-
11 nary plat, as long as the properties in question.were completed. However, the Planning Commis-
12 sion can approval the final plat with the understanding that the conditions would be met. The
13 City Council would hear this issue after the nine conditions have been met.
14 After calling for public input regarding this matter and hearing none,Vice Chair Melsha closed
15 the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
16 Motion by Stille, second by Tillmann;to approve the Apache Terrace 2nd addition application
• subject to the nine items that are outlined in City Attorney Soth's letter of September 19, 2000 to
18 Ken Solie and Raymond Ogren from Dorsey& Whitney .
19 Isom noted that this issue would be tentatively set for the September 26, 2000 City Council
20 meeting, as long as the conditions are met as noted above and the City Attorney is satisfied.
21 Furthermore, Isom noted that all items regarding the application should be sent to the City Attor-
22 ney, with a copy to the City Staff.
23 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
24 None.
25 VII. REPORTS,PRESENTATIONS,AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS.
26 None.
27 VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS.
28 1. Establish Subcommittee To Finalize the Draft Antennae Ordinance In Preparation for Fu-
29 ture Commission and Council Consideration.
30 Assistant City Attorney Isom noted that to draft and incorporate a change into the City Code can
31 be a complicated process. It is therefore his hope and anticipation that the Planning Commission
32 would proceed through the necessary research via a subcommittee, and then follow through with
4�4
a draft proposal to present to the members of the Planning Commission. A subcommittee could
facilitate the process.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000
Page 3
1 Isom then reviewed for the Commission that at a prior Planning Commission meeting,he had re-
2 ceived direction that the Commission was in favor of adopting a similar ordinance as that of
.3 Dublin's. In.this respect, he would request that the Planning Commission adopt a subcommittee
4 or task force that would go forth with the facilitating of what would be ultimately presented to
5 the City Council.
6 Hanson asked what timeframe would be required. Isom noted that it would up to the Planning
7 Commission about the timeframe to get a proposed draft in workable form.
8 Hatch, Stille and Melsha volunteered to be on the task force for the antennae ordinance.
9 Motion by Hanson, second by Melsha, that the Planning Commission develop a subcommittee to
10 look at the antenna ordinance and the Commissioners that volunteered are Hatch, Stille and
11 Melsha.
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13 2. Provide a Recommendation to Council of Whether to Pass an Interim Ordinance (Morato-
14 rium) Regarding Future Requests for Permits under Section 1160 (Antennas and Towers).
15 Assistant City Manager Isom reviewed for the Commission the background relating to this issue
• ; from prior meetings.
17 Discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners regarding the typical length of time for a morato-
18 rium. Assistant City Manager Isom noted that the typical moratorium is approximately one
19 year; however, the Planning Commission must arrive at a timeframe that would allow sufficient
20 time to review, draft, and/or change ordinances.
21 Motion by Melsha, second by Hatch,that the Planning Commission recommends to the City
22 Council that a one-year moratorium be developed on antennas and towers in St. Anthony in order
23 to facilitate and research the drafting of possible ordinances.
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 3. Livable Cities Demonstration Account Proposal Letter, dated August 25, 2000.
26 Assistant City Attorney Isom noted that the grant was approved for the first round and a subse-
27 quent application has been received for Phase II. Additionally,the Mayor, Chair of the Planning
28 Commission, Staff and DSU(City's Consultants)have met to discuss the completion and
29 submittal of that application. Furthermore, it is'assumed and anticipated that the application will
30 be submitted on time and the process moved forward.
31 In response to a question by Tillmann about Apache Plaza, Isom noted that the Apache Plaza was
? originally included in the application,but the application has been amended.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000
Page 4
1 IX. COMMISSION INPUT.
2 1. Chair to Select a Commissioner as the Representative to the Upcoming Council
3 Meetina..
4 Commissioner Tillmann volunteered to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday,
5 September 26, 2000.
6 2. Commissioners' Comments. .
7 Hanson noted that he had heard through the Kiwanis organization about some future
8 plans about the Autumn Woods development. He would hope that the Planning
9 Commission would be made aware of those types of plans from Staff.
10 Hanson additionally noted that the Planning Commission had spent tremendous hours
11 researching the Apache Plaza project, only to have it rejected by the City Council. He
12 has heard that there might be a retailer interested in the Apache Plaza, and he requested
13 some clarification from Staff.
14 Assistant City Manager Isom noted that he could speak in general terms about that
15 inquiry. However, he noted that the City is trying to balance some areas and that
16 development issues are generally handled through the City Manager's office.
17 Additionally,he noted that unless the owners of Apache Plaza are willing and ready to
• ; sell, it isnot an issue that can be discussed in any detail.
19 Tillmann inquired of Staff if the potential buyer is a retailer that would fall under the
20 existing Code, then the Planning Commission would not become involved. Staff
21 confirmed that zoning codes are in force that have been passed, and if a commercial
22 retailer meets all of the requirements, there is currently nothing in place at this time that
23 would prevent said retailer from moving forward.
24 Hanson inquired about the City's responsibility to keep the residents informed of any
25 current or potential developments at Apache Plaza.
26 Assistant City Manager Isom.noted that is an area that the City is intending to study; i.e.,
27 what tools are available to the City to prevent or discourage development..From a
28 planning prospective, Isom rioted that currently there is not anything to report.
29 Melsha expressed his personal opinion'that the City lost a good project with Apache, and
30 he felt that those Councilmembers opposed to the project perceived deficiencies in the
31 proposal. There was a significant effort, he stated, on behalf of Hillcrest and the Planning
32 Commission to satisfy those concerns. Additionally, he noted that it was frustrating
33 because it appeared that the project would not be approved by those Councilmembers
34 despite the steps made by Hillcrest to satisfy their concerns.
.;5 Hatch expressed happiness that the Council approved the Planning Commission's
36 recommendation for the lighting style. Hatch questioned the Livable Communities Grant
37 and the Council's comment to take an active role in that area. Hatch asked Staff if the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000
Page 5
1 Livable Communities grant was the Council's vision of pursuing an active plan, or were
2 they waiting to see what happens and then pursue options.
3 Assistant City Manager Isom noted that the Livable Communities grant will be.a catalyst
4 for looking at long-term uses and also identifying what would be the highest and best use
5 for that area. Isom further noted that he understands that, from Staff s prospective, all
6 things possible will be done to ensure that the planning or examination takes place of the
7 targeted area.
8 Furthermore, he stated that the Council had set aside the $150,000 match for this grant
9 and there are some things that will happen regardless of whether the City gets the grant or
10 not. Those funds are earmarked for that area and he understands that the City will move
11 forward and probably spending some of those funds prior to receiving the grant award.
12 Additionally, he received an&mail recently that alluded to the fact that the Met Council
13 is no longer requiring a match for the award, so a number of things could happen in the
14 next few weeks that could change the texture of the research.
15 Stille felt that the City intended to spend a significant amount of time and effort to
16 determine what the highest and best use of that site will be. Obviously, he stated,that
17 could be a number of things, and he questioned whether it would be beneficial to consider
a moratorium on the Apache site so that some plans could be worked out in the event the
19 grant is not received. He inquired of Staff if that issue had been discussed within the
20 City.
21 Isom noted that he had not heard any discussions regarding a moratorium on the Apache
22 site. Additionally, he noted that there would be a number of legal issues that would
23 dictate how a moratorium would be handled. If the Commission would like to direct
24 Staff to examine that issue, that this would be the time to bring it up.
25 Melsha reviewed some of the issues for the Salvation Army property and how it would
26 relate to the Apache Plaza property. Stille said his goal is that there would be a lot of
27 planning, and if the funds are not received, the planning was all for naught.
28 Isom noted that he would take this as a direction and do some research on the possibility
29 of a moratorium for that area. and he would return to the Commission at a later date with
30 a report.
31 Isom reported that September.29, 2000 would be his last day as Assistant City Manager.
32 He will be returning full-time to school to fulfill his Ph.D. requirements and he would
33 continue with the City in some aspects with the Planning Commission until a replacement
34 is found.
5 X. ADJOURNMENT.
36 Motion by Melsha, second by Stille, to adjourn at 7:50 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 19, 2000
Page 6
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2 Respectfully submitted,
3 Sue Selseth
4 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
3 September 26, 2000
_ 4 I. CALL TO ORDER:
5 Mayor Cavanaugh called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
6 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
7 Mayor Cavanaugh invited the Council and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
8 III. ROLL CALL.
9 Councilmembers present: Mayor Cavanaugh; Councilmembers Sparks, Thuesen, Horst and
1 o Hodson
11 Councilmembers absent: None.
12 Also present: City Manager Michael Mornson.
13 IV. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
14 AGENDA.
15 Motion by Hodson to approve the September 12, 2000 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda as
16 presented.
.� Motion carried unanimously.
18 V. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS.
19 None.
20 VI. COMMUNITY FORUM.
21 Mayor Cavanaugh called for anyone from the audience-that would like to discuss an issue that is
22 not on the usual agenda.
23 Jaye Berk;, 3108 33rd Avenue, wanted to make an announcement. She stated that she has seen
24 advertising for a band that will be playing at the High School on September 28. She wanted to
25 encourage everyone to attend and noted that tickets could be purchased at the Community Cen-
26 ter, as well as at the event and from certain individuals throughout the City.
27 Mayor Cavanaugh thanked Ms. Berg for her announcement.
28 VII. CONSENT AGENDA.
29 Cavanaugh requested that the Motor Vehicle Starting License request from Twin Cities
30 Transport& Recovery be removed from the Consent Agenda. Sparks asked that the minutes be
31 removed from the Consent Agenda as well.
