The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPL PACKET 03152005 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIII IIIIIIII 104942 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 03152005 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager l� Date: March 15, 2005 Subject: Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building:A Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment; Charlene Roise, Hess, Roise &Co. and Todd Grover,MacDonald& Mack Arch. Requested Action: None;information only. Background: Representatives from Sunset Memorial Park requested that they be placed on the Planning Commission January 18, 2005 meeting agenda for a Concept Review. Since they last met with the Planning Commission, they have met with Staff and a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review and discuss revisions that they are proposing to Sunset Memorial Park project. Sunset group also held an open house on January 11, 2005. Since then, the City Council approved contracting with Hess, Roise and Company,historical preservationists, to assess the condition of the Administration Building and report back to the Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Roise and Mr. Grover have competed their assessment and are scheduled to present that report at the March 15`' Planning Commission meeting. Attachments: • Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building: A Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment. Sunset Concept staff report 031505 J f o,, $ If+•Illl�ursl4rp � pro •-• a, ,�' • lb ' `I �svt■° U i'�TTi rasr�wj�n. �Pw rb'.iir"4•'� u� a n# ra 17r a�)q. ' a q •'�= qr r Y� M. 'mf 1t 'ti a�t n y- ✓N fir- +► -��`�v-r�t ay a "�e*"u..�.Y�.�-+'y�r�i" n��'ni�I'""o•-�,■ 2 ifa° ..c.. "''T'.I k.?ia'��-'�x�Y`� 'f 'fit° . `i -�.-+ «��r..-r-yy.�'i i'� �{+•�'�+.J•31._�i r5.#+7 •$ ''ram'.°�e�+_'v �l''�''i1- ` ,�'fiv Nm El 6r,e'sfi*�trnw ,+I,"°9'cON�•+■`�'�'aki,byC��. a 4 e s r "�R. i 1° -. '4'! +i m"a o at slim a a�r''� otic .r+rY� r .t '` �"s "`'* w�tiu F by `' 'p J�1 �t r"T•a>♦' '+.,�SS;'f' >Y• y,.y,'a �-� '3' �a �tr��`°iz�,9r•,•�..�r„� r�� a r,�i"+4a��4�� .�n r Dn �� g� rye �- a• � -e �+."' rpt l y �i 1!"S ■ �m I. '...S i 2'' pµ d s s W�x ea'.`dsi ..�i'`3� �'''• flu°' R1—L..;M �.+ 7 r �+. ePc,ry s{°ice. E! '.c + r �'n� vl��L�...��y Iu"p� _'1 N vr4�a�- sn� -*°'e" - '�.a C`` h., 'S C*n 1dB '•vol �c.N u'm, u"N -/: a ""�y'd►+.i�'` ' s. 1 i r .r p, ai r 5°+r 4° :+? ,a■ . r(," n, a rl h. K ■ ua■u0. ■e c! m r.SatBy■ E 5.� 1.sn Y _oSthN K"S 4`.�N 7! q. +itni� 4c 4n' RR9 l !u r aJJ —�a�w. '��. Yp, ±rr W.nt(!r n �5y - '►' I u s r F�h�uci'rt av J yr -$�.•"+s r y y •,v"�r � �,_. �2r•ell+2�P^r w JJr^°� �'IIy � (�o lnsl•".# �e n r t•$ n u p �f11R'r 4. z r n v ru 3'xY n �+ °�- �,}, � �. ai ra^•!a.�c�Jd■Ys'�r.hs Imo,l' ire u �.!?ry��j r Md."+y �+ a i 4� P a{ �Y O■ a�2A .� b"'7 h 4-' .!",. o t .+�r*?I. _`�t•di da♦ r�i{frr ,!�..� /, ,r?yt H �+ `,�` m�'daio.9 "iS a rr�' � 4 i a z•Si'�t ft4. a--n cb� �^! 1f h I F �/ •`n��! p '�9� w •eJ fq •111 .� pfr ld IIS yy� �. `w � ^ar�h�nsw l m/w✓�,�! a s:4a�-�'tiic p ^. •" I'It ,+�■,•��_rw"�r'sy kms"ixL� � � p°•,r•�)H �•' �� e� �° C!�'J q■7��"rry,nh w !+ c 4 e °�e.o-•s'-+a�r a.\ ,s�.,,-Oy" •,•ya �: m N's- _ C�� L s•"a ,yam .�t i�7u a .� �i r y �/• �✓'°'�. '+a"�'8. .ry-,. ♦ �"a �}.thy..■, h �v� -�T` 11/ s t t .rr`J•r•''"'� �� i s •"�° a�a 'Y�e�rLw�3..n,rl!" e Nn {iY/ r _1 a",.a '` ✓',I !IQ �°,li�lrl III �.-`z�.°`^+_`"■'+L �.'��°�......o� �'. p ■ • 9 1 , 1 ■ • I I INTRODUCTION Alderwoods Incorporated, the owner of Sunset Memorial Park, has proposed to demolish the cemetery's administration building to allow for the construction of a new administration building and funeral home on that site. The company considered other areas in the cemetery for the new construction and concluded that no other location was feasible due to intense land use and access issues. The community of Saint Anthony, where the administration building is situated, felt that the structure might be historic and was concerned about the proposed demolition. In January 2005, Saint Anthony retained Hess, Roise and Company, historical consultants, and MacDonald and Mack, architects, to conduct a preliminary evaluation of the historic significance and condition of the administration building. This report considers the following issues: • Whether the property appears to be historically significant and has potential for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; • If so, under what criteria, and what additional research is needed to verify the preliminary finding; • A basic analysis of the building's structural condition and the feasibility of renovating it; and • What additional studies are required to develop a renovation plan. Charlene Roise, a principal of Hess Roise, served as the historian and architectural historian for this project and wrote the"Preliminary Determination of Eligibility"and conclusion sections. Architect Todd Grover represented MacDonald and Mack, which served as a subcontractor to Hess Roise. Mr. Grover prepared the "Structural Condition and Renovation Potential" section. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 1 A PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY The history and significance of the administration building is inextricably linked to the history and significance of Sunset Memorial Park. Hence, the building must be evaluated in the context of the cemetery as a whole. The Memorial Park: Historical Context The design of cemeteries, like other types of properties, has evolved over time in response to changes in social customs, aesthetic preferences, and technological advancements. Sunset Memorial Park was established in 1927, the fust Midwestern example of a memorial park, a cemetery design that emerged in the early twentieth century. Predecessors to the memorial park were the picturesque mid-nineteenth-century"rural"cemeteries, such as Mount Auburn in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the mid-nineteenth- to early twentieth-century"lawn-park" cemeteries, locally exemplified by late nineteenth-century sections of Lakewood in Minneapolis. Both reflected the ascendancy of secular,privately owned,professionally designed and managed cemeteries over family plots and churchyards.' Memorial parks began appearing in the early twentieth century. They represented not only a new landscape aesthetic but also a major shift in America's attitudes towards death and the rituals surrounding it. As one historian observed: The twentieth-century cemetery was renamed the memorial park by founders who wished to obscure the morbid connotations they believed the public perceived in the word cemetery. The memorial park was simpler and more accessible than the lawn-park cemetery. Society no longer desired a mysterious relationship with the grave. Customers wanted the cemetery to be comfortable and familiar, reflecting mainstream American practices such as the acceptance of the hospital as the place to die, the removal of the funeral from the home, and the purchase of the cemetery lot preneed as a simple business transaction. Thus, cemetery designers freely used the elements of the increasingly popular suburban landscape in developing the look and atmosphere of the memorial park.2 Unlike earlier cemeteries, where tall monuments regularly punctuated the landscape, memorial parks featured landmark monuments surrounded by a lawn with headstones set flush in the ground. Pinelawn Cemetery on Long Island, a memorial park designed by the prominent landscape architect Samuel Parsons Jr. in 1902, was a trendsetter for cemetery and landscape professionals. The memorial park that captured the attention of the American public, however, was Forest Lawn in Los Angeles, which entrepreneur Hubert Eaton rescued from failure and 'David Sloane, The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History(Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991),2-5;Howard Colvin,Architecture and the After-Life(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1991), 368-373;Mame Osteen,Haven in the Heart of the City: The History of Lakewood Cemetery(Minneapolis: Lakewood Cemetery, 1992),44. 2 Sloan,Last Great Necessity,2. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment Page 2 transformed into a highly profitable business in the 1910s and 1920s. Imitators quickly followed, spawning over six hundred memorial parks in America by 1935.3 Sunset Memorial Park Early in 1927, Armour and Company of Chicago announced plans to establish Sunset Memorial Park on a 100-acre parcel that the company had held for twenty years. The cemetery site was just across Saint Anthony Boulevard from a golf course that the company had developed and subsequently sold to the City of Minneapolis. The cemetery's total cost was estimated at one million dollars. At least thirty acres were to be developed immediately following plans prepared by Morell and Nichols, a Minneapolis landscape architectural and engineering firm. The nonsectarian cemetery"will be the only one in the northwest constructed on the park plan," the Minneapolis Tribune reported in April 1927. "There will be no individual monuments, each grave to be marked with a headstone which will be level with the ground. Monuments will be erected in each section, with a central monument dominating the entire park."4 By the end of October, the Minneapolis Tribune reported that"work has now been completed on the initial four sections of the park at the south end of the property. All of the streets have been paved, curbs built, lawn sprinkling systems installed, grading completed and the beginning made of landscaping."A newspaper advertisement in late November declared: "The officials of Sunset Memorial Park, `A Resting Place Beautiful,' wish you to know that on and after December 1, 1927, they are ready to accept interments."The facility was, the advertisement continued, "America's finest burial park. New, modern equipment. Competent supervision."The offices of the Memorial Park Association were at 808 LaSalle Avenue in downtown Minneapolis.5 The plan for the remainder of the park was ambitious. "At the entrance to the park the architects have called for the construction of an ornamental administration building and gateway of stone. In the building will be the offices of the superintendent of the park and restrooms. The entrance is at the head of a mall which runs from the east to the west end of the property and ends in an impressive chapel where burial services will be conducted."The chapel would be reflected in a "Roman pool"in the mall. A network of drives would"encircle every section and wind their way through this park of beautiful contour." Each section would be distinguished by a unique monument. A crowd of 2,000 witnessed the dedication of Sunset Memorial Park and its first four monuments in June 1928. Within a few years the "Tower of Memories,"the park's largest monument, had been erected midway down the mall.6 Work on the chapel and mausoleum building was initiated in the early 1930s. The plans were drafted by Lovell and Lovell, architects based in Chicago. The first of three proposed phases created a 160-foot by 100-foot structure holding a 200-seat chapel and 1,000 to 2,000 crypts. Later phases called for increasing the building's dimensions to 350 feet by 150 feet, its height to 3 Sloane,Last Great Necessity,2, 139. 157. 4"Sunset Park Project Work to Be Started,"Minneapolis Tribune,April 3, 1927;"Armours Back Memorial Park Development,"Minneapolis Star,October 20, 1927. 5"Armours Back Memorial Park Development";"Announcement,"Minneapolis Tribune,November 27, 1927. 6"Armours Back Memorial Park Development";"Sunset Park Cemetery Dedication Rites Held,"Minneapolis Tribune,June 18, 1928. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 3 four stories, its capacity to 10,000 crypts, and its cost from $500,000 to $1.5 million. A contract for building the first phase was awarded to the Madsen (Mattson, in some accounts) Construction Company, a general contractor, in October 1932. This news was welcomed by laborers suffering from unemployment during the Depression. The chapel was dedicated in January 1934. Plans for substantially expanding the structure were never carried out.' A preliminary review of historical information offered conflicting information on the construction date of the administration building. A June 1927 newspaper reported that"roads have been laid out and locations made for the $250,000 chapel and a$100,000 entrance building. Construction of the latter will start this summer, officials of the park association said." A sketch of the building appearing in a newspaper advertisement in August showed a small, single-story structure with a pyramidal hipped roof topped by a cupola, quite a different design from what was ultimately built. A newspaper article in October indicated that the building was not yet erected. The administration building appears to be in place in a 1932 photograph of the mall that was taken from the site of the chapel, although other photographs suggest that it was not built until the mid-1930s. In any event, the administration building is certainly more that fifty years old and its construction falls within the cemetery's period of significance.