HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 05212002 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
102886
Box: 27
Folder: PL PACKETS 2000-2004
Document: PL PACKET 05212002
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
MAY 21, 2002
7 p.m., Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular
agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the
Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6. MEETING MINUTES
6.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of April 16, 2002
7. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL
7.1 Designate a Planning Commission Member to the May 28, 2002, City Council Meeting
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8.1 Tom Brama, 3501 Downers Drive: variance request for exceeding the .30 floor area ratio
requirement in the R-1 single-family zoning district
9. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
9.1 Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Update
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
ATTENTION PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS:
IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE CONTACT MIKE MORNSON AT
612-706-1325.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 APRIL 16, 2002
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER
10 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Melsha invited the Commissioners and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille, Commissioners Hanson, Hoska,
17 Steeves, Thomas, and Tillman.
18 Absent: None.
19 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Henry.
20
21
22 IV. PUBLIC INPUT.
23 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda.
24
25
26 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
27 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda as
28 presented.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously
31
32 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
33 6.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of March 19 2002
34 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Vice Chair Stille, to approve the Planning
35 Commission meeting minutes of March 19, 2002 as submitted.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
40 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the April 23 2002, City Council
41 Meeting.
$2 Chair Melsha indicated that Commissioner Tillman was available to attend the next City
$3 Council meeting on April 23, 2002.
14
15 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
t6 8.1 Troy Martenson,3645 Chelmsford Road: subdivision request for single famil,�lot
17 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m.
18
19 Susan Henry stated that Troy Martenson, property owner of the single-family residential
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 2
1 lot at 3645 Chelmsford Road, is requesting a lot split. She explained that Mr. Martenson
2 contacted city staff several months ago about the feasibility of splitting the single-family
3 residential property at 3645 Chelmsford. Because of the lack of details and sufficient
4 information, staff recommended he get a survey completed. Staff also noted to Mr.
5 Martenson that he needed to be the property owner when bringing the subdivision request
6 forward. Since that time, the survey has been completed and Mr. Martenson has closed
7 on the property. Staff has requested proof of ownership paperwork but has not yet
8 received the documentation, like.a purchase agreement or deed.
9
10 Henry reviewed the survey submitted by Mr. Martenson that depicts two parcels: A and
11 B. Parcel A is drawn to be a substandard lot of 6,420 square feet. Once the lot is split as
12 proposed, Parcel A would become the interior lot. According to city code, interior lots
13 are to be a minimum of 9,000 square feet or less than 75 feet in width at the building
14 setback line.
15
16 Henry noted that Parcel B is drawn to be 17,120 square feet, which needs to be a
17 minimum of 11,000 square feet, or less than 90 square feet in width at the building
18 setback line, to meet city code requirements; this drawn parcel far exceeds that standard.
19 Parcel B's setbacks are not written to City code in relation to the proposed building
20 shown on the survey. The minimum rear yard must have a depth equal to the greater of
21 20% of the depth of the entire lot or 25 feet; the survey shows 13 feet. The minimum
22 front yard must have a depth equal to the greater of 30 feet or a distance equal to the
23 average of the front yard depths of the two adjacent lots; the survey shows 26 feet.
24 Henry noted that Parcel A does not meet some of City code minimum standards;
25 however, this is the parcel with the existing home and detached garage.
26
27 Henry indicated the total square footage of the subject property is 23,540 (107 X 220)
28 square feet. Although this is enough square footage to technically split the property into
29 two, it is not all-usable square footage-due to the easements on the property. Mr.
30 Martenson did not know of the easements until after he acquired the property and the
31 survey was completed. Prior to the April 16 Planning Commission meeting, he plans to
32 check with Northern States Power on the details about the 75 foot overhead lines
33 easement. She advised that Mr. Martenson and Pioneer Engineering, the surveyor, both
34 received copies of the City's ordinance as it pertains to the single-family zoning district
35 and subdivision of land.
36
37 Henry explained that prior to receiving the survey and when in discussions with City staff
38 about the lot split, Mr. Martenson's sketches on a City plat map showed Parcel A at
39 9,095 square feet and Parcel B at 14,445 square feet. City staff offered to meet and
�0 discuss the subdivision request in relation to the city code with the applicant. He said he
11 wanted to wait until after the April 16 public hearing.
12
13 Henry stated staff recommends denial of the lot subdivision because it does not meet
14 minimum lot standards nor does it meet the setbacks required by city ordinance. By
15 approving this lot split, the City would be approving a substandard lot (Parcel A). She
16 indicated Mr. Martenson is aware of staff's recommendation and is looking for direction
17 on how he might proceed in working with the City to redevelop the property.
ri
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 3
1
2 Troy Martenson, 3645 Chelmsford Road, indicated he was unaware of a 75 foot NSP
3 easement through the back of his property. He stated he may now propose to tear down
4 the single-family home to rebuild townhomes, as he is not going to be able to subdivide
5 the lot and meet the square footage requirements.
6
7 Commissioner Thomas questioned if Mr. Martenson was going to build an additional
8 single family home or duplex on Parcel B. Mr. Martenson stated this was his original
9 plan as he is currently renting a home on Parcel A.
10
1 1 Chair Melsha asked if the proposed building on Parcel B could be smaller. Mr.
12 Martenson indicated this could be done, but noted the lot split was the first part of this
13 process. He noted a single family home or duplex could be proposed for this site.
14
15 Commissioner Tillman asked if Parcel A was in conformance as suggested by the
16 applicant. Henry stated Parcel A doesn't meet City code at this time with the rear yard
17 setback. Commissioner Tillman added that Parcel A was too small and the proposed
18 building on Parcel B did not meet the City setbacks.
19
20 Commissioner Steeves noted the layout of the building on Parcel B could be modified to
21 meet City specifications. He added that if the structure were more rectangular in shape it
22 would fit on the lot with a driveway over the NSP easement.
23
24 Chair Melsha suggested Mr. Martenson work with City staff on a plan for this structure
25 before the lot split is approved to see if there is a compromise requiring fewer variances.
26
27 Mr. Martenson asked if he could create an irregular Parcel A to meet the 9,000 square
28 foot limit. Henry stated she would not recommend an irregular lot be created.
29
30 Commissioner Hanson asked if the existing single family home could be remodeled. Mr.
31 Martenson stated the existing structure was extremely old and would not be fit for an
32 addition. He indicated he would be more in favor of removing the existing home to build
33 one that suits his needs.
34
35 Vice Chair Stille recommend removing the existing structure on Parcel A to build a
36 single-family home or duplex that meets his needs on the entire lot. Mr. Martenson
37 indicated he would rethink his plan and visit with staff in the near future.
38
39 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
10
11 Commission Hanson agreed with Vice Chair Stille's comments to have the applicant
12 place a duplex or triplex on this lot with the removal of the existing structure.
13
4 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Commissioner Hoska, to recommend denial
3 of the lot subdivision because it does not meet minimum lot standards nor does it meet
.6 the setbacks required by City ordinance and based on the rationale that by approving this
•7 lot split, the City would be approving a substandard lot (Parcel A), remembering that the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 4
Commission would seek further input from this applicant in the future.
2
3
4 Motion carried unanimously
5 8.2 Apache Animal Medicine. P A.250137"Avenue NE: sign variance request for one
6 additional ground sign
7 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m.
8
9 Susan Henry stated that Apache Animal Medicine, P.A., owner of the commercially
10 zoned property at 2501 37`' Avenue Northeast, is requesting a sign variance for an
1 1 additional ground sign. She noted that Apache Animal Medicine currently has one
12 ground sign that was installed earlier this year. They are asking for another ground sign
13 for identification purposes because of two distinct businesses located in one building.
14 This request requires a variance because City code states that one principal structure of a
15 parcel of land is allowed one ground sign, regardless of the number of teriants in the
16 building.
17
18 Henry explained that Apache Animal Medicine states an additional ground sign
19 gr gn would
relieve an undue hardship and correct extraordinary circumstances. In particular, the
20 applicant points to preexisting setbacks and the railroad, forcing two entrances. Also the
21 applicant mentions the need to maintain separation between healthy pets (Apache
22 Grooming and Boarding) and potentially ill pets (Apache Animal Hospital) with two
23 entrances. Finally, the applicant states they want to be able to clearly tell clients where
24 the entrances are with safety concerns regarding traffic on 37`h Avenue.