•'A2 Cavanaugh invited Ms. Rene Gartis, owner of Twin Cities Transport& Recovery, to address the
,3 Council. Ms. Gartis stated that she and her husband are the owners of Twin Cities Transport Re-
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 2
1 covery, which is a towing service that is mainly located in St. Paul. There is a satellite operation
2 in Oakdale. Recently, she and her husband have purchased Sroga's Towing in St. Anthony.
3 She wanted to bring forth some of the complaints from neighbors that were received when
4 Sroga's Towing was in business. One improvement the Gartis's have made is an electric gate,
5 and an improvement to the fencing, so the contents of the impound lot are not visible from the
6 street. They have also removed some of the larger trucks, and changed the hours of operation.
7 Ms. Gartis reiterated the desire to work with the neighbors and the City to actively correct any
8 situations that arise.
9 Hodson inquired about the hours of operation, and Ms. Gartis said a dispatcher begins at 6:00
10 a.m. and continues until 2:00 p.m., and another dispatcher begins at 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m.
11 Office hours are until 6:00 p.m.
12 Hodson mentioned that he had heard a prior complaint regarding Sroga's Towing in that the tow
13 truck drivers were using excessive speed throughout the neighborhoods and being loud at the
14 early hours of the morning. Ms. Gartis assured the Council that the type of driving behavior he
15 mentioned would not be tolerated, and hoped that if the drivers of their company are driving
5 poorly, that a ticket would be given. She plans on working closely,with the City, neighbors, and
,7 the employees to make for an amenable working relationship.
18 Cavanaugh stated he would like to see a letter of understanding between her company and the
19 City as to the specifics of issues that the City would normally do in a conditional use permit. He
20 would like to have an understanding with Ms. Gartis and her company because the problems as- .
21 sociated with Sroga's Towing have been a problem with the City for a long time.
22 Ms. Gartis stated that currently she and her husband are leasing the property and major improve-
23 ments would have to go through the Srogas. However, in response to Cavanaugh's mention of
24 auctions going on, she stated that her company does not have auctions.
25 Cavanaugh reiterated his hope for a letter of understanding, and inquired of City Manager
26 Michael Morrison if a 60-day temporary license would be a reasonable request. Morrison noted
27 that it would have to be a joint effort on the side of both parties. He felt that the key is that the
28 City needs to be consistent and uniformly apply those principals, and there is another towing
29 business within the City.
30 Ms. Gartis noted that she would be willing to work with the City and the neighbors, but major
31 conditions or renovations would have to, at this point, go through Mr. Sroga. With all due re-
32 spect, she stated, she was unsure how conditions could be placed on the business when the busi-
•33 ness was willing to comply with all existing requirements as well as create an amenable relation-
4 ship.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 3
1 Cavanaugh asked if the Council would be in favor of a 60-day temporary license and a letter of
.2 understanding. Thuesen inquired of Morrison if this would mean that the City would need to
3 work with the other towing business in the City. Morrison said that is a possibility; however, the
4 other towing business is in an industrial area, and not a residential area.
5 Morrison noted that the City Attorney's recommendation was to approve the license and then
6 give Staff some time to work with Mr. and Mrs. Gartis while they are leasing the property.
7 Horst inquired if this is the only license that a towing service needs to receive from the City.
8 Morrison was unsure, but did not feel that there were any other licenses pending to be addressed.
9 Horst wondered if the City would have the authority to grant a license for this business and base
10 it on conditional uses. However, Horst felt that a cooperative agreement might be possible, but
11 he did not feel that the agreement would be something that could be held over to the next
12 business owner.
13 Motion by Sparks to grant a temporary 90-day license to Twin Cities Transport & Recovery,
14 3201 Stinson Boulevard.
Voting on the motion: Sparks, Thuesen, Cavanaugh, Hodson voted aye.
16 Horst voted nay.
17 The Motion Carried.
18 Motion by Hodson to approve the Consent Agenda which consisted of:
19 1. Licenses and Permits (less the License requested by Twin Cities Transport and
20 Recovery); and
21 2. Claims.
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 Motion by Hodson to approve the minutes of September 12, 2000 as presented.
24 Voting on the Motion: Thuesen, Cavanaugh, Horst, Hodson voted aye.
25 Sparks abstained due to absence at that meeting.
26 The Motion Carried.
27 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
•28 None.
-29 IX. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 4
1 None.
2 X. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF.
3 A. Planning Commission -- September 19, 2000..
4 1. Village North LLP and Apache Animal Medicine, Subdivision/Final Plat
5 Approval.
6 Kim Tillmann, Planning Commissioner, noted that the Planning Commission had recommended
7 approval of the Apache Animal Medicine issue, but the approval was subject to completion of
8 the nine items as noted in City Attorney Soth's letter and mentioned in the Planning Commission
9 meeting minutes of September 19, 2000. However, it appeared that one of the items had not
10 been completed, which was finalizing the purchase of the railroad property.
11 City Manager Morrison confirmed that this was true and the nine conditions had not been met.
12 The conditions would be met, he believed, but there was not any point in the Council considering
13 this issue at this time.
14 Cavanaugh inquired of Ms. Tillmann about the Planning Commission's plans to have an antennae
15 ordinance. Ms. Tillmann noted that Planning Commission had set up a subcommittee to.review
• 6 the City's ordinance on wireless antennas and towers, and possibly place a moratorium on any fu- .
ture antennae or tower requests until an ordinance is reviewed.
18 Thuesen mentioned his approval of a review of the City's ordinances and expressed support of
19 the possible moratorium on antennas and towers.
20 B. Review Planning_Proposal for Apache Plaza and Salvation Army Camp with John
21 Shardlow Firm and Jim Prosser from the Ehlers Firm. Review and Discuss Letter to
22 Hennepin County Parks.
23 Cavanaugh introduced Mr. John Shardlow, DSU. Mr. Shardlow reviewed the background of this
24 subject for the Commission. He noted that Mr. Jim Prosser, Ehlers Firm, was present, as well as
25 Todd Hubmer, WSB.
26 Mr. Shardlow noted that there would be plenty of opportunities for the residerits to.respond and
27 have input along the way in this project. There would be surveys, neighborhood meetings, and a
28 newsletter.
29 Mr. Shardlow highlighted that this process begins with fact finding. The firm believes that infor-
30 mation needs to be brought into the process, which would include accurate mapping, economic
31 analysis, facts, objective analysis of the costs of demolishing the Apache Plaza Building,
32 information about watershed and environmental issues. These facts will be presented to a
33 steering committee before they are released. Maxfield Research Group will do market research
• l on this project . He recommended that the Planning Commission serve on the steering
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
• , Page 5
1 committee; however, he would not recommend that the Mayor and City Council serve on that
2: committee,but attend the meetings for informational.purposes..
3 Mr. Shardlow presented a diagram/proposal regarding Phase One through Phase Four of the po-
o tential project.
5 In brief, Mr. Shardlow noted that the Project Initiation Phase would consist of clarification of the
6 project, establishment of a steering committee, and a newsletter for informational purposes.
7 Phase One would begin in October 2000, and would consist of research and analysis, which
8 would include market research, base mapping, analyzing existing conditions, map conditions
9 with the Rice Creek Watershed, and an economic analysis.
10 Phase Two would consist of community visioning, which would include alternative concept
11 plans, community issues forums, visual preference survey, urban design principles, and an
12 informative newsletter. Along the way, the steering committee would continue to conference
13 and have workshops to evaluate scenarios.
•'4 Phase Three would consist of preparing and evaluating alternatives,which would include having
a consensus on the preferred plan, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, drafting of a Master Plan,
16 final zoning map and ordinance modification, capital improvements/funding details, design of
17 standards and guidelines, and promotional strategies.
18 Phase Four would consist of plan implementation, which would consist of preparing a draft
19 document, working conference and review, and presentation to the community. By May 2001, a
20 final document would be prepared, and the project would be marketed to developers.
21 Mr. Shardlow said this project is patterned after similar projects that DSU has accomplished in
22 other communities. The basics of the project has been discussed with the Metropolitan Council,
23 and the Met Council has shown interest in assisting the community with the study.
24 Horst inquired if the figure'of$170,000 shown on page 2 of the handout, is the estimate of the
25 project cost. Mr. Shardlow noted that this was DSU's best estimate based on comparable proj-
26 ects. Horst confirmed that the grant the City has applied for would go towards some of the esti-
27 mated fees.
28 Sparks said she wanted a plan that would serve as a vehicle to move the development forward.
29 The cumulation of this chart presented is to market to developers; however, she was concerned
30 that once the City got to that point of marketing to developers, the City would be on its own. Mr.
31 Shardlow noted that the City would continue to have assistance, as needed, from DSU; however,
• he felt that Mr. Jim Prosser, introduced earlier from the Ehlers firm, would be on hand for assis-
` -s3 tance as well.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 6
1 Cavanaugh introduced Mr. Jim Prosser, Ehlers, and invited him to.address the Council. Mr.
2 Prosser noted that the planning process that.Mr. Shardlow reviewed is a solid process. The next
3 step, he noted, would be to market the project to developers, and then asking developers to sub=
4 mit a development program. For example, for a part of the development, their program might in-
s clude a certain amount of retail, housing, etc., but it would be enough information for the City
6 and Staff to access the project, and the City would have enough information to chose the project
7 with which it wanted to proceed.