$ Morell and Nichols, Landscape Architects Morell and Nichols, a Minneapolis landscape architecture firm, was responsible for the design of Sunset Memorial Park. Anthony Urbanski Morell was born in France in 1875, was educated in that country, and moved to the United States around 1902. During the same period, Arthur Richardson Nichols, a Massachusetts native born in 1880, was the first graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's landscape architecture program. Both men were undoubtedly familiar with Parsons's Pinelawn Cemetery design. In the first decade of the twentieth century, they worked for New York landscape architect/engineer Charles W. Leavitt Jr., becoming acquainted with Minnesota while working on plans for the Chester Congdon estate in Duluth.9 Morell and Nichols relocated to Minneapolis in 1909 and established their own firm. They soon had an impressive list of institutional and business clients including the University of Minnesota, Carleton College in Northfield, and other schools through North America; the Minneapolis and Duluth park systems; the National Park Service; and the Minnesota Steel Company(producing the plan for Morgan Park). They also designed private estates for wealthy clients in the United 7"Construction to Start on Mausoleum and Chapel,"Minneapolis Journal, September 4, 1932; "$500,000 Chapel to Be Erected at Sunset Park,"Minneapolis Tribune, September 4, 1932;"Chapel Mausoleum Contracts Awarded," Minneapolis Tribune, October 2, 1932;"$500,000 Chapel Project Launched,"Minneapolis Tribune,October 20, 1932;"Three Pastors Aid in Dedicating Sunset Chapel,"Minneapolis Tribune,January 9, 1934. 8"`Sunset Park'Cemetery Co.Extends Work,"Minneapolis Tribune,June 19, 1927;"Beauty Preserved Inviolable," advertisement from unattributed newspaper in Minneapolis History Collection,Minneapolis Public Library,August 28, 1927;"Armours Back Memorial Park Development";"Architect's Drawing of$1,500,000 Mausoleum-Chapel," Minneapolis Tribune, September 4, 1932. 9 Information on Morell and Nichols is taken from entries on the firm and on Morell and Nichols individually by Gregory Kopsichke in Pioneers ofAmerican Landscape Design, ed. Charles A. Birnbaum and Robin Karson,253- 257(New York: McGraw-Hill,2000). Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment Page 4 States and Canada including Frank Hefflefinger(Lake Minnetonka), A. M. Chisholm (Duluth), and William O'Brien (Marine on Saint Croix). Morell passed away in 1924. Nichols survived until 1970, remaining active as a landscape architect into the 1950s. He continued to use the firm's name long after Morell's death, although he teamed up with other landscape architects.10 A biographer notes that Nichols "became well known in the field of cemetery planning. Two important examples of his work include Sunset Memorial Park and the northeast area of Lakewood Cemetery."He published articles on related subjects in trade magazines, featuring Sunset Memorial Park in a May 1930 article in The American Cemetery. Nichols was, according to a colleague, "a good designer, mild-mannered, and a skilled promoter who inspired people and who saw an important synergy between civil engineering and landscape architecture. Nichols believed in large-scale plans that met the needs of the present while providing flexibility for the future."The emphasis on engineering is particularly pertinent for Sunset Memorial Park where irrigation—an innovation uncommon in cemeteries at the time— was installed at the outset.'' Nichols died in Rochester, Minnesota. He is buried at Sunset Memorial Park. National Register Preliminary Assessment The National Register includes a spectrum of properties ranging from architectural monuments to gardens, iron smelters, boats, bridges, and aircraft beacons. Established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the register consists of properties "significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture."To be considered significant, a property must meet one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: be associated with events important to broad patterns of history; Criterion B: have a significant association with the life of an important person; Criterion C: represent a type, period, or method of construction; or be the work of a master; or express high artistic values; or Criterion D: yield, or be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Typically, above-ground properties merit National Register designation based on the first three criteria; Criterion D is usually applied to archaeological sites. Properties can achieve significance on a local, state, or national level. A property may be individually eligible for listing in the National Register, or eligible as a contributing component of an historic district. In addition to significance, a property must maintain physical integrity and must usually be over fifty years old unless it is exceptionally significant. The National Register is administered by the to In a 1927 advertisement for Sunset Memorial Park,two landscape architects are identified: "Morell&Nichols, Inc.,"and"Nichols,Nason and Cornell"("Beauty Preserved Inviolable"). 11 A 1927 advertisement claimed,with some exaggeration: "As a part of the elaborate improvement program a complete automatic underground sprinkling system—one of the largest in the world—is now being installed"(ibid.). Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 5 National Park Service, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and is managed at the state level by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the Minnesota Historical Society. Cemeteries are categorically excluded from the National Register unless they meet one or more of the "criteria consideration"outlined in guidelines issued by the National Park Service. In the case of Sunset Memorial Park, the standard that must be met is Criteria Consideration D, which applies to cemeteries deriving their"primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events." A National Register publication offers examples of cemeteries qualifying under Criterion Consideration D, including"a cemetery . . . which reflects important aspects of community history"and "a cemetery that embodies the principles of an aesthetic movement or tradition of design and monumentation through its overall plan and landscaping, its gravemarkers and funerary sculpture, or its buildings and structures."12 The National Register eligibility of the Sunset Memorial Park administration building either as an individual structure or as part of a larger historic district has not been evaluated previously. A building inventory form for the "Sunset Funeral Home and Mausoleum" was prepared for the Minneapolis Heritage Preservation Commission by Mead and Hunt in March 2004 as part of a reconnaissance survey. The form concludes: "The stone funeral home building is recommended for local designation under Criterion 4 for its architectural merit and for listing in the National Register under Criterion C: Architecture."The survey did not analyze the significance of cemetery buildings in Saint Anthony, and did not evaluate the significance of the cemetery's landscape. While this approach might have appeared justified given the parameters of the survey, Sunset Memorial Park clearly functions as a whole and the landscape reads as a whole. Given the funerary property type, in general, and the design and development history of Sunset Memorial Park, in particular, it is necessary to assess the property in its entirety, regardless of municipal boundaries. From this perspective, Sunset Memorial Park is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C and Criterion Consideration D as a well-preserved example of a memorial park and as a significant work of landscape architect Arthur Nichols. Further research is necessary to determine whether the property is of local, statewide, or national significance and whether it also qualifies under Criterion A for its role in the history of the metropolitan area. In addition, an in- depth physical survey of the property should be conducted to verify that the property's historic integrity is good, and to see if the circa 1949 expansion should also be included as part of the historic site. Snow obscured many details of the landscape at the time that this report was prepared. There are a number of contributing features within the Sunset Memorial Park historic site, including the administration building. While the administration building's potential for individual designation is more difficult to evaluate, it does not appear to have sufficient architectural or historic significance to merit National Register designation on its own. 12 Elisabeth Walton Potter and Beth M.Boland, Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places(Washington,D.C.:U.S.Department of the Interior,National Park Service,Interagency Resources Division, National Register of Historic Places, 1992), 14-17. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 6 STRUCTURAL CONDITION AND RENOVATION POTENTIAL Exterior Roof The roof was inaccessible, so all roofing observations were made from the ground. Description: The roof is a pitched slate roof with copper valleys, ridge caps, scuppers, gutters and downspouts. The roof shape is formed with two intersecting gables. w ,' There are two one story sections of the building tucked in the southeast and northeast corners of the plan. These sections have a slate hipped roof. The southwest and F northeast corners of the plan have two story sections with a low pitched roof surrounded by a ante parapet. Z�' P P Condition: The condition of the roofing or flashing could not be determined. Recommendation: The roof needs to be closely examined to make sure that all roof conditions are sound. Due to the lack of proper access, this assessment could not be done at this time. Water Shedding System Description: Water is shed off of the building through the pitch of the roofs. The roofs pitch to gutters and downspouts on the east side of the building, and scuppers and downspouts on the west side of the building. Water is then brought to the ground through the downspouts. The gutters on the east side of the building are intergraded into a decorative cornice at the eaves. These gutters project just slightly beyond the face of the granite. Condition: Higher areas of the gutters, downspouts, and scuppers were inaccessible. From the ground, areas of split or deteriorated copper could be seen. There were isolated areas on the north and south sides where water had leaked above or below the gutter and spilled out on the stone wall. Recommendation: The gutters and downspouts that are cracked and leaking should be repaired or replaced. When replacing the gutters and downspouts, take care to match existing profiles and sizes of the existing elements. Exterior Walls Description: The administration building is clad in gray granite blocks. These blocks vary in size and shape, and help define some of the unique characteristics of this compact Gothic style building. At the base of the building, the granite blocks step out to delineate a foundation and Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 7 then continue below grade. The blocks are laid in courses with mortar used in the horizontal and vertical joints. Condition: The granite blocks themselves are in very ° good condition. There were no visible areas where the blocks have cracked or showed signs of deterioration. At T q� the comers of the east elevation, a few of the corner blocks appear to be loose. It seems that these blocks have been reset in the past, and the mortar joints have been $f rye? tuckpointed. On the north side of the building, specifically near the base of the building where the blocks step out, there are areas of organic growth staining the blocks. This condition, to a lesser extent, is also seen on r some of the piers and corners of the building where a horizontal surface of a block is exposed. The mortar joints on the building are in good condition. t 6 There are a few areas of isolated deterioration on the W outside comers of the building and where the decorative ' piers project from the building. It appears that excess water has penetrated the wall system and deteriorated the joints. This has caused the mortar to become loose and fall out. This deterioration, however, is isolated. Recommendation: The building should be selectively tuckpointed. Any loose granite blocks should be reset before tuckpointing. Use appropriate cleaning methods to remove organic growth and stains on the north side of the building. Structure Description: It was difficult to assess the structure of the building. The building appears to be constructed of concrete walls behind the granite fagade. The first floor has a concrete beam floor system. The structure of the second floor and the roof is unknown. Condition: Signs of structural problems usually appear in the finish materials inside the building or in the cladding materials on the exterior. There were no indications at these locations that there are problems with the structure of the building. Recommendations: None. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 8 Interior Basement Description: The basement has poured concrete foundation walls. There are other interior basement walls that vary from masonry walls for the chimney support and a vault enclosure to framed walls used as partition walls. The floor is concrete. The ceiling is clay tile laid between concrete beams. Part of the basement ceiling is covered with an applied acoustic tile. Condition: There were no visible cracks in the foundation walls. Water stains were present at the base of the foundation walls and floor. More than likely the water entered the foundation because of improper surface drainage on the exterior of the building. There were no signs of recent or current water infiltration. There is a sink in the kitchenette that could be leaking because the wall directly behind the sink in the storage room has a significant area of mold on the exterior side of the ` drywall. Recommendation: Remove the mold on the frame wall in the basement. Additionally, conduct a mold assessment in the basement to determine the extent of mold growth. First Floor Description: The first floor has a series of offices and bathrooms that surround a large,two-story reception hall. Painted plaster is on all of the walls and ceilings. The reception hall is the most ornate of all the rooms with a wood beamed ceiling, high wood wainscot, custom doors and door hardware, three large leaded windows, and a large marble fireplace. All of these materials appear to be original to the building. Condition: The majority of the first floor walls ceilings, f,�"4 .Ys. ti trim, doors, and finishes are in good condition. There are areas of worn finish, but considering the age of the building, these wear patterns are expected. The only area of concern is in the northeast corner of the reception hall where there is an area of water staining,peeling paint, and plaster deterioration. It is difficult to know if this is a current or an ongoing condition as it was inaccessible. According to the building occupants, a roof leak was found in that area, and this leak was repaired. Recommendation: If not already done,repair the roof leak in the northeast corner. Repair the areas of deteriorated plaster. Repair any areas of worn finish. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 9 Second Floor Description: There are a few offices that occupy the third floor. Like the first floor, most of the walls and ceilings are painted plaster. Condition: The walls and ceilings were in good condition except for the ceilings below the southwest and northwest low itched roofs. The ceilings and portions of the walls p� g in these rooms have areas of water staining, peeling paint, " and deteriorated plaster associated with roof leaks. Recommendation: If not already done, repair the roof leaks. Repair the area of deteriorated plaster. Windows Description: The typical window that is found on the building is a casement window with a wood sash and -•.A frame. The glazing is single pane, leaded, divided lights. 4 Some of the larger openings have fixed transom windows above the casement windows. Several of these leaded ;.. windows have been replaced with single light windows. x Condition: The windows are of special concern as they are in poor condition. There is not one window in the building that does not show signs of deterioration. The deterioration of the windows is so extreme that in some K cases the entire window opening has been covered in a plastic sheet to prevent the cold air from infiltrating the building. While at the building, this interior plastic sheet was moving in and out because of the wind outside. These windows offer no protection from the weather. Many of these windows show signs of water infiltration. The bottom of the sashes and the sills of the windows have heavy water stains and deteriorated wood. Individual lights within the leaded windows have been � .:. ' ;� , .'_y k�= �• - replaced. There are some lights that are cracked. Some . ` windows have been re-leaded. When the windows were re-leaded the window shifted out of square and altered the horizontal alignment of the lead carnes. Recommendation: Replace the windows on the building. The only windows that should not be replaced are the east windows in the reception hall. These windows would be too difficult to replicate and the Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 10 ornamentation in these windows is integral to the character of the building. All replacement windows should match the character of the existing windows, including the minor divisions of the leaded windows. The east windows in the reception hall should be repaired and a new storm window placed on the outside of each window. Overall Structural Condition Assessment The Sunset Memorial Park administration building is in good condition. There are no problems with the structure of the building. There were some areas of water infiltration through leaks in the roof, but these areas of deterioration are only affecting the finishes, and not the integrity of the structure. The exterior walls are in need of some repair,but these repairs are part of the proper maintenance of the building. Considering the age of the building, these areas of repair are minor. The only significant areas of concern are the windows. They are deteriorated and do not prevent weather from entering the building. Without immediate attention, water that enters the building through these windows could further affect the condition of the materials surrounding the windows. Renovation Potential Assessment The renovation potential of this building is slightly limited. The limitation is not due to its condition, but the compact nature of the building. The main space of the building, the reception hall, is a significant piece of this building both functionally and aesthetically. The most ornate details and finest finishes are found in this room. The alteration of this space should be avoided as this area has a high integrity of original material in good condition. But this room also takes up a good portion of the footprint of the building, and the remaining spaces are limited in size and quantity. Without disrupting the reception hall the possibility of integrating new layouts within the shell of the existing building is greatly reduced. Placing an addition on the building would allow for more opportunities in creating functional spaces around the reception hall. The additions could be designed in such a manner to respect the style and image of the existing building, but this is dependent upon the space needs of the occupant and site constraints. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS While the physical condition of the administration building does not appear to justify its demolition, functional limitations might make a persuasive case for its removal. Since the building does not appear to be individually eligible for the National Register, it could be replaced without damaging the National Register eligibility of Sunset Memorial Park—if, and only if, the new construction met the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. To ensure that the new design met these standards, consultation with the Minnesota SHPO is necessary,preferably early in the design development process. In addition, the exterior and significant spaces on the interior should be documented with archival photographs,plans, and elevations. Other mitigation measures, such as salvaging architectural elements, might be appropriate as well. Mitigation should be discussed with the SHPO. Related plans for parking and landscaping might have a more severely negative impact on the Sunset Memorial Park historic site. The tree-lined mall stretching from the administration building to the chapel/mausoleum is a major design feature of the property. Replacement of the trees with trees of a different type and in a different configuration(e.g., interrupted by parking bays)would damage the integrity of the formal allee. Consultation with the SHPO regarding changes to the landscape is strongly recommended. Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment—Page 12 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: IX.1. From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: March 15, 2005 Subject: 3605 —29`''Avenue NE Requested Action: Concept Review None;information only. Background: Mr. Patrick O'Connor met with Staff regarding his plan to purchase the property at 3605 —29`h Avenue NE and his proposal to use the property for auto sales business for specialty cars, classics and custom models. As he states in the attached letter, his plan is to keep 15 to 25 vehicles on site for sale either in the show room or parked on the west side of the property during business hours. These vehicles would be ready for sale and not junked vehicles. He explained that he is planning to handle his inventory similarly to the Hitching Post,whereby he would display his vehicles outside during business hours and then store them inside during the off hours. Mr. O'Connor is before the Planning Commission to more fully discuss his plans for this property and to answer any questions or concerns the Commission may have with his proposal. The public hearing on his application is scheduled for April 19, 2005,with Council action scheduled for April 26, 2005. Attachments: • Conditional Use Permit Application • Letter supporting his Conditional Use Permit Application • Sketch Plan of Building • Hennepin County Property Information 3605 29th Avenue NE Concept 031505 Date: - ito o Fee: $130.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Applicant: 0 CcKk-�O2- Phone: 001`f Address: 36C' 2-qA Nld,3 554 f 6 Status of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, etc.): tA-S I1"A ull 0(k,Q�3 Street address and/or legal description ofproperty in question: Zoning district in which property is located: L U GJA7 /#Jl.\I•IsTF-1Ok Conditional use proposed: AOTC4yf-" ( Nt f— sk-s �N"C-gin) Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions be satisfied before a conditional use may be authorized. Please respond to these conditions, using additional sheets, if necessary. 1) The proposed conditional use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the zoning district in which it is to be located. 2) The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or improvements in the vicinity. 3) The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neig b rhood o gmmunity. Signature of applicant: 0 - -05 * 130 . 000K - - - March 10", 2005 Application for Special Use Permit for the city of St. Anthony Village Thank you for taking the time to review my request to do business in the city of St. Anthony Village. I have been a homeowner and resident of this town since 1992. My work background has been in the retail automotive industry, working for large Franchises within the metropolitan area of the Twin Cities, with an emphasis on Finance. My overall plan for the property at 3605 29`h Ave N.E., would be to operate a small Dealership which would sell 15 to 25 vehicles per month. The physical building itself Would not be changed, but I would make improvements to the exterior of the property That would include additional lighting, awnings across the front and west sides, signage On the south and west sides, and sandblasting and painting the entire building. The interior would be altered only minimally to divide off a prep area in the back, with a Garage type door which would give me the opportunity to pull vehicles on to the show Floor. Additionally,there would be a partition in the front to create a business and _ Finance office. I would keep vehicles parked outside, along the west wall,but only vehicles that have been reconditioned and are ready to sell. No junked or wrecked vehicles will be kept on the premises. In the event the dealership would take an unsightly trade-in, that vehicle will be parked inside the prep area until it is taken to auction or reconditioned for sale. The majority of inventory will be kept inside and only brought out during business hours For display purposes only. Hours of operation would be from 9am thru 7pm Monday thru Thursday,and loam Thru 4pm Friday and Saturday. Initially there would only be one employee, and the entire Business could be run with just one employee. Thanks again for your consideration, I am looking forword to working with the the community, the St. Anthony Village Chamber of Commerce and its residents. Patrick O'Connor A-J vj -5-r Api-1-110Y 9yrA k'c:N4r—q— 9Ae4C,*J C- r Opp,c-c Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Hennepin +Countyr MN Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value &tax info ZOOM LEVEL K —F ,. ,. AD 1 nV' 9 2 pan, 1 0 M (38) (36) (3s) ©❑ a 333.95 100 200 Last update.3/03/2005 at 1 00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID Approximate Approximate Property Perimeter Property Area 06-029-23-44-0035 579 ft. 18,908 sq.ft. = 0.434 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2005) 3605 29TH AVE N E $ 300,000 $ 9,873.22 ST. ANTHONY, MN 55418 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected 32 .