25
26 Henry advised that according to City code, ground signs must be affixed to the ground by
27 means of a base with no visibility between the bottom of the sign and the base on which
28 it is attached, and landscaped to enhance the appearance of the signage. The sign was
29 originally open, as drawn on the plans, and city staff asked the applicant to fill in the gap,
30 as code requires. Since that time the applicant has taken care of this.
31
32 Henry recommended approval of the variance request/additional ground sign on the
33 contingency that the current sign on the property be brought up to city code by filling in
34 the gap between the bottom of the sign and the base to which it is attached with agreed
35 upon materials. The second ground sign approved with this variance should be built
36 identically to the first sign. In addition, the applicant must meet all other code
37 requirements as it relates to ground signs.
38
W Ray Ogrin, representative for Apache Animal Medicine, thanked Ms. Henry for her
10 presentation. He noted they are requesting these signs to present a clear separation
11 between the healthy and sick animals to this site. Mr. Ogrin stated this would help
12 resolve traffic issues along 37`h Avenue as well.
3
•4 Commissioner Steeves asked how much sign area was allowed for a building this size.
•5 Henry stated up to 64 square feet was allowed on this site and noted they were requesting
.6 a 48 square foot sign as a part of the per ground additional sign/variance.
,7
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 5
1 Chair Melsha questioned the distance between the two signs. Mr. Ogrin indicated there
2 would be approximately 370 feet between the signs as proposed.
3
4 Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this was a reasonable request to have signage at
5 each parking lot entrance.
6
7 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
8
9 Chair Melsha agreed that this was a reasonable request. Vice Chair Stille stated the two
10 entrances to the building and two separate parking lots creates a uniqueness on this lot.
11
12 Commissioner Thomas stated this was also for the safety of the animals and traffic along
13 37`4 Avenue.
14
15 Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Tillman, to recommend
16 approval of the variance request/additional ground sign on the contingency that the
17 second ground sign approved with this variance should be built identically to the first
18 sign. In addition, the applicant must meet all other code requirements as it relates to
19 ground signs, with the second sign to be the same dimensions and color as the first.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously
22
23 IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
24 9.1 Preliminary Site Plan for Culvers Restaurant 4000 Block of Silver Lake Road
25 Susan Henry indicated that the City has been working on an agreement with the owners
26 of Culvers Restaurant in Vadnais Heights to develop the former Hardees site, now City-
27 owned, at 4004 Silver Lake Road into a Culvers Restaurant for St. Anthony. Culvers
28 representatives have been negotiating with Exhaust Pros for their site at 4002 Silver Lake
29 Road. Their plan is to eventually combine the two parcels into one once they close on the
30 Exhaust Pros property in mid May. She noted Steve Sparks would be presenting a plan
31 to the Commissioners.
32
33 The restaurant seating is planned for 160 people. The proposed hours of operation are
34 from 10:30 a.m. until 10:30 p.m. Culvers representatives are aware of the Northwest
35 Quadrant Redevelopment Plan and have been in communication with Len Pratt. Both
36 parties agree it is imperative to tie the new Culvers Restaurant to the Apache
37 area redevelopment effort.
38
39 Henry explained that at this point, Culvers representatives want to share their preliminary
40 plans for the 4000 Block of Silver Lake Road with the Planning Commission. Culvers
41 representatives are planning to be back to the May or June Planning Commission meeting
t2 with final development plans and the public hearing.
t3
t4 Steve Sparks, representing Culvers Restaurant, introduced himself and handed out menus
t5 to each of the Commissioners. He explained all Culvers Restaurants are owner/operator
t6 concepts except for five locations, which are used primarily for training. He noted this
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 6
1 assists in keeping the stores flourishing. Mr. Sparks noted Culvers is a family-style
2 restaurant with a great menu.
3
4 Chair Melsha asked how Culvers differed from other fast food stores. Mr. Sparks stated
5 it is a quick-style family restaurant. He noted all orders were made to order with drive
6 through orders being met in four minutes or less.
7
8 Mr. Sparks explained that when orders are placed inside,people are able to sit and their
9 food is brought out to them. He noted this restaurant is much more home-like, falling
10 somewhere between McDonalds and Applebee's, with no tip. Mr. Sparks explained it
11 would meet a need in this area for a family style restaurant other than Champ's. He
12 stated the menu is not trendy, it offers a wide variety of food with frozen custard to round
13 out the concept and add depth to the menu. Mr. Sparks indicated this wide variety assists
14 in keeping Culvers viable.
15
16 Commissioner Thomas questioned how the typical seating was in a Culvers Restaurant.
17 Mr. Sparks stated 120 people is the none fora Culvers Restaurants,where he is
18 proposing 160 seats. He noted in speaking with City staff about the Hardees site, there
19 would be adequate parking for this building if the seating were bumped up to 160. Mr.
20 Sparks stated the additional seating could be used for business meetings, birthday parties,
21 etc.
22
23 Commissioner Thomas indicated the site is in a planned unit development and will have
24 some similar design standards that will have to be met. He questioned if Culvers was
25 willing to meet these design standards, or even to eliminate the blue roof. Mr. Sparks
26 stated this may be possible, but would take time to gain approval, as this has become a
27 trademark to the franchise. He stated he would be willing to work on it though to meet
28 the standards of this planned unit development the City has been working on. Mr. Sparks
29 noted he met with Len Pratt and noted his architect would be working to comply with all
30 City standards.
31
32 Chair Melsha asked what the timeframe was for this project. Mr. Sparks indicated he
33 would like to be in the ground by July Is'. He noted all final plans would be to the City
34 by Monday, with the total construction taking approximately 16 weeks.
35
36 Commissioner Thomas questioned if there would be a bike rack on this site. Mr. Sparks
37 stated there would be a 20-space bike rack.
38
39 Commissioner Thomas asked if there was a moratorium on this site. Henry stated she
40 didn't know if this is still in place and noted she would bring this to the City Manager's
41 attention.
42
43 Chair Melsha asked if there was any evidence of contamination on the Exhaust Pros site.
44 Mr. Sparks stated he would be completing a Phase I and Phase II. He noted that he
45 would not be constructing a building with a basement and would therefore not be
46 impacting the groundwater. He stated his structure would be slab on grade as the current
47 structures sit today.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 7
1 Mr. Sparks reviewed several photos of the proposed Culvers. He indicated the dining
2 room was the major difference between Culvers and other fast food restaurants. Mr.
3 Sparks noted the blue and white color scheme has become the trademark and indicated
4 approximately$30,000 would be spent on the landscape plan for the green space. He
5 indicated there would be roughly 8-10 out door patio settees.
6
7 Chair Melsha questioned if the traffic gets backed up often in the drive through
,with
8 customers having to wait for their orders. Mr. Sparks noted this becomes a minimal
9 problem and is addressed at a staffing level to maximize staff at peak times. He
10 explained drive-through orders are stressed to be complete within 4-5 minutes. Mr.
1 1 Sparks noted the layout of the drive-through as it exists does allow for some stacking.
12 He explained that at Culvers, 30% of the orders are drive-through with 70% of the orders
13 are in house. Mr. Sparks indicated Culvers is seen as a destination restaurant as opposed
14 to other fast food restaurants.
15
16 Commissioner Hanson asked how many people would be hired for this restaurant. Mr.
17 Sparks indicated there were roughly 60 positions. He noted 14 employees would be full-
18 time with all others maintaining part-time employment, the majority being teens. Mr.
19 Sparks noted Culvers has a very low turnover rate in comparison to other fast food
20 establishments. He indicated this has much to do with the philosophy behind Culvers
21 and their community involvement.
22
23 Chair Melsha thanked Mr. Sparks for his presentation and stated he looked forward to
24 seeing him again in May or June.
25
26 9.2 Northwest Ouadrant Redevelopment Update
27 Henry stated the Commissioners could review the business newsletter enclosed in their
28 packets which was mailed out recently and noted Len Pratt is working with a group to
29 structure his conversations as he moves forward to addressing the surrounding businesses
30 and property owners.
