Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06212005 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 104945 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 06212005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA )UNE 21, 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. VA Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of May 17, 2005 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VIA Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the June 28,.2005 City Council Meeting VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. VII.1 2513 WEST ARMOUR TERRACE NE — PETITION OF VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD VII.2 3645 CHELMSFORD ROAD NE — R-1 TO R-3 REZONING REQUEST VII.3 Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment — Rezoning, Section 1665.03 VII.4. Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment — Conditional Use Permits, Section 1665.04 VIII. Concept Reviews. WILL Conditional Use for 2550 Highway 88 (Formerly Hitching Post) VIII.2. Senior Cooperative Development - Nichols Development VIII.3. Conditional Use Permit — 49ers Building IX. 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 HAPlanning\PC Agendas\2005\062105 pc agenda.doc their name and address For the City Clerks record and limit their remarks to five (5) minutes X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. X.1. Code Enforcement Discussion — Fire Chief John Malenick and Rick Lundeen X.2. LMC Land Use Issues — June 15, 2005 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS. XII. ADJOURNMENT. HAPlanning\PC Agendas\2005\062105 pc agenda.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 1 I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 May 17, 2005 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER. 10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Hoska, 17 Galyon, Jensen, Jenson, and Young. 18 19 Absent: None. 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 The Commission agreed,by consensus, to approve the meeting agenda as presented. 26 27 Motion carried unanimously 28 29 V. MEETING MINUTES. 30 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of April 19, 2005. 31 32 Chair Stromgren had the following corrections: 33 • Page 5, second paragraph, line 34, reads: `ding that he'; should read: `noting that he' 34 • Page 5, first paragraph, line 23, reads: `Nelson suggested a diamond grill pad'; should read: 35 `Nelson suggested a diamond grill pattern' 36 37 Commissioner Young had the following correction: 38 • Page 5, first paragraph, line 21, reads: `Morrow-Nichols'; should read `Morrell-Nichols' 39 40 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting minutes 41 of the Planning Commission of April 19, 2005 as amended. 42 43 Motion carried unanimously 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 2 1 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 2 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the May 24, 2005 City Council Meeting, 3 4 Chair Stromgren stated that Commissioner Young would attend the City Council Meeting on 5 May 24, 2005. 6 7 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 8 9 7.1 3217—31St Avenue NE, Petition of Variance for Lot Coverage 10 11 Chair Stromgren opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m. 12 13 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the Petition of 14 Variance for Lot Coverage submitted by Patrick Palan and Patricia Le Febvre, owners of 3217— 15 31St Avenue NE. She explained that the owners are proposing to construct a 12-foot x 10-foot 16 deck on the backside of their house. She stated that based on the findings from the public 17 hearing Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to 18 lot coverage to the City Council. She provided the Commission with a brief background noting 19 that it was discovered during a meeting between Mr. Palan and Staff, that the structures on the 20 site exceeded the allowable lot coverage percentage as stipulated in the City Ordinance. She 21 reviewed the lot size, structures and layout with the Commission noting that currently the house, 22 the detached garage, the driveway, sidewalk and patio exceed the allowable lot coverage by 230- 23 square feet. She stated that according to documents from Hennepin County and the City's 24 address file, the house and garage were built in 1955. She noted that Staff assumes that a 25 driveway was also constructed at the same time but the file does not indicate the materials used 26 for the original construction. She stated that the current owners pulled a permit in 1991 to 27 replace the original driveway with asphalt. She stated that in their application for a variance the 28 applicants state that the undue hardship they have with this property is the length of the driveway 29 required to access their detached garage, which is located deep into the lot. She explained that in 30 order to build the proposed deck and comply with the City's lot coverage requirements the 31 applicant would have to move their garage forward approximately 10-feet. She further explained 32 that the extraordinary circumstance that they feel this variance would help to alleviate is because 33 the property had already exceeded the allowable lot coverage they are not able to improve the 34 property. She stated that Staff's review of the documents in the property file shows that the 35 hardship was not created by the owners but rather as a result of the original codification of the 36 City's Zoning Ordinance, which was created in 1976. 37 38 Mr. Palan stated that he has worked to make improvements to the house over the past three years. 39 He reviewed the changes and upgrades with the Commission and explained that they were not 40 aware of the lot coverage issue until they applied for the deck permit. He reviewed the layout of 41 the lot, locations of the current structures and the proposed deck plans with the Commission. 42 43 Chair Stromgren asked what type of surface would exist under the deck. Mr. Palan stated that he 44 plans to place key rock under the deck and along the sides of the deck. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 3 1 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. 2 3 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Galyon, to recommend approval of 4 the Variance for lot coverage, from 35-percent to 40-percent, to allow a deck at 3217— 31S` 5 Avenue Northeast; the Variance corrects extraordinary circumstances not caused by the property 6 owner. 7 8 Motion carried unanimously 9 10 7.2 Alderwoods Group—Petition for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance 11 12 Chair Stromgren clarified that this public hearing specifically relates only to the proposed text 13 change, which would allow cemeteries in an R1 zoning district and would make a funeral home a 14 conditional use in an R1 zone. 15 16 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. 17 18 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the proposed 19 text amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance whereby Chapter 16, Section 1615.02 would be 20 amended to allow cemeteries, mausoleums, crypts, vaults, and crematoriums in an R-1 Single 21 Family Zoning District. She stated that the text amendment would also include a change to 22 Section 1615.03 whereby funeral homes are allowed in the R-1 Zoning District as a permitted 23 conditional use. She provided the Commission with an overview of the text amendment changes 24 and definitions. She stated that Staff recommends that the proposed language be modified to 25 remove crematoriums as a permitted use in the R-1 District and also add the recommended 26 definition of funeral homes to the proposed text amendment. She stated that Alderwoods Group 27 has indicated that they are also interested in defining the minimum acreage required for a 28 designation of funeral home as part of the proposed language. She stated that if the proposed 29 changes are agreed to and based on the findings of fact from the public hearing on this request, 30 Staff requests that the Planning Commission consider recommending approval of the text 31 amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to the City Council. 32 33 Dan Tyson, 45 South 7t' Street,Minneapolis, stated that he is present this evening, along with 34 several members of the Alderwoods team to review the proposed text amendment with the 35 Commission. He introduced the Alderwoods team to the Planning Commission noting that they 36 are all available to answer any questions the Commission might have. He opened by stating that 37 the words being said are overshadowing what his client is trying to accomplish noting that behind 38 the words is the respect for matters of grief, respect for the grieving, and matters of the heart. He 39 stated that also behind the words is a matter of place, located within the City of St. Anthony, a 40 place to remember and a reverence of life. He explained that his client is asking for an 41 enhancement to the funeral home as part of this reverence to the lives lived. He stated that they 42 are in agreement with the proposed language changes. He clarified that they are asking for 43 changes to the text as an amendment, not for a change to the zoning ordinance. He explained 44 that they need to have conformity with their use, which is what the proposed language addresses 45 with this request. He further explained that part of the request recommends limiting the size of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 4 1 the cemetery site and proposes a 10-acre minimum be added to the language. He stated that the 2 site itself consists of approximately 97 acres in St. Anthony and 20-acres in Minneapolis noting 3 that the concern is the changing of organic language in order to meet the limitations of the 4 acreage. He stated that they are also requesting that certain accessory uses be included as 5 permitted uses and that the ordinance be changed to include language that allows funeral home 6 mortuaries and crematorium as a permitted conditional use. He stated that the language changes, 7 proposed by Staff, are acceptable noting that they included the mortuary to be consistent with 8 other parts of the City's language. He explained that the crematorium is also a part of the 9 operation and services that a funeral home provides. He requested that any details be included 10 with the condition of use process. He reviewed the overall project noting that they have other 11 requests as they move forward through this process that includes the proposal to construct a new 12 structure on this site, which would be part of the conditional use process. 13 14 Mr. Tyson stated that they invited the public and City officials to an Open House this past 15 January noting that this was a good way for them to show the Residents what they would like to 16 do. He stated that site drawings were provided for their review and comment noting that they 17 received a lot of positive feedback and information. He stated that they have also held informal 18 meetings with City Staff to discuss the proposals and concern regarding the historic significance. 19 He stated that the City responded by hiring Charlene Roise to perform a study noting that the 20 study concluded that the building is functionally obsolete. He indicated that the report also states 21 that there was a case for removal of the building noting that individually they are not eligible for 22 the national register. He stated that this conclusion came after a very thorough study of the 23 building. He stated that they responded to the City's request to meet with the State Historical 24 Society noting that they hired Charles Nelson, former head of the State Historical Society, to 25 assist with the historical aspects of the property. He stated that John Herman is available this 26 evening to answer questions. He noted that the findings would also be part of the next public 27 hearing when they come forward to request approval for the conditional use permit. He 28 referenced the concerns expressed regarding potential encroachment of the design of the building 29 on existing gravesites and assured the Commission that he could state, without exception, that 30 this is not the case. He stated that Matt Duggan is present with drawings of the proposed site that 31 show this is not the case. 32 33 Commissioner Young asked how they came up with the 10-acre figure. Mr. Tyson explained 34 that it was based on research from other municipalities and on the size of the City of St. Anthony. 35 Ms. Moore-Sykes further clarified noting that Staff also discussed the acreage. She explained 36 that there are other cemeteries located in the City and Staff did not want to create a non- 37 conforming situation. She assured the Commission that the other cemeteries would be included 38 in the acreage before proposing final approval. 39 40 Commissioner Jensen noted their proposal includes discussion of funeral homes and mortuaries 41 as non-conforming use and asked what the differences are between funeral homes and 42 mortuaries. Mr. Tyson explained that the term mortuaries and funeral homes are synonymous 43 terms for the same use. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 5 1 Commissioner Young noted that a funeral home is more expansive in its function and asked if 2 the term mortuary has a different definition than a funeral home. Mr. Tyson explained that a 3 mortuary is inclusive to funeral homes adding that he is ok with the term `funeral home' if this is 4 what the Commission wants. Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that funeral homes and mortuaries are 5 listed separately in the commercial zoning regulations and suggested that they keep the verbiage 6 as `funeral homes and mortuaries' to remain consistent within the ordinance. 7 8 Commissioner Jenson noted that the language in the proposed section 1615.03 states that funeral 9 homes, mortuaries and crematories are accessories to a cemetery and asked if this would imply 10 that a funeral home could only be located in a cemetery. Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that in an R- 11 1 district they could have a cemetery without a funeral home but not a funeral home without a 12 cemetery. She further clarified that the only district where a funeral home and a mortuary would 13 be allowed would be in a commercial district. 14 15 Chair Stromgren clarified his understanding of the applicant's rationale for the changing noting 16 that the previous application was to rezone the cemetery to an open space district. He stated that 17 the Planning Commission motioned to continue this request and the request was denied by City 18 Council because they were uncertain of the long-term intent of the applicant and due to the 60- 19 day period. He questioned why it should be allowable as an R-1 since it is already and ROS. Mr. 20 Tyson explained that after consulting with Staff it was determined that a full rezoning of the 21 property was not the best way and it was determined that it would be the most consistent use by 22 using the current zoning to make their uses conforming. 23 24 Commissioner Young asked how the Minneapolis portion of the cemetery is zoned. Mr. Tyson 25 stated that the Minneapolis portion of the cemetery is in an R-1 District. 26 27 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, reviewed his understanding of Chapter 16 of 28 the zoning code noting that the structure of the code was setup by the City Fathers to keep order 29 within the city. He stated that any rezoning would have to be tested on how it would impact the 30 present preservation of this cemetery. He expressed his disagreement with Mr. Tyson stating that 31 this is not R-1 it is a legal non-conforming use. He noted that the Alderwoods Group is asking to 32 construct a new Administration Building and expressed concerns that there has been no actual 33 discussion on the new building and how it would impact the area. He stated that the original 34 concept review that was submitted made no mention of a new building adding that the present 35 zoning is in place to protect the present use. He stated the two different facilities would have a 36 definite negative impact to the area with an increase in noise levels and traffic. He advised the 37 Planning Commission to be careful when considering the co-mingling of a mortuary and funeral 38 home. He expressed concerns stating that the proposed structure would be extremely close to 39 gravesites from both the north and south areas and the proposed changes to the roadway area 40 would reduce the actual size of the roads making it difficult to navigate through the cemetery. 