8 Thuesen asked for Mr. Prosser to expand on the information on page two of the handout from
9 Mr. Shardlow regarding "Ehlers & Associates Marketing." Mr. Prosser said that at some point,
10 they would be asking developers to identify to them the likelihood of development possibilities.
11 Then that information would be taken to identify some of the economics based on the developer's
12 submission.
13 Thuesen asked from Mr. Prosser's prospective, the design has to make economic sense, no matter
14 what individuals would prefer. Mr. Prosser agreed that any suggested project must make eco-
15 nomic sense for the City.
0'6 Thuesen inquired about the projects on which Mr. Prosser is currently working. Mr. Prosser
gave several examples of noted projects in which he personally has been involved.
18 Thuesen asked Mr. Prosser to justify why the firm of Ehlers is suited to handle this project for
19 the City. Mr. Prosser responded by discussing the firm's plans for the project, as well as the past
20 and present experience of similar projects for other cities.
21 Mr. Shardlow also approached the Council and noted the past and current projects that the firm
22 of DSU is involved in, and the similarities between those projects-with the proposed project for
23 the City.
24 Thuesen asked Mr. Shardlow the past experience he had that would assist him in dealing with
25 leasing situations such as the Herbergers in the Apache Mall. Mr. Shardlow responded to
26 Thuesen's concern.
27 Horst inquired of Mr. Shardlow about the dollar figures presented on page two of his detailed
28 handout. Mr. Shardlow noted he has been doing projects similar to this for a long time, and he
29 felt that it would be best to provide economic figures to the City for the best understanding of the
30 project.
31 Cavanaugh confirmed that Springsted would continue to be the City's financial advisor, in re-
32 sponse to a concern by Horst. Cavanaugh further confirmed that Ehlers would be teaming with
• the City to work on this phase of development,for the City, but he wished to make it clear that
34 Springsted would continue to work as the City's financial advisors.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 7
1 Motion by Hodson to approve City Manager Morrison's September 22, 2000 letter along with the
2 attachment regarding.the Preliminary Work Program from Mr. Shardlow(DSU), as well as page
3 two of the Preliminary Work Program.
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5 Cavanaugh discussed the issue of the previous moratorium on the Salvation Army property. He
6 stated that the City has met with the Bank. Thuesen noted he had concerns on how the morato-
7 rium issue was presented. He noted his surprise about this issue being discussed at the meeting
8 and he would have appreciated additional time to prepare for the issue.
9 Hodson noted that he felt comfortable going forward with the moratorium and he would agree to
10 go forward with the ordinance. He had spoken with Staff and.felt that he had the information
11 needed to make a decision.
12 Horst said that the moratorium would give the City some room to allow a specified process to
13 happen instead of the property being sold off in increments. The moratorium, he felt, would pro-
14 tect the City and would allow the experts to do some planning and provide the City with some.
•'S feasibility. .
16 Thuesen noted his understanding of Horst's comments; however, he felt that the re-visit of the
17 moratorium issue suddenly arose and he would have preferred some time for preparation.
18 Horst explained that he felt the moratorium would allow the planning process to take place.
19 Sparks noted that the Planning Commission had suggested a moratorium on the property.
20 Mornson noted for the Council that the moratorium issue had been discussed quite a bit, but
21 since the Hillcrest proposal was denied, he had several developers call him regarding the Apache
22 Plaza site and the Salvation Army site. Momson was concerned that an application would be
23 received soon for one of those properties,and a moratorium would assist the City in planning.
24 The moratorium, he explained, would not keep the property from being sold. .
25 Motion by Hodson to approve Ordinance 2000-010, and to waive reading nos. 1 and 2, an Ordi-
26 nance Relating to a Moratorium on Changes in the Use of Properties Known as St. Anthony Vil-
27 lage Northwest Describing the 250 Acre Site Bounded by 27th Avenue NE on the South, the City
28 Corporate Limits on the North, Silver Lake Road on the East, and the Corporate Limits on the
29 West and Encompasses Properties Known as the Apache Plaza and the Salvation Army Camp.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
•
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 8
1 Cavanaugh introduced representatives of the Hennepin Parks -- Commissioner Franzee and Mr.
2 Doug Bryant, the Superintendent of Hennepin Parks. Both,representatives approached the Coun-
3 cil and Mr. Bryant noted that he had brought a video to show to the Council and audience. In
4 that respect, he presented the video which reviewed background information on the Parks system
5 and some of the history of Hennepin Parks.
6 Mr. Bryant noted that he wanted to confirm, on behalf of the Park District, that the District is in-
7 terested in acquiring all or part of the Salvation Army property. For this to happen, however, the
8 approval of St. Anthony is needed to go forward. If the City would like to utilize some of the
9 open space, a master plan would be developed and along with that, a planning and engineering
10 staff would prepare and present to the Council a formal request.
11 Mr. Bryant added that Hennepin Parks has its own forestry, engineering, and natural resources
12 planning staff. The Hennepin Parks would also like to utilize the property for interpretive educa-
13 tion and trails. The opportunities for trails in the suburban area are limited, and the Parks District
14 felt this was an excellent opportunity to develop more trails and to provide interpretative
15 services.
• 6 Mr. Bryant added that Hennepin Parks receives a significant amount of funding from the State,.
as well as funding from the Metropolitan Council. It is the Park District's hope that they can
18 work with the City in utilizing the property. He added that the Parks District would like to see
19 their proposed project become a reality.
20 Horst asked why the Hennepin Parks needed to come to the City to ask permission to purchase
21 the Salvation Army. Morrison noted that as a courtesy, the Hennepin Parks is hoping to work
22 with the City because it is such a large piece of property.
23 Mr. Bryant confirmed that the Hennepin Parks wanted to purchase the property with the blessing
24 of the City Council.
25 Hodson expressed his support of having Hennepin Parks take over the Salvation Army property;
26 however, as a City Councilmember,he would like to see some of that property utilized as a tax
27 base. He inquired if Mr. Bryant would be willing to consider that as a possibility. Mr. Bryant
28 noted that it would be a possibility and expressed his belief that it was important to preserve as
29 much open space as possible. As long as the City's objectives and the Park District's objectives
30 could be met, he would be willing to discuss options.
31 Sparks asked how the City's blessing would work with the process that Mr. Bryant had envi-
32 sioned. Mr. Bryant said that if the City is interested in having the Park District acquire the land,
33 and if the City wants them to be part of the process, then the City needed to decide how the Park
•.. ! District fits in with those plans. He noted that the Park District could work with the City's con-
35 sultants. If the City determines that they want the land, in full or in part, to be preserved as open
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 9
1 space, then the Parks District would prepare a proposal that would be presented to the Council
2 for consideration.
3 However, because of the limited size of certain areas, he believes there are limits as to what can
4 be accomplished. He would not suggest a typical regional park, but manage the area as open
5 space, interpretative centers (nature centers), trails, etc. This type of park would serve schools
6 effectively and provide a resource for education. The Parks District would work with the school
7 district, the City, and the surrounding residents.
8 Sparks asked for clarification of the background of the Hennepin Parks. Mr. Bryant explained
9 the history of Hennepin Parks in that it was created by the State Legislature. Additionally, he
10 confirmed that the organization is not a part of the Hennepin County organization. Hennepin
11 Parks provides for educational and recreational opportunities are provided, as well as
12 preservation of open space.
13 Mr. Bryant noted that the Hennepin Parks is concerned about zoning.
14 Cavanaugh thanked Commissioner Franzee and Mr. Bryant for the presentation.
• C. Discuss Funding Plan for Central Park Redevelopment.
16 Cavanaugh reviewed for the audience that the Council had met with the Parks Commission and
17 the School Board in a joint meeting earlier this evening. 'Cavanaugh noted that the next
18 challenge, other than the approval of the final plan, was funding for the project. He reviewed
19 that the current estimate of the project is $1.6 million, with contingencies. The challenge for the
20 Council is to fund the project, realizing that there will be a joint ownership with the school
21 district.
22 Cavanaugh continued by stating that a funding program has been shaped, in essence, with a pro-
23 ration between the City and the School of 80% (City) and 20% (School), which would reflect use
24 of the park, and not the ownership of the park.
25 Cavanaugh asked City Manager Michael Morrison to review the funding proposal for Central
26 Park. In that respect, Morrison directed the Council's attention to page 28 of the Council's
27 agenda packets. This page represented a memorandum from Roger Larson, Finance Director,
28 and noted specifics about the project funding. Additionally, input from Springsted, public
29 financial advisors, has been received, and that information is presented on page 29 of the agenda
30 packets.
31 Morrison said he would recommend that the Council, if it so desired, adopt a motion to proceed
•32 with the memo presented on page 28, which would give Staff direction to proceed with the
proper funding, and what the Council would prefer to use from reserves.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 10
1 Hodson expressed his opinion that the Council move forward with this issue. He commended
2 the efforts and tremendous time spent by the Parks Commission on this project.
3 Horst expressed some concerns about the funding options and how those options related to
4 working with the School Board. He felt that the option of a referendum to the residents should
5 be considered. Horst noted that the community wanted to see the project done and the Council
6 would be in a good position to ask the residents for assistance. However, there might be other
7 projects in the future that would require the City's money.
8 Sparks acknowledged Horst's concerns; however, she noted that referendums are rarely easy and
9 she would be hesitant to go forward in that direction. Additionally, she noted that this project
10 has been in the works for a long time, and the only thing new to discuss is the funding. Sparks
11 noted that she is willing and ready to proceed with the funding.