31
32 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
33 Commissioner Hanson noted some of the plywood has been taking down on the library at
34 Apache, he noted they are making progress and that the library will be open within a month. He
35 noted there were still several vacant spots within the mall.
36
37 Commissioner Thomas handed out information on the Living Green Expo and invited the
38 Commissioners to attend. He cautioned the Commissioners that Culvers not be moved through
39 the Planning Commission process too quickly. Commissioner Thomas stated he wanted to make
40 sure this project met the design standards of the PUD. Henry stated she would be forwarding
I 1 plans to the design team so they are able to offer comments.
1.2
$3 Chair Melsha asked how they felt about Culvers at this time. Commissioner Hanson stated this
14 site also is outside of the main square, which may leave the design standards more open.
15
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2002
Page 8
1 Commissioner Thomas stated the development process for a PUD was created and should be
2 followed. Henry indicated there really was not a PUD at this time because it went away with the
3 Hillcrest development proposal, when that fell through.
4
5 Commissioner Hoska noted he attended a conference for new Planning Commissioners and
6 stated this was very informative and interesting.
7
8 Vice Chair Stille agreed with Commissioner Thomas at this time and noted the Commission
9 should be patient to make sure this design was well thought through and planned. He noted the
10 volunteer dinner was planned for April 26`h. He explained invitations have been sent out and
1 1 noted it was a nice event in the past to attend.
12
13 Henry requested input from the Commission about the candle amendment, based on what is now
14 known. Commissioner Thomas stated he felt this should be revised. Henry noted she would
15 speak with the City Attorney and bring this back to the Commission at the next meeting.
16
17 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
18 Motion by Commissioner Steeves, second by Chair Melsha, to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 Respectfully submitted,
23
24
25 Heidi Guenther
26 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
27
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 04/10/02 MEETING DATE: 04/16/02
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Susan Henry, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: 3501 Downers Drive: Floor Area Ratio Variance Request
Requested Action:
Tom Brama, property owner of the single-family residential lot at 3501 Downers Drive, is
requesting a variance from the .30 floor area ratio requirement in the City Ordinance for
a new construction project.
Background:
Several months ago, Mr. Brama came to City Hall to discuss with city staff his plans to
build a new single family home on the lot at 3501 Downers Drive. Mr. Brama was
informed of the city ordinances and that he planned a home larger than what was
allowed. The builder, Larry Beach Construction, was also made aware of this. They
were told a building permit could not be issued until the plan was brought to the city
ordinance standards for floor area ratio.
Larry Beach Construction submitted revised plans thereafter, which eliminated an
encroachment and reduced the floor area ratio by converting what was previously a
"bonus room" over the garage into a simple garage attic space. The Building Official
noted on the revised plans that there could be no floor or ceiling covering in this attic
space so as to leave any doubt that this was not to be floor area. The builder also
indicated on the revised plans that the door from the second floor to the "bonus room"
would be removed. Based on these changes, the Building Official issued the building
permit.
Now, months later, Mr. Brama is back to city offices asking for a variance to the city
ordinance to allow the construction of the "bonus room." By state statute, the applicant
must prove a hardship, which by definition prevents the owner from putting the property
to reasonable use.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of this variance for two reasons. There is not a hardship for
the applicant to put the property to reasonable use. The surrounding properties are
being put to the same use and in many instances are actually smaller. Also, the builder
and the applicant agreed to the reduction in floor area prior to being issued the building
permit. It's not justifiable in this case to be granted a variance after the fact. The
variance should have been applied for prior to asking for the building permit.
Attachments:
• Application for Variance
• Memorandum from Castle Inspection Services
Date: V/ 2-
Fee:
Fee• _66•oo
R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00
Other . . . . $100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Variance
Applicant: M Sra+ma. Phone: (O 1 L-Zelo-ggqf
Address: 321(0 32'J Ayn- 09 St Anakonv, MN SSkyg
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Owner
Legal Description of property proposed for variance: L.rrt 14�BIocK N VJ;(shiro_ farK qth H ene.c-ry,AW
Street Address: 3So 1 D0w,%Cv3 Dr.ve-
Presently Zoned: R-1
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if
necessary.
1. Because of the particular'physical surroundings; shape; or topographical conditions of
the parcel or lot, the.proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused.by the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Ck, W"
Signature of Applicant
04=19 =02A ,'W * 60 . 000R
Variances. (1665.06)
Application. An owner of property with an existing structure which does not comply.
with the Zoning Code, or of property on which such.a structure is proposed to be
constructed,-may.apply fora variance upon payment of the fee as specified in the
Zoning Ordinance.
Council Approval. Variances to the dimensional provisions of the Zoning Code may
be granted by the Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, after a
public hearing is held by the Planning Commission. Variances will not be granted
with respect to uses. A majority of affirmative votes by the Councilmembers present
is required to approve a variance request.
Evidence. No variance...will be granted unless the evidence presented by the petitioner
discloses all of the following facts:
(a) The subject matter of the application is within the scope of the Zoning
Ordinance subsection regarding variances.
(b) Strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship
because:
1.) The property.cannot be put to .a reasonable use without the
variance.
2.) The circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the
owner.
3.) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality.
4.) Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship.
(c) The circumstances.causing the hardship are unique to the individual
property under consideration.
(d) The granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the Zoning Code.
Plannins Commission Recommendation. The Planning Commission will consider the
application at a public hearing at any regular or special meeting. Notice for the public
hearing will be given in accordance with Section .115 of the City Ordinance. The Planning
Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, will make a recommendation
to the Council as follows:
(a) Recommend that the variance application can be.granted because the
evidence considered at the meeting &6aL the findings
April 18,2002
To The City of St.Anthony,
I am requesting a variance be granted to allow me to finish the entire second floor of our home under
construction at 3501 Downers Drive.
When making application for the building permit I worked with and met the city's requirements for
building to land ratio,overall structure height and all setbacks.
There is one section of the zoning code that I am running up against if I finish my second floor living
space.That is:Floor Area Ratio(1615.05)Subd 3. It states that the floor area ratio may not exceed.3.If I
finish the entire second floor of the home I will be at.38.
I believe that the floor area ratio should not apply because by finishing the second floor my home's exterior
appearance will not be altered in any way.I am simply finishing the floor area underneath the existing
trusses that is available to me.-+'s haO.1.6-`p 5 ca ksea by 1'.X C N, o ird,-&ruC_
I want to reiterate that my home meets all other city codes for lot coverage,setback and building height.
There would be absolutely no difference discernible from the exterior whether I am allowed to finish this
space or not.
I respectfully submit this request for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas A.Brama
612-706-9999
Regarding the house under construction at 3501 Downers Drive
Property is zoned R-1
Surveyed area of site is 9908 s.f.(83 x 119.37 avg.).This meets requirement for lot area to be at least 9000
s.f. and 75 ft.wide.
Building height is not to exceed 25 ft.Initially we were about 5 ft.higher than this,but we had the architect
flatten the pitch of our roof to meet this requirement.
Side yards are to be a combined 15 ft. minimum with no side yard less than 5 ft.Our home has a 5 ft and a
10 ft setback,meeting the 15 ft minimum.
Allowable lot coverage in R-1 is 35%, in this case 3,468 s.f.Our home's footprint is 2,320 s.f.(incl
garage).The driveway will be 28 x 41 = 1,148 s.f.Total 2,320+1,148=3,468 s.f.
The floor area ratio is not to exceed.3. In the case of our home.3 x 9908 s.f.=2,972.40 st allowable on
floors not including basement.Our_home has 1326 st.on the first floor and 857 st on the second floor
plus a bonus room that has 730 st fora total of 2913 st for a floor area ratio of.29,meeting the
requirement.
Our problem lies in the fact that the building inspector is including the garage area in his allowable
calculations of floor area ratio.Nowhere in the zoning regulations does it say that the garage area is to be
included in the ratio.If the garage floor(785 s.f.)is included in the floor area ratio we would be at 3698 s.f.
or.37.This is the reason that I filed for a variance to allow me to finish the bonus room.I had spoken to the
inspector previously about this inclusion of the garage and he.told me that this was his interpretation of the
zoning.However after filing the variance, I have studied the zoning ordinances and discovered the below
listed definitions which I believe clarifies the situation.