� The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder(Hennepin County Survey Division) at(612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob.Moulder(cD_co.hennepin mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://www l 9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VALU... 3/11/2005 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 of 2 Hennepin County, ISI v us Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is upda daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CS' Search By: Note: Taxes Payable 2005 (2004 Values) will be availab on this web site approximately 03/01 • Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2004 i Property ID: 06-029-23-44-0035 Address: 3605 29TH AVE N E Municipality: ST. ANTHONY HOUSE or BUILDING School Dist: 282 Construction year: 1964 #: Watershed: 6 Parcel Size: 100 X 180 3605 Sewer Dist: STREET NAME: Owner Name: DAVID E SANDERS (at least first 3 characters) Taxpayer Name DAVID E SANDERS 29th Avenue I &Address: 39 SOUTH DEEP LAKE RD UNIT # (if applicable) NORTH OAKS MN 55127 Most Current Sales Information Search ! *z;'ciear= Q Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estai and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. 20 records per page Sale Date: October, 1982 Sale Price: $138,000 Transaction Type: Contract For Deed Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: ST ANTHONY INDUSTRIAL PARK Lot: 001 Block: 002 Metes & Bounds: E 100 FT OF S 180 FT Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 20€ Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, Estimated Market Value: $210,000 Limited Market Value: $210,000 Taxable Market Value: $210,000 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.jsp 2/15/2005 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: $6,919.32 Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: $37.50 Total Tax: $6,956.82 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2i Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, Values: Land Market $54,000 Building Market $156,000 Machinery Market Total Market: $210,000 Land Limited $54,000 Building Limited $156,000 Total Limited: $210,000 Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type INDUSTRIAL- PREFERRED Homestead Status NON- HOMESTEAD Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status There are no prior year taxes due on this property. 4447 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Tax related questions: taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Need help locating a property on our site? Check out our Search Tips Home I Your County Government I Licenses, Certificates, & Registratior Employment &Volunteering I Health, Housing, & Social Services I Law, Safety, & Courts I Environment, Property, &Transportation Copyright © 2004 Hennepin County, Minnesota I www.Hennepin.us Accessibili,ty Policy I Contact Hennepin County_ I Security/Privacy Staten http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult.jsp 2/15/2005 1 � STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: I12 From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager IPW-' Date: March 15, 2005 Subject: 3621 Roosevelt Street NE: Lot Split, Lot Width Variance Requested Action: Concept Review None;information only. Background: I met with Mr. Tom Walek, owner of 3621 Roosevelt St. NE to discuss the possibility of splitting his lot, creating two R-1, Single Family lots. Upon reviewing the square footage of the lot, I advised Mr. Walek that the proposed splitting of his lot would result in two non-conforming residential lots. We discussed the possibility of obtaining a lot split variance. Mr. Walek also asked if it would be possible to build a twin home unit on this property. I reviewed the Ordinance requirements for an R-2 use with him and advised him that he would then have to apply to have the property rezoned to R-2. I also advised him that this request may be construed as "spot zoning" and not an acceptable practice in the City. Attachments • Lot information from Hennepin County. 3621 Roosevelt Concept staff report 031505 ' Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 2 Hennepin County, MN Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info 249 d ZOOM Imre x (76) (b2) t 3 10 � (64) PAR 12 MI. FMW ?x 72 ( ) 1161 0 I!+J 52 19 14 a (71) 75 (36) (37 15 7 6 45 70 1� .� 100.27 (fib 21 Last update 3/03/2005 at 1 00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID Approximate Approximate Property Perimeter Property Area 06-029-23-22-0134 644 ft. 10,782 sq.ft.=0.248 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2005) 3621 ROOSEVELT ST N E ST. ANTHONY, MN 5541f3 $ 15,000 $ 409.16 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected SE NEW ARCH BY PROPERTY ID The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map discrepancies to Bob Moulder(Hennepin County Survey Division) at(612) 348-2618 or via e-mail at Bob.Moulder@co.hennepin.mn.us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3 02 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proper operation. http://www l 9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VALU... 3/7/2005 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: IX.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: March 15, 2005 Subject: Lot South of Tires Plus —Proposed Drive-Thru Restaurant Requested Action: None;information only. Background: I received a call from a realtor who has a client interested in locating a Dairy Queen Restaurant on the lot south of the new Tires Plus. They are interested in also having a drive-thru window for the convenience of customers. I advised him about the City's restriction on drive-thru facilities but he indicated a willingness to discuss the project with the Planning Commission. Attachments: • None by the time Staff was compiling the Planning Commission packet. They may have handouts available by meeting time. Dairy Queen Concept staff report 031505 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: IX.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: March 15, 2005 Subject: Lot South of Tires Plus —Proposed Drive-Thru Restaurant Requested Action: None;information only. Background: I received a call from a realtor who has a client interested in locating a Dairy Queen Restaurant on the lot south of the new Tires Plus. They are interested in also having a drive-thru window for the convenience of customers. I advised him about the City's restriction on drive-thru facilities but he indicated a willingness to discuss the project with the Planning Commission. Attachments: • None by the time Staff was compiling the Planning Commission packet. They may have handouts available by meeting time. Dairy Queen Concept staff report 031505 2AKD USE PLAKKIN - rsf� M v 4 ra R .� 1 c4`�'� � -'p� M' � T3 d P6�-Y Y;;::r`�a'-. _�( - 't: •S .�, '�S lel FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ®Appointed,. Elected and Std March-October, 2005—VARIOUS LOCATIONS � t Back by Popular Demand. . . bw The Basics ►� Beyond The Basics Advanced Zoning Applications ` Site Planning Basics k-* Environmental Planning �► Using the AUAR Your Role As Planning Commission Member �► Local Government 101 Spotlight on Subdivisions Sponsored by: GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICES Co-sponsors: Association of Minnesota Counties Initiative Foundation League of Minnesota Cities Local Planning Assistance Center, Mn Dept. of Administration Metropolitan Council Minnesota Association of Townships Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Association Minnesota Regional Development Organizations GENERAL INFORMATION Government Training Services is pleased to once again offer workshops designed especially for citizen planners,planning staff and students. Sessions provide opportunities for in-depth study of current topics and hands-on application While many of these programs and presenters have long been part of our planning curriculum,the content is constantly revised and updated to ensure today's issues are addressed PROGRAM FEATURES INCLUDE FEES ® Accomplished faculty with extensive backgrounds in both The following registration fees include handout materials and re- planning and instruction freshment breaks Lunch is included in full-day programs only ® Focus on current issues and timely information $125/person-Full Day Workshops 4� Practical content designed by a committee of planning $ 50/person-Half Day or Evening Workshops experts and local officials $ 60 or 30/person- Lakeshore Conference ® Extensive handouts and reference materials assembled to (see registration form for details) make your job easier $500/person- Consultants attending the Environmental ® Continuing real estate education credit offered for several or AUAR workshops courses Full-time Students. NEW evening presentation of"Your Role As a Planning $50/person-Full Day Programs Commission Member"added by request. $25/person-Half Day or Evening CORE PROGRAMS SPECIAL FOCUS PROGRAMS GTS Training Network vouchers may be used for these programs! Belonging to the GTS Training Network enables your Core Programs cover basic issues related to all cities,coun- jurisdiction to take advantage of various high-quality training ties and townships regardless of size or location. As they opportunities for staff, elected and appointed officials at bargain have been designed to build upon each other, participants are prices. Check the GTS website- www.mngts.org-for details or encouraged to attend them in sequence contact Mary Sobatke(msobatke@lmngts.org or 651-222-7409 x208) Special Focus Programs cover specific topics of interest to juris- Your city, county or township can join at any time. dictions addressing particular situations or issues WHO SHOULD ATTEND? REGISTRATION/CANCELLATION Register at least seven days prior to the workshop date using the Members of planning commissions, boards of adjustment and form in this brochure Fill out one form per individual Because appeals,and governing bodies in Minnesota cities, counties registration is limited in most sites,we encourage early regisira- and townships Also valuable for members of other advisory tion to guarantee your spot on your preferred date, commissions,housing and redevelopment authorities,staff, real estate professionals,and others working in areas related Fees will be refunded less a$20 service fee if the registration is to specialized workshop topics Some workshops are targeted cancelled four working days before the program You may sub- to individuals with certain levels of experience/expertise See stitute another individual for the some workshop at any time if you individual workshop pages in this catalogue to help you deter- find you cannot attend. Should weather(or other circumstances mine which course(s)are best for you] beyond our control)necessitate program cancellation or postpone- ment, registrants will be notified via announcements on WCCO-AM QUESTIONS? radio and other local Minnesota radio stations. Carol Schoeneck at cschoeneck@mngis org Curious about a customized on-site workshop designed to meet the specific needs of your 651-222-7409 extension 205 community? Contact Carol Schoeneck to explore the possibilities All workshop sites are accessible to persons with disabilities and have convenient parking for participants A small sleeping room block has been reserved for the night before the seminars at the Holiday Inns,Arrowwood and Breezy Point Overnight ac- commodations are available at several hotels in Little Falls and St.Paul To obtain a listing,contact Government Training Services at 651 222 7409 x205 St. Paul Little Falls St.Cloud Continuing Education and Conference Center Initiative Foundation Holiday Inn Hotel&Suites University of Minnesota,St.Paul Campus Community Room 75 South 37'h Avenue (formerly Earle Brown Continuing Ed Center) 404 First Street S E 320-253-9000 1890 Buford Avenue 320-632-9255 612-624-3275 Alexandria Breezy Point Arrowwood Resort and Conference Center Breezy Point Resort 2100 Arrowwood Lane NW 9252 Breezy Point Drive 320-762-1124 218-432-3777 0 0 • 0 0 0 0• • 0 '0 0 • • • 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 e • "e e s o- o e e • - e o - o e o- 0 0 - - • - e -• ae o e o•oe • o o • •o - • a o' e e e ee- • • o eeo o e a • e e a 'o • • o o s o • ° Y,t+ TH CS Approved for 6.0 hours of Continuing Real Estate Education Credit 4^,'"�.�, ,-a.�t.+�f- `.n'yt;-erSids:c=,r lavx::n.y•.a�;;�"l.M�,'`•`%rycm�-±a5 rrrkrtu:h",-_E3;las:y�'?t�?iy VaF:ta.�Nf'Ce�.:c.JF"C^'�-c�-,f,-�lcs;t.,a�o�•�+.,m�.�-^ - E te�ry'"";,U*'��: S�,:.,4�;'-tt^;." ,,�l' �•.r+_` v fid�,a"w 2. '."s�Y3'.�rn. �-^i...�'-0a<'u.c�-4ar'.�3.:'• :.Fl zv- Core TFir �� s i apaa+�•5•_'�.,b': �� `,"-' ,,�,�,�• �" fin,yMy,�"Ar� o��a� �SSairda A n)alb---.St Paul*> E 4a �- ;j 4 4 4 r �� k' {CW /,q. `1.�,_ � 1 � f.' .d F•y ��. M{'` �^ Y:'�. ?�.� >+>1:- sa�d1�- �. 2 N' n Program ,,��t- r, ��-��F-s� ,m �s. �; -.,: ��-• .��:, �:•�- �, ��'�"`rr�,�' ;(final�chec'�i 8�3 nm)�• ,fx .�,f�-�w Wednesday,,-.�ur,�e�1:5�..�-,St�Paul,,,��,t. 4� ��. '' ��`'�. �_'.;�` -:k';_ r . a��. •. �• •-.�'!�?'�{ � rns-�-'w=�-.�Y*-aa,:•s•.a�::t�;.i:,:ei,,,rr,�, nrs.�1.m.•�>.r.r .f•� ;•�r.- •f�.'a� c3�_ .,e•cr- r�zr��.-�-.., t.^,'r'k-,`...�:.�•r3we.t rx,;,_ x:• _f+*;ac_-.