12 Thuesen noted that he could view both sides of the issue regarding a referendum. Additionally,
13 he said he is on the fence about taking the issue to the voters. Another issue to consider, he
14 stated, is the time factor. At this point, he would be amenable to going forward with this issue
15 tonight; however, he does have some lingering concerns regarding the funding proposed. He
6 noted that the City was in dire need of a new public works garage and he felt that some of the
/ funds proposed to be utilized for the Central Park redevelopment, could be put towards a new
18 public works garage.
19 Cavanaugh added that he would recommend that the City support Roger Larson's memorandum
20 as presented in the agenda packages; however, he would suggest that a meeting be scheduled
21 with the School Superintendent and others to express the Council's feelings about the mid-range
22 objectives. This would help to take pressure off the general fund reserve.
23 Cavanaugh felt that the Central Park redevelopment was a key infrastructure and was an
24 excellent next step. Cavanaugh reminded the Council and the audience that when the Central
25 Park project was first started, it was deemed that the residents' taxes would not increase due to
26 the redevelopment. Cavanaugh would recommend that the funding be approved, and that the
27 Park Plan would be approved so that specification scan be drawn up sooner than expected.
28 Horst commented that when the Community Center was built, the charge of the Council was to
29 create a new City Hall without any new increases in taxes. Springsted had come up with a plan
30 and the previous Council had the option to go to a referendum or to take the funds from the
31 Autumn Woods Tax Increment Fund(TIF). The TIF fund was utilized and he has only heard
32 criticisms about the building since that time. He expressed concern that if the Park
33 redevelopment ended up costing additional funds -- more than the $1.6 million, then additional
•34 funding sources would not be available.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 11
1 Motion by Sparks to approve Roger Larson's memo of August 8, 2000 which will enable the City
2 to proceed with the process of the redevelopment of Central Park.
3 Voting on the Motion: Sparks, Thuesen, Cavanaugh, and Hodson voted aye.
4 Horst voted nay.
5 The motion carried.
6 Motion by Hodson to approve the phasing,plans and specifications with BRW for the Central
7 Park redevelopment.
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 D. Report from Todd Hubmer, WSB:
10 1. Resolution Accepting Feasibility Report and Ordering Plans and Specifications
11 for 2001 Street Project.
12 Cavanaugh introduced Mr. Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates. Mr. Hubmer reviewed for
13 the Council that on June 27, 2000, the City Council authorized the preparation of an engi-
•�4 neering Feasibility Report for the 20001 Street and Utility Improvement Project pursuant
to Resolution 00-056.
16
17 In this respect, Mr. Hubmer presented the Feasibility Report to the Council for review
18 and information.
19
20 The Report covered improvements from (1) Wilson Street from 29th Avenue to 30th
21 Avenue; (2) West Armour Terrace from Roosevelt Street to Silver Lake Road; and (3)
22 30th Avenue from Wilson Street to Silver Lake Road.
23
24 The project is proposed to be undertaken in 2001, and in addition to the improvements
25 contained with the feasibility report, the Harding Street storm water improvement project,
26 which is located north of 30th Avenue just west of Silver Lake Road, will have a bearing
27 on the project. .Mr. Hubmer noted that there may be some concerns related to the timing
28 of the Harding Street storm water holding pond construction and the street reconstruction
29 project for 2001. In this respect, Mr. Hubmer presented a couple of alternatives to ad-
30 dress those potential concerns.
31
32 In summary, street, sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer improvements are all
33 proposed as part of this project.
34
35 Mr. Hubmer stated that he had met with the residents one week ago and there were ap-
proximately 60 residents in attendance. Mr. Hubmer noted that it was a positive meeting.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 12
1 He wished,to briefly discuss the project for the Council, and in that respect, he presented
2 a report for the 2001 Street and Utility Improvements Feasibility Report.
3
4 Mr. Hubmer then reviewed for the Council the details of the project and answered various
5 questions from the Councilmembers. Additionally, he presented some maps and
6 explained some of the project in detail pursuant to the map.
7
8 Motion by Thuesen to approve Resolution 00-078, a Resolution Receiving Report and
9 Ordering Plans and Specifications, wherein the City Council of the City Council of the
10 City of St. Anthony (1) will consider the improvement of such streets in accordance with
11 the report at an estimated total cost of the improvement of$1,576,100.00; and (2) WSB
12 & Associates, Inc. is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. They shall
13 prepare plans and specifications for making such improvements.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 Mr. Hubmer reported that there was some issue regarding flooding from September 2.
18 The insurance company had never received a list of the homeowners that did have
• 9 backups as a result of the September 2, 2000 storm. The insurance company now has a
list of those homeowners and has been in contact with them.
21
22 Some losses were incurred due to the flooding on the east side of the City. At some
23 point, he stated, the City might want to consider a Feasibility Report for that area.
24 Motion by Sparks to reopen the 2000 Floodproofing Grant Program to assist in the con-
25 struction of flood improvements this fall.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Cavanaugh thanked Mr. Hubmer for his information and presentation.
30
31 XI. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBERS.
32 City Manager Michael Mornson reported that:
33
34 * The Kiwanis peanut sale will be on Friday, September 29, 2000. The date was
35 changed due to inclement weather.
36 ** The city is finalizing the budget based on adoption of the levy at the last meeting.
37 The December 11 meeting is the truth-in-taxation hearing.
•_ 1 ** The Walgreen's proposal is moving forward on the 37th Avenue property. A
A concept review will be done with the Planning Commission next month.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 13
1
2 ** The Police Department will be monitoring a crosswalk by the library because it has
3 been determined a potentially.dangerous area.
4
5 ** Morrison and Public Works Director Jay Hartman are working on bids for a new
6 monument sign outside the Community Center. A proposal will be presented at one of
7 the October meetings.
8
9 ** Morrison mentioned that Staff had put in many hours regarding the proposed Hillcrest
10 Development project for Apache Plaza, but that he has been encouraged by the Council's
11 vote to proceed to the next step regarding the old Apache Plaza site.
12
13 Sparks reported a successful opening of the skateboard park. She wanted to thank the
14 Council, on behalf of the residents, for the park and expressed the residents' enthusiasm.
15
16 Sparks encouraged everyone to attend the Community Concert, which is Thursday, Sep-
17 tember 28, 2000.
.18
.�9 Furthermore, Sparks,reported that she had attended a meeting with high school students
to learn about target market (which is a youth initiative to use the funds that were gar-
21 nered against the tobacco companies) to reduce tobacco consumption by kids 30% over
22 the next five years.
23
24 Thuesen reported that he wished to thank City Manager Mornson for looking into the
25 crosswalk issue. He noted that the last St. Anthony Bulletin had an article about that cross
26 walk, and he viewed that as a serious issue.
27
28 Thuesen noted that as the City proceeds with more projects, he wished to note that he
29 feels that the City has so many energies in other areas, that he hopes that the City can de-
30 vote some time and energy into making the Apache Plaza area more attractive and use-
31 able.
32
33 Horst noted that on Saturday, he would be closing his Hardware Store in the St. Anthony
34 Shopping Center. He noted how difficult it was for him to make this decision, but he
35 wanted to thank the people of the City for supporting him and he hopes that the Council
36 will take a look at what is happening at the Shopping Center.
37
38 Cavanaugh noted his sadness at the closing of the hardware store and that it would be
39 missed. Thuesen noted that he always has appreciated the quality of the inventory of the
40 store, and the personal service received. He felt it is a tremendous loss to the Village.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 26, 2000
Page 14
1 Hodson has had some residents in the community approach him about the City instituting
2 a "teen night" at the Stonehouse as a way to give the kids a safe and.affordable way to get
3 the kids involved in the community. City Manager Mike Morrison planned on looking
4 into the issue.
5
6 Hodson also noted that he would suggest that the City look into hiring a restaurant con-
7 sultant to make improvements to that area of the Shopping Center.
8
9 Cavanaugh agreed it would be interesting to get an economic analysis. Morrison agreed
10 to look into the issue of getting proposals.
11
12 Thuesen would like to see the long-term plans for the Shopping Center.
13 Cavanaugh reported that he attended a Northwest Family Services Board Meeting, and
14 that he had asked Shelly Freeman to give a recommendation about the City's continuing
15 membership in that organization.
16
17 Cavanaugh.also reported that he had attended a final meeting of the League of Cities Fis-
•1 8 cal Policies and that he thinks that the Council has to plug into the legislative session and
find out about the Governor's plan.
20
21 Lastly, Cavanaugh reported that he had attended a Mayor's Association Annual Confer-
22 ence recently, and.found it to be an interesting way to get together with other mayors.
23 XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
24 None.
25 XIII. ADJOURNMENT.
26 Motion by Hodson to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Respectfully submitted,
29 Sue Selseth
30 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
31
32 Mayor
• j ATTEST:
i4 City Clerk
1
MEMORANDUM
. DATE: 10/11/00 MEETING DATE: 10/16/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: �kf'�kssistant City Manager-Isom
RE: Concept Review. Proposed Walgreen's Development—Northwest Corner of 37'
Avenue and Silver Lake Road.
See the attached October 9,2000 communication from Mike Kalscheur of TOLD Development Company.