In Section 1605.01 Subd..31.the floor area ratio is defined as"the ratio of the maximum permitted floor
area of the principal building or buildings to the area of the lot on which they are located or to be located."
The garage is defined in 1605.01 Subd.33 as"an accessory building the primary purpose of which is-to
house automobiles."Therefore,by definition,the garage floor area should not be calculated into the floor
area ratio because the garage space is considered "accessory"rather than "principal".If our home were
built with the same above grade square footage with a detatched garage,the floor area of the garage would,
by definition,not be counted,nor should it be in this instance.The garage floor area is already being used
in the lot coverage calculation and we conform to the allowable lot coverage of 35%.If the garage floor
were to be considered"floor area of a home",the wording would have to be such as to include this space in
the ratio.
A reasonable person would not consider the garage area to be floor area.When one speaks of the square
footage of a home's floors it is considered to be square footage above grade and excluding the garage.
Ilvml
-- - .
_ ME
mY
ZI
21
zl
I
I z:Grji I: 4a 7887602
KURTH SURVEYING INC PAGE 01
C.ERT .I F I CA 1 E OF
�Mfi1S1lREilEYV7S SHOWN JN FEET Mf0 OECI,t�sLS 0 SURVEY- rnmFFs� r
.�R q i. THIS. t S NOT.A 80"ARr SURVEY CQU1N81A
�-�..M - HESS. W E421
(ke OR CERTIFY THAT THIS PLOT PLAN VAS PREPARED PROPoSED (612) 7a8-9768 FAX 1612) 7g8-�2
SAN�RRON TH a 0My VSRTHE SUPERVISION
OF THAT THIS
GRADES DATE
tftDffVO ON T}g LAND FEREON DESCRI6tD AND THAT 1 O
I A DIEr L ED LAND SVRvEyoR = I RON MONUMENT
TI1E STATE I OTA. LAYS RARAVE SLAP p BEARINGS ARE PER PLAT
TOP OF BLACKj8 SPIKE -SET
EXISTING ELEVATION
BASEMENT FLOOR � � / PROPOSED ELEV. .
��sa11 J; Urth• R,L,$• No. 16113 DRAINAGE ARROW
�v� O
w 9-O
.�4T/.tM (Alm
�!pl SCALE
IN FEET
fNVi o v1 oo o
v.A.r►cH
p 9E Csry c`_
r
,1 d--
5 a lryR��s Ra,a i- -
�-
04-5
o a f
e r
)0•�� �� )• A 1 „F1jl.L I3ShLT' to tl cx •► 0
46
�•1. i 1-•1•'yam v
101 14%
4106
11 1
t ��� ► i~�c�z.�`? von u..T`to.� M
v"5 it
r
1
t jv:1
c�
c%a m>b
�. \A f
P.O.Box 270246,St.Paul,MN 55127
Fax:651-702-9364 Phone:651-731-7881
CaSTLe CODE CONSULTING - PLAN REVIEW- iNSPECTIONS
INSPECTION SERVICES
MEMOkAND UM
To: Sue Henry/Assistant City Manager/City of St. Anthony
Cc: Mike Mornson, City Manager/City of St. Anthony
From: Greg Schmit, Building Official
Date: May 1, 2002
Subject Variance Request �
When the permit application was received for this house, it contained substantially more than the
allowable 2972 square feet, along with a 2 foot encroachment into the required sideyard set back
area. The applicant, Larry Beach Construction was advised that these were violations of the city
zoning code and a building permit could not be issued until these items were remedied.
Subsequently the builder submitted revised plans which eliminated the encroachment and
reduced the floor area by converting what was previously a"bonus room" over the garage, into
simple garage attic space.
I then noted on the plans along with my other plan review comments, that there could be no
floor or ceiling covering in this attic space so as to not leave any doubt that this was not to be
floor area. The builder also indicated on the revised plans that the door from the second floor to
the"bonus room" would be removed.
Based on the revised plans and changes, I issued the building permit.
I have not been called for any inspections after the foundation, so I do not know how the
building is currently framed.
It should be noted that by definition, floor area is to include all floor areas except the basement.
There is no exception, as the builder and the owner have suggested, for garages or unfinished or
uninhabitable areas. Basically, if it has a floor and it's not a basement, it must be included in the
calculation. This is how I have applied your ordinance.
The city zoning code requires a floor area ratio not to exceed 30%of lot area in order to limit
the mass of a structure. This is totally separate from the 35%restriction on lot coverage.
As I understand it, the owner is requesting a variance to the zoning code to allow the
construction of the "bonus room". We know that in the case of a variance, by state statute, the
applicant must prove a hardship, which by definition prevents the owner from putting the
property to reasonable use. I don't see where the hardship is when the surrounding properties
are being put to the same use and in many instances are actually smaller. Also, the builder and
the owner agreed to the reduction in area prior to being issued the building permit.
My opinion is that the only way to accommodate this request, would be to change the ordinance.
Note that I have not had any conversations with either the builder or the owner since the
issuance of the permit, however all of these same points were discussed with them prior to
permitting.
To: Mike Morrison
From:Tom Brama
Re: 3501 Downers Drive
Dear Mike,
I am writing you this letter regarding my home under construction at the above address.
As you are aware,there is a difference of opinion regarding whether or not city zoning code allows for the
finishing of the bonus room over.our garage.
The building inspector has issued a memorandum stating that his interpretation of St.Anthony's code for
floor area ratio includes the garage area. I strongly disagree and offer the below supporting rationale.
1) The city defines floor area ratio as"the ratio of the maximum permitted floor area of the principal
building or buildings to the area of the lot on which they are located or to be located."The city further
defines"garage"as"an accessory building the primary purpose of which is to house automobiles."By
definition alone the city says that garage space is not considered"principal structure".and therefore
that it should not be counted in the floor area ratio.The spirit of the rule is to limit the amount of above
grade living space.
2) I have revised the height of my home to conform to the city's 25 ft.rule.I conform to the side yard,
front yard and rear yard setbacks. I conform to the lot area coverage.The overall mass of my home
conforms in every way to the city's requirements.The very purpose of floor area ratio is.to limit the
mass*of a building in relation to the lot that it sits on.The mass of my home would not change one bit
with the bonus room being finished—it merely allows me to utilize the space.
3) I have talked with one adjacent community,New Brighton,and they only use floor area ratio in
commercial or high density residential to limit the size of the structures.They do not use it in their R-1
districts.I researched on the internet and found other communities that do use floor area ratio,however
they clearly define floor area to exclude basements,unfinished attics,attached garages. . ."A copy of
St.Paul's clarification is attatched with this letter.I have not had sufficient time to research this subject
to the point that I can point out more examples,however this would be possible.
My overall point is that the zoning is.sufficiently ambiguous to the point that there can be a mis-
interpretation of the spirit of the zoning ordinances.While Greg felt that he was correct I think that it is
Very important to note that he says the floor area ratio exists to limit the mass of the house,the mass of my
house isn't affected by letting me finish the floor under the garage attic.The garage space also should not
be calculated into the ratio because it is not principal structure. My home meets the .30 floor area ratio the
City allows if the garage.floor is not included in the ratio.I feel therefore that a variance is not necessary
for my bonus room and withdraw my request for a hearing before the planning commission.
Sincerel
Thomas A.Brama
Owner
'rhead gas, electrical, steam, fuel, or water transmission or
stribution system, collection, communication, supply or
isposal system, including towers, poles, wires, mains, drains,
sewers,- pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm and police call
boxes, traffic signals, hydrants, and similar equipment in
connection to those services, but not including buildings, which
are necessary for the furnishing of adequate service by the
utilities or municipal departments for the general health;
safety, or welfare.
Subp. 29 . Family. "Family" means one or more persons, but
not more than four if unrelated, living as a single housekeeping
unit in a dwelling.
Subp. 30 . Fast food restaurant. "Fast food restaurant"
means a business establishment whose principal business is the
selling of standardized, preprepared, quick-order, and packaged
foods in a ready-to-consume state, packaged in nonreturnable,
disposable containers or wrappings, where the customer may
consume these foods while seated at fixed tables or counters
located within a -building or in a vehicle after being served at
a drive-throu h -through
C
e considered fast food restaurants .