• This workshop provides the nuts and bolts of planning,zoning and subdivision regulation. Participants . . . learn where they fit into the planning and zoning process,and how to maximize their impact Among the topics to be addressed are. • ••• ✓ The history,the process, the results ' ✓ Implementation, exercising authority,zoning/subdivision ordinances,amendments, permits,enforce- ment ✓ Legal limitations,avoiding litigation, planning,zoning and subdivision laws,"due process,"conducting a proper public hearing and recording your findings _ ✓ Who participates in the planning&zoning process; where YOU fit in, how to maximize your impact .. ✓ Hands-on simulations of actual planning and zoning dilemmas • ✓ Hot Issues,answers to your questions AUDIENCE: Designed for those new to land use planning or interested in an extensive review of the • fundamentals • FACULTY: . Eric Hedtke is an attorney with the firm of Ratwik, Roszek&Maloney,PA.in Minneapolis Most of the firm's practice (95%)is representing public sector clients(cities&counties)and they currently serve as city attorney for Red Wing and • Roseville,Minnesota. Prior to joining the firm,he was an attorney on the staff of the League of Minnesota Cities Bob Lockyear has extensive hands-on experience in both writing and implementing zoning and subdivision ordi- nonces He has worked for city,town,county and state planning departments in Illinois,Wisconsin and Minnesota His most recent position was Planning Director for Washington County,Minnesota s�FBEY z OND 1 BASJ� Approved for 6.5 hours of Continuing Real Estate Education Credit �m v':.. y;,.ra:.^ '�•yk;-5 ate; ra�,x��.:r` x.i x_ar:vr�i-"'i?#.',- -r„ ••x�, r�,".yx` .`� ,y` ?;;i;�� "Al x•" - k:'�` m• .�' s .e • y. m.' P.'r. ,:6�`��'i4. t ,A •+We -r'. �} ,'7.'��+:ti�;f IIEdd Core .,�, UlJednesda ,RA R18 w ttie{Falls '; = :,_b • ., ,3 •.r' a •.. ry ,� r,� ul V U �fWednesday, une :w• Sfi Raul:; r- .� .� _ 9:OO+Anti" 4#30''Pn�i ,AProgram ?. ,r_, ,''_,',x,11;• ,�' .k, a a�',r'' •-'`�`"'+'�„ a'`�, `,�. °""" ^" s••+�n^ �a:{�''� '�a/ �• � •x.: �4 5 s zx ': :r,. �, fix' x1.,";r;. t F -Yrt� i+y3s.K �•,�� 4 r7 . ,tel-'�`'�-` �•�I�?`��gc�'':. "r`a�ret'S'm-.+�+,�rv'�...�s.�o-�s�- � �rd�Sf�3�,.`-'�:a"�f'��.kny,.,,.�^�.xl.:•` -,.•,,«,�R�?f�.::t:��' Yt`.;wi�'{ flt':1QC�CI�) k';it�1:.. 3,�,,f.N1�s, <f" Participants learn about using and preparing planning and zoning tools to deal with a'wide variety of devel- opment issues and obtain an in-depth review of the planning process. Attendees will learn: ✓ A quick review of the history,source and limitations of authority to plan and zone, basic land use and zoning tools and standards,and fundamental legal principles ✓ The process and elements of comprehensvie planning ✓ Innovative ways to guide land use development,from PVDs and performance zoning to design guide- lines and other"cutting edge"applications •, ✓ Preparation and use of planning tools to handle various development problems ✓ The planning process in depth—from proper legal notice to development of findings of fact ✓ Legal issues in depth—what is a taking? When are variances justified?How to manage the 60-day rule? • •• ✓ Case studies—actual urban, suburban and rural situations! • ✓ Answers to your questions on community zoning issues • •• AUDIENCE: Intended for those who have a solid general knowledge of the planning process(1-2 years on Council, Board or Zoning/Planning Commission)or who have attended"The Basics" ' FACULTY- Phil Carlson has consulted on planning issues for 25+years with the Minneapolis firm of Dahlgren,Shardlow&Uban, Inc. In addition to writing zoning ordinances for those communities,Mr Carlson also wrote the design guidelines for Burnsville's Heart of the City development,West St Paul's Robert Street corridor and Mankato's Urban Design Framework • Desyl Peterson has been the Minnetonka City Attorney since 1984 She has been President of the Minnesota City At torneys Association,the Hennepin County Local Government Law Committee and a member of the League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors Ocl + k7. -3C I .{ y, 2. r., `�•yry`a-YY,rfi^ �y" :3 � '�`'• �`i`rA�' .1.. ADVANCED ZONING APPUCATIONS Approved for 5.0 hours of Continuing Real Estate Education Credit ' 4, x _: c ter_ - u cps:. : Thursday;Nlay.;1'9 LfiieFalls w' .;, .. K •° YFuI:da ' a�=1- Core �awy s wu•" r_t�',°'-'ria � ;o • ;:. x. �•$ - �;6�'-' t-r'� , 4.n'f=-r x,�+.v�: y�'' Weeinesd June,Alz , t-Pauls ° -� � 4 ",r �2 q;-00 anm; 30 P, 1 �, r, Program r=n,' �,, �•u�t�; ' �; +� r"� �:�-' �. -v� lr 3•"l„ 'K `� �"�� 'tit:a�`••.`' �.'�'• `} .�,;,-� � "c� f= �. • � d ti ,��,,�., �,• '��;� � �„.__ �. �,f �I'eheck-tn��8�0 anr, - ��`� y' �_�,'c L�. .�' �,. :: , ,r� .y-.� �'•TM-� ��- ��'"'- 1,ire,• = 1 g`��;�, This workshop supplements other land use planning programming and offers a more in-depth exploration of , land use issues Participants obtain a more comprehensive understanding of such issues as: .. ✓ How to break out of the'Misuse of Variances Syndrome" • • ✓ Understanding proper use,and limitations to the use,of conditional use permits ✓ Establishing and utilizing a planned use development ordinance that provides flexibility and enhanced •' ' ' control ... . ✓ Understanding the benefits provided by Performance Zoning ✓ How to approach the regulation of signs ✓ How to incorporate Urban Design standards into community zoning ordinance ' ✓ Update and discussion of recent court cases and their implications ✓ Regulate challenging uses when faced with Federal pre-emption or constitutional limitations- telecommunication facilities,adult uses ✓ Incorporating natural resources into your planning process AUDIENCE: Designed for those who have a thorough knowledge of land use issues(3+years of experience) _ or who have attended both'The Basics"and"Beyond the Basics." It is particularly valuable for staff. . ,•D- _ FACULTY: John Shardlow is President and Director of Planning for Dahlgren,Shardlow&Uban,Inc.,consulting planners and landscape architects In 25+years of professional practice,he has assisted nearly 100 cities and counties in preparing and implementing their comprehensive plans,zoning ordinances,subdivision regulations Matt Brokl,a partner at the law firm of Campbell Knutson,is the City Attorney for the cities of Burnsville,Big Lake, ' Monticello and Hampton. _ L � PLANNING l lO MEM E - �rtlVda�a:. +°"r�IFLr7�'��''SI�rYVI}e'°�^C Core p`�'{"��.�"}fd, rc�r_ '^'� rvc.''.;yv 7� .ti'L'��;'{'�' 7a,�` . I,.�-. ,�.,�... �i,- r•'�^ �aq^ =tid�`i$=t'.��as- d , ., r '. Nalfa�au1�00=�' 0 PM:: nal�,teck.,ln;12j:30xPt1' a: ,;�ASaturday,Ap�il�9-...�:,�I�fiHe Falls ,�6. ,x. ,-. ��r �� 4•.F,- to ,- � r--=�: ,, Proram ,N- t",�,d, Y€- M Kati..6,1"ir: 6 �'�.; `''.C• ,�`�, ,�•.{R,c�M.s1}i•.r� p:a:r w.�rrQ ,?-.'r1SY�',:.,, nn,�. .�?�+ ,,�rj°iy � ;'�? /y rt '� �, rtn:t � �� ;V 2�'- � 9-•, ?S''. 4i 7`"J�'na h. �: .a•- +�.°�°,df`e ,d �=`�`ti t�:��`#�-tom' J R �:N,.� " ,Half`Da �8•��0- '12k30'P �`�jfinaI� heEk-ln� •00A'nn`� r�-�°� As a Planning Commission member,you contribute hours of unpaid time to your community Have you 1 "'�`�°� discovered that serving in this capacity is a bit more challenging than anticipated? This workshop will focus on what you need to know to be successful in this important position You'll learn practical tips that can make the difference between results and regrets. Topics include. ✓ Keeping the"Big Picture"in mind ✓ Setting significant(but realistic)Commission goals and workplan ✓ Changing non-productive patterns of work ✓ Forging healthy relationships with elected officials and staff(Plus . What to do if those relationships are ' unhealthy!) M. ✓ Strategies for facilitating public participation in the planning process—from informational workshops through public meetings • . . :.. . ✓ Effective tools and techniques(models for a planning report and findings of fact designed to complement one another, primer on parliamentary procedure) ✓ Handling controversial issues ' AUDIENCE: Members of City,County,Township Planning Commissions,also valuable for members of Boards of Adjustment and Appeals and other advisory commissions FACULTY: John Shardlow is President and Director of Planning for Dahlgren,Shordlow&Uban,Inc,consulting plan- ' ners and landscape architects. In 25+years of professional practice,he has assisted nearly 100 cities and counties in preparing and implementing their comprehensive plans,zoning ordinances,subdivision regulations. He is strongly com- mitted to helping local officials gain the knowledge and skills needed for effective citizen input,well-run public meetings, and informed recommendations or decisions �F;. h, kid t µ t' ENNARONMENTAL PLANNING: `al Choosing the Best Approach for Your Community! Special ;�. of= a:is: ' 3: Fr F: t:. t; ':r H 2 k-s +y - cy_,�. _ .- - `�'S` =N4 t'Ta.c ��ry i" t.E1t.•-^S"r`11� F, ,� fOie J.i �-W.��.°"! `�..y'3�Y�r"ir'� :TMursda "June 23 Litale Falls =� � - y, e Y: ;. 0Fu11tla, 9 FOCUS �-y r �t�y ;# lt �, ... ., `34°� q"-rdv;';rl as',s et Mi ti°'-.e•- ty',,`u � Ki: .•, ,� ,�r •s� : -�, �� .,-'.��, ��a�a�� s s��= k _-�-,�� '' ��a. .,��' n�� Gfirta�}cMeck=ln,a8°�3�"�ann') Program The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act(MEPA)requires government officials and private developers to analyze the potential environmental impacts of proposed actions and alternatives in order to make informed decisions on whether and how to proceed. Which option-an EIS, EAW, or AUAR-makes the most sense _.• _ for your community? What are the procedures involved? How do you link the findings back to your zoning •••, ordinances and other community planning efforts? Through presentations and hands-on exercises,this • _ program will provide excellent information on MEPA requirements and state rules as well as the decision- • making tools needed for implementation Topics include. • . , - ✓ State and federal requirements-an overview ✓Recent court rulings affecting MEPA ✓ The Environmental Impact Statement,the Environmental Assessment Worksheet,the Alternative Urban Areawide Review-purpose,what's involved, pros and cons, Minnesota examples of each approach ✓ The process(participants use the EAW to assess the impact of a hypothetical project) ✓ Keys to successful implementation-from document preparation and review to mitigation&monitoring AUDIENCE: Elected officials, senior government staff, professionals involved in making decisions that could affect the environment or providing information for those decisions FACULTY: Ken Nimmer is owner of IMPACT Planning,a community and environmental planning firm specializing . in environmental assessments,worksheets,AUARs,EISs,and assessing the the effectiveness of local comprehensive plans.He is a Registered Environmental Manager with over 18 years experience administering community and environ- menial planning programs .• Walter Rockenstein,a partner with Faegre&Benson,focuses his law practice on environmental reviews,environmen- tal permitting. Recent projects include the Minnesota Orchestra's proposed amphitheater in Brooklyn Park,Best Buy's • Corporate headquarters in Richfield,and the expansion of Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport. •' Jon Larsen has been Principal Planner for the Environmental Review Program of the Environmental Quality Board since • 1995 Previous positions included Director of Research for the Institute of Environmental Assessment and for the Minne- sota Institute of Public Health Ken Pekarek-a registered Landscape Architect with over 35 years experience in Geographic Information Systems, coordinates software development and training for Minnesota Planning's EPPL7 system Hannah Dunevitz-a Regional Plant Ecologist who has worked for Minnesota DNR for 20 years,currently provides ecological assistance to communities in central Minnesota u4rl!rtr htr JFaui A 'A ? � "' Planning for Environmental Impacts Special rrr:svuA �"� -ns, r :fir r Ac,� ,•o-:nom ux a. r Y t ;' 5u a •� v w k- �; „r=� ; UR d ;JUN 4-�=-St`�auEl �'" F }t ] kR",-i9t, r Full�da .'$9;QO:AMp_4:3�P a e n �, f • sem.• � � M a.t °' '. r Vii? ' ';u` " 1., FOCUS ,, q x:,• ¢u.�.dr:.c, �. 4.: sC � x iu �'• ° N �wr"-r c�thw ti z. :. gg' �� -y��{frialrct'eck-tn��$:3O� �w an t£ t `- , ^r 1:•,a,'J" 3': q�t�-•^-C'n ''�a .'+�J;Tty�`xRc`. a�< ',a': i. `;5?__� ,•, Progr� am This workshop is designed for those interested in a more in-depth focus on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review(AUAR),a discretionary, alternative process used to accomplish environmental review for an entire .• development zone or area under certain circumstances The AUAR can be a convenient and economi- cal approach for local governments seeking to engage in environmental review of development projects already proposed,or wishing to influence development trends of prospective projects Topics include- / How AUAR compares to the EAW, EIS ✓ Legal and financial considerations ✓ Pros and cons,when to choose the AUAR method ✓ The process, key components, updates ✓ Relationship to comprehensive planning ✓ Case Study-City of Maple Grove AUDIENCE: Elected officials, senior government staff, professionals involved in making decisions that i could affect the environment or providing information for those decisions .... FACULTY: Ken Nimmer,Walter Rockenstein,Jon Larsen and Ken Pekarek-SEE DESCRIPTIONS ABOVE Bob Waibel-Bob Waibel has been with the City of Maple Grove since 1984,first as City Planner and as Community •• Development Director since 2001. He has coordinated five Alternative Urban Areawide Reviews(AUARs). • Julie Westerlund is involved with education and communications for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Previ- ously,she served as community liaison with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for ten years , 9*_t 3* - Yn .f a> ;..7. r' 11{4 i SITE PLANNING BASICS FOR, NOW-DESIGN PROFESSIONALS Approved for 6.0 hours of Continuing Real Estate Education Credit 1-1-�,.s`ry`va;"Cti,`kix"r:�':cPC•ae. :`m ^'s'alns;�y�g �:-16+..