41 He commended the Planning Commission stating that they did an excellent job researching the 42 historical nature of the building. He stated that the report clearly states that Sunset Memorial is 43 eligible for the National Registry. He stated that the current building is in good condition and if 44 the non-conforming funeral home and administration building were removed it would actually 45 function quite well. He stated that the City is under no legal obligation to adjust the zoning Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 6 1 codes adding that Alderwoods Group has not shown a hardship. He noted that the Alderwoods 2 Group has several locations throughout the metro area and urged the Planning Commission to 3 vote no to the petition dated April 25, 2005. 4 5 Thomas Arsenault, 1560 Trollhaugen Drive, Fridley, thanked the Commission for listening to the 6 public on this issue. He stated that he does not have a problem with the proposed text changes 7 adding that it does feel as if this is the first step down a very slippery slope to major changes to 8 Sunset Memorial. He stated that he feels intimidated by the size of the Alderwoods Group 9 noting that it is just him representing his immediate and extended family. He stated that his 10 family has several relatives buried in Sunset Memorial noting that it is the peace and tranquility 11 of Sunset that made them choose this location as their final place of rest. He stated that while the 12 proposal being discussed tonight is only for a text amendment, ultimately, this change does lead 13 to a bigger change to the cemetery. He expressed concerns stating that all of the gravesites at 14 Sunset would be affected, as would all who use the cemetery. He acknowledged that the changes 15 might not destroy gravesites but it would destroy the peace of the cemetery. He stated that this 16 cemetery has been, for many years, a peaceful place for many to come to and a new funeral home 17 and administration building, along with a parking lot, would affect all of the gravesites with 18 access, changes in the views, along with an overall change in the character of the cemetery. He 19 stated that he is speaking for his family and on behalf of himself and his family he would like to 20 recommend that the Planning Commission vote no, beginning with the text amendment. He 21 stated that the Community needs a peaceful place. 22 23 Nancy Soldatow, 3217 32nd Avenue Northeast, stated that she sees many people walking and 24 biking in the area. She stated that Sunset is a very quiet, peaceful area with a lovely building and 25 view. She stated that St. Anthony does not have many places like this anymore and urged the 26 Commission to vote against any kind of text change that would change the building or the area. 27 28 Diane Asbroth, 340 Dakota, Golden Valley, stated that she grew up in the St. Anthony area 29 noting that she only heard of this a week and half ago. She explained that her mother was buried 30 at Sunset last Tuesday and expressed concerns about the proposed changes at the cemetery. She 31 stated that when she and her family first moved to St. Anthony, Sunset Memorial was a striking 32 and tranquil cemetery. She stated that her family has always admired Sunset Memorial Park for 33 that reason adding that this is also the reason why her mother chose Sunset as her final resting 34 place. She stated that in listening to the Attorney explain the need for a text change she found 35 herself asking why. She expressed concerns stating that the Alderwoods Group is looking for a 36 monetary gain not for an improvement for those residing there or for those who will be residing 37 there. She stated that the people currently at Sunset and the relatives of those at Sunset were not 38 aware of the proposed changes noting that the aesthetics alone should be a big consideration. 39 She stated that the proposed parking area would be a major factor and impact on the cemetery 40 adding that the mall is something that puts a person into an awesome state. She stated that she 41 does not believe the changes to the verbiage or the building would affect the entrance in a 42 positive fashion noting that Sunset has a meaning from deep within versus being a profit-making 43 organization. She asked the Planning Commission to vote no to the text amendment and the 44ro osed changes at Sunset. p p 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 7 1 John Dennison, 2821 Silver Lane, stated that he and his family have lived in St. Anthony for 2 many years adding that his parents are buried at Sunset. He stated that his mother and sister used 3 to take regular drives through the area just because it gave them a sense of peace. He stated that 4 the view of the Bell Tower and music coming from the Tower sets a beautiful tone to the area. 5 He expressed his agreement with the Residents stating that this is a beautiful facility and asked 6 the Planning Commission to the language and cemetery the way it is. 7 8 Florence Iverson, 2812 Highway 88, asked why they feel the need to disrupt the cemetery and 9 build a big funeral home. She stated that there are several funeral homes in the area and what is 10 happening. She asked the Planning Commission to vote against the changes. 11 12 Steven Weise, 2513 St. Anthony Boulevard stated that the verbiage is extremely important and 13 changing the wording would impact the cemetery considerably. He stated that many utilize the 14 cemetery just because it is such an amazing place. He expressed concerns stating that the 15 architecture of the building is beautiful and it would be a shame to tear it down. He stated that it 16 is his understanding that the building is eligible for the National Registry and suggested taking 17 this avenue versus removing the building. He urged the Planning Commission to vote no on the 18 proposed changes. 19 20 Laura Faucher, 2058 St. Anthony Parkway, Board of Preservation Alliance, stated that she is on 21 board with Charlie Nelson. She stated that she disagrees with the proposed changes. She 22 explained that she is an architect noting that she works, on a regular basis,with zoning issues for 23 historic buildings. She stated that would like to state that the Preservation Alliance, as a whole, 24 is very concerned about the issues and had they been aware of this situation sooner they would 25 have nominated Sunset Memorial to the top ten list of places in jeopardy. She urged the 26 Planning Commission to vote no to this request. 27 28 Will Stark, 2840 43rd Avenue South, Board of Preservation Alliance, stated that he has an interest 29 in representing other Minnesotans who have an interest in preserving historic buildings and 30 locations in Minnesota. He reminded the Planning Commission that the conclusion of the survey 31 shows that Sunset Memorial is a historical cemetery with eligibility to register with the National 32 Register for Historic Places. He explained that the loss of the building would impair the integrity 33 of the Historic District. He noted that this hearing is only about the proposed text changes and 34 suggested that zoning could be a way of protecting the historical resources in this Community. 35 He explained that a funeral home is a commercial use adding that it is not appropriate use for a 36 residential zone. He urged the Commission to keep in mind all of the historic factors. 37 38 Vernie Bjorklund, 3207 Silver Lake Road, stated that she has lived in St. Anthony for 40 years 39 noting that her son is buried at Sunset Memorial. She stated that one of the reasons it would be 40 nice to keep the cemetery as it is, is because the City mainly consists of buildings and this is one 41 of the few places people can go where they are not surrounded by huge buildings. She stated that 42 the view is wonderful to see in all the seasons and urged the Planning Commission to vote no, 43 this is an asset to the Community that should be preserved. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 8 1 Richard Wiese, 802 Torchwood Drive,New Brighton, stated that his interest is based on fact. He 2 stated that he purchased two lots in Sunset for all the reasons named this evening. He stated that 3 if it is not broken,please don't fix it. For those already in Sunset, please let them rest in peace. 4 5 Tammy Reiman, 6842 Monroe Street, stated that her family purchased three lots in Sunset and 6 her father is buried a half block from the administration building. She expressed concerns stating 7 that she just found about this a week and half ago and it really struck her the wrong way. She 8 stated that many of her family are buried in Sunset and it has always been a peaceful place. She 9 stated that she does not understand why they want to change the area and obstruct the views. She 10 stated that it is a very peaceful place and it should remain that way. 11 12 Ron Sundmoore, 2708 34 Avenue Northeast, stated that he is probably one of the few people still '13 alive who was personally present at the 1937 dedication of the Sunset Memorial chapel and 14 mausoleum. He stated that at the time the speakers of the day made a great point that Sunset 15 Memorial would be a different cemetery and that the cemetery was purposely designed to be a 16 park forever without a commercial establishment, such as a large mortuary, in lieu of a reception 17 building. He expressed concerns stating that part of the original design was the view of the mall 18 leading to the Tower of Memories, all of which are very classic in their design. He stated that it 19 would be a desecration to allow any changes to this design and urged the Commission to vote no. 20 21 William Volna, 3501 Coolidge, agreed with all of the statements made tonight. He stated that he 22 used to go swimming at Sunset Memorial noting that it used to be a swamp in area. He stated 23 that the big picture always brings him back to historic places and architectural structures that 24 have been lost noting that the proposed building would not replicate the cut granite or become a 25 long-term structure like the one currently in place. He stated that you couldn't replace 26 architectural design. He stated that his son is buried in Sunset and asked how long the new 27 owners have had the cemetery. He stated that every year he receives a brochure asking for 28 comments noting that over the last five years he has commented and expressed concerns about 29 the appearance of the cemetery and the fact that this is the gateway area to St. Anthony. He 30 stated that the fences and gates around the area are in disrepair and expressed concerns about 31 their ability to maintain new structures if they are not able to repair the current structures and 32 gates. He urged the Commission to vote no on the text amendment changes. 33 34 Stanley Kasal, 2801 Silver Lake Road, stated that it appears to him that the Council has already 35 acted once to deny any changes to the zoning and now they are going at it from the back door. 36 He asked what they plan to do with the zoning issues in Minneapolis. 37 38 Mr. Tyson stated that many questions have been raised this evening noting that some cannot be 39 specifically answered at this time. He assured the Commission that they would provide answers 40 as submitted. He stated that this body has the challenge of interpreting the questions in a way 41 that protects the legacy for the Residents and Citizens of St. Anthony in the way they have asked. 42 He stated that this body would take all of the issues into consideration as they look to protect the 43 overall cemetery. He explained that the Alderwoods Group is asking for the right to live within a 44 conformity that came about as a result of changes in the City with respect to zoning. He clarified 45 that only one building is being proposed, not two and they are asking this evening to be allowed Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 9 1 to bring this into conformity with the current zoning, to be able to provide the framework and to 2 have the issues addressed through the conditional use process. 3 4 Chair Stromgren asked how long the Alderwoods Group has been in operation. Mr. Tyson stated 5 that the Alderwoods Group has been in operation since 1991. 6 7 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 8:22 p.m. 8 9 Commissioner Jensen stated that the City has no ability to demand that a facility maintain upkeep 10 of conforming use. Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that as a legal non-conforming they cannot allow 11 anything to happen there that would continue to be non-conforming. She explained that the 12 zoning ordinance stated that a City has the right to go in and rectify violations of the code that 13 create a nuisance. She stated that the City does have the ability to control what goes into an area 14 through the zoning and ordinance. 15 16 Commissioner Jensen acknowledged that it is the site that moves so many of the residents,which 17 is the reason why they should add a conditional use. He noted that there are many places in the 18 cemetery where trees are missing and nothing has been replanted. He stated that the site was 19 significant for what it was designed to be and clearly, at some point, it should be expected that 20 there would be some form of construction activity as the roads are in need of repair. He agreed 21 that there are a lot of reasons for concern when considering the upkeep adding that he does not 22 know if anything has actually been submitted at this point that would allow him to vote on the 23 building design or the text amendment. 24 25 Commissioner Young expressed concerns stating that they have funeral homes and mortuaries in 26 commercial use areas and now they are discussing the possibility of moving this to another 27 zoning code group. She stated that she is concerned and unsure as to how this bodes for the City. 28 29 Vice Chair Hason stated that after talking with Residents he does not think that a funeral home 30 should be permitted in an R-1 zoning. He stated that he would be interested to know if the 31 Alderwoods Group has looked at redesigning or reconfiguring the Minneapolis portion of the 32 cemetery. 33 34 Chair Stromgren stated that he and Commissioner Young participated with the Design 35 Committee and shared several design alternatives that included remodeling and expansion of the 36 chapel building located at the west end of the Mall on the Minneapolis side. He stated that the 37 options proved to be unworkable because they did not have an adequate space at the site. He 38 stated that they took it away from the meeting that they could do a workable solution that would 39 require a split in the operations between sales and administration and the funeral home could fit 40 on the chapel site, which would allow the original administration building to retain its original 41 footprint. He noted that the entire landscape composition was clearly eligible to be nominated 42 for historical designation. He stated that he has copies of two letters submitted to Staff, one from 43 Joan Scovil opposing the changes and the other from Chris Addington and Delores Way both 44 oppose the plan. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 10 1 Commissioner Jensen noted that the administration building function would be part of the 2 definition proposal and asked if this is something that should be within a motion or as Item E in 3 the document. He stated that currently it is not listed as a function and he wants to make the 4 functions compliant. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that currently it exists as a legal non-compliant 5 that cannot be expanded or enhanced. She stated that the entire site exists in an R-1 zone adding 6 that she is not sure where the light industrial reference comes from. 7 8 Commissioner Galyon clarified that this would be the first allowed as a commercial use in an R-1 9 District. Chair Stromgren confirmed. 10 11 Motion by Commissioner Jensen to recommend approval of the text amendment as indicated and 12 summarized by Staff, that the text amendment would be under 1605.1 definitions and included as 13 Item E-cemeteries under permitted conditional uses within an R-1 District; provide that the site is 14 at least 10-acres in size; allow mausoleums; and add Item D-funeral homes, mortuaries and 15 crematoriums to the zoning ordinance. 16 17 Motion failed for lack of a second. 