. 31. Floor area. "Floor area" means the sum of the
tal areas of all floors of a building measured from the
r faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of
eparating two buildings . The floor area is exclusive of
f basements, unfinished attics, attached garages, or
sed for off-street parking, breezeways, and enclosed and
sed porches, elevator, stair, mechanical or other utilit
and accessory structures as wellas enclosed and
sible spaces .
Subp. 32 . Floor area ratio (FAR) . "Floor area ratio (FAR) "
means the total floor area of all buildings or structures on a
zoning lot divided by the area of that lot.
Subp. 33. Front setback line. "Front setback line" means
a line parallel to the front lot line that establishes the
minimum front yard depth of a zoning lot.
Subp. 34 . Grade. "Grade" means the elevation established
for the purpose of regulating the number of stories and the
height of buildings . For buildings having a wall or walls on or
within 15 feet of a street line, grade is curb level, or its
equivalent, opposite the wall or walls . When a building has
frontage on more than one street, the lowest curb level
applies. For buildings having all walls more than 15 feet from
a ine, grade is the mea el of the finished surface
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/2400/001 l.html 5/13/2002
EHLERS
& ASSOCIATES INC
OTo: Mike Mornson, City Manager/Sue Henry,Assistant City Manager
2 From: Jim Prosser, Ehlers & Associates
W. Date: May 8, 2002
Subject: Project Update
Project Planning
The Project Team continues to meet every other week to review project status and maintain
communications. The current top initiatives are refining the project budget, developing a
phasing schedule and developing land acquisition strategies. Pratt-Ordway is seeking to
include many of the current businesses in the development project in order to reduce
relocation expense. The businesses would be designed into to the new development with new
better- located buildings replacing current structures. The phasing analysis will explore the
potential for initiating development on parcel that may be less expensive and easier to
acquire. Later phases of the project would include other parcels.
Preliminary Development Agreement
The draft preliminary development agreement has been executed by the developer and is
being returned to the Village for signatures. Pratt-Ordway has previously paid the $75,000
developer fee. This fee will be used to defray cost for legal, finance, engineering and
communication services provided by the City related to this project.
Project Communications
Pratt-Ordway has sent a letter to property owners in the area. The purpose of the letter will
be to solicit interest in participating in the redevelopment and to develop open lines of
communications during the planning stages. In addition, Len Pratt has begun to make
personal visits to owners upon request. Len Pratt presented the project to the St. Anthony
volunteers (April 26) and is scheduled to present to the Chamber(May 21) and the Kiawanis
(June 12). Team members have also identified the need for Pratt-Ordway to develop a
process to name their development. This will aid in project communications. Pratt-Ordway
indicated a desire to include the public in the naming discussion. A Frequently Asked
Question(FAQ) piece is being developed and should be ready for distribution'later this
month. The Project Team will also initiate development of a chronology of project activities
and communications.
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE RRrrII
3060 Centre Pointe Drive Phone:.-6511-697--8503 Fax: 651-697-8555
Roseville, MN 55113-1105 Email: jim@ehlers-inc.com
Land Acquisition
Sue Henry has set a meeting with Quest Real Estate, owner of the Apache Medical Building.
The owners have requested an opportunity to discuss participation in the redevelopment.
Pratt-Ordway met with US Banks on Thursday, March 18 to begin discussion on acquisition.
Pratt-Ordway will be developing a status report for the required acquisitions within the
project area.
Project Funding
Mayor Hodson has established a good working relationship with Metropolitan Council
Chair, Ted Mondale. The St. Anthony project appears to meet the general criteria
established for funding through the Metropolitan Council's Livable Communities
Demonstration Account(LCDA) funds. Communities including St. Louis Park, Burnsville
and Falcon Heights have received funding under this program. It is anticipated that the City
would apply for LCDA funds in the next funding cycle, July 2002. DSU is already beginning
to draft documents for the application. Other potential funding sources include the Tax Base
Revitalization Grant for asbestos removal, Rice Creek innovative surface water grants and
transit funding. The Project Team will also meet with Ted Grindal from Lockridge, Grindal
and Nauen, to discuss other funding sources including federal demonstration funding for
transit initiatives.
Tax Increment Financing
Given the likelihood that tax increment financing(TIF) assistance will be requested by the
developer, Ehlers recommends that St. Anthony initiate an assessment to determine if the
site would qualify as a"Redevelopment" district as permitted by State Law. The first step in
that process is an inspection of properties that may be included within the district. An
inspection was conducted as part of the Hillcrest proposal. Jerry Gilligan and Ehlers will
review the previous inspection reports to determine if this inspection can be updated and
used for the Pratt-Ordway development.
Project Design/Land Use Approvals
DSU will be coordinating development of design standards to assure the consistency with
community standards developed during the planning stages. Land use reviews will be
coordinated with the Planning Commission in the same manner as other development
reviews.
Project Components
Pratt-Ordway is researching several value added project components including high tech
communication access, energy conservation designs and transit-orientated design. The City
will be requesting interest from appropriate agencies regarding the potential of a joint library
facility for the site.
tt.Anthony Redevelopment Update—Ehlers&Associates
Energy Conservation Components
BKV Architects has initiated efforts to identify energy conservation components that can be
built into the project and building design.
Housing Issues
The Project Team continues to carefully monitor concerns about housing density. It appears
some concerns relate to the type of housing, rental housing management, traffic, building
design and impact on city services. These issues (and others to be identified) will be the
subject of analysis prior to final project approval.
Other Issues
• Culvers Restaurants continues their planning efforts for a new restaurant on the site
of the former Hardees restaurant and Exhaust Pros shop. DSU is coordinating
planning to assure building and site compatibility with the Pratt-Ordway proposed
development.
• The conversion of the Salvation Army site to the Three Rivers (Hennepin Parks)
management and control is expected to be delayed to permit the Salvation Army time
to find a relocation site. This is not expected to have any negative impact on
redevelopment efforts.
t.Anthony Redevelopment Update—Ehlers&Associates
SENT BY: SWEET CREAM ENT LLC; 5-14- 2 10:09AM; 6516310053 => 612 781 9323; #1 /1
oa
Oilver's of Vad ais Ileighis
Mike Morrison
City Manager
3301 Silver- Lake Rd.
Saint Anthony, Minncsol;i 55418
May 14, 2002
I)ca.r- Mike,
In aceordance will) our• conversation QVC reLlueSt tlr;il our planning Commission approval
and publiC hearing; be rLn)ovC(f li-Or11 the May 21'4` meeting. Unlilrlur aicly, we discussed
tial the site plan called lur one additional variance, in tlrnl [tic, south end of the building, is
within the 20' backyard and set back. In addition, we will revise the plan to request art
auxiliary building adjacent to the dumpster ,area
All final plarls will he submitted by Monday, Mai• 2O"' lir) the June 19"' meeting Again,
we apologize fix. the: chane.
Ikespeclively
ILI
5 tlz
Steve Spaiks and Ju11u C'1601
44ti5 R,xid RD. Bo-i _'1O.WX Vajmii,, l•
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
4
5 April 2a,.2002
6
7 CALL TO ORDER
8 Mayor Hodson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
9
10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
11 Mayor Hodson invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
12
13 ROLL CALL.
14 Present: Mayor Hodson; Councilmembers Horst, Sparks, Thuesen, and Faust.
15 Absent: None.
16 Also Present: City Manager Mike Mornson.
17
18 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION,AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
19 ITEMS.
20
21 I. APPROVAL OF APRIL 23, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
22 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Horst, to approve the City
23 Council Meeting Agenda of April 23, 2002.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 II. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS.
28 None.
29
30 III. COMMUNITY FORUM.
31 Mayor Hodson invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items
32 that are not on the regular agenda.
33
34 Hearing none, Mayor Hodson moved forward with the agenda.
35
36 IV. CONSENT AGENDA.
37 1. Consider Apri19. 2002 Council meeting minutes.
38 2. Consider licenses and permits.
39 3. Consider payment of claims.