••.1. ^�,'•ar��„f .t' - r-'tr.,t;,,t r, �-• ^w •„I.;r y,*�..�;_:r�, �;� 4 - �.. v"r Special - fx S ' c'i c . •* %�. yr• + �• k r^.; ;•."- ,'L•'i::3'sPi:'?> r, . 1�ledlsda.'a-Jun,"e23=r-iSt:�"Pi�ul : x� >•,. ,,., �y ;, n.n� . ann ' ', Full`d 9"00" 4::30 Qna° a .� . �,...Y,xaw.;"TMyr: :: °� F 'u';d,,. Focus C} Iyp = t" '�- J •d ,{ LI>.,�`'. 1 F�%u tNG.� f- �`. T.6-„ ��a•• �' F• °� -•,=vim. :sr t--trtn. `•rS_ -zL...,�fr �a ansa ,_ x 1 s� ��_�,�:�ti�::,�,.;��:.:.�s�.��_b.�• ''��.�:��`;�;.;�:�:��.�= �� ,_.,•�- i�. �. �..�ra. Program . Many staff planners and appointed citizen planners are called upon to review site plans and render opinions 4 � about their adequacy and consistency with local codes and ordinances In many cases,these planners have little if any design background and lack the knowledge and skills to effectively conduct this important work This course is designed to help close that gap' Participants will. ✓ Learn the fundamentals of site analysis and site planning through simplified,illustrative graphics ✓ Apply these basic elements in an easy to follow,step-by-step review of a number of different projects ' ✓ Be guided through a model checklist for subdivision and site plan review ' ✓ Become familiar with the effects that ordinances and regulations have on the site planning process and gain insight into some of the unintended results ✓ Take away several practical tools for use long after the course is over. ' ✓ Special bonus” Free resource CD-ROM to all participants' AUDIENCE: Especially for non-design professionals and citizen planners;open to anyone called upon to review site plans FACULTY: Adam Aarvidson,ASLA is a registered landscape architect with Dahlgren,Shardlow and Uban He has 8 - - years experience in master planning,site planning,detailed design and construction services. He also is Communications Director for the Minnesota Chapter of ASLA. John Slack, is a registered Landscape Architect with Dahlgren,Shardlow and Uban. He has over 10 years ••" years experience working with both public and private sector clients on diverse and complex projects The focus of his work is urban redevelopment,streetscape, public open space and site planning. He is currently ' President of the Minnesota Chapter for the Minnesota Chapter of ASLA ' SPOTLIGHTON SUBDIVISION , ��. .-«��r Approved for 3.0 hours of Continuing Real Estate Education Credit Special �•' ":�.L.. ".:SFu�r-�fin3x,�-, �•p ;�{•vR st� �:._fit",^{,,l>r -;'��.,�-,as cylt�Y',_.-��7warm, ,a..�x• -RYr,A a r• � °:v' �. ,' ThuFsc7ay June1G;: - LiieFcalls'.. ,a, K,_�-;' y M yHalf: Da. „83Oinn 12:3Pm �kK:u• R. s �..,.zs ,� w. t .ti Focus f"i rW rq ^?i.�: _ i7;R-:a�', r.'ar-� :s�;. 1 �3'� si r�.�: .«y�s�-1 d „>p„c, 'q`-•�. ;'�';: .ri = `+ `'�'e- -$ 4 y .. >s rinalcheck=`n-�8 (.Qann `' f;z. ¢y,, ,c Program �fc"��`�•.�+=�t"�u�^� •F�-`�t+,'#�'�.v=N1''3e.'r„x't�� '^'•'Nt�,^.•R�1.wL�i`, �r_��s''�'sl Zxti•>.1`;,.,c�mK;i�i?•�9'�.z'. �"s•�»-., ..ro..l...tr:- �-.-.-_-3'�i,'Fe!i._ �'- This half-day program is designed to give the participant a basic understanding of the issues surrounding review and approval of subdivisions. Background information will cover creating and enforcing subdivision regulations,a glossary of terms,and a review of all of the elements included in a subdivision proposal. A series of examples and case studies will be used to illustrate and explain effective subdivision design,tak- ing into account the provision of street rights of way,utility easements,building pads,lot access, roadway design,grading and drainage, relationships between different land uses,wetlands, park dedication and related issues The case studies include both simple and more complicated examples. ' AUDIENCE:Planning commissioners,city council members&staff of communities large and small through- out the state that still have land to subdivide and are facing development pressure on vacant land;of ' special interest to real estate professionals, lenders and bankers as well FACULTY . .... C.John Uban is CEO of Dahlgren,Shordlow and Uban, Inc, a Minneapolis consulting firm. Mr Uban has 30+years experience in planning and design projects in the Upper Midwest,and has been the lead . planner for numerous residential subdivisions on behalf of major developers and builders in the Twin Cities . Metro Area Sa,{�( t {, '• 6', !xi _�': 4,r * a:,r c ''r,. •¢lm� Fe H:,.. - ¢., � +'"_"- ;;".; E.f �7o-'w�` - I ,,e 1 .' �',S.•I _ - ` 'CAL GOVERNMENT 101 Continuing Real Estate Education Credits pending. ,:� _,?'rd�.•- 'f�61'e ✓sw+p.�x,&+- ^ro.-r_ s �ee�,:. - it e,^"-M ;v. X'.• +w"�e fa - :''a::rW,^ ,y <..,;,LL,v ,nn' :kfi: a'a!•a y'i;t�4?' 'ris. ra �.�e.. sT; , •v t:C..c,`d.''}`•a,v t _A%m 3v. {k., �Y"!tl 4=itk�4.'+i:= i'F 'fav,. 5�'i.�'",'"p y,,.ta-� =H _ :. " .t5s `�f� S', ro`+"fir, §._ _ ,� s .;.,px �. ��" r tyz x'2'3 i final;c"eckm<:8 r•171�e n dopy.A.p ilwb.,q 5t'iRau_f, h, :� f, _ s •. ,. ,, Via' _�,��l�alf.da ..�;8 3a�{Ann-s< i�'` �4.. i" , m• ,"-' irr�''4= �i• "{H Y ,• +• .n.: A zC3 v,,,>,r,xe�v:�•?< ver. +• ,e+.. ,�S'. I3b { � �15'( ? t n w g ' `1�r :-1�`.+_. ;, 1' ,�.k,., s. =z �J►�a, r4 a a'Ifda 1 00 - ,;: �. i7 {7 S-OOx�nnY(fmal,check=itz�.i='2t90 J,�•r �r,'J.n,„ =`-°E=+,,••i%-;i»'1s�r�a1 .q 7�5- oat G�"r. _.. ,�..,, ,.J.gfrbptr.,��.}�'-'�2• �•�y-,?. ;3- •v%F�r`v 7 �, ,r.:, -�` +._5sr'F1�1 3fa+-'s1'S�'�'� ` i"tL.,'w .'7t!' := e`?;^a�'E.r a:t . ae .=Ota-�..a-d..•. ,-.e.:?wr3r_ c. "YSikmn.,:a25-,t$•.e:7.� N:.2�^,...�i��i .uti. �4��'ei'ro+u:iS�a�i`Ja3d='�!b;F,F:.:,$ :iJf f�5 Confusion and misunderstandings about the different levels of local government are very common—even among those who serve in one of them! Whether you are an elected official, staff member or interested citizen,this workshop will help you see how each fits into the big picture Learn about the services provided, structures, roles, responsibilities, mandates, and funding for cities, counties, townships&regional governments. Discover the commonalities and differences between those jurisdictions,the interrelationships and challenges Explore the realities of local government today with two experts who have diverse experience. Leave with answers to your questions and a handy resource booklet for future reference AUDIENCE: Elected officials,advisory commission members, staff from cities,counties,townships, regional governments,special jurisdictions;real estate professionals, interested citizens. FACULTY: Craig R. Rapp has been City Manager in three cities,Community Development Director of the Metropolitan Council,and Managing Principal of a planning and urban design firm. As a national trainer,consultant,and adjunct university faculty member, he has as Springsted,Inc David Unmacht,Scoff County Administrator, has over 20+years experience in local government management This includes ten years in city government and six years as Deputy County Administrator in Dakota County. _ �wy.5—,�_i,�:�,;-"3 '-TaT.._—:r --'' ',.','$;`:?'�r,�ev,',�;a=5�;, —`rum'",��-yF. ��;,,.••- �� •-Fz- r eC �=- - n..ce�_e_ � k 4.•y_t:3.;t'�`..�S�f:�I�?.:'�fi:.�T.:0.= 1^',�i�-:i_+�:i'-C e, .it uH�•1?.- n;'c,f'L'�°�{'�,aE"�_<L_"={' i=16 X�'-i.`�L c�?-.!e°: i�;-i�`.�L:'1. •.� 1'p+3, �,�l�� ::: 51��/%y.y' 't I , �KE . 1 /1E i1 ,? 3 '-� `�, ;'Y•" •. _ - _ 3y,._ y,-p-+ t.- t; ��pp_'hi,.fi� p �" `=yc,'' r�•."�.. gyp, ,'F J' E= i �',x"'i. aY �FJf'ik'• rti ¢, j� '"":di% -_ =S:te{.1F?rn a ; -'yam..�. � ;;;M b.7'�Mai`. •{' �`' ,-t-,•'�', 'Lh._F! 2 : 5 oal.-C [��i:rei�ces`•for'®ll Loco(.CNfic a% ►id�nteresf�al' iirzens! 4 � . a° rH ` �.x, ,; :g x =t'}�aq a ! 9 „+ N..;• " '��' .r ,=� ^'` :�.Yr�� 7:� d� ofie s�pC�aj;filrneS� .$. 'y^•'1rt,., '`' 1:3.;;,,: d�H d,•' ,,,rak�f ', §f °. R Aril_2l =Alexandr�at,�: -�' _ �`�� .�` ,v, '` �' �` t 2 45 h,F'IJ tcrr v a`P�>, i 4` G � £ r _ ..>,,.:z S4* $ '—= ' = '1>. .F.- '6"- 1 $ '"F _t +•� x°"`1`2'=3�fP,�' t V59in � r r�, `'g"'�. �' {��:�.- 1'-' t l ,r$r t+.r,�1s;,,. ,-k"'• c,., .�.:z, 'r a1� 74�:!; ay '�•• ONTEA- `} eptember2 Poiint � t ;, r� ..kT ,. �. _ €, _�. <;�•i�,� '7j �= �; �; _ "{ ��fihplcl;ecfe=i �12..00rary . $'= _ .'°:' r�i '�°•'v�I;i,' ',$tt� _ rltiti. '- a'. `" ��'�Y° tii `':.'y+ +r .vxA` t'}J`'+.4q*F.°� ^ "''7- 'S�:�• '�-}C. =yes. d'and res Ytives rof2 n ota focal` Plannen 400pe " 'om�nitih#he�RinnesotcuLakeshon�InfiativeEou�id �p.,. .entu 4M1 _gs ,�, a H J. ., l' �:�tia'2 "a. •53 ,� y cz ..;;P fate sF ^.iw -w.: s:; n r~n , 3, S,}+�" r 4* 'tI s„gOvernmerlt i7S any asci state_genQes. ;_': . p',•�'t ,wt `'•?-r!f;t`.'-�-"t�.l�a�c'�'•'a r'-.,.' '.f�`1,•� 1'y'd�..7.y�S�� s2tf ,"�±3,�n - land:us`e'decisions-macle.b .local fficials',hp�e'for_-reackiin .im acts onbor"'water resoufces=-es ecia�l►}rake ua i}r'/ yYeta s:na � " tdls,h'# e"4 s ': g p �3. l '. G�°a,ga?f�4��•�$z$.ts. easy to novi99ate thfough t�Le rrior?,yf'ecoc�om�c and,environmental,thallengesageated1, y.changing -erg,ogra hid f'rerids ort�ersion .ovigat r h-�-,,i,i ' =�eCor,'+C,11 -a _'L�G5f r,3q.,r•r. •STa.�,.•=itr°L":u E. J g�"e`r�N. 'n...`• ti' � :..,• of.resorts=rZev :r�ed� rrt d'e el'op ents varianeeir�buse zon issues;�pncl mcreasecl litig Pian i w ilnneso a lake ntr , , sp og aI � i sr ' pix s mfor atio describe eff'edive tools and land,usepaetice MI. • i �ontesd°tovpedo�ijg a d provide an opportunity to get your questions'6nsred opics ir�ca �cle~ 4 ' y s� YV:;b f9Happetjiri`g f ie,F cts abou,Lakeshore Development .. _ V' xb �b`-r✓.'tj','�r'r',8e Fear -k--++;; „1 ''d• ''S�i:' '-Te ✓ -,,,,4" bort=Terrr� eus Long-Terni `. ✓nTletConn coon Betty'"rlaiid<l7se Dec sionssand Lake Qiali �:^ : ty, ,t,�~.gut7Lf+�3 +•� H;e, ;.H-y"'` '�#': �•ru�#�=�;r.rsn ',,;r3'.._J : _ Specificloct"sofiDevelopment on Water'Qualiiy&Po_ssible Solutions ' `�'k�t�—;Grr•:":Ir1l_„+ .?'c^fa`i�"i`5; ._;,f "'✓,;Flue•Sti§ff to'So�pK Lgrtd;Uie Decisions •�., , '= Model:Ordinances#orWate��Quality,Protection Istormwater,sediment/erosion control, subdivisions, shoreland development) ✓„ „Md,nager bht,-Toglt-for-Locdl Governments (updates on Shoreland Development Rules, overview of environmental review) Case Studies:of"county,city•and township efforts to protect surface water quality ✓ Roundtable Discussions-various:topics of interest Watch for detailed brochure available by mid-March at www mngts org! PRESENTERS: Jon Larsen,Principal Planner,Environmental Quality Board Jay Michels tPESC,Administrator,Minnesota Erosion Control Association„ Paul M5H:;t':a�4��,,~•,i,.,:ih:`i.3rSwJa-:[f;�:uaf,.�?j�riht;rtl-.rEi,_,";i.<s--ite,7Cp,t�:.-�C•-RsIW"'.�A-.Y?:a;�I..�vr.Le;d-Fr&oY�m:X"0r�ryar%saa�;u"t>k•EH.He"*r,':an��J,•xx"i ,�r•ERcs�"?k`?i`�5at§QFc•'=�iETh;�15 cf`r•.?:i+xe;+�i�.xce•rS.irR:�`'`**!_rFV=n.r,��4ct'�F4"".,11wi?,i�{.ata�.'4�h?S?",�'-�•Y`i''��ce'--(j`:�7'�t,;:!3�xn'•-$,="a1`a:,w-r30•iY',�.9"'Ff"mit:.'kfr�.11Y:L•?b �:�:x1ti7°T•,xss'�;l"az.tw.`':',k'e-;k'U"�fi3r'=.'•m':,_,'s.,i';`.`'y,;.a,',sx4...8F.a.�,:c'�.v,;u�-��„�,?.'.•'•.�-��--�'''acy3,,lfe�'r(—X.:"'•.k�-".��+''.•`'-IT��3vAa��`:t%L�Fh:a`i:i;9'`9�:?G!�i'-•;a;`c;;�7-.F✓e}+-sf.h.;pmTtes}Dav,- .4f.�sr;,tl�x3i4'o.•;�7.'•.no,�.-`.'�;�lf nw�.'W•,�.,,..xrr•r_a:,ra,x•'�tj`'�.;fe-r.�._,s,, epaJm :dfiNRuss,SchultzAs-s,sta. ectorMinnesota DtiaReS 1= PaulaWExecutive©ire }or; tnresota'LAac' nom-{fir.7.-t'=t.-m;_r's--";�`-^y�n:kr-.n-;.-�":•�,•':i°,�Ma, ;vlvlneaa' �e ; Vcienrsedrpu � o y1% aft Ra, WWI< CONTcE�ENt Va � eudymesena -1, it), � cahs XM �E _ Owl, rx ". aa olacax �als;�staffand=appgi�ted/advisorycamMissions �S�Mc `c;i'_.3,i•,,'-'H`�-t,;w.:u.�.;t?.lr,'r+-- `w�x-"��-.S.sk,a.,-Y6•Pr1iet��''r�6N.Hyr:�.&i,'�ryr:ji...�-',•C�' "y''Y'c•.h'�L. =`?�N•r,,m•r•'::f., -u 1"$:'.•:�w.r+i=�-'_.•, �te , a�'•-.h: .-- A= 3U/ et<son.forsc t�zens w1thout on_offic'al"1,oca1°'ov rn ent; itioril - - �' ` < 3�1°M� V4, ��`'•�';. T.� x— -",,..,a d,�� ';r+�� #y??- � �•�s c.+s•'ry,:,_p.� i3,f° `^X i+"Fi.:&A•.•.;`tx i:, �'+1?Y� q�YF'�• �q4:�v "�'' *�,'--�,{�." "t':,�_• �: ,�i;��+',,' r I �+,-�-v.•cA. - .rN _�r.�a.� :c„;t%F!t<<r=r,.,..— r. _ _ _ ,;s,^,.,. .cp.+ .`.:.�::-__,`'::,.- s:t _�'.,,�� ,...;+ -1' ? .Y,1":.2? °t. �- - 'c��:d+5,'. "•F':�'J'5.��' ny ve. R.-_ �-... -s• "rs* y� -•`n- ;" "+`��:'c,'4��''.�e�' ,rf ae,,."�.'.L;-"'gyK..,,p...�,��r.M;,:..�.� .�.z.`,�'.;,.�:,�Se�F..=^4r:7•ar-�.'�:'-L -"Gja-;�e Cy'�-=Y..•�}'_$rsf7 �! _ a�� 7 is fir.._..},-,meq._ � -`Rv�C��;,':=�. �'�:,C :r � �� i�!'i Y..- '. � i 't'��rx?'( • •14.-�rX it� � �'HL. �•!S-'�-k7ui` s;{';'4-f,;",'.@� ,w,j rte,. d; 's i- i.:r_,�r e- it :.�a-,.e�rkk�.r�s�,�..•y,'.�- .fir..- n;a i,.; z R+.� r-- ^�'�;.,�..-.�. ,�r�: ?.r ri �� Cori ,�r„' `�: -�. r..:�w,m. ,,,gip.., yras�^ '` -Py'r�'•-f... .C,. �ns e -?��. `� �:�'., �:+?7c%s:�ry�"'+;V-..,'• sK�3f,.fr J�.. �'� .'� •, dI�R- ;. � w �,iw_ c 3�'. :;h G±z-..€i"r'�= �:-' x*t5� ��,., ,u,• �;"t"�„`S�- f s'm �,.. .&., }s ,s,+3'="ra 4, �+'� {'1Y r _ a� 'L `� a" a•i. t ze. SX'A'.Tar�_F-_'L �.,.,_ e�4^rr .�'� ��?,-Es��'�� 5r+,'z`i��,. .a�!� f,�.;sL � ;�`^ y.., �� , .4 r�. i�?:. �i•- �i ` .�... ��#'�M" t. j �?d.' 7?