18 19 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Young, to deny the text change 20 amendment as defined in 1605.01, .02 and .03 as recommended by the Alderwoods Group. 21 22 Ayes-6 Nays-1 (Jensen) Motion carried. 23 24 7.3 AMCON St. Anthony, LLC— St. Anthony Marketplace 25 26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review the proposed 27 revised site plan and consider the various petition requests presented by the representatives of 28 AMCON. She provided the Commission with an overview of each request noting that each has 29 been published in the local newspaper and neighboring properties have been notified. She stated 30 that AMCON representatives have met with Staff to review their revised site plan for the 31 remaining development of the former Stonehouse property. She provided the Commission with 32 an overview of the conditions noting that the hours for outdoor seating should not exceed beyond 33 10:00 p.m. She stated that City Engineers must approve the plan and determine whether there 34 would be any adverse affects on the current water flow. She stated that the hours of operation 35 would coincide with the liquor store noting that the conditional use permit previously approved 36 has expired and the conditions no longer pertain. She stated that based on the findings of facts 37 from the public hearing on each of the requests, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 38 consider recommending approval of the revised site plan, conditional use permits and variances 39 to City Council. 40 41 Paul Tucci, Oppidan, Inc., provided the Planning Commission with an update on the proposed 42 site plan. He reviewed the major modification of the building noting that they are proposing 43 4,500-feet as compared to the original intention to place a 6,000 square foot restaurant. He stated 44 that things have changed and they have been trying to fill the space. He indicated that they do 45 have an operator who wants 3,500 square feet and this would allow them the best opportunity to Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 11 1 place a restaurant in an end cap space. He reviewed site plan changes noting that they have 2 turned the building and moved the drive-through. He noted that parking is a premium adding 3 that there was some concern about some of the conflicts. He reviewed the original landscaping 4 plan with the Commission noting that 19 Russian Olive trees were removed. He stated that they 5 have met with the City's landscape architect reviewed the plan for the trees inside the property, 6 the layout design and provided them with the conceptual plans. He stated that a meeting is 7 scheduled for next Wednesday, May 25, 2005 with the City's landscape architect to discuss the 8 design, to ensure that one group does it and to make sure there are no misunderstandings on the 9 design. He provided the Commission with an overview of the elevations and materials noting 10 that the plan is to pick up the elements of the existing building. He pointed out that there is a 11 good chance that the windows would be opaque glass noting that this would eliminate the ability 12 to see through the building to the backside of the operation. He stated that the sides of the 13 building would utilize the same materials and the windows on the west elevation would probably 14 remain clear unless a need for opaque is determined. He stated that a coffee shop with a drive- 15 through is proposed for the east elevation noting that the drive-through is a request and 16 requirement of the coffee shop and they are trying to accommodate their needs without too much 17 disruption to the flow of traffic on the site. 18 19 Mr. Tucci reviewed the traffic flow stating that it is their belief that they have a good mix to 20 move customers through the site. He reviewed the parking variance noting that the original 21 request was for 27 stalls and based on code they would be short by 58 stalls. He stated that under 22 the new plan they would only be short 18 stalls. He stated that they have improved the overall 23 numbers and are asking for less of a variance. 24 25 Commissioner Jenson asked for more detail on the coordination of the landscaping and how they 26 plan to do it. He asked who would have overall responsibility for the maintenance. Mr. Tucci 27 stated that their responsibility ends at the property line. He stated that they would add trees and 28 shrubs throughout the area noting that they have asked to work with the City on the landscaping 29 and to finish the curb. He stated that they have contacted the City's landscape architect and plan 30 to meet next Wednesday, May 25th to discuss the landscaping plan and to ensure that they have 31 an integrated plan for the area. He stated that they would also have to determine who should take 32 on the physical responsibility of doing the work. 33 34 Commissioner Jenson asked what the height of the trees would be. Mr. Tucci stated that the 35 shrubs would be approximately two-feet in height and the trees, over time, could grow as tall as 36 15 to 20-feet in height. 37 38 Commissioner Young stated that the first site plan showed a different location for the drive- 39 through and asked for further clarification on the changes. Mr. Tucci reviewed the proposed 40 location of the drive-through and the impact on traffic flow with the Commission. 41 42 Chair Stromgren asked if audio equipment would be used for the drive-through. Mr. Tucci 43 confirmed that audio equipment is part of the design for the drive-through. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 12 1 Vice Chair Hanson asked where the microphone would be located. Mr. Tucci stated that the 2 microphones would probably be a wall unit located at the corner of the building. 3 Commissioner Gal on referenced the traffic flow and expressed concerns statin 4 y P g that there is a 5 realotential for stacking in this area. Mr. Tucci stated that he does not believe there would be P g 6 an over-abundance of parked cars in the area noting that with what they know regarding the 7 traffic patterns in this area the potential for stacking would not hinder the flow of traffic in this 8 area. 9 10 Vice Chair Hanson referenced the monument sign and asked if this is a new feature. Mr. Tucci 11 stated that it was his understanding that there has been some discussion about the monument sign 12 adding that a design has not been established yet because they have to verify the ordinance 13 requirements. 14 15 Commissioner Young stated that there are three corners to consider and asked if the company did 16 a large panoramic view of the elevation for the site. Mr. Tucci confirmed that they did. 17 18 Vice Chair Hanson noted if building has to be done to meet requirement AMCON made with the 19 city. Asked if building actually needs to be built. 20 21 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted AMCON does have amendment to developer agreement scheduled to be 22 heard by City Council on May 24, 2005. 23 24 Commissioner Jensen asked if the recommended volumes for trash should be restated due to the 25 change in restaurants. Mr. Tucci reviewed the trash enclosure area noting that they do have the 26 room to expand if it is deemed necessary. 27 28 Chair Stromgr en asked what the style of operation would be for the restaurant. Mr. Tucci stated h' p 29 that it would be a sit-down restaurant that would serve American fare, with liquor. He stated that 30 there would not be an outdoor patio, which is a change from the previous approved proposal. 31 32 Bob Foster, Attorney, stated that the hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m., with 33 the opportunity to be open until 2:00 a.m. He stated that they have met with the Sports Boosters 34 and anticipate signing lease to be a part of the operation. He stated that Husky's Sports Bar is the 35 tentative name noting that there would be two owners, Walter Torshey and Guy Peterson. He 36 noted that they are also the owners, for the past five years, of the Jackson Street Bar and Grill in 37 Anoka. 38 39 Chair Stromgren referenced signage and asked if anything would be facing west towards Kenzie 40 Terrace. Mr. Tucci stated that there is no signage proposed for the west side. He stated that it 41 was not approved and does not show on the elevation. 42 43 Renee Radecki, 3404 Silver Lane, President of Sports Booster, confirmed that they did meet with 44 the restaurant owners noting that the meeting was very productive. She stated that most of their 45 questions were answered and they are currently reviewing the viability of a lease. She stated that Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 13 1 they feel very positive and happy to be able to work with someone who is also willing to work 2 with them. She stated that they have not signed a lease yet adding that they feel this is very 3 positive and look forward to working with them in the future. 4 5 Diane Asgrof stated that the high school sports team is named the Husky's and she objects to 6 naming a bar and grill after the high school sports teams. 7 8 Steven Wise stated that he was disappointed when Stonehouse was gone noting that he is looking 9 forward to another sports bar setting and was very hopeful that another sports bar would happen. 10 He referenced the coffee shop location noting that it is located right in the main artery of the City 11 that comes directly through St. Anthony. He stated that the view of a boulevard garden area 12 would be more powerful than seeing a building directly located at the gateway corner. 13 14 Florence Iverson, 2812 Highway 88 invited the Commission to visit her home. She stated that 15 they could clearly see the reflection of all the buildings against the wall while sitting in her 16 kitchen. She referenced the coffee shop stating that they already have a coffee shop in St. 17 Anthony and does not see the need for another one, especially one with a drive-through. She 18 stated that four years ago the City had a beautiful plan for a gateway area that included flowers at 19 the corner. She asked the Commission to take into consideration her concerns with the drive- 20 through and the night lighting. 21 22 Dennis Cavanaugh commented that many of the Residents were disappointed when they learned 23 that Spectators would not be coming to St. Anthony. He expressed concerns stating there is no 24 need for a drive-through coffee shop noting that this is a walking, family oriented community. 25 He asked the Commission if they freely give variances now to no-name businesses noting that it 26 is important to the Community to know who would be located at the center and who would be 27 operating the coffee shop. He referenced the doors located on the north side stating that the 28 windows are a nice feature and expressed concerns about the potential for snow collecting at the 29 doors. He expressed concerns stated that the development agreement has not been completed. 30 He stated that they do not want to see a box retail or a drive-through window for a coffee shop, 31 it's tacky. He stated that he also agrees that Husky's would not be an appropriate name for the 32 bar as the name is a big brand for the Village and should go to something that is really 33 significant. 34 35 Mr. Foster explained that the name `Husky's' was tentative noting that if there is an adverse 36 reaction from the Community they have no problem with renaming. He stated that no signs have 37 been ordered. He noted that somehow the Community had the belief that Spectators is what 38 should have gone into this location noting that it would have been a very tight fit, which is one of 39 the reasons for the proposed change. 40 41 Mr. Tucci assured the Commission that all exit doors and sidewalks would be kept clear and 42 plowed. He stated that the operator for the coffee shop has a letter of intent noting that it would 43 be a Dunn Brothers Coffee Shop. He stated that it is their goal to include a drive-through 44 window stating that they have said no deal without the drive-through. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 14 1 John Kufus, 2712 27`x' Avenue Northeast, asked the Planning Commission to consider the fact 2 that if a drive-through is that popular it could end up with stacking and back up problems on 3 Kenzie Terrace. He asked them to take this into consideration when making their decision. 4 5 Stanley Kasal, 2801 Silver Lake Road, stated that if the drive-through becomes a reality would 6 there be an exit directly onto St. Anthony Boulevard. He stated that this could possibly eliminate 7 the potential for congestion on Kenzie Terrace,but it could also create problems going the 8 opposite direction. 9 10 Barry Tedlund,Fitness Crossroads, St. Anthony Center, thanked the Commissioners for their 11 time and commitment. He stated that the first plans AMCON presented troubled him a bit as he 12 felt they were trying to squeeze too much onto the site. He stated that he was disappointed to 13 hear that Spectators would not be coming to St. Anthony. He indicated that he took a drive to 14 Savage to check out the restaurant located there and it would have made a nice add to the City. 15 He acknowledged and agreed with the concerns expressed about traffic flow and the corner. He 16 stated that he was hopeful that it would be a stand-alone restaurant adding that it appears as if 17 they are trying to get too much out of this corner and would end up very congested. He stated 18 that bottom line,his interest is with the restaurant noting that it is his hope that they give the City 19 and the Residents what was promised. 20 21 Russell Karkola, 2828 Highway 88, stated that they need the parking noting that the Stonehouse 22 didn't have enough. He suggested giving the new owner a shot adding that he is in no hurry for 23 it, as the corner is already packed. He wished the new tenants good luck noting that if they have 24 a good business they would definitely need the parking. 25 26 Chair Stromgren closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. 27 28 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he is disappointed with the lack of information on prospective 29 tenants. He stated that the Planning Commission has to review the conditions to determine if 30 everything applicable has been included. He noted that the hours of operation are part of the 31 conditional use permit. 32 33 Chair Stromgren noted that the hours of operation are outlined under Item 1-Restaurant Location, 34 letter i. Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours. He stated that having a 35 smaller restaurant in this location would be a better deal for the City, as it would have less impact 36 on traffic flow and the residential areas. 37 38 Vice Chair Hanson suggested that they stipulate the hours of operation. Commissioner Young 39 agreed and suggested 1:00 a.m. for serving liquor and 2:00 a.m. for close. 40 41 Ms. Moore-Sykes reviewed the recommendations for conditional uses: all conditional uses are in 42 effect except for the following: strike Item c-hours for outdoor seating; remove item d-no noise 43 within a residential district; strike Item f-patio location, as there is no patio. 44 45 Vice Chair Hanson suggested that they keep Item d as a condition of use. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 15 1 2 A. Conditional Use Permit—Restaurant within 250-feet of Residential Area. 3 4 Motion by Commissioner Jensen second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend approval of 5 the Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant to be within 250-feet of the residential area as 6 proposed and the interior signage is not to face the west. 7 8 Motion carried unanimously 9 10 B. Conditional Use Permit—Drive-Through Service—Outlot 11 12 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he is opposed to the drive through for the coffee shop. He 13 expressed concerns stating that there is too much potential for headlight glare into the residential 14 area. He stated that this area is one of the main gateways into the City and there is too much 15 going on at this corner. He stated that the Residents have been very clear about what they want 16 for the gateway area adding that he agrees that a drive-through would make the area look tacky. 17 He stated that he would prefer to see a nice patio area with seating. He asked Staff and Council 18 to review the overall project and suggested holding off on an additional building. 