40 4. Consider request from Shriner's to sell onions for fund raising at the Stonehouse on
41 Saturday, April 27, 2002.
42 5. Resolution 02-036. re: Re-establish polling places and precincts
43
44 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Faust, to approve the Consent
45 Agenda.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
I V. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
2 A. Review City's 2003 budget.
3 Mayor Hodson indicated that the reason for the budget being presented publicly was for the
4 benefit of the residents.
5
6 Mayor Hodson opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m..
7-
8 He invited any residents to come forward with any questions, or concerns. None came forward.
9
10 Mayor Hodson closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
11
12 VI. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONS AND STAFF.
13 A. Planning Commission report-April 16 2002 meeting_
14
15 .1. Resolution 02-037, re: Lot split request for 3645 Chelmsford
16 Planning Commissioner Tillman reviewed the details of the lot split request with the
17 Council. She indicated that Troy Martenson,the property owner, wanted to split the lot
18 for the purpose of building on the portion that did not have a home.
19
20 She indicated that the Planning Commission did not want to approve another sub-
21 standard lot in the city. Thus, the Commission recommended denial of the lot split
22 request for the following two reasons: subdivision would not meet minimum lot
23 standards, and the subdivision does not meet the setbacks required by City ordinances..
24
25 Commissioner Tillman stated that Mr. Martenson was in agreement with their decision to
26 deny his request, as he was unaware of a 75 foot NSP easement through the back of the
27 property. She added that Mr. Martenson would likely return in the future with a new plan
28 requesting a zoning change from single to multi-family.
29
30 Councilmember Sparks asked if the house that was currently on the lot was going to be
31 vacated. Commissioner Tillman indicated that he lives in that house,but under a new
32 plan, he would likely decide to tear it down and-replace it.
33
34 Councilmember Faust clarified that Martenson was not pursuing the variance.
35 Commissioner Tillman stated that he was accepting of the Planning Commission's
36 decision to deny his request.
37
38 Motion by Councilmember Hodson, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to adopt
39 Resolution 02-037, re: Denying the lot split request for 3645 Chelmsford.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 2. Resolution 02-038. re: Sign variance request for Apache Animal Medicine 2501-
44 37`h Avenue NE.
45 Commissioner Tillman reviewed the sign variance request with the Council. She stated
46 that the request for two signs, and that the lot was a long, thin lot with two separate
47 parking lots. She added that, even with two signs, they are still well within the minimum
48 square footage allowed for the size of the building.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 3
Tillman indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request
contingent upon the current sign being brought up to code and the second sign must be
'built identical to the first sign.
Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Faust,to approve
Resolution 02-038,re: Sign variance request for Apache Animal Medicine, 2501-37`h
Avenue NE.
Motion carried unanimously.
VII. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE COUNCIL.
A. En 'ngi eering_update. Todd Hubmer. WSB &Associates, Inc. will be present. Consider
Resolution 02-039, re:.Orderin sg anitary sewer and water system studies.
Todd Hubmer came forward to update the Council on nine of the ongoing projects in the
City of St. Anthony.
Hubmer stated that a draft of the Silver Lane Flood Improvements Feasibility Report has
been completed and is currently being reviewed with the City of New Brighton and the
Rice Creek Watershed District.
Hubmer indicated that there are a number of remaining items to be completed in the 2001
Street Reconstruction project. These items include: driveway replacement on 30`h
Avenue, yard restoration on 30'Avenue, and second lift of asphalt on Wilson Street,
West Armor Terrace and 30`h Avenue. The project will likely be completed by the end of
June.
Hubmer stated that the pre-construction meeting for the 2002 Street Reconstruction
project with the contractor and City representatives took place last week, and that the
contractor was anxious to get the project underway. Hubmer indicated that the contractor
was looking at milling up the streets next week, and beginning sanitary sewer work on
Wilson Street on May 6`h:
Hubmer indicated that two meetings have been held for the sump pump separation and
drain tile separation educational program. He stated that the program is being completed
as part of an agreement with Metropolitan Council to reduce the City's inflow of clear
water from sump pumps and drain tiles into the sanitary sewer system. He added that
they will have completed the educational component of that agreement by the end of
May.
Hubmer reviewed the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Grant update. He
indicated that both the House and Senate have completed their bonding bill allocations
and now the Conference Committee must meet to work out the differences in the two
bills. He added that, in regard to St. Anthony and the flood hazard mitigation grant
program, there is some language currently within the House bill, which is unfavorable to
the City of St. Anthony.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 4
Hubmer continued that they are still hopeful that during the committee process, this
language will be stricken from the bill. He stated that the funding would be used to
complete the replacement of the warming house at Silver.Point Park and to construct
flood improvements at Shamrock and Silver Lane.
Regarding the Street Reconstruction Capital Improvement Plan, Hubmer stated that the
map of the anticipated Capital Improvement Program for the street reconstruction
projects within the Village was subject to change due to budgetary limits,or if some of
the roads deteriorate more rapidly than anticipated.
Hubmer reviewed the Water and Wastewater Needs study with regard to the
redevelopment of Apache Plaza and the southern shopping area. To determine the
impact of this new development on the City's water and wastewater system, it is
necessary to complete an assessment.
Hubmer continued that the study will evaluate the water needs associated with adding
between 400 and 700 new housing units in the Apache Plaza area and determine if_
adding additional housing units in the St. Anthony shopping.area on the south end of the
Village will have an adverse impact on water supply. The study will also identify the
needs and necessary improvements to accommodate the additional housing units.
The wastewater portion of the needs study will evaluate the capacity of the existing Foss .
Road lift station and the trunk sanitary system which serves Apache Plaza. Furthermore,
the study will look at the wastewater system south of 27`h Avenue, in order to identify
which type of improvements would be necessary.
The water and wastewater needs study is proposed to be completed for$48,5000.
Hubmer referred to the 2002 Flood Improvement Grant Program, and stated that there
were a few homeowners who were unable to complete a flood improvement project in
2001. He indicated that WSB will continue to work with these homeowners to complete
those projects early this summer.
Hubmer concluded with the Silver Point Park Project. He indicated that.the rain.and
snow in November prevented the grading and seeding contractors fromcompleting their
work in the park. He stated that they anticipate installing additional drain tile in the west
side of the park to improve drainage and complete finish grading as soon as conditions
allow. He added that hydro seeding on the east field is anticipated to occur during the
week of April 22, 2002.
Councilmember Sparks asked when they anticipated that the park would be back in use.
Hubmer indicated that they were hoping to hydro seed a portion in May, which takes
about four weeks to develop and come up. He added that they anticipate use this
summer, over-seeding in the fall, resulting in plush grass in the spring.
Councilmember Faust asked if Hubmer knew the number of grants associated with the
Flood Improvement Program over the years. Hubmer stated that it must be close to fifty.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 5
Councilmember Thuesen asked of the overall impact of the projects that have been done
along the way in relation to the 100 year-flood protection. Hubmer stated that the
Edward Street and 33`d Avenue project was an example of money saved and a benefit to
both homeowner and the City.
Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Sparks, to adopt Resolution
02-039, re: Ordering sanitary sewer and water system studies.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Resolution 02-042, re: Consider preliminary redevelopment agreement for the Northwest
Quadrant with Pratt-Ordway. Jim Prosser, Ehlers &Associates,will be present.
Len Pratt, Pratt-Ordway, came forward to discuss the progress of Pratt-Ordway and their
plans before the Council looks at the actual Agreement.
Pratt referred to the Communications Plan that they have been working on with the
community.
Pratt referred to the Pre-development Agreement, which will be discussed tonight, and
TIF District financing. He indicated that he was meeting with the City of St. Louis Park,,
which has undertaken a large project on Excelsior Boulevard. He indicated that they
want to learn all they can in terns of past patterns, as well as what is in place right now.
Pratt indicated that, in meetings with Metropolitan Council,he has been made aware of
the projects that other cities are doing, which serve as a sort of format for the
Metropolitan Council in terms of what project might be next.
Pratt_referred to the land assembly aspect of the project and indicated that they have been
working diligently with various parcel-owners in order to meet them and understand their
business and piece of property.
Pratt indicated that they continue to work on the funding piece of the project, learning
how supportive funding sources outside of the City are. He added that the project is well
known outside of the area.