Staff Recommendation: Since this is a Concept.Review, staff has no recommendation at this time.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
FILE No. 731 10/10 '00 09:50 I D JOLD DEVELOPMENT 612 278 7574
IaTOLD
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Oct6ber.9, 2000
Mr. Spencer Isom
Saint Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Re: Proposed Walgreens Development
Northwest Corner of 37t1i Avenue & Silver Lake Road
[dear Mr. Isom:
This letter is intended to describe our proposed development for a new Walgreens
pharmacy at the location of the existing vacated Amoco gas station and adjacent vacant
land on the northwest corner of 37`s Avenue and Silver Lake Road.
As you and I have discussed, this project requires a fairly involved approval.process, and
• as such I would like to make sure that I provide you with all of the information you need
in a timely manner. Any direction you could provide me with would be greatly
appreciated. I would like to begin the process as soon as possible, and.would request that
we be placed on the October Planning Commission agenda for concept review.
Project Description
Our project would involve the demolition of the existing Amoco gas station and car wash
buildings, along with the combination of the approximately 265 easterly feet of the
adjacent property awned by Iden Solie of Village Properties. We have binding purchase
agreements signed with both BP-Amoco and Mr. Solie.
A preliminary site plan is enclosed that shows a 14,490 square foot Walgreen~ with a
drive-thru pharmacy on the site. We would close the existing southerly access point on
Silver Lake Road and provide much more separation between the two access points on
37`s Avenue than what currently exists. Our plan provides for the required setbacks to
the paved parking areas, and exceeds the minimum number of required parking stalls
with a total of 74. Although not shown on this preliminary plan, we would of course be
salvaging as many existing trees as possible, especially along the north side of the
Property, and would be installing quality landscaping throughout the green spaces.
The architectural design of the building is intended for ureas such as this where
residential properties are in close proximity. As a neighborhood retailer, Walgreens has
developed a building exterior that utilizes pitched roofs with residential style shingles and
•
MINNEAPOLIS•MILWAUKEE
6385 Old Shady Oak Road,Sulle 120•Eden Prairie,MN 55344 •(952)278-9000 r'ax(952)278.7574
FILE No. 731 10/10 '00 09:51 I D JOLD DEVELOPMENT 612 278 7574
subdued signage to tit within their surrounding. In addition, our building would be brick
g
on all four sides and would utilize only quality materials.
The drive-thru operation of the building is located on the north side of the property facing
the rail line, and is thus directed away from all residences and pedestrian views. Only
prescriptions maybe dropped off and picked up at the drive-thru,and no loudspeaker
system is used in the process.
The loading area of the building is positioned on the west side facing the adjacent
industrial property and is fully screened from view by a brick wall that matches the
building exterior. Loading operations are conducted through a double door rather than a
loading dock and typically involve only one semi-trailer delivery per week.
Approvals
To facilitate development of a commercial use, we will be requesting that the vacant
parcel owned by 'Village Properties be re-zoned from it's current industrial classification
_ to that of the commercial zoning existing on the Amoco property. We would work with
Mr. Solie to see that the final platting process he haws already commenced is carried out in
the manner required for our parcel. In a previous meeting with Mr. Morrison it sounded
as though an administrative subdivision rather than preliminary and final platting may be
possible. Please let me know the most efficient process to follow.
1 have directed.our architect to consult the St. Anthony zoning ordinances with respect to
• parking requirements and setbacks, and to the hest of my'knowledge we are in
compliance with all governing regulations. Our building and site signage will be
designed to meet the St. Anthony signage criteria, and can be submitted whenever
appropriate. L understand that we will need to request a conditional use permit for the
drive-thru pharmacy operation.
Tax Increment Assistance
As T understand it from my meeting with yourself and Mr. Mornson, there may be TIF
funds that were set aside for this property some time ago. Given the costs associated with
. our redevelopment, specifically the environmental clean-up that we expect, the poor soils
conditions that will require an expensive foundation system, and the significant grading
and demolition that is required, we would certainly like to pursue the possibility of tax
increment assistance.
1 believe our project would not only remove a defunct store, but also would add to the
Saint Anthony tax base, and create a quality project. In addition, a national retailer with a
stable financial position could help stimulate investment and job creation elsewhere in the
area. TOLD would be leasing the building to Walgreens for a minimum of twenty years
so you can be confident that everyone involved will be making a long-term commitment
to the community.
FILE No. 731 10/10 '00 09:51 I D JOLD DEVELOPMENT 612 278 7574
Spencer, I look forward to working with you, the Planning Commission and the City
Council to make this project a reality. We have been trying for nearly three years to find
a home for our client in Saint Anthony. With.your help, I'm confident we can develop a
project that everyone involved.with will be proud of.- Please contact me at 952-278-0118
if you would like any additional information.
Sincerely,
Mike Kalscheur
Assistant Director-Real Estate
•
i AK(
i , N`C•
wYJ,Is �7,•CirT W/„[V I T
I i
iI I IS�1 oErr rU-i'iT A'X [—
RaME E!:UDFtra' I Z
I •
I� ATO
5w5-,L=SrZar vtznvr0rtao rrr
r
O
r
O
y l I O
4 -------- *o O
- I I pro:ee' I O
Lr—. .
WALGREENS
DRUG/PHARMACY'
9 {
L 14,490 SO FT -- I r-
�+. f I o—r'•'�� —_ I _— I Prs ick\o o�
_ C-0 3
By:
SIC
0
q 1 i �o
jll �i I > :.err. oas
{ (�`�
rd-1,
I II Prue e3c� N
41
_ I I I I I I I CID
c5 w T�• a J I ��
- A
37th AVE. NORTH -—-—_—-—-
_ ----- -- --r ------
PROPOSED RETAIL 57. aKTHONY, M.N.
1 MILE POPULATION: ��h _ 6
{3,0W 5rip�;<=WL :N5 FROM'35'
. 5.T'41K-=-T 55 - Sheet T11%
FAT-AR 20*
15T.k_r?Go 5F.
1l r.�a or Ari 5-ALl 5 MI\.
� Sheet N• Le'
A 11
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 10/11/00 MEETING DATE: 10/16/00
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: sistant City Manager Isom
RE: Concept Review. Accurate Wire Solutions,Inc. request to purchase City-owned
land (R.O.W.) adjacent to their property at 2917 St. Anthony Lane N.E.
See the attached September 22,2000 communication from Roger Stoick,President of Accurate Solutions,Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Since this is a Concept Review, staff has no recommendation at this time.
Cc: City Clerk Kroeplin
•
SEP-21-00 THU 11 : 38 AM FAX N0, 612 788 1926
• , •
2917 Anthony Lane NE, Minneapolis, MN 55418
Phone: 612-788-2397 • Fax: 612-788-1926
9/22/00
Mike Mornson
City Manager
City of Saint Anthony
Dear Mike:
You advised that I sent you a summary of what we are interested in doing regarding our
building at 2917 Anthony Lane North. We understand that the land adjacent to us to the
north is a piece of properly owned by the City of Saint Anthony originally designed to be
a road connecting Anthony Lane North to Ramsey County which is on our Eastern
• builduzg boundary.However;that property where the proposed road would connect to is
now developed, and I understand the road will not happen.
We are interested in determining if we can purchase that property from the City and also
then put ail approximate addition on our building equivalent to the size of the property we
would acquire from the City. In very preliminary terms,we would like to add a wing on
our buildhig about 160 long by 40 to 50 feet wide.
Perhaps you can direct me through the channels I must follow to determine the feasibility
of this and then advise how we would proceed to implement it if it is feasible.
'Thank You
RogV-0�
er A. Stoiipk
President
7
City of St. Anthony
Ordinance 2000-
An ordinance amending the Codified Ordinance of the City of St.Anthony to adopt new regulations that are consistent with the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 governing wireless telecommunications facilities in the City of St.Anthony and repealing several sections of the
city code which are no longer applicable.
WHEREAS,increasing competition in the telecommunications industry,especially in the market for wireless
telecommunications services,is increasing the demand for antenna sites on Towers and other Antenna Support Structures
necessary for providing wireless service;and
WHEREAS,the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves the authority of the City to regulate the placement,construction
and modification of Towers, Support Structures and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and to protect the health,safety
and welfare of the public;and
WHEREAS,consistent with the Telecommunications Act of 1996,a prohibition on the placement of Towers and Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in certain areas of the City,as provided in this Ordinance,will not prohibit any person from
providing wireless telecommunications services in violation of the Act;and
WHEREAS,the City desires to maintain a high character of community development,to protect and preserve property,to
promote the stability of property values,and to protect real estate from impairment of destruction value for the general
community welfare by regulating the location of Towers within the City.
NOW,THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of St. Anthony, State of Minnesota, of the
elected members concurring that;
SECTION I. PURPOSE
A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate the placement,construction and modification of Towers and Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in order to protect the health,safety and welfare of the public,while at the same time
not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the
City.
SECTION II. CITY OBJECTIVES
The following are the City's objectives:
A. To comply with the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to include any of the follow-on Wile making and/or rule
interpretations by the appropriate state and federal agencies and/or courts.
B. To work pro-actively with the various wireless telecommunications service providers to ensure rapid and reliable
deployment of their services/technologies,while minimizing negative impacts on the City.
C. To direct the location of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the City.
D. To make available appropriate City owned property and structures for wireless telecommunications facilities.
E. To minimize adverse visual impacts of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities through careful design,
siting,landscaping,and innovative camouflaging techniques.
• F. To promote and encourage shared uselco-locations of Towers and Antenna Support Structures as a primary option
rather than construction of additional single-use Towers.
G. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties caused by Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities by
ensuring such structures are soundly and carefully designed,constructed,modified,maintained and removed.
H. To the greatest extent feasible,ensure that Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are compatible and
surrounding land uses.