19 20 Commissioner Jensen noted that profitability of a business is not one of their charges as a 21 Planning Commission. He agreed that this is a tough site adding that he would feel better if the 22 drive-through had a better buffer for the headlights. He stated that as it stands right now the plan 23 does not satisfy the concerns or what they would like to see for the gateway area. He noted that it 24 could be tailored a bit more to solve the identified issues. 25 26 Commissioner Hoska agreed with Commissioner Jensen stating that the proposed landscaping 27 should be improved to include additional screening in the drive-through area. 28 29 Chair Stromgren acknowledged that the vendor would probably like to have the drive-through 30 but it is not necessary. He stated that St. Anthony has three successful coffee shops and none of 31 them have drive-through windows. He stated that the business would still be viable without the 32 drive-through and agreed that the daily exposure to headlights shining into the residential areas 33 would have an impact and would be a real detriment to the neighbors. 34 35 Commissioner Gaylon stated that he is also opposed to the drive-through. He stated that this is 36 the gateway to their City and he is concerned about the traffic flow and the potential for stacking 37 in the parking area. He stated that he would be a proponent for a nice looking patio area. 38 39 Motion by Chair Stromgren, second by Commissioner Galyon, to recommend that the City 40 Council deny the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through service based on 41 parking conditions, noise,headlight glare. 42 43 Motion carried unanimously 44 45 C. Variance Petition—Parking On-Site Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 16 1 2 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend approval of 3 the Variance Petition for the 18 parking spaces on-site; hardship is based on the triangular shape 4 of the site 5 6 Ayes-6 Abstain-1 (Hanson) Motion carried. 7 8 9 D. Variance Petition—Building Setback- Outlot 10 11 Chair Stromgren explained that any landscaping or design conditions would fall under this 12 variance. 13 14 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend approval of 15 the Variance Petition for the building setback and include a condition to the variance that the 16 applicant continues to work with the City to ensure a smooth transition for the landscaping. The 17 Building setback is for 5-feet and 12-feet as proposed on application; Add items a through h from 18 the previous variance approval. 19 20 Motion carried unanimously 21 22 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW 23 8.1 Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment—Rezoning Section 1665.03 and Conditional Use 24 Permits, Section 1665.04 25 26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she received an email from the City Attorney regarding zoning 27 ordinance amendments that are attached for your review. She provided the Commission with an 28 overview of the amendments stating that the concept is to change the zoning to comply with 29 State statute. 30 31 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 32 33 9.1 NONE 34 35 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 36 37 10.1 2005 Proposed Planning and Zoning Ordinance Amendments 38 39 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she has been trying to put together ordinance amendments noting 40 that she has received an email from the City Attorney stating that the sub-zoning would be done 41 in June and the remainder would be completed in the July/August timeframe. 42 43 Commissioner Jensen noted that all of the street projects have allocations for stormwater. He 44 stated that he does not see a problem with the increase. He stated that this would allow people to 45 come through the standard process. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 17, 2005 Page 17 1 2 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that lots less than 9000 square feet are already at 40-percent for 3 impervious surface. She stated that they do have some non-conforming sites adding that it is nice 4 to have those come before the Commission, as it allows the City to monitor what goes on with 5 those lots. 6 7 10.2 Update on Ci!y Redevelopment Projects. 8 9 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Caribou Coffee Shop is tentatively planning to open on Saturday, 10 May 21, 2005 at Silver Lake Village. 11 12 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS 13 14 NONE 15 16 XII. ADJOURNMENT 17 18 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Young, to adjourn the meeting at 19 10:31 p.m. 20 21 Motion carried unanimously. 22 23 Respectfully submitted, 24 Bonnie Sullivan 25 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. { , STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: June 21, 2005 Subject: Petition of Variance for Rear Yard-2513 West Armour Terrace NE Date Application Received: May 18, 2005 Property Address: 2513 West Armour Terrace NE Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: July 18,2005 Requested Action: Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review a request by Mr.John Kaczmarczyk for a variance to the rear yard requirements of the City Ordinance in order to construct a 26' x 30' (780 SF) garage in the rear yard setback of his property. Background: The subject property is located at 2513 West Armour Terrace and is zoned R-1. This residential interior lot is approximately 10,106 SF in size and is 20% covered with impervious surfaces. The proposed garage would increase the lot coverage to 28%. The proposed garage is not eligible for a garage setback permit as allowed by Section 1650.02,Subd. 6 Garage Setback Permit because it is too large. The City Ordinance requires that the garage would not cover an area larger that 528 SF and have no dimension greater than 24' within either a side yard or rear yard setback. In discussing the moving the proposed garage forward 10' to comply with the 25' rear yard setback,Mr. Kaczmarczyk reported that moving it forward would bring the proposed garage to within 5' of his existing back porch. The State Fire Code requires 6' clearance between structures and as Mr. Kaczmarczyk reports, having 15' between the porch and the proposed garage would also allow access to the power poles in the back of the property. Staff has not received any phone calls or letters from adjacent property owners in response to their notice of this public hearing or project. Attachments: • Petition for Variance •Site Plan and Survey of the Lot • Applicant's Letter HAPlanning\Staff Reports\2005\062105 Varianace 2513 W Armour Terrace.doc Date. Fee: R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . . . $100.00 t CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance Applicant: 5'0 !� /N A e Z m �C Z�K Phone: 7�7 - 91 y S' Address: Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): CJIAZdL S Legal Description of proa ropose for v riance: Street Address: a Presently Zoned: U Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to.other property in the vicinity or zoning district. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. jv- Si to a of Applicant 05 - 18-05 0 CK f. ' F. C. JACKSON 1'._ •'•� .rtl£tll „Q �;jl LAND SURVEYOR -%S7 C. 0.' REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOT ks r C K LICENSED BY ORDINANCE OF CITY OF MINNEAPOLI 3616 EAST 55TH STREETDREXEL S` f Purbepoeii licenoe,a.?030 32. l 13 f.7X � z4 f 3 . I 010 i . 76 A�.Y\ i1.r�.ywq�yjawMP�r•..�wA WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND CORRECT PLAT OF A SURVEY OF :+C it \ AS SURVEYED BY US THIS____ St j_DAY OF_(_�a_ -A.M._ r? ` SIGNED_ R. C. JACKSON, MILAN j3OTA REGISTRATION. NO. 3600 r �"G'OYd1v/ lip'Zti'�v Y 'L 41 nYYWY �'�'Y Dr7NYZ�" V /n� � S y � , Ss d�' ✓/ 7� 7kl STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager 012 Date: June 21,2005 Subject: Rezoning Request Application for 3645 Chelmsford Road Date Application Received: May 20,2005 Property Address: 3645 Chelmsford Road Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: July 20, 2005 Requested Action: Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review a request by Troy Martenson,owner of 3645 Chelmsford Road to rezone 3645 Chelmsford Road, from R-1 Single-family Zoning District to R-3 Townhouse Zoning District. Background: Currently,the property is zoned R-1 and has a single-family home on the lot. The lot size is 23,541 SF with a 75' utility easement given to Xcel Energy and is across the northern portion of the lot. The property adjacent to the east is zoned R-2; the properties directly across 37th Avenue to the north are zoned R-4. There have been several attempts to split this lot but because of the utility easement, these attempts have either been denied by the City or upon discovering the easement, petitioners have cancelled their applications. R-3 Townhouse Zoning District that is being requested by the property owner allows townhouse buildings that contain not less than three (3) units nor more than eight(8) units; that there is 4,000 SF of land per dwelling unit,with a total area of 15,000 SF;and a lot width of at least 90 feet at the building setback line. There also must be at least two (2) parking spaces per dwelling unit with at least one parking space being enclosed. Mr. Martenson, the current owner of 3645 Chelmsford Road,is proposing to construct a 4,320 SF townhouse building with four (4) 1,080 SF units, each with three (3) bedrooms. In addition,each unit will have a 2-car tuck under garage. The total square footage of the site is 23,541.07 and. Mr. Martenson's proposal meets the City's requirement of 4,000 SF of land area per dwelling unit. This proposed project is very similar to the townhome complex that is located on the old Clark Station site, at the corner of 33rd Avenue NE and Stinson Boulevard in St. Anthony. Mr. Edwin Trapp,Xcel Siting and Land Rights Division, submitted a letter advising the City that the site plan as submitted to Xcel by Mr. Martenson has been reviewed and determined that the driveway encroachment from Chelmsford Road is acceptable to Xcel with several conditions that they expect Mr. Martenson to respect. A copy of this letter is included in the meeting packet. HAPlanning\Staff Repo rts\2005\062105Rezone 3645 Chelmsford 062105 Staff report.doc Staff has received several phone calls in response to the notices of this public hearing. No one spoke against this proposal,but wanted clarification of the project. Attachments: • Petition for Rezoning •Site Plan • Current Survey of the Lot • Applicant's Letter • Photos of the Site • Photos of Similar Project at 33rd Avenue and Stinson Boulevard • Letter from Xcel Energy RE: Utility Easement H:\Plammng\Staff Reports\2005\062105Rezone 3645 Chelmsford 062105 Staff report.doc 05/02/2005 10:08 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY 0 002 Date: /0S Fee: $225.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Rezoning 2 Applicant: MM+"0y'\ Phone: Address: l /�/ L�O.CUL�Yd� -T_ (�1��C� L� � (;-;-5V3g - Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): L3, Sq l Sf Legal Description of property proposed for rezoning: c, a� �Z 06 4 Z-3 0, "--to OF I "1 Street Address: > (� �1St�/��1 �V1 Presently Zoned: Y' Change Zoning to: 1. Attach a statement to this petition stating why this zoning change is requested. 2. If an entire parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned, submit a map or plat with this petition showing the land proposed to be rezoned and all lands within 350 feet of its boundaries. 3. If a portion of a larger parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned, submit a preliminary plat prepared in accordance with sections 1500.01 through and including 1500.03.of the St. Anthony Code of Ordinances with this petition. A copy of whi is ' uded in this packet. Signature of j ican Signature of Owner (if different from Applicant) 05 -20 -05 *225 - M0 2422 Enterprise Mendota Heights, PIONEER LAND SURVEYORS • CIVIL ENGINEERS (651) 681-19 625 Highway 10 —11 engineering LAND PLANNERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Blaine. MN 5543 (763) 783-1 F Description Sketch for. TRO Y MARTENSON House Address: 3645 Chelmsford Road - N89031'12"E North line of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 6 ; -- 107.00 ' 37TH AVE. NE (CO. RD. I/ g o 40.00 foot Roadway Easement Per Doc. No. 4901042 0 MH - - - - - - - - - ---% - - T — SET IP _. L �� 1 —3' Wood Fence--r, n I 5 1 -- o -e Centerline of a 75.00 foot NSP _� i 1 c3 I Easement per Doc. No. 1675929 H� I s (4 Overhead Lines) W o In n W 4 - W W t•. � MO — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N�— J— I Q o N Y — , d _ C4 - - O N I N E c (n I r I I LI N W FTI 0 .� 0 O C>t 3 EX Bearings shown are assumed °o GARAGE H o I - S89 31'1YW 107.00 d 3 I = W STEPS o « p O ~W U c o ° m m b,' �I T O±25.9'- . o = ±,23.9' W41 .. � (ENCF I 3 I S 5 ��E STING °R DRIVEWAY oGARAGE. �Y/ —' OE— IN89°31'12"E 107 r\\\ 6' wowF`e '— South line of P I I EX HOUSEPIP \ --U Denotes Power Pole I 60 I 0 93;,FND I` —0E— Denotes Overhead Electric Lines ' \,o.e2 N NOThere Is a 0.6' fence — X Denotes Existing Fence :LD'48 E/ southeast corner of this DETAIL EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION The north 220.00 feet of the west 107.00 feet of the east 960.60 feet of the Northeast Quarte Township 29, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A The south 60.00 feet of the north 220.00 feet of the west 107.00 feet of the east 960.60 feet Quarter of Section 6, Township 29, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (+/- 6,420 Sq. Ft. PARCEL B 2422 Enterpr 'k PIONEER (65 1)a681- LAND SURVEYORS • CIVIL ENGINEERS engineering LAND PLANNERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 625 Highway Blaine. MN 5 11 (763) 783- Description Sketch for: TROY MARTEIITSON House Address: 3645 Chelmsford Road N89031'12"E r-North line of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 6 107.00 ' , 37TH AVE. NE (CO. RD. 0 g 40.00 foot Roadway Easement � g Per Doc. No. 4901042 % g 0 � w no op 3' woad Fenas rrSET;� s—�-- I I _-_-_--_--_---_----- ICenterline of o 75.00 foot NSP _J g d I Easem I I (4 Ovefiead Lines) '- $� � W t W n TCNI Q N — - -- - - - - - - — -- - No- -�— IQ g N Y "') ys- N o I 00 I - o r� y W I n� v1 — w i I Ll- ,o 311 N O 2 r' EX Bearings shown are assumed �$ f>; 11GE �'c q _J •• i ' t � 3 0 W o ,o :.• y W o 00m C m Z o m 3 S� air �EN I N89*31'12"E 107,0 — — - ��` W wood Faro' �`- South line of � HOUSE I60 I �es FND U Denotes Power Pole � Z o'er —QE— Denotes Overhead Electric Lines toes x 1. There Iso 0.6' fence x Denotes Existing Fence t°`'e a southeast comer of this DETAIL / N... ;;;0, EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION The north 220.00 feet of the west 107.00 feet of the east 960.60 feet of the Northeast Quorl Township 29, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A The south. 60.00 feet. of the north 220.00 feet of the west 107.00 feet of the east 960.6o fet o v 0000 •:�f.;.;.;.;.;r.;.;.;.;.;.;.; ....0...0...0...0.' ..... .•...,.•.. ...• ;.}, ••••••�••:•:..•..•••.••:•. .. . ❖.••❖ ❖ ••• • ..:v . *65-60:4:41004,409600069••.•••.O0 ,•• .. . .. o OO OO Oo ''` O '::■ :• .•':• .'•..s•.'.'•....g.'.Y..'•..'...'•.•.'...'..•'*as '........'.,.'..'....,'..'.9.',•.'...,....9.:0:0:0:0......9.....•.0.......•.. . •. •••. . . . . . a ,a•.y •• •. ❖:.ea•0a•a -%-%a - 0.. ..Q . r I o • • .•.•.•r.•.•.•.•.•.•..•.•.•:.• /I/ O' .... .s........ .................. 000 mom••: • • • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 6 • 6 11 • ��•� , . . . . , . 8-1. -• • 6 •' • 6 • I�.a QO .. . : ■ ■ - • ,• ■ • ■' • ■ • ■ . . . . . 0. 8 -,-@ ,w . . . ■ • • 1100 • . . • • -6 ■ : • Ask ii • • • ■ . • ■ • •: 1111 ■ • ■ ■ • ■ � � ■_ • • .• •. • - 11. 11 ■ ■ • • • • • ■ • • • • 6 °•0011 ■ ■' • ' • •: ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■, •. • • —i me Affi- dam. We cc i _■ .■ ■ 1100■ ■ r • . •■ ■■�■ ■ ■ • • • ■ ■ •.■ • ■-11 i 6 • ■a ■ ■ ■ • • • • • ■ 1111 ■ ■',• ■ '1111"W-8 ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ —j • ■ ■ • . ■ ■ • • • 11 .11" ■ :•, ■ • • • ■ ■ EL aaa8. ■ . 1100 : :Y. .: . 0kiamn .,.I■� 1111 •�-• • ■ ;.6- ■ ■ • 0011 I■ U • • ■ • 6 11 ■` 6 6 ■ K • • • • ■ • • ■ • ■ 1111 -111 .6 • • 1111 ■ ■ ■ ■ �■ 6 ■, a' s 's 6 6 -• '■ • ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 11 2 ■. ■ • 11 6 •. 11 2 • 2. • 6 • ■ ■ ■ • 11 -11 • • ■ • •', • 2 -116 i. ■ 11 • ■ 6 6 • • ■ • ■ 11 6 6 6. .■a 6 !■ • • ■ • ■ ■ • 6 -21 • • 6 .• 11 ■ L1% N.E. ssg.eeae.ssegeeeseseeee I ............. . .. ............ .. . .. .... .... ... . . . *Vk... .. .... .. .99.90 ••• • •ga 761 • • sees•.• : ......r. .�.. . ... ease. •e •99999• .. p eem 0000. ,r:....r 0000 ..9..99... 0000.. 