Pratt stated that they continue to work on their design guidelines. He stated that the
guidelines would assure the Council and City that the buildings will be built with
standards, which are established in the design guidelines.
Pratt stated that all of this coordination may not seem too important,but stated that it is
all imperative to the entire process.
Mayor Hodson asked about a timeline on the project. Pratt stated that 2002 would keep
them busy with all of the intangible aspects of the process. He stated that they
anticipated construction to begin in early 2003.
Mayor Hodson asked if there would be room on the land to have a nice restaurant where
residents could get a good meal and drink. Pratt stated that he believed that there would
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 6
be room for such a restaurant, which he views as very important to quality of life in a
community.
Councilmember Thuesen asked if it was easier to pitch the product, in terms of grants, if
the project is further along. Pratt stated that, if they pre-design a project that does not
align itself with the particular grant criteria, then it is a method of dismissing their
application. He stated that they are.developing a matrix of what the grants might be, and
what the required design criteria may be to access them.
Councilmember Faust stated that the City of St. Anthony has had a lot of longtime
businesses to the area, and would like to see their fitting in to the design of the future
project to be considered when designing. Pratt stated that was one of the reasons that the
plan has not been finalized. He indicated that in his meetings with the business-owners,
he is asking them what their plans are. He concluded that there are a lot of experienced
business-owners that love the community and have served it for a long time.
Mayor Hodson asked how city staff has been to work with. Pratt indicated that the staff
has been very engaged, open and good to work with.
Jim Prosser, Ehlers &Associates, came forward with a couple of preliminary comments.
He stated that the selection of developers by the Council was very well done. At the
same time, he added, the timeline that they are working with is very aggressive_and has
procedures and steps that take time, but need to happen. He stated that those elements of
the process would not slow them.down.
Prosser summarized the role of a Preliminary Development Agreement, stating that the
purpose of the Agreement is to provide assurances that the City will not assist other
developers during the time that the specifically accomplishes the following:
• Provides that the City will not enter into an agreement with other developers to
assist with land assembly or provide financial assistance for properties within the
redevelopment project area during the term of this agreement.
• The project area as defined will exclude the Exhaust Pro's and the Hardee's site
being,developed by Culver's and also excludes Equinox Apartments.
• The agreement, in its current form, allows the City to terminate the agreement if
the developer is not pursuing the redevelopment with due diligence.
• The developer agrees to deposit $75,000 reimburse the City for costs related to
project costs including financial, legal, and planning services.
• Establishes a time.period of one year or the approval of a final development
agreement, whichever occurs first. The issues in the final development agreement
include project timing, land use approval process, project financing, financial
assistance, land assembly and project timing.
Prosser walked the Council with some of the changes that have taken place. He reviewed
the Undertaking and Exclusive Rights portion of the agreement. Essentially, it indicated
that, upon termination of the Agreement, the City agrees to refund to the Redeveloper
any portion of the Advance that has not been expended for expenses in connection with
the Project.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 7
Prosser reviewed the Public Assistance portion of the Agreement. He stated that,
essentially, it is where the developer forecasts that they may request assistance in site
assembly, TIF, Tax-Exempt Bonds, and Community Development Block.Grant Funds.
Prosser reviewed the next significant change in the Agreement, which was the
termination portion. He stated that it provides that the City may terminate the Agreement
after December 31, 2002, if they believe and demonstrate that the developer is not
diligently pursuing the redevelopment effort. Also included, at the developer's request,
is the ability to establish that delay has not been caused in whole, or in part, by the City.
Finally, Section 13 has been added, which provides an assignment,which allows the
developer to sign the rights under this Agreement to another entity, as long as the
developer owns at least 50 percent of that entity. Prosser stated that it is appropriate in a
Preliminary Agreement.
Prosser concluded that they feel that the changes that are proposed are appropriate and
not unusual at all for a Development Agreement of this nature.
Prosser suggested that the Council include in the motion that their approval is subject to
final review by the City Attorney.
'Motion by Councilmember Sparks, second by Councilmember Faust,to adopt Resolution
02-042, re: Considering preliminary redevelopment agreement for the Northwest
Quadrant with Pratt-Ordway, subject to the final approval of the City Attorney.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Resolution 02-041, re: Consider preliminga purchase agreement with Culver's for 4004
Silver Lake Road.
Mornson provided the Council with a background of the process, which included that the
owner-operators of Culver's will be purchasing Exhaust Pro and, in return, the owners of
Culver's will ask for the Hardee's property for the purchase price of$5,000.
The future owners, Julie Chien and Steve Sparks, were present to provide the Council .
with a brief description of the operation.
Chien stated that there are currently about 17 Culver's restaurants in the state of
Minnesota, and another 90 in Wisconsin. He stated that they currently owner-operate
one franchise in Vadnais Heights which opened about 15 months ago, and would like to
open.another franchise in the next 12 months.
Chien indicated that there are 160 seats in the restaurant, one of the largest, with some
seating reserved for meetings, birthdays, and other large parties.
Chien stated the restaurant is a non-reservation, non-smoking, owner-operated business.
She added that it is lunch and dinner only, with no liquor license.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 8
Mayor Hodson noted that there was a fair amount of outdoor seating in the original plan.
Sparks stated that was true, and added about 30 more seats.
Councilmember Faust asked if, as the franchise owner, they were able to expand the
space from the basic proto-type. Sparks stated that they were allowed to expand the
space to the 160 seating.
Councilmember Thuesen asked if they were comfortable with the current number of
parking spaces available to them. Sparks stated that they had about 65 spaces, and that
they were pretty comfortable with that amount.
Councilmember Horst stated that Culver's reputation precedes them, and that he was
very pleased.to see them entering the City of St. Anthony.
Motion by Councilmember Faust, second by Councilmember Thuesen, to approve
Resolution 02-041,re: Considering preliminary purchase agreement with Culver's for
4004 Silver Lake Road.
Motion carried unanimously.
D. Resolution 02-040. re: Consider approval of City's 2002 Goals by Jim Prosser. Ehlers &
Associates, will be present.
Strategic Planning Process:
• Update community vision.
• Assess changes to community environment.
• Conduct"SWOT" analysis
• Review roles and responsibilities.
• Review progress on previous goals.
• Develop new goals.
• Establish plan to implement goals.
Role of Mayor and Council:
• Develop a"vision"of the future state of St. Anthony.
• Develop goals to help achieve the community vision.
• Assuring implementation of strategies to achieve goals.
• Providing resources to implement strategies.
• Feedback and course corrections.
St. Anthony Village Vision Statement:
• "A Village in the City".
Core Values:
• Community.
• Collaboration.
• Resident focus.
0 Safe and secure environment.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 9
• The feel of the village.
• Fiscal responsibility.
Our Mission:
• Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a 'walkable'village
-that is safe and secure.
2001 Goals and Accomplishments:
• Define and review fiscal goals and policies.
• Plan for Stonehouse.
• Flood protection.
• Redevelopment strategies.
• Park system.
• Enhance sense of community.
• KFS process initiated to be completed this summer.
• Process for Stonehouse initiated/property evaluation completed.
• Flood protection work nearly complete.
• Developer selected for Apache area.
• Park improvements underway.
• Implemented model for enhanced public involvement in Village issues
(Northwest Quadrant)/improved in newsletter/modified web page.
Mayor Hodson stated that they have accomplished a lot as a Council thus far, and is
looking forward to additional communication. Prosser added that the purpose of the
additional communication was to provide on opportunity for feedback from the
community.
2002 Goals:
• Redevelop Apache area property.
• Develop public facilities plan for Public Works, Fire Station, SAV Liquor#1 and
Stonehouse.
• Maintain legislative presence on important city issues.
• Develop plan'for long term financial needs.
Enhance Community involvement in critical city issues.
Goal 1: Redevelop Apache Area Property:
• Complete preliminary redevelopment agreement.
• Identify funding alternatives.
• Develop project timeline.
• Establish TIF district.
• Assess need for environmental study.
• Identify property acquisition strategy.
• Identify phasing options.
• Establish design guidelines/review/planning process.
• Update communications plan.
• Establish public participation plan.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 10
• Completed development agreement.
• Project oversight.