I. To the greatest extent feasible,ensure that proposed Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities are designed.
in harmony with natural settings and in a manner consistent with current development patterns.
J. To protect the community from inappropriately placed Towers and Wireless Telecotnmunications Facilities and the,
general proliferation of such structures
SECTION 111.APPLICABILITY
A. All towers,Antenna Support Structures and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,any portion of which are located
within the City,are subject to this Ordinance.
B. Except as provided in this Ordinance,any use being made of a pre-existing Tower or Antenna Support Structure on
the effective date of this Ordinance(herein"Nonconforming Structures")shall be allowed to continue,even if in
conflict with the terms of this Ordinance. All re-construction or modifications to a Non-conforming Structure being
undertaken,shall be required to conform with this Ordinance.
SECTION IV. DEFINITIONS'
For the purposes of this Ordinance,the following terms,phrases,words,and their derivation shall have the meaning given
herein. when consistent with the context,words used in the present tense also include the future tense;works in the plural
number include the singular number,and words in the singular number include the plural number. All capitalized terms used
in the definition of any other term shall have their meaning as otherwise defined in this Section. The words"shall"and"will"
are mandatory and"may"is permissive. Words not defined shall be given their common and ordinary meaning.
• . "Alternative Tower Structure"means man-made trees,clock towers,bell steeples,light poles,and similar alternative-design
mounting structures that camouflage or conceal the presence of antennas or towers.
"Antenna"means any exterior transmitting or receiving device mounted on a tower building or structure and used in
communications that radiate or capture electromagnetic waves,digital signals,analog signals,radio frequencies(excluding
radar signals),wireless telecommunications signals.
"Antenna Support Structure"means any building or other structure other than a Tower which can be used for location of
Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
"Applicant"means any Person that applies for a conditional use permit,letter certifying zoning compliance or other
approval/permits pursuant to Sections VI and VII of this Ordinance.
"Applications"means the process by which an Applicant submits a request and indicates a desire to be granted approval of an
antenna and/or tower under the provisions of this Ordinance. An Applications includes all written documentation,verbal
statements and representations,in whatever form or forum,made by an Applicant to the City concerning such a request.
"Liff'means the City of St. Anthony,a municipal corporation,in the State of Minnesota,acting by and through its City
Council.
"Code"-means the Code of Ordinances of the City.
"Co-location"means the use of a wireless telecommunications facility by more than one wireless telecommunications provider.
"Conditional use,means a use,although often desirable,which will more intensely affect the surrounding area in which it
• located that the permitted uses of such zoning districts. A conditional use is allowed in zoning district through a permit granted
by the Planning and Zoning Commission after a public hears.
"Council"means the City Council.
Page 3
• "Emergency"means a reasonably unforeseen occurrence with a potential to endanger personal safety or health or cause
substantial damage to property,that calls for immediate action.
"Engineer"means any engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota
"Equipment Shelter and/or Cabinet"means the structure in which the electronic receiving and relay equipment for a Wireless
Telecommunications Facility is housed.
"FAA"means the Federal Aviation Administrations,and any legally appointed,designated or elected agent or successor.
"FCC: means the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed, designated or elected agent or successor.
"Height or Above Ground Level(AGL)"means,when referring to a tower or other structure,the distance measured from the
finished grade at the base of the tower/structure to the highest point on the tower or other structure,including .
the base pad and any antenna
"Microcell"means the lines that connect a provider's towers/cell sites to one or more cellular telephone switching offices,
and/or long distance providers,or the public switched telephone network.
"Monopole"means a support structure constructed of a single, self-supporting hollow metal tube securely anchored to a
foundation.
"Multi-use Tower"means a self supporting lattice, guyed or monopole structure constructed from grade which supports more
than one Wireless Telecommunications Facility.
"Open Space"means land devoted to conservation or recreational purposes and/or land designated by a municipality to remain
undeveloped(may be specified on a land use map).
• "Person"is any person,firm,partnership,association,corporation,company,or other legal entity,private or public,whether
for profit or not-for-profit.
"Pre-existing Towers and Pre-existing Antennas"means any tower or antenna for which a building permit or conditional use
permit
has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance,including permitted towers or antennas that have not yet
been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired.
"Tower"means any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas
for telephone,radio and similar communication purposes including self-supporting lattice towers,guyed towers,or monopole
towers. The term includes radio and television transmission towers,microwave towers,common-carrier towers,wireless
telecommunications towers,alternative tower structures,and the like. The term includes the structure and any support thereto.
"Viewshed"means the area surrounding a Wireless Telecommunications Facility or Antenna Support Structure,within which
the Facility or Structure is visible from off site.
"Wireless Telecommunications Facilities"means any cables,wires,lines,wave guides,antenna,microwave dishes and any
other equipment or facilities associated with a the transmission or reception of communications as authorized by the FCC
which a Person seeks to locate or has installed upon a tower or Antenna Support Structure. However,the term Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities shall not include.
1. Any satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less and six feet in height or less which are located in
an area zoned industrial or commercial;
2. Any satellite earth station antenna one meter in diameter or less and six feet in height or less,regardless of zoning
• category;
3. Antennas used by amateur radio operators less than six feet in height.
10
SECTION V.GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
• A. Wireless Telecommunications Facilities shall be treated as permitted uses subject to administrative approval,or
conditional uses in a variety of zoning districts contingent upon a number of requirements being met. These criteria
are in place in a attempt to minimize adverse health,safety,public welfare or visual impacts through co-location,
siting,design and construction,while upholding the intent of Section I
1. . The City's intent is to provide incentives for Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers that seek to
further the City's following priorities:
a. Co-locate on/with other existing towers/structures/facilities or locate on existing structures(public
or private.
b. Design new towers for multiple users,wherever possible.
C. Locate towers in the least obtrusive manner given present and evolving technology.
2. The following table summarizes the City's zones and priorities with the required process:
a b c d
District Co-location on New Multi-User New Tower Single Alterative Tower
Existing Antenna Tower(public or Use Structure*
Support Structures or Private Property) (Public or Private)
Towers(Public or
Private
All Residential Districts Administrative Conditional Conditional Use Administrative*
• Use
Commercial Districts Administrative Conditional Use Conditional Use Administrative*
Industrial Districts Administrative Administrative Conditional Use Administrative*
Planned Non- Administrative Conditional Use Conditional Use Administrative*
Residential Districts
* The goal ofAlternative Tower Structures is to camouflage the lower/antenna installations. If it is the
determination of the Zoning Administrator that this essential criterion has not been met, then the applicant
may pursue approval by the Board ofAdjustments and Appeals. (See Section 1665.05)
B. The following requirements apply to all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities regardless of the zoning district in
which they are to be located. These general standards are to be supplemented with the specific regulations for
nonresidential and residential districts as set forth in Section V herein.
1. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for an antenna and/or tower shall provide to the City an inventory of its
existing towers,antennas,or sites planned and/or approved for towers or antennas,that are either within the
jurisdiction of St. Anthony or within two miles of the border thereof,including specific information about the
locations,height,and design of each tower. The City may share such information with other applicants applying for
administrative approvals or conditional use permits under this ordinance or other organizations seeking to locate
antennas within the jurisdiction of St.Anthony provided,however,that the City is not,by sharing such information,in
any way representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable.
2. Towers. Towers and antennas shall meet the following requirements:
•. a. Tower Color and Finish. Towers shall either maintain a non-contrasting gray or similar color or have a
galvanized steel finish unless otherwise required by the City or any applicable standards of the FAA or
MNDOT.
11
b. Compatible Design. At a tower site,the design of the buildings and related structures shall use mate: i;_
colors,textures,and screening so as to be aesthetically and architecturally compatible with the surrounding
environment,as approved by the City
C. Antenna Color. If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a tower,the antenna and supporting
electrical and mechanical equipment must be a neutral color that is identical to or closely compatible with.,
the color of the supporting structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive
as possible,as determined by the city.
d. Lot Size and Setback. For purposes of determining whether the installation of a tower or antenna complies
with district development regulations,a minimum setback of 100 feet from all property lines shall apply.
The dimensions of the entire lot shall control,even though the antennas or towers may be located on lease
parcels within such lot.
3. Fencing. Any fencing shall comply with the City's code.
4. Landscaping. Buffer plantings shall be located on the site as deemed appropriate by the city and in accordance with
the city's landscape code.
5. Lighting. Towers and antennas shall not be artificially lighted,unless required by the FAA or other applicable
authority. If lighting is required,the lighting alternative and design chosen must cause the least disturbance to the
surrounding views.
6. State or Federal Requirements. All towers must meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA,the
FCC,and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If
such standards and regulations are changed,then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this ordinance
shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six(6)
months of the effective date of such standards and regulations,unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by
the controlling state of federal agency. Failure to bring towers and antennas into compliance with such revised
® standards and regulations shall constitute.grounds for the removal of the tower.or antenna at the owner's expense.
7. Building Codes: Safety Standards. To ensure the structural integrity of towers,the owner of a tower shall ensure that
it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable state or local building codes and the applicable
standards for towers that are published by the Electronics Industries Association,as amended from time to time. If,
upon inspection,the City concludes that a tower fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a
danger to persons or property,then upon notice being provided to the owner of the tower,the owner shall have thirty
(30)days to bring such tower into compliance with such standards. Failure to bring such tower into compliance
within said thirty(30)days shall constitute grounds for the removal of the tower or antenna at the owner's expense.