0000. . ... ..... .... abrrmY 0000•.., . •,•aaraaaa•, . •mega• rangg� • •...• sees• ••• •eag • 1 &am an$ i• a*F X121 � � •9,9,•,•99• a eag,:ra' gamma.s rti9,g a fs••9•s••i a s••• e r....rr 0000. ..r............ ........ we we a VENUE Nag eS ..seg.. ge .. g''tiaarr ...•. ...•0000•.• r•�.. . ,f ......... l�0� �>°� �_ �r »i0 � •9ari;gla 'gam, •imrerg m•�gYi,�'• i••;e;•;e;•;•;•;•;• ••••••.••rear•. ii •:see 'Y' '•'' 's' ' •g9ee9•gg9e.9s • •sag •• •• • , as.0saw- _ _ 0 0 0 0 a.a ...:} .. ..r . r•�;•❖•,•,•,•,•.•,•••,• •.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.fie•.•.• .,.} 'fi, •_:•.•.tirr :�•.❖ 0.0.0.0❖.•.•.•a 9999....... e • �,. . .... fie ... .......a YO• !W "is Doorl •••••••• •99•••••9• seas • • • • 9.9.•a.•a .9.99.9. mess• •.,s• •• •9999• ........ a�gar.•a ✓ENUE e.9ae.9e !! % ..... 9 ... .. .sees9s9 . . .. .. . 0000000. ....... . 0000 . . .0 9•••••are a.• • •� WISMOVe ._•ti•9• •d:aisr•••••••. 1 !�M nor >Ma �lM ,,e s g e, a as•s r�Y•b gf•g,9,s, ,r9 •�i ••ra�•,s • ••• • p•.•rr•}rete•.• I age •r�• •• • 9000.• •99sss. .,9,9e•,9,•aY•99,9�9,9,rsra• • a s oa0 s• ,•,a,•,•,s 9,9, - .gar r•geemr• 99r:• • • • �•rrAra r..agog}af�gg g� rr 9999.99 •r'a` mmam�imrrr�ggriii: as Mao N.E. 3XI mg 3=41 gooA" in" W07 low Ina Jul o �_ oil OM1 jigs J V MAPLEWOOD DRIVE 404 moo ■ra �a ,0000 �0° Martenson Mannor The idea of this project would be to have a four unit building modeled after the one on 33rd and Stinson. It would cater to the 55+ community in St Anthony due to the floor plan. Because the lot on Chelmsford is so large, we could make each unit in this building 24 x 45 equaling 1050 square feet all on one level. 3 bedroom, 2 bath units with a 2 car tuck under garage. This project would benefit the city in many ways. Currently there is an old not so good looking "farm house" on a huge lot that cannot be split only because of a large NSP easement. This would significantly improve the neighborhood setting. It would also be a significant tax increase for the city and there are multi family and mixed use buildings on the north side of 37`h, so the plan would fit in perfectly. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Troy Martenson Martenson Enterprises ' Thur,sday 02 of Jun 2005, Xcel Energy ->65148463-6 Page 2 of 4 Xcel Energy NORTHERN STATES POWER 414 NICOLLET MALI.,7'FLOOR MRdNWOLIS,MN 55401 June 2, 2005 Mr. Troy Martenson 3645 Chelmsford Rd. N. St. Anthony,MN 55112 RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT 3645 Chelmsford Rd. N., St. Anthony, MN 55112 Steams County Dear Troy: Our Transmission Engineers have reviewed the driveway encroachment request your submitted and has determined that the encroachment is acceptable to Xcel Energy under the following conditions: (1) Excavation close to structure location. A minimum distance of 15 feet of supported earth must be maintained from any part of the power pole. Support of the ground beyond the 15 feet may be provided by a slope no greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical. Support may also be provided by the use of cribbing, sheet piling, retaining wall or tunneling. The specific plan for providing the required support and the excavation plan for the proposed project must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval. (2) Grade change around structure location. Fill around or above power poles or metal tower foundations is not permitted. The grade around the power poles or metal tower must provide for surface water runoff—no surface water ponding around power poles or metal tower will be permitted. Any cost related to the adjustment of Xcel Energy's facilities will be at the requestor's expense. (3) Fill and grade change around guy wires and anchors. Fill above the steel anchor rod onto the guy wire is not permitted. The specific plan for any grade change or excavation in the vicinity of down guys and anchors must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval. Page 1 of 3 . Thursday 02 of Jun 2005, Xcel Energy —>6514846376 Page 3 of 4 Page 2 June 2, 2005 (4) (Trade change within easement. The ground elevation within the easement shall not be increased more Phan 1 foot above the existing grade. Stockpiling of soil and/or material within the easement will not be permitted. (5) Clearances to equipment and workers. A working clearance of 25 feet between the electrical conductors and any cranes or digging equipment used in or near the easement,or a clearance of 25 feet to the physical proximity of workers must be maintained at all times. In addition, any construction near the transmission line(s) shall comply with all OSHA Safety Clearances. If this clearance cannot be maintained, the contractor or developer must arrange for a line outage by calling Xcel Energy's System Control department (Steve Rollin 612/330- 2875). At least two weeks advanced notice must be provided in order to schedule a line outage. There is a fee of approximately $350.00 per day, per outage, for this service. This fee must be paid prior to outage. (6) Landscaping within the easement. Detailed plans for landscaping (including light standards) must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval. Generally shorter varieties of trees and shrubs may be considered. If planting is permitted, the line's voltage and the tree's mature height and the distance from the line must be considered. For maintenance purposes there shall be no planting with 15 feet of structure sites. (7) Building on easements. There shall be no permanent or temporary-building allowed within the easement area (8) Fuel and refueling on easements. There shall be no fuel tanks stored or refueling of vehicles and equipment within the easement. (9) Fences on easements. If the easement area is fenced, gates must be installed to provide access to Xcel Energy for maintenance purposes. Chain link or other types of fences using metal material and constructed on or near an Xcel Energy easement should be properly grounded. Thursday 02 of Jun 2005, Xcel Energy ->6514846376 Page 4 of 4 Page 3 June 2, 2005 (10) Streetlights and signs on easements. No streetlights, signboards, identification signs or any other type of non-building structure shall be placed within the easement prior to approval. Detailed plans must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval to verify compliance with electrical code clearances. It is the express condition of this consent that all other terms and conditions of the easement covering this property shall remain in full force and effect. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, Edwin 0. Trapp Siting and Land Rights 612-330-6956 1-715-852-5418,fax �. ii i �., h t,�/rr����-n J:�{) •, ��!( Gf�l .:.+' .f�r1 f i,•. -�d r F ...���I/S"..1 F rr(�.',,'o�'. }�•�!;� '.Mr{ '�• w u �,�.• ?9�iy L' F#` 'IFw xd�lti rl Ali rr MS,i�, �+� t / Y' � � �r 1`�t;k� � +.�� C r••�st ,r,� r �' r. �"��J � r�� �: ",q/ i;� * F,, A �y� .�;t+L. - �i.��. •`i 'i ._ - •wr%•� .•�i, ry,r- �+',� r d' ,fP \ ,�i�e (F., •"3ri �} iu G,4 �/�u ; V, �-- pI.' y .: yS y .µ/�'•�'r"•`S I- <_ •.. .1 �� -Ir M 4�. , , ,:d;#7777!!!! •++� ritv3t ) ! '•�, %P'' ` {) i ;; '� "kl r)I .•: f 4 1 {�Y rI' Y ° r r t Vr'%. / Al �t.,w.�y� � i�•w. r '�("� �. `4� ►���.�((t/'. rr��.`r f( r/. i1F.L'•:ry, i b�� � F.r;r •�{/kr s1 'f7 r' ! .(t,�. ,� ; i+, r r.iJ'' ! ,�r�,.r r''`lA.... 'rte.• i' .R `hL r,�� ,r('t5.. ,,/ *'�i r �� :'.t i-_.�..'�l,R• nM1 •ft y ?/..'''.',rff r y%i�(r4. '� '�. * ,�I��ep�yy,,�f!' 'r ..k: F'.i,�.� _LM• h'5y'�Si (tfl�..rr`- 1'ytFL 'i;. E •� ." +t i, �� r j.' ,r..�.� L, �.. + „�'.'1 T"rci�?r�► •f I✓ ��' .�r>•J+:i4°•!��[,,r1' j�1R�;` �; ( �r���t. =l',I �� ��"7. `.},71�. J•r '�" �•�!t•_ °,'ti,�+ y_1 � r%- ��1 �1 r�L.tJ 4 �}J',�P,},�� � .r. :r � �4"1'. "�,r •1%i:.41e'J�.�.i .r,{�;!i�, �sd l; �j:: i.. �. � �' •;i� t'hrr��� ',`r- ' fr 'J� F s T lu r �F� ,r�, y, ,14� T►,'y_+s �'�. Ssi ti,."F+�'+.!�• 1�(• ..r i� � 1 �- �' �•'!, :Fy fly �r'• i.f 1- '�. d "r 1 cf � n•�rV� :%7.J''� Ss �a•r '�.; .« . ?1•,�. y r_ .i.�% r- •1•" Jr�`` P"%�{/"J1f r .1 ` t,..-. I : .� in „ �•� {�5 �. r� i� Lam- �'i f! ril.i 't.�. :�� _ '_e. ', t rr �F; F iF.r., y•.ti y+r .t 4.S } �1 r1 i .+ I.t'?+ Y:� i -.`?�! i�•;: r • r: �/ 1� y r".. F' ,4. ���+% r { y 'ri' r/�•� t.9 .r '{ +�n;•y"y � '�),�� •.1•� r� � t•. 1 •I i(( �i�•-: r+p'-irl�1 "�•�r� 11,(�'. %. _Y;C�'r• )T�f rlhr:�l. �L'r� '�j I � A � �; -�� '�.Ii..r. yl�' Y�: 2`�sy'� '4`•7 '$Yc� r�•-1.•�;;�".:1MT w •• �S :i.a �. yry�.Q♦F. .'.iJ"j,' a�y�; F.� F r V'�•7 �.ra p`r r r�''Jf � �',� •'17 '4y�j�ir..44L^ ,Y':,J� .rY �, •�'�'N� ,t , r, I' .r' y1r 7C ,T' _✓'Fr1h; I'!r x iL'"i :I,�• r / q� aFJr���. �j. •� MR . { t'L�' .! r .• ✓ '' ( •r�'� 5 A 7w/f„ r+w +rl,. 5 .� ,}� r .l C'.4. n411'-L"'�. r t) .� i �- r Yb •'1ja fe.: h i._ .?{Tk , �'rllii y" ?� � - r ? � , ', r rf, � J Y �• r �,� r.�. �, �•,7^:i" ."r•r IF F �r� / X�t�w r r'fr�J�;'. ,r^ �,' •�� .�1 r... r�l -r.. 9ri�r` -F k' .�•r�"�yy�_ ¢ �'ff•' 1�rt�` � yj?{�; �1, �' X�•, : . F '�SYYt4 J t � J � ' r �t `+•; ' +'f'r r � ,,-yy f { 7•S (.H T 116 .� - .... •.ii' i. i''RT `i � ���,� � +�.,, r`� ' � it r i - 'Y.1'y�, 9 ;r rr � r .. { „'t•'�i :.� ,,t',�;,°:Ft,+, 1�--:. •.ii7: J ,rig? y }�' - •- . t � _.r � j` � ,.. +A? ��r:i { SF4• � ,`�j�.�T ,..� , r..yty - ckr' • • • • • , g � 1 r,t t7y yi,. . ` t � I :�.,T,�?r.-. '1/S. F r R EFc,�a ;: -J y;..fl T•,, _ a • t � ..r*( .*'i _r 1 �.t� : , JaYI'��r�� ����� 1'�f�fa51' t-e Fr 1'•" a .' °i r I T:a1 1,, J• 1 f y j�ayk` J �4 { J ur r� , `,�'A� r w �• ff pN.r. F! .`+, r ji d'Iz �. � ., t 'ltv >i''• ''�lj )i• yrrtfr• r r -�'�Ti' r,.,. .._•y� -,� �KY' J r.1 r _, ,i` '•?0. '� ' ,�r.u�vi'��7 1 r ; t ` ;. � .� �`{ " •�a,',e r I �. $ ! 'rr t5 ' � ; ? � } .. ��y �J�i4 y �J I �'/t����1,� � A t `'{� ?�1� r,'; 1 L •4� �a 1" , ��i/l L r -�� S �, ,• ;� a. NIS ' �Q�% � r+.r t i C'�+t' " � -'• "l.. •. M, - - ,, J,./ t'w- 7`�p:.{« 1'% - r f r -1 -' '.!'1 t•'1.�. 1 y�f �4(J, r * D i Il. i.. W, - t �'. �+-q. i�`•'r ' �r r. r`,.;t1,� jl. �. �.c ..t� �k4rf}�1S7:Yj� X!'e j� ��•I r4�. 1^ yk ~ r 'n �" �4'y,lt. ' •�' (//i ,1.' if q`' ,f '�' r f,,ryr' •,1,. l .V'i. a� '•.� e �'. ;�� .tLc - '�'jF II b.��:'•t'� 1.�� ;er r'�7.::i a�': ']¢ �' , :�•_r�r`r;, r.�J�#':.,., ji?.•,i ;L i �,'�'.�' .i'�ifr .1 t 1.. tL ��•'�4, p _'- .. - �,.y''�� Ij ..rk.••� �, �lj� .t' i, a• � ,,p�prr',, �. 'I,��'�i s'��t`��1w�'{�(`�r � �+t„�' r j '�,�� {Y 7•. 'l•-l. { .. , „1, r a rf :. >i'.. ��•4 rrTlt�, -^J'•d::� fib-'�(`7^.a.•F.'i � t{� Yf J �;Y�,r, 5 .'i'[•i t '+' .♦' Iii. ,.� .+ .� , '.. }. r.� .4!t, .r�_{v :) i\<t .!1s�I �E o %: r_ V, IVA, 'k Rt 0#14 JK 7 J 7.­ A I A!�V?rc� IN, jet- 4�r/.,/Fr. `' YU4, ,-" I - oV, Ri rIeq W 7'4: W'7 71 Ij ;V if PQ, Z IJ I- l lo r w MON WMO, 17 .7 'Y t, k'1 t z - •r �� r o v ' tt�,� - Y g� Yi! g J• �Y F43 r y x '�•�t 's ki^ ir �i « •. t f:t s .�1'�E'�� YG{sib ., ::is�..k �;.' ,= �: � �fi a`• � i� � n ��(; $' . '�tiil�!� "`��ri' t > a fi c1 f r 41 Wi sof _ •:i a. `< ;•� i '! el. ��` a • t �-• ,r rti�-F omml-ll tit r J ' e G h5. at AMY, 7C' • 'may, '"��r.3��7y d t�y_? � r_ _... 1 4 sem, ry' •.:�",- c _,ie S• "!!"��7 swrss_�: �� r � z� �� in 4 a-�x�+i x�al,•ia$a �� � a Q �€♦ a �. __J — 1 ill I'M K f�sa�r� si_s it r s!ier�pr�� � r • 1 :. J. 3a'dx3 4 in - min Y i gyp! F Vy`�� �f 1 Irl^ �P7Ally. rrrrr !t ; A rld UAl Wiv At j)� c 4 ` � W��77 O K+ ,�p _, e i. .� .r.. \.c' '' +• _ �_ ... Ali ,{,>;C> fix.. ��A♦ ^��1#@'. tp t•�y i\ -k-"+ r 9 �ye. wti,�,Y' w ..- 4 r_ � v: �� �4�y� ,':_"; � _. i r 1 � �;�•,f,r�137 ���.�A�. y'{ � «�•tt^^� 4 v�.� '4. ♦ -r,i{~ :�1 1 ��• y?e'U,� r_ "�,`tt�,►i .jQ3� +tet' t -_�wf- � � 't � •' '� �{� .,, v Nil � }. ate ��i VI iF }I ♦ ;T� '* .. Y '1 �L; .a�J 1 z � � �+` � _ T , 'r;A7 ":� Y _, a •11.�.,,,.�Ir.%�'1'"-' rr9 ��yE� !fit" t V te Aff �"rkri�'" S�/�'� �.��. n��y- {� �._ G :'t 1? :J�. t -� �' IyE .L'.� •�G ... 'gin_ f.�����r�Y'� .ir r "f�' -Y � .:^ p t � •�� .'? v. l�ai' � . iY+ F �V`�'1 t�-iJ7l •rye � - k+. _��uu�"9'` =rel�''`" T►: _`� �7. ,X,,^?- .:. � �i1, 7• �� y - ^,fir rr !� s _ � � •� r,r, � - ~ 1 '� �,•- �', 1 �`�I I -r C ���'!rl ���_ =,t. � rr ��+r'. t is #+1 _ _; •,. I._.-1 r " a�^l�� � {, r }t .r y` �� � �� 1. _ - •� y�� .r .•#.},.Irk 9,:• - ;..:rs.� ry _ 7 i�. - - - N 04 Al lion" no ilonswoon .1 on Jlk if monsoon F'R.RP Milo M, SOME i 1,i��ommus"oo� lnsomilsons SMINKr k Ell 10 4w, t M !06- 1 SR WSW q, N i STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: June 21,2005 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment-Rezoning, Section 1665.03 Date Application Received: No Application submitted to date. Property Address: N/A Zoning District: N/A 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance text amendment that updates the City's Code on its rezoning process. The City Attorney advised staff that in 2001,the State passed legislation that amended Section 462.357,Subd. 2(b) of the Minnesota Statute,the City should change its rezoning language in the City Code to reflect this amendment. This change allows only supermajority vote on rezoning requests that want to change residential zoning to either commercial zoning or industrial zoning. Attachments: • Advisory E-mail from the City Attorney. H.\PIanning\Staff Reports\2005\062105 Rezoning Text Amendmt.doc Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Gilligan, Jerome [Gilligan.Jerome@dorsey.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:08 PM To: mmornson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Mike and Kim—Attached is an amendment to the Section 1665.03 to conform it to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 2(b), which provides that a supermajority vote on any amendment to a zoning ordinance only applies in the case of a rezoning from a residential district to either commercial or industrial district. This law has been in effect since 2001 and the City may not deviate from it. Also attached is an ordinance amending the Section 1665.04 to change the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit from a 4/5ths vote of all the members of the Council to a majority vote of all the members. I think it is a good idea to make this change. While Minnesota law does not prohibit the City from imposing a 4/5ths vote requirement to grant a conditional use permit, this now seems inconsistent with the requirement that a zoning amendment only needs a majority vote(other than for rezoning from residential to industrial or commercial) and also with the standard for approval of a CUP, which is that a CUP that meets the conditions of the zoning code generally must be approved unless the Council finds the use detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. I don't know the history of the 4/5ths requirement but think this is something that should at least be reviewed when the Planning Commission and Council adopt the amendment to Section 1665.03. Jerry CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material,and are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited,and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received this e-mail in error,please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments, including any copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have deleted the e- mail,all attachments and any copies thereof. Thank you. <<Voting on zoning amendment.doc>> <<Cond Use Permits amendment.doc>> 4/26/2005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO REZONING AND AMENDMENTS AMENDING SECTION 1665.03 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 1665.03 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by modifying subdivision 4, to read as follows: 1665.03 Rezoning and Amendments. Subd. 1. Initiation of Proceedings. Proceedings for amendment of the Zoning Code may be initiated by (a) a petition of the owners of property to be rezoned or affected by amendment; (b) a recommendation by the Planning Commission; or(c) action of the Council. Subd. 2. Submission Requirements. All applications by a property owner for changes in zoning must be accompanied by a drawing showing the property to be affected and all property within 350 feet of the boundaries of the affected property, a statement as to why the zoning change is requested, and the fee set forth in Subsection 615.07. The application will be referred by the Zoning Officer to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Subd. 3. Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the Council on the proposed changes. Subd. 4. Council Action. A ma'ori feuf-fifths affirmative vote of all members of the Council is required to approve any rezoning or any other change in the Zoning Code., except that the adoption or amendment of any portion of the Zoning Code that changes all or part of the existing classification of a zoning district from residential to either commercial or industrial requires a four-fifths maiority vote of all members of the Council. Subd. 5. Planned Unit Development. In a proceeding for the rezoning of a property under this Section 1665.03, if the property is 3 acres or more in area and if the proceeding is pursuant to a petition by the owner of the property to be rezoned, the City Council may require that the property be designated as a Planned Unit Development under Section 1655, in which case the City Council may also require the property owner to submit an application for a Planned Unit Development approval in accordance with Section 1655. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage by the City Council and publication of the Ordinance or a Summary thereof in the City's official newspaper. Adopted this_day of , 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Passage by City Council: , 2005. Publication in St. Anthony Bulletin: , 2005. 2 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIIA From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: June 21,2005 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment-Conditional Use Permit Approval-Section 1665.04 Date Application Received: No Application submitted to date. Property Address: N/A Zoning District: N/A 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance text amendment that updates the City's Code on its conditional use permit approval process. Currently, the City Ordinance requires a 4/5ths vote for all requests for a conditional use permit. The City Attorney advised staff that since a supermajority vote is no longer required for rezoning requests, requiring it for a conditional use permit seems inconsistent,especially if the request meets the conditions of the City's zoning code. Attachments: • Advisory E-mail from the City Attorney. H.\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\062105 CUP Text Amendmt.doc Zoning Ordinance Amendment Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Gilligan, Jerome [Gilligan.Jerome@dorsey.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:08 PM To: mmomson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Mike and Kim—Attached is an amendment to the Section 1665.03 to conform it to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, subd. 2(b), which provides that a supermajority vote on any amendment to a zoning ordinance only applies in the case of a rezoning from a residential district to either commercial or industrial district. This law has been in effect since 2001 and the City may not deviate from it. Also attached is an ordinance amending the Section 1665.04 to change the requirements for approval of a conditional use permit from a 4/5ths vote of all the members of the Council to a majority vote of all the members. I think it is a good idea to make this change. While Minnesota law does not prohibit the City from imposing a 4/5ths vote requirement to grant a conditional use permit, this now seems inconsistent with the requirement that a zoning amendment only needs a majority vote (other than for rezoning from residential to industrial or commercial) and also with the standard for approval of a CUP, which is that a CUP that meets the conditions of the zoning code generally must be approved unless the Council finds the use detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. I don't know the history of the 4/5ths requirement but think this is something that should at least be reviewed when the Planning Commission and Council adopt the amendment to Section 1665.03. Jerry CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION: E-mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material,and are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited,and may be a violation of law. If you believe that you received this e-mail in error,please do not read this e-mail or any attached items. Please delete the e-mail and all attachments, including any copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have deleted the e- mail,all attachments and any copies thereof. Thank you. <<Voting on zoning amendment.doc>> <<Cond Use Permits amendment.doc>> 4/26/2005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2005- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AMENDING SECTION 1665.04 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 1665.04 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by modifying subdivision 3, to read as follows: 1665.04 Conditional Use Permits. Subd. 1. Procedure. An application for a conditional use permit is to be made on forms available from the Zoning Officer and must be signed by the owner of the property in question. The application must be accompanied by a fee in the amount set forth in Subsection 615.07. The applicant may be required to provide concept and final site plans, if requested by the Zoning Officer. Subd. 2. Public Hearing. The public hearing will be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the hearing will be given in accordance with Section 115. The Planning Commission will then make a recommendation to the Council on the proposed changes. Subd. 3. Council Action. A conditional use permit may be granted only by a maiority �s vote of all members of the Council after determining that: (a) The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the district in which the property is located. (b) The Council has specified all conditions which the Council deems necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area. (c) The use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity. (d) The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare. Subd. 4. Expiration. A conditional use permit authorizing the erection or alteration of a building will expire if construction has not commenced within 12 months after the conditional use permit is approved by the Council. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon passage by the City Council and publication of the Ordinance or a Summary thereof in the City's official newspaper. Adopted this_day of , 2005. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Passage by City Council: , 2005. Publication in St. Anthony Bulletin: , 2005. 2 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Managerob Date: June 21, 2005 Subject: Concept Review of Conditional Use Permit Request- 2550 Highway 88 Date Application Received: No Application submitted to date. Property Address: 2550 Highway 88 Zoning District: C 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: Staff received a call from an individual who is interested in purchasing the Hitching Post as a new site for his family's boat and motor business. He understood that the Hitching Post had a conditional use permit to do motor repairs and asked if that permit went with the building. Staff advised him that it did not. In reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance, the Commercial zoning district does not allow motor repair as a permitted conditional use,but does list auto repair as a permitted conditional use (Section 1635.03 (d). Section 1635.04 AccessoU Uses, (a) does allow incidental repair if it is necessary to conduct a permitted principal use. Boat motor repair would appear to be incidental to boat sales. Attachments: • August 20, 1999 Staff Report for Conditional Use Permit for Hitching Post • Minutes from the Aug. 24, 1999 City Council Meeting approving the Conditional Use Permit with conditions. H.\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\062105 concept 2550 Highway 88 conditional use.doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant Date: August 20, 1999 Subject: 99 — 09 Jim Furseth, 2550 Highway 88: Conditional Use Permit and Comprehensive Sign Plan Conditional Use Permit. Mr.Jim Furseth, prospective owner of 2550 Highway 88, formerly the Town & Country grocery store, has applied for a conditional use permit for his recreational vehicle business that he proposes to locate at this site. This conditional use permit is required because Mr. Furseth's business includes service and repair of recreational vehicles and motorcycle sales. As required by the Ordinance, these uses are specifically listed in the City's Zoning Ordinance as uses allowed with a conditional permit (Chap. 16, Sec. 1635.03 (d) and (s)). The Ordinance also requires that the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of the property in the vicinity (1665.04, Subd. 3, (c)). Mr. Furseth's proposed business complies with this requirement as well. He is proposing to renovate and make structural improvements to the building that will comply with current uniform building code, thus creating a building that is more sound in structure and design. Mr. Furseth through his agent Mr.Jim Kellison, has participated in many discussions with the new owners, Mr. Krier and the City regarding redevelopment goals for the Center. He has supported the proposed redevelopment planning activities that will increase the value of his prospective property and that of the Shopping Center. The relocation of Mr. Furseth's business to this area also provides a service or facility, which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the community. Last fall, the City Council hired Richard Krier to assist with the redevelopment plan for the St. Anthony Shopping Center. In surveying the Center's business tenants and surrounding neighborhoods, Mr. Krier reported that the overwhelming response was to keep the Center as a retail/commercial use. Mr. Furseth's business is one that is unique to the retail area, has the potential of increasing the property values of the Center and adheres to the community's desire of keeping the Center commercial. Mr. Krier has also reviewed Mr. Furseth's proposal and has recommended conditions that should be included, as part of the permit should the Council approve Mr. Forseth's application. Those conditions include: a. Vehicles awaiting service, products and parts are to be stored inside the building; b. all trash and garbage storage and trash compactor should be enclosed; C. all mechanical equipment placed on top of the building should be screened or camouflaged with the same material and color as the primary building; and d. the site should conform to the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project Area Design Guidelines, including: lighting, screening, landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and parking in accordance with the recently adopted redevelopment plan and the revised Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project Area Urban Design Guidelines. Mr. Krier's report and recommendations are included in this packet. Comprehensive Sign Plan. Mr. Kelhson has submitted a drawing indicating a need for several signs as a part of Mr. Furseth's business. Mr. Kelhson indicated to Staff that Mr. Furseth is required by marketing agreements that he has with various manufacturers to provide signage to advertise the products that he sells. This is a similar situation for Tires Plus, another business in the City. While the City's Ordinance is very clear regarding the amount of signage a business can have based on its frontage, it does allow for flexibility. Section 1400.09, Subd. 5 indicates that a shopping center may submit a comprehensive sign plan where the provisions of the City's Sign Ordinance are not adequate or appropriate. The St. Anthony Shopping Center has a comprehensive sign plan in place with the City and Mr. Furseth is submitting his sign plan to be included as a part of the Center's existing sign plan. This situation also exists at the Apache Shopping Center, where as part of the redevelopment effort, individually owned or franchised businesses have opened and have submitted their signage needs to be included as part of the Plaza's comprehensive sign plan. City Council Meeting Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 5 1 11. Approval by the City is contingent upon the approval and recording of the 2 Roseville/Ramsey County plat. 3 Motion carried unanimously. 4 Mr. Soth verified that the conditional use permit has been approved, and now the issues at 5 hand were the preliminary and final plat approval, and the variance request. 6 Ranallo introduced John Mathem, a representative from Mendota Homes and invited him 7 to address the Council. Mr. Mathern stated he was requesting approval from the City of 8 the final plat of the property. Mr. Mathern clarified for the Council that the preliminary 9 plat and the final plat were the same document. 10 Motion by Marks, second by Faust, to approve the preliminary and final plat subject to 11 the review and approval by the City Attorney of all the conditions relating thereto. 12 Motion carried unanimously. 13 Motion by Marks, second by Thuesen, that the City approve the variance requested and 14 required by Mendota Homes which consists of a rear-yard setback variance of 20 feet, 15 and a side-yard setback variance of 12 feet, due to the following circumstances: 16 1. The odd shape of the lot in question. 17 2. The setback from County Road 88. 18 3. The maintenance of order between both cities and counties. 19 4. The character of the lot could be changed since the property is somewhat aban- 20 doned and in disrepair. 21 5. That it would be a detriment to develop a project in St. Anthony that is aestheti- 22 cally different from a project in Roseville. 23 Motion carried unanimously. 24 2. Jim Furseth; for 2550 Highway 88; conditional use permit. 25 Mr. Hatch reviewed for the Council that Mr. Jim Furseth is the new owner of the former 26 Town and Country site. Mr. Furseth had filed applications for a conditional use permit 27 for a recreational vehicle business at that site. The conditional use permit is required 28 because the business would include service and repair of recreational vehicles and 29 motorcycle sales. Mr. Hatch clarified that the Council is facing two issues: (1) the 30 conditional use permit due to the business of service and repair of recreational vehicles; 31 and(2) a proposed comprehensive sign package for the business. City Council Meeting Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 7 1 In response, Ranallo introduced Mr. Jim Furseth, owner of The Hitching Post, and invited 2 him to address the Council. Mr. Furseth stated that there will be a running room inside 3 the building,but not a test track. Mr. Furseth further stated that jet skis would be tested 4 on a nearby public lake. 5 Cavanaugh mentioned that he had visited the other stores of The Hitching Post and was 6 impressed with the appeal of the Hopkins store. He questioned if the business would be 7 open on Sunday and if Mr. Furseth planned on having outside display areas for vehicles. 8 9 In response, Mr. Furseth stated that sales of motor vehicles are illegal on Sundays, but he 10 was experimenting with the idea of the business being open on Sunday for display pur- 1 1 poses only. Also, Mr. Furseth anticipated a small amount of outside display, if any, and 12 preferred inside displays. 13 Cavanaugh stated he would recommend imposing a conditional use on outdoor displays 14 or experimenting with limited outdoor display that would be brought inside at night. 15 Cavanaugh was concerned about the type of mufflers that would be installed on the 16 motorcycles that Mr. Furseth would be selling. He stated that his vision for the commu- 17 nity in the future was to ensure that motorcycles comply with noise decibel levels. Mr. 18 Furseth stated that the motorcycles that his business sells are equipped with the manufac- 19 turer's standards for quieter mufflers. 20 Thuesen referenced Mr. Kellison's August 18, 1999 letter and expressed his concern 21 about The Hitching Post keeping in character with the City's vision of the proposed shop- 22 ping center improvements. Mr. Kellison clarified that since significant improvements 23 have been planned for the existing Town and Country building, the project could easily 24 become over budgeted. Mr. Kellison had a concern that the City would impose new or 25 additional requirements to The Hitching Post once the plans for the St. Anthony 26 Shopping Center are finalized. 27 Thuesen agreed that it is a difficult situation, but hoped that Mr. Kellison and Mr. Furseth 28 would be conducive to working with the City's vision for the property. Thuesen felt that 29 The Hitching Post has the potential to add an attractive mix to the shopping center. 30 31 Ranallo clarified with Mr. Kellison that the building is not being torn down,but 32 renovated and rejuvenated. 