Strategic Planning Structure:
• Identify goals.
• . Establish strategies to achieve goals.
• Define goal accomplishments.
• Development actions steps.
• Assign responsibility.
• Target completion dates.
• Identify required resources.
Plan Control:
• Quarterly written updates.
• Discussion of top-goal and strategies.
• Staff "exception"reporting.
• Review plan alignment.
• Celebrate success.
Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Faust, to approve
Resolution 02-040, re: Considering approval of City's 2002 Goals.
Councilmember Sparks requested the following amendment to the motion. In the
Council's packets was a detailed list of goals. Under Goal#2 (Develop Public Facilities
Plan), action steps, she requested a number one step be added: to review the preliminary
analysis and decide whether to proceed, or not.
Motion carried unanimously.
E. Presentation of financial strategies by Jim Prosser.
Prosser came forward and stated that the information contained in the financial strategies
were estimates. He stated that the items contained in the presentation were meant to be
provocative for the purpose of having every potential item considered..,He added that the
Council needs to determine if there are items that need to be added, which they will do in
session number four.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial Strategies:
Session Goals:
•. Review budget forecast worksheets.
• Review options/strategies/resources.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial Strategies:
General Operating Fund:
• Operating gaps.
• Funding options.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 11
Capital Equipment:
• Funding gaps.
• . Funding options.
"Big Ticket" Capital Equipment: .
• Funding gaps.
• Funding options.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial Strategies General Fund:
2003
o. Revenue: $3,731,616.
o Expenditures: $3,805,800.
o Gap: ($74,184).
2004
o Revenue: $3,850,531.
o Expenditures: $4,003,100.
o Gap: ($152,569).
2005
o 'Revenue: $3,997,697.
o - Expenditures:.$4,212,900.
o Gap: ($215,203).
2006
o Revenues: $4,125,403.
o Expenditures: $4.9436,100.
o Gap: ($310,697):
Prosser stated that the statistics posted are not something to panic about because all of the
trends will not remain the same. Rather, he indicated that, compared to other cities, it is
quite manageable.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial Strategies General Fund:
Options:
• Adjust user fees: Fees for service should cover cost of service and should be
adjusted annually to reflect increased costs.
• Increase tax levy: Adjust tax levy to reflect costs of service.
• Administrative service fees: Cost of administrative support for non-general funds
should be fully reimbursed and adjusted annually.
• Developer contributions: Developer contributions for various improvements.
• Assess seal-coating: Assessments.to the benefiting residents.
• Establish fees for medical calls: Fees would be collecting by those who require
the service.
• Establish street light utility fund: Collect revenues to offset the street light energy
charge and to provide for future street light replacement and repair.
• Private property snowplowing fees: Collect revenues for private property owners
who receive city funded snowplowing service.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 12
• Relocate SAV 1 to Highway 88: Relocate the city-owned business to a place
where higher traffic flow would generate greater revenues, which would be
available for inter-fund transfers.
Councilmember Sparks requested a list of what each one of the General Fund options
could actually contribute, in order to make educated decisions regarding them. Prosser
stated that they would bring those rough estimates to the August meeting.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial Strategies Capital Equipment:
2003
o Revenues: $9,230,000.
o Expenditures: $9,715,350.
o Gap: ($485,350).
2004
o Revenues: $352,000.
o Expenditures: $543,250.
o Gap: ($191,250).
2005
o Revenues: $320,000.
o Expenditures: $682,750.
o Gap: ($362,750).
2006
o Revenues:$315,000.
o Expenditures: $489,350.
o Gap: ($174,350).
Councilmember Sparks asked about the modest gap in 2003. She stated that it would
only be a modest gap.if a referendum were approved, as the City does not have
$9,000,000 to spend on capital equipments. Morrison stated that Councilmember Sparks
was correct, and that several things need to take place before they would approve the
needs.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial strategies.Capital Equipment:
Options:
• Revenue Bonds: Issued to fund capital projects; supported by city revenues.
• Equipment Notes: Issued to fund certain capital purchases.
• G.O Bonds: Voter approved bonds used to support capital improvements.
• Lease Purchase Bonds: HRA issued bonds paid from city revenues.
• Developer Contributions: Contributions support various improvements.
• Relocate SAV 1 to Highway 88: Relocate city business to an area of higher traffic
flow, which would generate greater revenues to be available for capital purchases.
City of St. Anthony Key Financial Strategies`Big Ticket"Capital Items:
Option:
o Replace Public Works building.
Recommendation:
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23,2002
Page 13
o Develop process to establish need. Fund with lease purchase.
Amount:
o $6,500,000.
Impact:
o Increase debt service levy.
Mayor Hodson stated that in the goal-setting meetings, the Council concluded that they
were not going to approve a$6,500,000 project for a new Public Works building.
Furthermore, Mayor Hodson indicated that the Council discussed a$3,000,000 budget
for a new Public Works facility.
Option:
o Replace Fire Station.
Recommendation:
o Develop process to establish need. Fund with lease purchase.
Amount:
o $2,000,000.
Impact:
o Increases debt service levy.
Option:
o Replace SAV 1.
Recommendation:
o Develop feasibility and need analysis. Fund with revenue bonds.
Amount:
o $1,100,000.
Impact:
o Reduced funds available to be'transferred to other funds.
Option:
o Village Message Board.
Recommendation:
o Defer to future years.
Amount:
o $40,000.
Impact:
o Enhances community communication.
Option:
o Community Center.
Recommendation:
o Develop public improvements process to communicate need for community
center renovation.
Amount:
o $150,000.
Impact:
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 14
o Decreases cash available-or increases debt service levy.
Option:
o Fire Pumper purchase.
Recommendation:
o Develop process to establish need. Fund with equipment certificate notes.
Amount:
o $330,000.
Impact:
o Increases debt service levy.
Councilmember Sparks indicated that she would like to have the issue of sidewalk
replacement along Silver Lake Road be added to the list. Mayor Hodson indicated that it
was a very, important issue in relation to the mission statement to make the community
"walkable." Prosser stated that he would add it to the list, if it was not already on it.
VIII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCILMEMBERS.
Mornson stated that there is a joint meeting with the School Board next Tuesday at 6:00 p.m.,
which will be held in the community center. He reviewed the agenda with the Council.
Morrison indicated that May 4, 2002 is the city-wide clean-up day.
Morrison indicated that there was a vacancy created in the liquor operations. He stated that an
offer was made to and accepted by Kevin Morelli,who is the former Liquor Manager of St.
Anthony.
Councilmember Horst had nothing new to report this evening.
Councilmember Sparks referred to a volunteer group in St. Anthony called the Community
Prevention Coalition. She indicated that a proposal has been accepted for the Coalition to
become a family services collaborative, which is a source of funding that originally comes_ from
the federal government.
Councilmember Sparks reiterated that there will not be a Villagefest.in 2002.
Councilmember Thuesen stated that it was an exciting time to be a member of the City Council,
and added that he looks forward to the challenges of the next couple of years.
Councilmember Faust indicated that one of the top fifteen issues for the League of Minnesota for
2002 was phosphorous on lawns in the Metro area, which was just recently passed.
Councilmember Faust commended everyone who worked on the Northwest Quadrant
Redevelopment business update, as he felt there was some great information and prompted
necessary dialogue.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
April 23, 2002
Page 15
Councilmember Faust indicated that the Cityof St. Anthony is one of twenty communities to
participate in the Sister-City program. He views the program as a beneficial and expressed his
hope that they continue participating in the program.
Mayor Hodson indicated that he would like to have a discussion with Council regarding the
Community Prevention Coalition and funding.
Mayor Hodson referred to an upcoming meeting that he has with Metropolitan Council. He
indicated that he would like to discuss an issue from a past meeting regarding the revitalization
of a community such as St. Anthony. He indicated that there was the potential to comprise low-
interest loans to homeowners for the purpose of renovating the aging housing-stock in the city.
He added that he would like to have future discussion on the issue.
IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
None.
X. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATIONAL DOCUMENTS.
None.
M. ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Councilmember Thuesen, second by Councilmember Faust, to adjourn the meeting at
9:25 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Courtney Seesz
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
ATTEST: Mayor
City Clerk '