="��`3 i�' cv.buy t!, �krW-adi`"t'G-.�}_-�`�-..`•,�,e,�'r _�'".;^,§+�":'f��il�?."`i 4; •, e J i lF;{� r. �,M. Y' �f•, h.`- �.--'fir.' `t'n..-. ;R�. i� --N��:• .�.a,.L3.��tda��r�� ti�r.r�--a:�" �x'.�°,s�'r.:- �r�` r `+'� 'a`-0?.� �H +;, � .'�. �`'k�-�.>-'G -ti.3�= 't �-a�fp L•�'�f7 1.7.'. wt-.:!�r n<s:..��.: �. ;� .��"�: :-fit .�:e6�e'�t�'''"+�- '�r,�:�x��:��:.,;.:�,�rr�,_,<---^,�,-_- ,�.s°,-3:r.�,.n�,�'.G��::v.•.r,='s`4..:,r- _,� (Please print or type Form must be duplicated when registering more than one person') First Name Last Name Title Daytime Phone( I Jurisdiction Fax Number IJ Street Address *E-mail City *Note. Please provide your e-mail address so we may confirm your registration. Confirmations will be State Zip sent one week before the workshop. Workshop Options: [Check all that apply.) Registration Options: The Basics $125/person ❑ Regular ❑ March 31-Little Falls ❑ Member,GTS Training Network(using vouchers) ❑ April 16-St Paul ❑ Student at El June 15-St Paul (name of institution) Payment Options: Beyond the Basics $125/person ❑ Enclosed is check# in the amount of ❑ May 18-Little Falls $ (payable to Government Training Services) ❑ June 1-St Paul ❑ Enclosed are GTS Training Network vouchers in the Advanced Zoning Applications $125/person amount of$ ❑ May 19-Little Falls ❑ June 8-St. Paul ❑ Please bill me at above address Your Role As Planning Commission Member $50/person PO# (If applicable). NOM A$10/AGENCY BILLING FEE WILL BE ADDED TO THE AMOUNT OWED ❑ April 17-St.Paul(evening) Billing option not available to students ❑ April 9-Little Falls ❑ May 18 - St Paul ❑ Credit Card(VISA or MasterCard only): Environmental Planning $125/person Card# Exp. Date ($500/person for consultants) E-mail address(required) ❑ June 23-Little Falls ❑ Check here if this is a duplicate copy of your registration form Using the AUAR $125/person and you have already registered by fax. ($500/person for consultants) ❑ July 14-St. Paul Special Needs: (Must be received at least two weeks before the Site Planning Basics $125/person workshop for which you are registering ) ❑ June 22-St. Paul ❑ I have a dietary restriction(e g,vegetarlanl as follows- Spotlight on Subdivisions $50/person ❑ June 16-Little Falls ❑ I require ancillary aids(i e sign language interpreter, large Local Government 101 $50/person print, Braille materials, etc.). Please contact me at (Circle one-VOICE or TTY) ❑ April 6-St. Paul ❑ May 4-St.Cloud ❑ I require other accommodations. Please contact me at. Avoid Drowning in Lakeshore Development Circle one' VOICE or TTY $60/person for local gov staff,elected officials, etc $30/person for citizens � :: , . _., ,; .,�_,;.' . _� ,..;,'.,- ,: .,, ❑ April 21-Alexandria Return thisformat least sevendays prior'to'tlie cidte'of the^first ❑ September 22 - Breezy Point workshopyou are atte'nding to', _ Government.Training Services;' 2233 West.Universit Avenue Suite 150` - - FOR FURTHER INFORMATION X go to www.mngts.org or contact St._Paul,MN 55114' Carol Schoeneck 651-222-7409 ext 205 or (If you have selected the"bill me' or'credit.card payment options, MN Toll Free- 800-569-6880 ext 205 you can fax yourregistration to:651-223-5307J,' cschoeneck@mngts oro Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 March 15, 2005 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER. 10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 11 12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 14 15 III. ROLL CALL. 16 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners Galyon, 17 Jensen, Jenson, and Young. 18 19 Absent: Commissioner Hoska 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the meeting 26 agenda as presented. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously 29 30 V. MEETING MINUTES. 31 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 18, 2005. 32 Commissioner Jensen noted the differences between his last name as Jensen and Commissioner 33 Jan Jenson. 34 35 Commissioner Young referenced page 3, line 23: 36 Reads: Mr. `Theisen' explained... 37 Should read: Mr. `Tyson' explained... 38 39 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Young, to approve the meeting minutes 40 of the Planning Commission of January 18, 2005 as amended. 41 42 Motion carried unanimously 43 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 2 1 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 2 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the March 22, 2005 City Council 3 Meeting. 4 5 Chair Stromgren stated that Commissioner Young would attend the City Council Meeting on 6 March 22, 2005. 7 8 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 9 NONE 10 11 VIII. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS 12 8.1 Presentation of Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building; A Preliminary National 13 Register and Condition Assessment—Charlene Roise and Todd Grover. 14 15 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Sunset Memorial has met with Staff and a subcommittee of the 16 Planning Commission to review and discuss revisions that they are proposing to Sunset 17 Memorial Park. She stated that the Sunset Group also held an Open House on January 11, 2005 18 noting that since then the City Council has approved the contracting with Hess, Roise and 19 Company, historical preservationists, to assess the condition of the Administration Building and 20 report back to the Planning Commission and City Council with their findings. She stated that 21 Ms. Roise and Mr. Grover have completed their assessment and are present to report their 22 findings to the Commission. 23 24 Charlene Roise stated that she is an Architectural historian with Hess, Roise and Company 25 noting that the company has been around since 1990 working across the country on a variety of 26 projects. 27 28 Todd Grover, McDonald &Mack stated that he specializes in historic preservation noting that 29 his organization has been in existence since 1976. 30 31 Ms. Roise explained that she and Mr. Grover were hired to take a look at the Administration 32 Building located at Sunset Memorial to determine eligibility for national historic designation 33 potential. She stated that upon visiting the park they determined that the entire park area had to 34 be included in the review along with the Administration Building. She stated that they 35 determined that the park itself appears to be eligible for the national register noting that many are 36 determined eligible but not formally nominated. She provided the Commission with a brief 37 history of the park stating that she reviewed the history in the context of cemeteries in general. 38 She stated that the park plan was originally designed by Allen and Nichols, a prominent local 39 architectural firm and the first real firm of its' kind in Minnesota. She noted that Mr. Nichols, 40 who died in Rochester, Minnesota, appreciated the design enough to be buried at Sunset 41 Memorial Park. 42 43 Mr. Grover stated that his focus was the structural analysis of the building noting that a synopsis 44 of the suggested reuse of the building is detailed in the report provided in the Commissioners 45 packets. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 3 1 2 Commissioner Jenson asked who compiled the conclusions and recommendations. Ms. Roise 3 stated that she was basically responsible for the report. She explained that she and Mr. Grover 4 each prepared a report, with their own conclusions and she consolidated the information for the 5 final conclusions and recommendations. 6 7 Commissioner Jenson asked Ms. Roise to expand on the two main points identified in the report. 8 Ms. Roise noted that the conclusions are included on the last page of the report. She explained 9 that because they were looking at the property as a whole and restrained from the use of historic 10 district. 11 12 Ms. Roise explained that a cemetery is known as a site, but is also basically known as district, as 13 it is an accumulation of different components including the landscaping and building 14 components. She stated that the landscaping in the overall scope is historically significant but is 15 also a contributing factor for the district. She noted that many properties can be individually 16 eligible but can also be part of a district as a whole, which is the case with the Administration 17 Building. She explained that as a result it is possible that the Administration Building could be 18 replaced, if done appropriately and does not damage the national historic significance. She 19 further explained that sometimes the changes that are made could detract from the property and 20 in turn, make it ineligible for the National Historical Register. She indicated that her preference 21 would be to see the historic Administration Building remain noting that she does understand that 22 one cannot freeze time. 23 24 Ms. Roise stated that if Sunset Memorial can provide an appropriate design for a new 25 construction on the site the Commission could give it consideration. She urged the Commission 26 to carefully consider the proposed designs to ensure the historic significance of the site. She 27 referenced the landscaping and emphasized to the Commission that the landscaped features on 28 this site are very, very important. She urged the Commission noting that the landscaping is an 29 important part of the consideration and tends to be under recognized. 30 31 Commissioner Jenson referenced the definition and requirements to meet eligibility for the 32 National Registry and asked Ms. Roise to further clarify what is meant by the term `If and only 33 if . Ms. Roise explained that the National Parks Program and the Department of the Interior runs 34 the entire program. She further explained that the Secretary of Standards delineates what can and 35 cannot happen on a historical property. She provided the Commission with an overview of the 36 set of standards stating that there is a general consensus as to what meets standards or not. She 37 noted that they are subject to interpretation and debate. 38 39 Commissioner Jenson asked if there is anything included in the designation that would or could 40 prevent the new owners from tearing down the current building and rebuilding. Ms. Roise 41 confirmed that there are no restrictions unless they are using federal funds or if it requires a 42 historic permit. She indicated that local historical organizations could possibly have the ability to 43 help enforce meeting historic standards or requirements. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 4 1 Mr. Grover explained that the Secretary of Interior Standards is written in such a way that it 2 allows for interpretation based on each individual situation. 3 4 Commissioner Young asked who would interpret the standards if the owners decide to rebuild 5 the Administration Building. Ms Roise indicated that a local group of consultants would work 6 with the structure. 7 8 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced the arborist's report regarding the red cedars and asked if it would 9 be advisable to replace the trees with the same species to protect the integrity of the site. Ms. 10 Roise stated that she would have to review the landscape design of the area adding that she is not 11 a horticulturalist. She agreed that it is important to consider what type of tree is being planted 12 noting that it is very difficult to freeze landscapes adding that trees do have a limited life. 13 14 IX. CONCEPT REVIEW 15 9.1 3605 —290' Avenue North (Industrial) Conditional Use—Proposed Car Sales 16 17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Mr. Patrick O'Connor met with Staff regarding his plan to purchase 18 the property located at 3605 —29`'' Avenue Northeast and his proposal to use the property for an 19 auto sales business for specialty cars, classics and custom models. She referenced a letter of 20 explanation submitted by Mr. O'Connor stating that his plan is to keep 15 to 25 vehicles on site 21 for sale either in the show room or parked on the west side of the property during business hours. 22 She explained that the vehicles would be ready for sale and not junked vehicles. She indicated 23 that it is Mr. O'Connor's intent to manage his inventory similarly to the Hitching Post where he 24 would display the vehicles outside during business hours and store them inside during off hours. 25 She stated that a public hearing has been scheduled for the April 19`x'meeting to discuss his 26 request noting that Mr. O'Connor is available to answer any questions the Commission might 27 have. 28 29 Patrick O'Connor stated that he spoke with Mr. Sanders, the owner of the property and believes 30 this would be a good location for the proposed dealership. He explained that he has been in the 31 business for over twenty years and would like to branch out now on his own. He provided the 32 Commission with a brief overview of the proposal stating that he plans on stocking the 33 dealership with late model cars and includes financing options. 34 35 Chair Stromgren asked if there are any improvements needed to the building or is this request 36 strictly a CUP. Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the request is a CUP with commercial use. She 37 indicated that the ordinance could be changed, if allowed, to reflect an automotive service with 38 the requirement that junk cars are to be kept out of sight. She indicated that changing the 39 ordinance would be a lengthy process and reviewed. 40 41 Commissioner Jensen clarified his understanding for conditional uses stating that the definitions 42 are relatively broad. He asked if the CUP is being used as a catch all for this request. Ms. 43 Moore-Sykes confirmed and reviewed with Commission. 44 45 Commissioner Galyon asked Mr. O'Connor how he determined the maximum number of cars to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 5 1 be kept on the site. Mr. O'Connor explained that was the max number he figured he would be 2 able to manage on the site. 3 4 Commissioner Jenson noted that the summary page mentions the intent to handle the inventory in 5 a similar fashion to the Hitching Post. He referenced the auto detail application, dated March 10, 6 and asked if the fourth paragraph indicates that the intent is to keep fully restored vehicles 7 outside, along the west wall. Mr. O'Connor stated that he would like to be able to display the 8 fully restored vehicles outside during the day and store them inside at night. He assured the 9 Commission that he would not be managing any junk vehicles. He stated that he is willing to 10 work the vehicle storage either way noting that he would like to be able to leave a few of the 11 restored vehicles outside as a form of advertising. 12 13 Mr. O'Connor stated that his first and foremost goal for this evening is to gain initial approval 14 from the Commission to be able to move forward with the design. He stated that he is willing to 15 comply with special requirements if the vehicles are to be kept inside at all times. 16 17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the current ordinance requires that all vehicles kept outside are to be 18 kept on a bituminous surface, with current licensing and in operating condition. 19 20 Mr. O'Connor assured the Commission that he intends to maintain an upstanding looking 21 business adding that he is not there to open a salvage yard. 22 23 Commissioner Young asked if any thought had been given to additional lighting or signage. Mr. 24 O'Connor stated that he is currently considering an awning on two sides of building along with 25 some additional lighting and signage in the front. 26 27 9.2 3621 Roosevelt Avenue Northeast Lot Split; Rezoning from R-1 to R-2; Lot Width 28 Variance 29 30 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she recently met with Mr. Tom Walek, owner of 3621 Roosevelt Street 31 Northeast to discuss the possibility of splitting his lot, creating two R-1, Single-Family lots. She 32 stated that upon reviewing the square footage of the lot she advised Mr. Walek that the proposed 33 splitting of his lot would result in two non-conforming residential lots. She stated that they also 34 discussed the possibility of obtaining a lot split variance noting that Mr. Walek also asked if it 35 would be possible to build a twin home unit on his property. She stated that she reviewed the 36 ordinance requirements for R-2 use with Mr. Walek and advised him that he would have to apply 37 to have the property re-zoned to R-2. She stated that she also advised him that this request could 38 be construed as spot zoning, which is not an acceptable practice in the City. She noted the map 39 included was pulled from the County website. 40 41 Mr. Tom Walek stated that he and his family have lived at 3621 Roosevelt for the past twenty- 42 five years. He explained that he is asking approval for a variance to split his current lot and build 43 an additional single-family home on the second lot. 44 45 Chair Stromgren asked where the current house is positioned on the lot. Mr. Walek stated that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 6 1 the house is currently located in the north corner of the lot. 2 3 Commissioner Jensen noted that the Hennepin County Map is not adding up to the total area of 4 land in discussion. He stated that it appears, from an area point of view, that they do have more 5 than enough space. He suggested confirming all of the areas on the map noting that they would 6 have to do a formal survey. Ms. Moore-Sykes agreed adding that they currently do not have a 7 survey on file. 8 9 Commissioner Jensen noted that on the map there is a house that is located on one of the interior 10 pieces with no access to roadways and asked if this is accurate. Mr. Walek confirmed that there 11 is only one house on the lot and is located on the street side. 12 13 Commissioner Jensen stated that the house is far enough north adding that it would depend on 14 how the code deals with restrictions. He clarified that the house must be at least 30 to 35-feet 15 from the street adding that there is a possibility that the second structure could exist deeper on the 16 lot. Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed that they would have to be 30-feet back and the look of the 17 house should be basically in line with the other homes down the street. 18 19 Commissioner Galyon asked if they are considering it as potential rental income or as a `for sale' 20 property. Mr. Walek explained that he plans to build the new home, move into the new home 21 and tear down the current home, rebuild and sell the second home upon completion. 22 23 9.3 Lot South of Tires Plus—Proposed Drive-Through for Restaurant 24 25 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she recently received a call from a realtor who has a client 26 interested in locating a Dairy Queen Restaurant on the lot south of the new Tires Plus. She 27 explained that they are interested in having a drive-through window for customer convenience 28 adding that she has advised the realtor about the City's restrictions on drive-through facilities. 29 She stated that the realtor has indicated a willingness to discuss the project with the Planning 30 Commission. She noted that she has not received any further inquiries and the realtor is not 31 present this evening to discuss this request. 32 33 Vice Chair Hanson stated that there are several Dairy Queens located throughout the area and 34 questioned whether a Dairy Queen at this location would comply with Dairy Queen's 35 requirements for franchise locations. 36 37 X. PUBLIC INPUT 38 39 NONE 40 41 XI. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 42 11.1 Update on City Redevelopment Projects and 2005 Strategic Plans and Goals 43 44 Ms. Moore-Sykes provided the Commission with the following updates: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 7 1 • City Administrator has reviewed the upcoming City Council schedule of meetings and 2 agenda items with Department Heads. 3 • March 8th Council Meeting will have the 2005 Street Reconstruction Bond Sale award on 4 agenda for Council approval. 5 • Summary of the 2005 Goals will be included on Council agenda 6 • Silver Lake Village Phase H update 7 • Silver Lake Village Phase I— Several businesses are scheduled to open or have opened 8 including: Papa Murphy's, Wendy's, Wal-Mart, Applebee's, Caribou Coffee, Cold Stone 9 Creamery, World Wireless,Noodle's & Company, Ficocello's, and Chipolte. Landscaping 10 will begin again in mid-May. 11 • St. Anthony Marketplace—AMCON is proposing to construct a 4,500 square foot building 12 on the Outlot with possibly a coffee shop as an anchor. They plan to put a restaurant on the 13 west end of the main building. Several public hearings and Council approval is necessary. 14 15 XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS 16 12.1 New Planning Commissioner 17 18 Chair Stromgren welcomed Heath Galyon as the newest member of the St. Anthony Planning 19 Commission. 20 21 12.2 Land Use Planning Workshops 22 23 Ms. Moore-Sykes reviewed the Land Use Planning Workshops with the Commission. She 24 explained that the training is put on by a Government Training organization and includes 25 workshops that cover zoning and land use applications. She stated that they offer a variety of 26 workshops throughout the year that provide a very good opportunity especially if an individual is 27 new. She noted that it is nice to be able to get a feel as to how things are handled by law at a 28 local level. She stated that anyone interested in registering should contact her for further 29 information. 30 31 Commissioner Jenson asked what kind of notice would she need for the registration and does the 32 City cover the costs for registration. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would need a two-week 33 notice for registration and confirmed that the City would cover the expenses to attend the 34 workshops. 35 36 12.3 Planning Commission By-Law Changes; Compensation 37 38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that several changes have been made and updated to the current by-laws 39 noting that a$25.00 stipend has been approved as compensation for each Planning Commission 40 meeting that is attended by the Commissioners. 41 42 Comments 43 Commissioner Jensen referenced Mr. Walek's request and asked if a timeframe has been 44 determined as to how Staff would interact with Mr. Walek in working through the details on the 45 narrow lots. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 Page 8 1 2 Chair Stromgren stated that they plan to review and clean up the outdated portions of the City 3 Ordinances. He explained that one issue that has come before the Commission, on several 4 occasions, is proposals for an addition to a home and the residents are denied due to lot coverage 5 requirements. He asked if the review would be completed in time to have an impact for Mr. 6 Walek. 7 8 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that what they are referencing would be a change in the ordinance. 9 She further explained that the process would involve three readings before final approval, which 10 is a time consuming process that could easily take up to two months or more to complete. 11 12 Chair Stromgren asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to provide the Commission with a memo, prior to the 13 next Planning Commission meeting, that itemizes all of the proposed ordinance changes. He 14 asked to include the review as an agenda item for the March Planning Commission meeting and 15 asked the Commissioners to review the proposed changes and contact Ms. Moore-Sykes with any 16 additional feedback. 17 18 Commissioner Jensen stated that he would like an interpretation of the variance from the City 19 Attorney. Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that it is her understanding that in the past the City has had 20 the authority to grant this type of variance and acknowledged his concerns noting a good point 21 raised is to whether the City would be able to defend the approval legally. 22 23 Commissioner Jenson welcomed Commissioner Heath Galyon to the Planning Commission. 24 25 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he would like an update on where the City is at with Sunset 26 Memorial Park. He asked if they are planning a public hearing for next month. Ms. Moore- 27 Sykes stated that it could be possible if Sunset Memorial is ready to move forward with their 28 plans. 29 30 XIII. ADJOURNMENT 31 32 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Jensen, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 33 p.m. 34 35 Motion carried unanimously. 36 37 Respectfully submitted, 38 Bonnie Sullivan 39 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission March 15, 2005 5:45 pm 5:45 pm 5andwiches provided for members of Commission and-Council 6:00 pm Meeting called to order by Mayor Faust Presentation and discussion of 2005 Goals by Mayor and Council Other Business Adjourn by 7 pm for regular Planning Commission Meeting CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. III. ROLL CALL. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. V. MEETING MINUTES. V.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of January 18, 2005 (No Meeting in February) VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VI.1 Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the March 22, 2005 City Council Meeting VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. None VIII. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS VIII.1 Presentation of Sunset Memorial Park Administration Building: A Preliminary National Register and Condition Assessment— Charlene Roise and Todd Grover IX. CONCEPT REVIEWS. IX.1. 3605 — 29"' Avenue N. (Industrial) Conditional Use -- Proposed Car Sales IX.2. 3621 Roosevelt Avenue NE Lot Split; Rezoning from R-1 to R-2; Lot Width Variance. IX.3 Lot South of Tires Plus — Proposed Drive-Through for Restaurant H:\P1anning\PC Agendas\2005\031505 pc agenda.doc X. PUBLIC INPUT. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the City Clerks record and limit their remarks to five (5) minutes XI. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. XI.1. Update on City Redevelopment Projects XI.2. 2005 Strategic Plan and Goals XII. ANNOUNCEMENTS. XII.1. New Planning Commissioner XII.2. Land Use Planning Workshops XII.3. Planning Commission By-Law Changes; Compensation XIII.ADJOURNMENT. H:\P1anning\PC Agendas\2005\031505 pc agenda.doc