33 Faust asked why Mr. Furseth had chosen the former Town and Country site for the 34 prospective new business. City Council Meeting Minutes August 24, 1999 Page 9 1 2 Voting on the motion: Ranallo, Cavanaugh, Marks, Thuesen vote aye. Faust voted nay. 3 The motion carried. 4 5 Mr. Hatch reviewed the request for a comprehensive sign package for The Hitching Post 6 noting that the Planning Commission had approved a signage package with restrictions. 7 Cavanaugh was dismayed at how easily a signage package had been approved. He was 8 concerned that it would encourage other businesses to request exceptions to the City's 9 Ordinance on signage. Cavanaugh asked for clarification on the difference between the 10 City's Ordinance and the sign package that was presented. 11 Mr. Kellison stated that City Ordinance allows for 150 square feet of signage, and The 12 Hitching Post is requesting approval for 180 feet of signage on the east side, and 172.feet 13 on the north side of the building. In summary, the project is a total 6f42 square feet in 14 excess oft e a owaa amount. He stated that the Ordinance allows for"a 15% coverage 15 of the wall area, or two square feet for each lineal foot of wall space, but a total of 150 16 square feet of signage is still the maximum. The proposal included five signs with meas- 17 urements of Yx12'. 18 Mr. Kellison reviewed for the Council that Mr. Furseth has a marketing agreement with 19 manufacturers that requires particular signage. According to the City Ordinance, a busi- 20 ness could cover up to 50% of the window area with signage. Mr. Kellison stated that if 21 the Council recommended against the comprehensive sign plan allowing for excess 22 signage on the walls of the business,then The Hitching Post would need to place signs on 23 the windows. Mr. Kellison felt that would cause the business to lose curb appeal. Mr. 24 Kellison clarified that the City is being asked to approve the comprehensive sign package 25 in lieu of The Hitching Post placing signs in the windows. 26 Ranallo inquired about the square footage of the window area. Mr. Kellison stated the 27 windows are 12 feet wide by 8 feet high. Ranallo stated it has been an issue before 28 whether only the letters of the sign are measured or the entire sign for compliance with 29 the Ordinance. 30 Faust shed some light on the history of the sign ordinance. He stated that seven or eight 31 years ago, the Ordinance was rewritten. The specifications in the Ordinance were set 32 forth by a collective group, and he feels that many cities are able to require smaller signs 33 regardless of the franchise. Faust cautioned the Council that St. Anthony, as a commu- 34 nity, has always felt set apart from other suburbs in that it was important to keep signage 35 appropriate, dignified, and consistent throughout the community. Faust clarified he did 36 not plan to vote for the sign package. � r STAFF REPORT To: Planning CommissionReport No.: VIII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager 01J Date: June 21,2005 Subject: Concept Review of Senior Cooperative Development-Lowry Avenue/Kenzie Terrace Date Application Received: No Application submitted to date. Property Address: Senior Cooperative Development- Lowry Avenue/Kenzie Terrace Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: Staff received a call from Terry Bartz,La-Nel, asking to come before the City with their proposal to construct a senior cooperative on the site adjacent to Autumn Woods. Currently the site is zoned R-1 and would need to be rezoned to R-4 to accommodate this project. The proposed location is a site that the City has worked to redevelop for several years. The senior cooperative proposal is appropriate for the area because Kenzie Terrace Condominiums are located to the northeast and Autumn Woods is adjacent to the site to the east. Staff will need to meet with the developers to review their site plans, discuss grading,engineering and storm water retention requirements, and consider the dimensional requirements of the R-4 Zoning District. Attachments: • Letter from Nichols Development • Informational Packet H.\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\062105 concept Lanell Cooperative project.doc Nic' HOLsDEVELOPMENTr L I MITE D LIABILITY COMPANY June 15, 2005 Michael Morrison City Manager 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 Dear Mr. Morrison: It is with great pride and excitement that we are submitting our concept for the proposed Summerhill of St. Anthony senior cooperative that would be constructed on the site adjacent to Autumn Woods. Nichols-Development, working in conjunction with Lang-Nelson, is proposing to build a'four-story, 57-unit owner-occupied senior cooperative community that would be restricted to individuals age 55 and older. Nichols Development, LLC, formed in March 2000, is a developer with a broader perspective and a deep understanding of both the development and financing sides of the business and operates in the following areas: • Land and site location and acquisition; • Demographics,-research and marketing; • Site planning and development; • Innovative and effective negotiations with municipalities; • Overall project management and direction; and • Management Nichols Development has extensive experience with senior cooperatives including the financing of nearly 30 such communities as well as personally developing four others and preparing to break ground on a fifth later this summer in Maplewood and a sixth in Chaska this fall. We take pride in listening to the communities in which we build as well as the surrounding neighbors which ensures an outstanding final product. The communities we have developed, all of which are limited-equity cooperatives, include: • Summerhill of Eden Prairie—a 48 unit community that opened in December 2001 • Summerhill of Bloomington- a 40 unit community that opened in January 2002 • Summerhill of Apple Valley—a 70 unit community that opened in November 2003 • Summerhill of Maplewood—a 44 unit community that will break ground this summer with an expected opening in July 2006. Earlier this spring,we purchased the assets of Gramercy Corporation and, with that acquisition, obtained the name, which is Gramercy Companies, the management operations, which currently has eight cooperatives under management contracts, and two projects, both of which are market-rate cooperatives, currently in development. Those two projects are: • Gramercy Club of Burnsville—a 76 unit community with an expected opening in December 2005 Real Estate Development■Marketing■Oversight Management 12750 Nicollet Avenue South,Suite 300■Burnsville,MN 55337■Phone:(952)224-4900■FAX(952)895-1159 • Gramercy Park of Chaska—a 51 unit community that will break ground this September with an expected opening in the Summer of 2006. A senior cooperative is ownership housing for independent individuals age 55 and better that provides maintenance-free living, while guaranteeing a well-maintained building—both inside and out. As noted above, there are two basic types of senior cooperatives, limited-equity and market-rate, and both require the purchase of a share of the corporation in order to reside there. Market-rate cooperatives often involve individual mortgages for each of the units and, upon re-sale, the price is based upon what the existing market will pay. A limited-equity cooperative, which is what the proposed Summerhill of St. Anthony would be, is financed by means of a fixed-rate 40-year mortgage that is insured by HUD. The insurance by HUD allows for a lower interest rate that benefits the seniors who are purchasing homes in the development by making it even more affordable for them. Such cooperatives also become increasingly more affordable over time with individual units appreciating at an annual pre- established rate (limited equity)—2.5% for our recent developments—as compared to the recent 10% to 20% annual appreciation seen in the market for single family homes. Another key factor, quite possibly the most important, is that experience has shown that the vast majority of those independent seniors who purchase a home in one of our senior cooperatives will come from the immediate area. This means that the local community will retain these wonderful people who are quite often invaluable resources and who shop, socialize and participate in the community. The construction of a senior cooperative also benefits the local community by creating the opportunity for existing single-family homes to become available for purchase by younger families as the existing owners move to their new cooperative homes. When Nichols Development builds a senior cooperative community, we make a commitment to stay connected with the owners long after the last unit has been sold due to the relationships we develop with the owners during the process and our overall sincere commitment to the senior community. This ongoing participation is further enhanced by the strong team of professionals we bring to the table during the development and our continued role in the management of the buildings once they are occupied. Our proposed Summerhill of St. Anthony senior cooperative would feature: • 57 units in a four-story building. • 1 and 2 bedroom homes, including many with dens. • Full kitchens with standard equipment including dishwashers, disposals, microwave ovens, glasstop ranges, appliances, refrigerators with icemakers, and pull-out shelving. • Large bedrooms and living areas. • Individual decks. • Amenity areas for cooperative residents, such as a community room, woodshop, library, craft/multi-purpose room, game room, exercise room, guest suite, business center, and garden plots. • 24-hour security with video surveillance. • Controlled front entry. • Heated underground parking with car wash. • On-site management. • The exterior will be created of handsome and low-maintenance materials of brick and James Hardie cementitious siding, metal facia and will be enhanced by extensive high-quality landscaping. The exterior design will have a human scale and will fit well into the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project would provide: • An alternative living arrangement for those individuals age 55 and better who want to remain in the neighborhood but who no longer want the burden associated with maintaining a house. • Ownership housing. • Predictable monthly living expenses. • Greater control of individual financial resources. • Resale—ease of entry and exit. • Resident controlled Board of Directors. • Housing that remains affordable over the long-term. The development would have a strong team of experience bringing this cooperative to reality, including the architects at Miller Hanson Partners and the general contractor will be Frana& Sons. Nichols Development has a strong belief in the importance of lasting relationships and, in addition to those listed above, has embraced long-term relationships with such organizations as: • HUD • AFL-CIO Housing Investment Trust • Hedlund Engineering • BDH & Young. In order to bring this quality senior cooperative housing development to fruition,Nichols Development, LLC, working with its team of high-quality and experienced partners, will submit the necessary materials for a planned unit development (PUD) that will be based upon the feedback from City staff and the Planning Commission. As we move forward with this project, we will also reach out to the neighboring area to seek out and listen to their input. To assist you with your review, the following materials have been included with this letter: • Photographs of Summerhill of Eden Prairie • Photographs of Summerhill of Bloomington • Photographs of Summerhill of Apple Valley • Marketing packet for Summerhill of Maplewood • Marketing packet for Gramercy Club of Burnsville • Marketing packet for Gramercy Park of Chaska • Video tape promoting Summerhill Cooperatives • A report titled "More than just housing ... Co-op Housing", drafted in partnership by University of Wisconsin's Center for Cooperatives and Cooperative Development Services, that clearly defines cooperative housing and how it compares with condominiums, rental and single-family homes. I want to thank you for your time and consideration and, should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me or Dena Meyer, Director of Sales and Marketing, at 952.224.4904 or Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development, at 952.224.4901. Sincerely r ; mothy F. ich is President 952.224.4900 Cc: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager kyu"`�3 _ .�tt • E � El � � � 1 • e �0 a'^. �r 8' A °L� #�T� t E �1 � fa MR. a iv, ti tfi SL • - � E -?�� � q � M .S Cky _ �� Qi. �'C,f hili AM I R"N ' - - - - .. - _ ,�X �� � � ' �4 .�9nr �-• .v fir. x •.,�� _ ",� 6 �'S?PF'u� � a .�"s'?i3�"lam � u ��'. ' � g ✓�br�,ry �. �� /f� 3� �.%'��'x a ���y��b / � � X' � ... �� <x71 4 $l a¢w,��hF�,r E, �� A VAII mg P_ �g N"ll Q A ""WE WX ;xy r. vy g. Kith.. t 4VMw: ' � - --L-- 4 a 4i F, � �� rte• .- . . _� A � ' 1U R i� f, �� i ~"��y�,. iH ... .-.......r...�.r �{^ i k t a �� � t v e>� - 5� � ,.,.��k� �1 � fsy'' a�. „��� _ �- :..« ��' � s � ._ � �� i �� s � ,.. �r � � 'x1�', .A: �,� � � �.vz �' ':,ma's` ,fit_ �. � �p �ff .» „:- .� sy ... .ar u .. _,,.�.,, b 5 „ :. i; .. 2 `n� � �=4cA���'',�"wti�. �„�.�t �. r �'�, �.x, .. .. ';,� a rr r r t 1� ems\ �l Summerhill Cooperative of Apple Valley a �Y AW i WI 6 n Tyt. 'dor F ' r• � � H yt ' �y.ad Y •. r ` ' �37j � � . ir we - noCPQmoi ll ■ ■ ( I� E Summerhill Cooperative of Apple Valley _ T • A 14 I cyclic More than housing ^� k. �4a�,�i. _" _ a:��a - _ -cr.,,.,,; '- �-- -` -,�.>- r-,- ,� .� •.A . '.cam ' -. ���'' �-- ��t. Y•`r,+hF� r,;,F'�.;' V -�• �` '%.�•r �`"t„3- $`� t'!A L••'*':.R `^.i 'gar ^' •:r'�1 v _ ,cv- .'vai +TvYr = a x� `�< -sw� ;.`,{ass of::�.0� �a. = a,c"•,'• „3q,.y„°� r"�;,'t,'" i.-'`M�' �4,'�tF��'`�- ,1.a'.: =a�4� i' ,�,+'.,:cF' �,: �;f .r�'..� \.� 4N, '' •+`` ��:€a.��;.• r � '3f'"`�s ���.""� e•��,�'4 i•-,. .t€; a*?,.��n��s,,, �'�a�' ,T� ,+�'4_tt << PW _ rte.: g�N .�'. ��_ a �,y �,a:.,� �•••�,.. ,�- =-'+� � _ ., ,t„�..a _�;,,.`j ,019 }��` `�' ;�� ', � v� "5..��3-l,• "'S ids," '�'�-L52.9?�', ��efy,.. -fi.>; �._�.-,*�� :•v"a„'�f,'^ae;'. .{` "..F. `"',pRly e4 7 'q t..,.ar,, ?6 y = - :°y N`"`:�S.iP "Y'L+�.aQrri3 .La'."v'`h',t'' 5:n+ %$`e�' � + ty�`y< t"y'•ac h's',f°k31 Aa . 1 �,,,, - ai', <m �a^•�'; ` ,ri,�;��•6 Sa:;.4�-_,{.e•��L,T•-Ft'.s ti�7"'r..�'r(���y1' n':,x:?F+ '?,x+x h..' C!� �- Y y� y"A ;' n , +a'.,,,"n .. ,?� cr 1' r ,`<-...i. x p ,'} :"*w, s s+ds z '•rd yti`v. ° ,; �.r� ,.. .y=,j, �-,...�5 ' L ,r,.,"' :i"+x`�,a•n � a. •~ "''.'4.y .s.,:y "s'"• }�' d'� •i "-,.�• Zi E -. .•ic� "`,��, _r,�•- =�w•�'t i.+.a+�"�'?T^` „%,• �:> �f(��y',-`�%v C F•,• 4(, $_Ei�F. I'^'.L.�yS:s-�: �l+:�s�. -' .. � 7� ,^.` �' "� - >•' 3+' ,,;w `k moi"• 's`I-§#'sF ' Wig r —r.." � �,�,a`�= '� � '1•. ,'` , �', `���3:,.� .•�-' ,�'.:�,... SLS' '•i ' a��. 1i.A`•�'�'�_' % _ ;j., r ,�'�}rV. c&.' <`4•i .f= `SV.,_ Y ��"'�5� r�4�^"'-���:�h4�''�1 y�-.,,.t-JIa�`'"�y,_'��;��-Y�� � T .,+i ' ,x•�''�g3'�y'-���.#''{a'G% r�t�.��`x" ���:' _� �. .'G r •.� -S �;- Im AW moo m. N' -�`"s'::.,<,r_;fria-,' - m•.�`,;�$_•�:,><.i^:'t iii.:°.wr,`s %`c. Y,.",,. ry$ F•,,cs r' '=n _ ..,: 4rz AUN .. y':!•'_ '". J•n 9,' ',� `^����,, �" '_ "�,a "Town, t~w ', _ ��"� a":�i-sem:. _C e, �•- r:. 4-+�;�•�': '�, ` u, c- i,-£- _'�-'; �L ,rk, `��x t;�i„r � ..-a�°°:� '".u-,o��� _ ..s�' r- �z�+ ����+ �_�r,.s; ,_;�" �at-.��✓}}.�`,;-{•+,, Toll k -Wit.""; ` ` y.,�' ¢` y }•, m v; tiy`„ •a ,�`�C ,,,:•.{ •.� aE r..,a�. _ L ,'T 1,. •'r.•�" '•t"'-yKd.. "'i iii. T'�-�'' ",, �'�, �.. P`e',`>SS,,5`f,_� �.'''` E> �"t�'�� �,nz 7�'Y? '' w'ffii� X•:. ; iFr' W .+k - , r:""'�ti^' N� i �3�J ",a f yxf"�•,�''C-��,n k '�, �`.,��',�' r'f. ^�, _ - _ �t�.0 "�;=r� aa: •�-`a i«�""r, -.,g•'�t - eF` ",r�.�a Li.:f�;�°i=ek- jro' -,��;. � _ r�,� a� FS,fl4• fiE-�4•_ h�` .mss,, � wr �" _�:_ ,tr,.,• - ,�, "<•.w'�• a..��b,_ a'+a�;!E t�' �'� u�,. �`5, -u;�:,;'� c4.C•,� ��'�' ,s?� •i'-�-'�< - �'1.� '`�` - ..,�tx -K -�. '-`,7t„#T' .u,:l'�'y'�-,r.; •3;y.. �i:,zr •N. i+a.4' �y;•. `,;.;g•`'.�.,s�ok .-{r�e r ^; as-,�^. �'I ,,, :pt __u: a�, '. '�_ _ x' ;i,f,';,y -&=��Y•r'�•��y�i'";,. ^t�,�-:`� M1� ., ice>;w`_�"�,. ;§ �,�. ,sa��; ':rJ�;�+,';�''•� -Fb�q�.-•"'�'�'�,:s,� .�'��.r�"„N,^r � '�.� `4r„&�:c"���^'-*r:t2 •, ,-at"t'wmas`,f�i:�.�" '�-:k`s s,'»�Y:`s'ke:+�Ti 'S':� ,:,. ��e. p;•`,.,�,,,, - r Y•, �:xt;�hr ;-� �; i�4 '�_��� �. .:�i,;i�•; �.. •z.� ='i��*;. 2`-`:.":- r,w�.:.'}"•'";,"_. � ''"Fa`-:. Oe- �,.es d. �-..,r;�`R. W ''�`.-�H� .�';'.<r._;: .4�k f�' .� "'t.�> 7 � -tom •�". ••rC a:$r•, V '`x4•,..��' r_ S`�ty.;,�.x i��'�M�'�:a�3'�:�;xY, ' ,; 3?.