8. Non Essential Services. Towers and antennas shall be regulated and permitted pursuant to this ordinance and shall
not be regulated or permitted as essential services,public utilities or private utilities.
License to Operate. Owners and or operators of towers or antennas shall submit copies of all franchises,certifications,
licenses,and permits required by law for the design,construction,location and operation of wireless communications
in St.Anthony. Owners and/or operators shall be required to maintain same and to provide evidence of renewal or
extension thereof when granted.
9. Public Notice. Public notices shall be given in accordance with the City Zoning Code.
11. 5jM No signs shall be allowed on an antenna or tower. A sign shall be posted indicating the emergency contact
phone number. Ant identification signage shall be in accordance with the City sign code.
12. Multiple Antenna/Tower Plan. St.Anthony encourages the owners of towers and antennas to submit a single
application for approval of multiple towers and/or antenna sites.
13. Building Permits. The installation of any tower or antenna shall require the compliance with all local building
• regulations. No installations shall be allowed,without securing all applicable building permit.
.12
14. Historic Register/District. Any application to locate a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on a building or
structure that is listed on a historic register,or is in a historic district,shall be subject to review by the City's Planning
Commission in addition to any other required review processes.
15. Underground Equipment Shelters. Underground equipment shelters will be required where appropriate screening of
shelter cannot be accomplished.
16. Accommodation. The City encourages all towers to be constructed or reconstructed to accommodate multiple users.
17. Maximum Height. No Tower,including antenna shall'exceed 110 feet as measured from grade at the base of the
tower.
SECTION VL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
A. General. The following provisions shall govern the issuance of administrative approvals for towers and antennas.
1. All Towers and Wireless Communications Facilities will require a"letter certifying zoning compliance"and
applicable building permits prior to installation
2. Each applicant for administrative approval shall apply for a letter certifying zoning compliance and provide
the information to address Sections VII.B.1.through VII.B.6 of this ordinance. The applicant shall pay a
non-refundable'fee as established by the city's annual Fee Ordinance to reimburse the City for the costs of
reviewing the applications. Said fee will be the same as for a"Conditional Use"Permit.
3. The application shall be reviewed for administrative approval to determine if the proposed use complies with
Section VI of this ordinance as well as all applicable requirements of the underlying zoning district. It is
understood that any underlying height restrictions shallnot apply.
4. In all cases,the City will approve or deny such application within sixty(60)days of receipt. If the City fails
• to respond within said sixty(60)days, then the application shall be deemed to be approved.
5. In connection with any application for a letter certifying zoning compliance,in order to encourage co-
location,the City may allow the reconstruction of an existing tower not to exceed the maximum heights in
accordance with Section VI.B.3.
6. If a letter certifying zoning compliance in connection with an administrative review is denied,the applicant
shall be entitled to file an appeal within 20 days after the decision. The appeal shall be filed with Board of
Adjustments and Appeals,specifying the grounds,in conformance with Section 1665.05.
B. Facilities Subiect to Administrative Approval. The following uses may be approved by the City after an
administrative review has been conducted. Approval following the administrative review shall constitute issuance of
a letter certifying zoning compliance. Information consistent with Section VII B below should be submitted to
accompany the application for a letter certifying zoning compliance.
1. Locating antenna on existing building or other antenna support structure.,public or private. Any antenna
intended to be attached to a structure other than a tower may be approved as an accessory use to any
commercial, industrial,professional,office,institutional,or similar structure,provided:
(a) The antenna is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible.
(b) The antenna does not extend more than twenty(20)feet above the highest point of the supporting
structure;
(c) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
• (d) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
(e) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
13
2. Co-locating antennas on an existing or reconstructed towers,public or private. The City may approve an -
antenna which is to be located on an existing or reconstructed tower. This furthers the goal of minimizing
t the adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers. Co-location of antennas by more than
one carrier on existing towers shall take precedence over the construction of new towers,provided such co-
location is accomplished in a manner consistent with the following.
a). A tower which is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the co-location of an additional
antenna shall be designed to be consistent with the existing tower and to be as unobtrusive as
possible.
b) Height.
(i) An existing tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height,not to exceed 110 feet,to
accommodate the co-location of additional antenna or in accordance as follows:
(A) For two users,up to one hundred-thirty(90)feet in height;
(B) For three users,up to one hundred-fifty(100)feet in height;
(C) For four or more users,up to two hundred(110)feet in height
(ii) The additional height shall not require an additional setback from the property lines,
provided the tower meets the minimum setback requirements(100 feet);
C) On-site Location
(i) A tower which is being rebuilt to accommodate the co-location of additional antennae may
be relocated on site as long as it meets the minimum setback requirement. .
• (ii) After the tower is built to accommodate co-location,only one tower may remain on site.
d) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
e) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes; and
f) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
3. Locating a new multi-use tower or antenna,including the placement of additional buildings or other
supporting equipment used in connection with said tower or antenna,on a industrial site. The City may
approve a new tower or antenna on an industrial site where other less obtrusive measures are not feasible.
With a goal toward minimizing the adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation of towers,co-
location of several carriers will be required. New towers and antennae shall be consistent with the following:
a) Height
(i) For two users,up to one hundred-thirty(90)feet in height;
(ii) For three users,up to one hundred-fifty(100)feet in height;
(iii) For four or more users,up to two hundred(110)feet in height.
b) Towers must be set back a minimum distance of 100 from any adjoining lot line;
C) Guys and accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirement;
. d) The antenna complies with all applicable FCC and FAA regulations;
e) The antenna complies with all applicable building codes;and
14
f) Any additional equipment is fully screened and located in compliance with the underlying zoning
district requirements.
•:: 4. Locating any alternative tower structure. The Zoning Administrator may approve the location of an.
alterative tower structure on private property,provided the site is an conformity with the goals set forth in
Sections I and II of this ordinance. Approval by the City Manager shall also be required for such structures
to be located on public property. The objective here is to encourage ingenuity and the use of innovative
methods to camouflage such facilities. If it is the determination of the Zoning Administrator that the
proposed facilities have not been reasonably disguised or camouflaged,a letter certifying zoning compliance
shall be denied. The applicant may then proceed with the filing of an application for Conditional Use,per
Section VII of this ordinance.
SECTION VII. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
A. General The following provisions shall govern the issuance of conditional use permits for towers or antennas by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Adjustment and Appeals:
1. If the tower or antenna is not subject to administrative approval under Section VI of this ordinance,then a
conditional use permit shall be required for the construction of a tower or the placement of an antenna.
2. Applications for conditional use under this Section shall be subject to the procedures and requirements of
Section 1665.04 or 1665.05 of the City Code except as modified in this Section
3. In granting a conditional use permit,the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment and Appeals,as
.applicable,may impose conditions to the extent the body concludes that such conditions are necessary to
minimize any adverse effect of the proposed tower on adjoining properties.
4: . Any information of an engineering nature that the applicant submits whether civil,mechanical,or electrical, .
• shall be certified by a licensed professional engineer.
5. An applicant shall submit the information described in this Section and a non-refundable fee as established
by the City's annual fee ordinance to reimburse the City for the costs of reviewing the applications.
B. Towers.
1. Information required. In addition to any information required for conditional use or conditional use permit
applications under the Zoning Ordinance applicants for a conditional use for a tower shall submit the
following information:
a. Complete application form.
b. A scaled and dimensioned site plan(not less than one inch equals 50 feet)clearly indicating the
locations,type and height of the proposed tower,on-site land uses and zoning,adjacent land uses
and zoning(including when adjacent to other municipalities),adjacent roadways,proposed means
of access, setbacks from property lines,elevation drawings of the proposed tower and any other
structures,topography,parking and other information necessary to assess compliance with this
ordinance.
C. Legal description of the parent tract and leased parcel(if applicable).
d. The setback distance between the proposed tower and the nearest residential property.
e. The separation distance from other towers described in the inventory of existing sites submitted
pursuant to Section V.B. 1. shall be shown on a map. The applicant shall also identify the type of
• construction of the existing towers(s)and the ownersloperator of the existing tower(s),if know.
f. A landscape plan showing specific landscape materials,locations and installations sizes.
15
g. Method of fencing,if any, including height,material, style,and color and,if applicable,the method
of camouflage and illuminations.
. . h. A description of compliance with Sections V.A.,V.B. 1-17,VIII(b)(4),and all applicable federal,
state or local laws.
L A notarized statement by the applicant as to whether construction of the tower will accommodate
collocation of additional antennas for future users.
j. Identification of the entities providing the backhaul network for the tower(s)described in the
application and other wireless telecommunications sites owned or operated by the applicant in the
municipality.
k. A description of the suitability of the use of existing towers,other structures or alternative
technology not requiring the use of towers or structures to provide the services to be provided
through the use of the proposed new tower.
2. Factors Considered in Granting Conditional Use Permits for Towers. In additional to any standards for
consideration of conditional use permit applications pursuant to the St. Anthony Zoning Ordinance,the
Planning and Zoning Commission or Board of Zoning Appeals shall consider the following factors in
determining whether to application should be approved. The Commission(Board)may waive or reduce the
burden on the applicant of one or more of these criteria if it determines that the goals of this ordinance are
better served thereby:
a. Height of the proposed tower;
b. Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries;
c. Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties;
d. Surrounding topography;
C. Surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
f. Design of the tower,with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of
reducing eliminating visual obtrusiveness;
g. Proposed ingress and egress;and
h. Availability of suitable existing towers,other structures,or alternative technologies not requiring the
use of towers or structures,as discussed in Section VII.B.3 of this ordinance.
3. Availability of Suitable Existing Towers,Other Structures,or Alternative Technology. New towers shall be
approved only when other preferable alternatives are not available. No new tower shall be permitted unless
the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the.Commission or Board that no existing tower,
structure or alternative technology is available to fill the communication requirements. An applicant shall
submit information requested by the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment and Appeals related to
the availability of suitable existing towers other structures or alternative technology. Evidence submitted to
demonstrate that no existing tower,structure or alternative technology can accommodate the applicant's
proposed antenna may consist of any of the following:
a. No existing towers or structures are located within the specific geographic limits,which met applicants
engineering requirements.
b. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient height to meet applicant's engineering requirements,
and have insufficient structural strength to support applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment.
c. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause frequency interference with the antenna on the existing
towers or structures,or the antenna on the existing towers or structures would cause interference with the
applicant's proposed antenna
16
d. The fee,costs,or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or
structure or to adapt an existing tower or structure for sharing are unreasonable. Costs exceeding new
.;.; tower development are presumed to be unreasonable.
e. The applicant demonstrates that there are other limiting factors that render existing towers and structures_
unsuitable.
f. The applicant demonstrates that an alternative technology that does not require the use of towers or
structures,such as a cable microcell network using multiple low-powered transmitters/receivers attached
to a wireline system,is unsuitable. Costs of alternative technology that exceed new tower or antenna
development shall not be presumed to render the technology unsuitable.
g. The applicant provides documentation that other tower owners were contacted in writing in pursuit of
the provisions(of Section VII.B.3 a through g)above.
4. Setbacks. The following setback requirements shall apply to all towers for which a conditional use permit is
required;provided,however,that the Planning Commission may reduce the standard setback requirements if
the goals of the ordinance would be better served thereby:
a. Towers must be set back a minimum distance of 100 feet from any adjoining lot line.
b. Guysand accessory buildings must satisfy the minimum zoning district setback requirements.
5. Fencing. Any fencing shall comply with the City's code. However,that the Planning Commission or Board
of Adjustment and Appeals may waive such requirements,as it deems appropriate.
6. Landscaping. The following requirements shall govern the landscaping surrounding towers from which a
conditional use permit is required;provided,however,that the Planning Commission may waive such
• requirements if the goals of this ordinance would be better served thereby.
a. Tower facilities shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view
of the tower compound as determined by the Planning Commission.
b. In locations where the visual impact of the tower would be minimal,the landscaping requirement
may be reduced or waived.
C. Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum
extent possible. In some cases,such as towers sited on large,wooded lots,natural growth around
the property perimeter is sufficient buffer.
SECTION VIII.BUILDINGS OR OTHER EQUIPMENT STORAGE
A. Antennas Mounted on Structures or Rooftops.:The equipment cabinet or structure used in association with antennas
shall comply with all applicable building codes. Additionally,such equipment shall be sited and designed to minimize
its visual impact and be screened to its full height.
B. Antennas Mounted on Utility Poles or Light Poles. The equipment cabinet or structure used in association with
antenna shell be located in accordance with the following.
1. In residential districts,the equipment cabinet or structure must be located behind the required building line
and at least 30 feet from all lot lines. The cabinet/structure shall be designed to minimize its visual impact
and shall be screened to it full height with evergreen material. Plants at installation shall be a minimum of
three feet in height.
2. In commercial or industrial districts the equipment cabinet or structures shall be located at least 15 feet from
all lot lines. The structure or cabinet shall be screened by an evergreen material with an ultimate height of
eight(8)feet and a planted height of at least three feet.
C. Antenna Located on Towers. The related unmanned equipment structure shall not exceed the maximum height
allowed in the district,and shall be located and screened in accordance with the zoning district requirements in which
• located.
D. Equipment Siting Requirements. The requirements of Section VIII A through C above may be modified by the
Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment and Appeals as applicable to encourage collocation.
SECTION IX.ABANDONMENT OF TOWER
All providers utilizing towers shall notify the City in writing of any Tower facility locate in the City whose use will be
discontinued and of the date this use will cease." If the use of the facility is discontinued for 180 days,a designated
local official may declare the facility to be abandoned. (This excludes any dormancy period between construction and
the initial use of the facility.) The facility"owner/operator will receive written notice from the City and be instructed
to either reactivate the facility's use within 180 days,or dismantle and remove the facility. If reactivation or
dismantling does not occur within that period,the City will remove that facility or cause it to be removed and assess
the costs to the owner/operator. In the case of a multi-use tower,this provision does not become effective until all
users cease use of the tower. However,the City may cause the abandoned portions of systems on the multi-use tower
to be removed in accordance with this provision.
A. The City must provide the Tower owner three(3)months notice and an opportunity to be heard before the Planning
Commission before initiating action to remove the facility. After such notice has been provided,the City shall-have
the authority to initiate proceedings either to acquire the Tower and any appurtenances attached thereto at the then fair
market value,or in the alternative,to order the demolition of the Tower and all appurtenances.
B. The City shall provide the Tower owner with the right to a public hearing before the Planning Commission,which
public hearing shall follow the three(3)month notice required in Paragraph.B. All interested parties shall be allowed
an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing.
• C. After a public hearing is held pursuant to Section C,the Planning Commission may_order the.acquisition or
demolition of the Tower. The City may require Licensee to pay for all expenses necessary to acquire or demolish the
Tower.
SECTION X. NONCONFORMING USES
A. Conforming Use. Towers that are constructed,and antennas that are installed, in accordance with the provisions of
this ordinance shall be deemed to constitute the conforming uses or structures. This shall be the case even when such
new facilities are being added to a non-conforming installation.
B. Pre-existing Towers. Pre-existing towers shall be allowed to continue their usage as they presently exist. Routine
maintenance(including replacement with a new tower of like construction and height serving the same purpose)shall
be permitted on such pre-existing towers. A replacement tower must be constructed within 180 days of removal of the
initial facility. New construction other than routine.maintenance on a pre-existing tower shallcomply with the
requirements of this.ordinance.
C. Rebuilding Damaged or Destroyed Nonconforming Towers or Antennas. Notwithstanding Section X,bona fide
nonconforming towers or antennas that are damaged or destroyed may be rebuilt without having to first obtain
administrative approval or a conditional use permit. The type,height,and location of the tower onsite shall be of the
same type and intensity as the original facility approved. Building permits to rebuild the facility shall comply with the
then applicable building codes and shall be obtained within 180 days from the date the facility is damaged or
destroyed. If not permit is obtained or if said permit expires,the tower or antenna shall be deemed abandoned as
specified in Section DC
SECTION XI. NON-WAIVER
A. Non-Waiver. Nothing in this Ordinance shall preclude the City from exercising any right or remedy it may have in
law or equity to enforce the terms and conditions of this Ordinance.
1
SECTION XII. SEVERABILITY
•= A. If any provision of this Ordinance or the Application of any provision of this Ordinance to any person is,to any' .
extent,held invalid or unenforceable by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this Ordinance and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding. In case of such
an event,this Ordinance and all if its remaining provisions shall,in all other respects,continue to be effective. In the
event the law invalidating such and Ordinance provision is subsequently repealed,rescinded,amended or is otherwise
changed so that the provision which had previously been held invalid or unenforceable,no longer conflicts with the .
laws,rules or regulations then in effect,the previously invalid or unenforceable provision shall return to full force and
effect.
SECTION XIII. CONDITIONAL USE SECTIONS
A. If any provision of this Ordinance or the Application of any provision of this Ordinance to any person is,to any
extent,held invalid or unenforceable by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this Ordinance and the
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such holding. In case of such
an event,this Ordinance and all if its remaining provisions shall,in all other respects,continue to be effective. In the
event the law invalidating such and Ordinance provision is subsequently repealed,rescinded,amended or is otherwise
changed so that the provision which had previously been held invalid or unenforceable,no longer conflicts with the
laws,rules or regulations then in effect, the previously invalid or unenforceable provision shall return to full force and
effect.
SECTION XII. CONDITIONAL USE SECTIONS
A. The existing Code Sections 1615, 1616, 1620, 1625, 1630, 1635,and 1640 shall be amended to include"wireless
communications facilities"as conditional uses in all applicable Districts.
•
SECTION XIV. REPEALER
A. Section 1160 shall be repealed by this ordinance. Any additional ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION XV. EFFECTIVE DATE
A. This Ordinance shall go in to effect on the earliest date permitted by law.
Passed this day of 2.000
Mayor—Presiding Officer
Initiated by: Planning Commission
City Manager
ATTEST: I hereby certify that copies of this Ordinance were posted in the City of St. Anthony in accordance with the
Minnesota State Statute
• City Clerk, St.Anthony,Minnesota.
I, City Clerk,hereby-certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Ordinance duly
adopted by the Council of the City of St. Anthony,Minnesota,on the day of
Michael Mornson 19
From: Thomas, William [Vlfilliam.Thomas@state.mn.us]
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 7:40 AM
-o: 'Dennis Cavanaugh'; 'Doug Bergstrom'; 'Mike Morrison'
jubject: Community Revitalization Program money.
I'll be getting some information to present.to the Plan Commission on State program grant money that the village can apply
for. One program could help home-owners with rehab on their houses. But there are other programs as well. If I could be
put on the Oct. plan commission agenda I can give the commission an overview of the programs and we could make a
recommendation to the City Council if we want to apply for some money.
Thanks
Bill Thomas
651-284-3177
william.thomas@state.mn.us
i