�gY°P+IrTu,''_•; �, to.st` 'a m' e rw Y �*,."�O1 ;'rx' - ag. � 4v.• ?_ ..L� �•, Y� ,�� F:.�tF%es wu`Y YF`Y, .u.,,,iz.` s��'�'-k�iJ RKe.;, `. "Ate_"�,�y?4 n�*y� � ¢gyS;�"s,.,-,'_ '`-y3 E,vP' 1., �,.".i.. N�•.:x; 5r,.� 2:v 3.(r2 '.Fc"��v'n,-s��.""'i'3'i` aD .' J + .4 .'"�+�'�' II' "y�,�-:,)tt *' »iL :F How you can profit by living in a housing cooperative. :x _: r Introduction combination 1 factors including1 1 > s C'�F housingI have forced manypeople I look • alternative housing options. This I" to co-op housing attempts :i your questions regarding N^ ownership, responsibilities, and benefits • living inI housing cooperative. Did you l(now? Your Questions Answered In the United States, more than 1.5 What is a housing co-op? million families of all income levels A housing cooperative forms when people come together to own and control the buildings in which they live. They form a co-op corporation and pay a live in homes owned and operated monthly amount (called carrying charges) that covers operating expenses. It is the cooperative that owns the building, land, and any common areas and the through •••erative associations. members buy shares in the co-op. periodThe of How many different kinds of housing cooperatives are there? cooperative development was after By altering the basic legal and finance structures, many different types of housing cooperatives can be developed, World War 11, in response to an A market rate cooperative sells shares at full market value in the original sale and permits a market rate of return on resales by its members. acute housing shortage. A limited equity cooperative limits the return allowed when shares are sold. The amount of return is determined by a formula established in the corporation's bylaws. A leasing cooperative leases the property from an investor on a long-term basis, sometimes with an option to buy. The residents operate the property as a cooperative. A mutual housing association is a non-profit corporation set up to develop, own and operate housing. Generally, the association is owned and controlled by the residents of the housing produced. A senior housing cooperative is a cooperative that has design and service features appropriate to senior residents. H iv ( y r� .t How does a co-op work? e;. The co-op is a legal cooperative corporation. Members of the co-op are the people living in the co-op and they run the co-op... from organizing � .. social activities,to maintenance, to handling finances, to landscaping. The members set the by-laws of the co-op and also elect, from among ' ' themselves, a board of directors. The board makes sure that things ruin smoothly and according to the co-op's by-laws and operating agreements. The board will organize members' meeting on a. regular basis and vrill usually hire staff to attend to the day-to-day business of the co-op Y Who owns the cooperative? r ` Cooperative members each own a cooperative share. Together, the members own 100%of the cooperative, which the cooperative owns ail of -` the builduag,land, and any common areas. The right to reside in each. .M, specific&veiling unit is allocated solely to a specific cooperative member and governed by that member's proprietary lease or occupancy agreement. What do I own as a member of a housing co-op? As a member, you own a cooperative share that is the combination of two things: • Your ownership interest in the cooperative corporation (representedby a certificate of membership or corporate shares), and • An exclusive right to occupy a particular-dwelling unit that is owned by the cooperative corporation (represented by an occupancy agreement), How do ifinance my purchase? As a new member buying a cooperative share, you only pay the equity or !1 share price at closing. As an incoming member you can readily borrow p rt of .1f othe share price using a share loan that is secured by a cooperative <e a single-family mortgage is secured b1 the home itself.A share borrower must individually qualify for his or her own share loan and is individually liable for this debt. What monthly payments do I have to make? The occupancy agreement requires each member to pay only his pro-rata = 4 d share of the b.jdgeted costs of the cooperative. These costs may include taxes, dw w mortgage payments, repairs and maintenance. If you have taken out a share loan, you must make the principle and interest payments directly to the share lender. Where utility costs are not part of the cooperative budget,the member must pay them directly to the utility companies, as well, t tax benefits are available to me? Members can deduct their pro-rata share of the cooperative's mortgage interest and real estate taxes on their personal federal income tax returns, in addition to the interest paid on any share loans. They have the saem rights to s exemption from capital gains taxation as any other homeowner. In some states, homeowners receive favorable property tax treatment compared to commercial and industrial uses. In most instances, coope p �v�§-and their members reserve the same benefit as single-family homeovmmrs. V,4; N i 4 s E Jr, a'@ qry uaX 1. F F How dd I acquire equity? As with any mortgage, once you begin to pay down your share loan, and as the market value of your cooperative interest increases, you build home equity. What's the difference between owning a co-op and owningy#'. a condo? A cooperative member owns a cooperative interest (an ownership interest in the cooperative corporation and its property as a whole plus the exclusive right to occupy a particular dwelling unit). Co-ops usually assist members to find perspective purchasers, and no real estate transaction fees are involved. A condominium owner owns fee title to a dwelling unit plus an undivided interest in the common property of the condominium development (the land and the buildings themselves). Owners must find their own buyer and the sale is a real estate transaction. How can low-income families afford owning a co-op? The difference appears over time. Cooperative ownership takes people out of ... the rental market at what can be the same or slightly lower monthly cost. Thereafter, co-op owners are largely insulated from escalating costs and will reap ' the benefits of their rising incomes.Where social investment is available— through home-purchase assistance, project-based section 8, or in some other form —cooperative ownership can readily be made available to even very low- . - income families. Why is being a cooperative member better than renting? Lower Monthly Costs: Because cooperatives operate at cost, co-op carrying charges are often 15-25 percent or more below rental market value. Tax Deductions: For income tax purposes, co-op members are considered homeowners and can deduct their share of the real estate taxes and mortgage interest paid by the cooperative. r Home Equity: Co-ops provide for accumulation of individual member equity. " q; Limited Liability: Cooperative member/owners have no personal liability and ` need not individually qualify on the co-op blanket mortgage. The cooperative A corporation is responsible for paying off any blanket loans. This often makes it possible for persons whose income might not qualify them for an individual mortgage to buy a membership in at least a limited equity co-op. Overall Savings: Co-op members benefit from economies of scale in co-op operating costs as well as from not-for-profit operation. Bulk purchasing of major building improvements provide substantial savings on a per-member basis. Ina low-income setting,the spreading of costs among co-op members cushions the economic shock of emergency repairs that so often leads to mortgage delinquency and foreclosure for single-family homeowners. Community Building: Cooperatives provide homes for members and build a community for the co-op as a whole. Security: Tenure is secure, within the guidelines of the law, co-op bylaws and occupancy agreements. What do most housing cooperatives look like? ,; Housing cooperatives can be high-rise apartment buildings, garden-style apartments, townhouses, single-family homes, and senior housing. There are other kinds of housing cooperatives like manufactured home park cooperatives wherein the cooperatives usually own the land, utilities, and community facilities while their members own the individual "manufactured homes." HOUSING AT A GLANCE Note: Primary source of information for the table provided below was the Cooperative Housing Coalition website at www.chccoop. MaxkeJtRafe == Limited Equity 9,10oRental ,SingleFamiL Cooperative Al. w t ,.a a :,. za> ;.Member esi etifs'`e Member/residents are the MIAMI't ownersStak ee- He a The landlord awns the land O,w a fake.t est Ownership �; ,� �� ��� " ' a .- ,,, I w- P. Me oy a hroug I sole owners through a dtelltn Rolih "� and buildings.Each tenant )and gd ail �d�regdys;r' .. Co orate n 'h liar torn corporation which in turn divided ite esti=.m ttha has the exclusive right to J ` ' �6 toldin .4 ovn the land and buildin s. a oh eleme fki�nd otcu a articular8dwelhn � Z 0.q opnt he la �� � a s $"- B4`. -;y tr x* Y. PY P 8 E3ctt Rlemfiit�Tif;tlte� - Each member has the ail"hgs.w s unit Burin the teen of the exzlus'ne rig1it Eo;hicsip; ` exclusive right to occu a =' ".• v lease. paiticBlar dwe7lin' imitiirr'' particular dwelling unit in ,, "`.SFi *�,Zrv-s"2'. ..q; .d.�z = �'v't'a;• '; ;;.' perpetuity. rxs °�vzs ` Month) costs ' ern tfion[fi ;, `, Members a month) Uni tie a montfil, Tenants a the rent We Monthly I ,ma YP� Pr r P Pr mrf n cha ei to` e'. carrying cha es to the condo'-fees toxthe' � specified E. m the lease,which '' "'' z'= meg, B B P a� nn real dmter e;ioo era a rata cooperative—a pro-rata condom murgTusotra0- includes the landlord's profit .,4pa t�dire t ntf e� Ps are�o{a tual oparatr share of actual operatingpro,ratathare o{aetua6 - margin. end'et0'nersmake eusygy tk sr' F_ y. �> ac�os ,filapny�al costs,blanket debt principal o esti- � insurance ownyp c`er[�ax'nr , r -andm eresg`sopertyx and interest,property taxes, - resarves�Un nersr s insuran�e�a menthrau I 'insucanceaari leservei insurance,and reserves. t mor gagaz if a t anr�r Kcu-� _T � � � ;;�. :� ontbl, 'martgag crowd 11em6ere,WsC sfiatPo ' Share loans,if an are small 'nnc+&a1 �d Sntels „t+ v' 4 Y, � P Paymenor dreg fa th , in$.Hhdmiloa"PdCiif ai, and may be serviced by the payt�entt t cfl toy€ ;' :x s rr anie tQ pa an�ocaf k" la , ani'1,te p riS cooperative.Member with a der"•E it�ow' � c; `�x �-�wmg h i P u 4?CN ,g rig ver a r, tsiare°�en "` share loans make individual Zdtaker sow` a x djFec{I dfo�tfie Vew a. principal and interest k a a fs.,fCrou o hJ` �r= _�_ y y `tW kpayments. mar fag,,e w s agents, -^; o dicky e of `: `r i•�� � =`= f'`r°d agw, Maintenance& Coppera"hiie is.ai;spodsifileTor Cooperative is responsible for y`=oo m x33sotra anis3-r' Landlord is responsible forOrme� rgspbhsitilalf`>" eftcripr`rratntenanie;-� exterior maintenance. resp_siR N �_' all maintenance and re av ma tefiancega' ao .., r..a Repairs s a" e <. a P ! fob�e"�iCi es tBit t ooie inw. Cooperatives an choose how rtTamten nae vi ua In F%' fhe alaiafe;res" _y cap y3s 'A�Q potisib�il�'', s they allocate responsibility per k t sponsilil�a�ir ll -,�;� ;- 4gr'd`i+leliio 'dnib'�`�;r s" for dwelling unit <ri $ g VIII hsmarntercance amtTT_hc OW maintenance and repair F'� i�dytlual°' emb�e� between individual member aprkcaoper`�five a. le. and cooperative as a whole. ' S Many limited equity cooperatives assume most or >aaA all responsibility for dwelling unst maintenance and repair, u`%�J:',,�^a,�.'vG5& � '` in order to even out and ; reduce costs to their ` v + members. •""`'� FFA=' g ^N ur se e�; tic' *fie ;s rma��'e °ni s Purchaser a low nce for � J Purtliater�paj'; " g;, p ys p Pur ser�pays arftetp ce Tenant typically pays first P.i'-sir rehaser paysmartti�iiCe= Purchase cost/ a -' �, � kx. �.u rcH � _ {orFsafei'gQ mertibershl "'x shares or membership.Pro- ��fo.r cndomrN aumta r,mak;= and last month's rent plus �ost g coFts tilt e`bTle,« Move-in costs rata share of cooperative'sTP�rc` ergs Ilgafe d: Q "j;; security deposit. ilsueIYaUon+Tett:,: _idageghje's;l0ke f r, y :,jaydmontf y aundo to€s Iowk n f,ba blanket loan remains m ,`remains:'in:pl"ace:Pbrcbaser- place.Purchaser assumes rtfostgg•tastsr�rttlu�e c,� '' X'4+�..�§'r:...,"'.`a', asiumesysaUers�o6ligtioni ;,, sellers obligations underanspra u,faxaro;rdnorteti ;yoidesoisipanca Ceemetif` occupancy agreement.Few or ~Y.w'�� y `r.- .•� f °' Y:r i,S,� n,K'J,.E•' r 1;.� .`7�.�•`..�...i •- ea•,y � i �: Eetv�,cfofingetosts no dosing costs. �; Az`°,�'.rsT Q, ` _•: ��..b'&,�' �r%z.,nw ;M�r,zarn°r `a.�,-_r�"_ G'I�::��.'::vb�ca.,S` -, `•`_ �,'.,v:,�^,±rye 14,e-='I, y� '"� ,ai�YF'., �`�+£��� �" Financial iMeffttie'"6a�'esno erso8a(� Members have no personal oit a, hem a ob aed� �` y -, �P> P 0� t Tenants are obligated under ., I Ii ag k )soba ''- r IF�j p nCo eq liability on cooperatives r, a menthly�co`ri e`es tu;°=` their leases to pay monthly owall1blle��hert % Liability ah7antef luanhMem�eri'al:V ' blanket loan.Members are �tl`e_ondoms ro as tr bnnq� rent to the end of the lease =fie di14'ri' li aioanY o `s bb�r atedsun " Wit xe, ., der`t err obligated under their +` s `- B ��fii n�e tth,,r�,o�age�� term. Moan: �'="` otc a ire is tor,v :, occupancy agreements to Y. rson I A tab) `EINeir°' t ,,make�m nthl car m° s make monthly carrying y��" � carr B y Y nY Hendersfor'the amonCof, x; men�otlie' charge payments to the iao `roti e 8e? ertibers,ysth cooperative.Members with ep1 s�i' zny*,`are share loans (if any) are era a Iraaile ioAhejYr personal) liable ,� y e to their share lenders for th �;:`'>:.=�. Asieyleneisforffie . e 5 :s °" :,amour f z�a.k ? amount of the loan. � �w�a`.,Xd f P"`'u>aycw. r4 Community co„erafivefias:�n”hN p �� p , , g,,,,tu r .` Cao erative has right to �.o �mrpiumdas6ci�p n Tenants have no voice inilve �ha e`ncCCantrglper Control app ovP,4 ipoteMial = approve all potential ltCf ,ok'no`corit7fP er e< who moves in and no mertibers:'Cooperative5san member.Cooperative can "lot'A1q Dyr°h fi—w>csf snif,,' control over behavior of tie bho�fitioa rarity ii cantru€` j,,., teititinite.memtiersb)p-and terminate membership and ovlr �tJl�t a�vner3; other residents. ,',vOY K;ehavlor.;bT mei b qrS F eviei iesldems`,vl6owirilafe_; evict residents who violate ` ;�dP,rpocr�(liailgoxet 'twe: ;, Ok n �a r@proegt, occupancy-agreement. :`` ti" ,% �Y�,l P ry- c6ido iniusof'ati�gn an `..r x, l,. ,. Men,eR envoi aqc lly;�: Member democratically e c` rd aiFecWy�,tit. bvel theiroupefa g a 2 ;@ ; q,raB&'` overn the cooperative and oye ee e ons ;rip P.- .,.at`; elect oard bf dieettots to'_' elect board of directors to OYFfSEOrd �ps., ,.�.*` oversee operations. f;Lrc-.':'t,� ,.3✓,S' s• t , oLimited Equityn&,aowamy•-fimgums xRentalySf aemi ;� , 5 Cooperative � > fids„are;aia+la6le > Three methods are available Two-m hox s re a al ah' The landlord decides when © ne is'�Malil " u Facilities Rehab, f e a Fo era ve else to finance coo erative rehab, o s to h, and if rehab,replacements, o s Replacements& re lace ettss,ander� replacements,and re�tacemen awn _ ar improvements are to be °late ei>Ys +r�grare Tents improvements: Improv men a :x done. ;�q—i pve eotst ��`-•-, .. ? Improvements se`ssme of liftlivsdual �''< Assessment of individual ommon eP : " ~'tmero�hersrs[or E MA sew� members ( p �_l ;�'� ° r e ers or their pro s t 'iadih ua �r ;_ feta pare of-'th�'tdta; tsF rata share of the total • um M{or� ei rarau ` : ,M u4 �� ��P. �i; a tri,e c cost; MCI -A”" total y:a� >, > � a ; costxaa M Rz �" s,s !,. �stablahment',4aTi"Yn`di g Establishment and funding of placement reserves of replacement reserves; ,• spa iih en ndlst di ops and ';� t re,a�emep�e�se es� '2' ^' a PC✓ d„Y4,_; v�-,�a ?y' �i°t;durs"��+g. � "'�'„ ' ��New la twin tifaiVi`r New long-term blanketri" g: financing. ��alF'",: �,rv•�'�:,;Ys'S ��,��t�a%i�3\�,�,,c} ,�tr€��.�#a ~>�r�S^:_cF �`a:a'3.yf5' '" '.` °:;�:�• ,�,�r"'s,�,, $a+�`L'!'j�i' .'�v5°.�.�'.x�'�,.,.,:, VIR a �E:,� V 9�8r•-a; r•r^c•<ai;:�.�##..WKiuyg.�x Aeffia �.- �'�.' � tPiiu�er3tiye;t€tlip'ers== _A; w Cooperative members TyRet�e6fiticall' 'a The landlord hues and > O me i dsvtdu�lPro e :�.; .� ,:_ .� <p tlertacrptscalle�€ gMttoa •'; democratically elect aoadaoi'c "n�� oversees propertyFspn �1eFol allazpetts off': management _od��ri °h'ikirihes�nd;y` board of directors,whichW�rciirs an oerseesxs ` management firm and/or 'pr ezo ee;Apro�tei'” � > hires and oversees property p yr Nmanaggmea rm,',,'• employees, - smanagementfitlrizaQiiCr4f`` management firm and/or *and%,ar2m erft to ees: $� employees. wt.;Sir`�t`�; - t c y,p�•��.nW' _ ��,, a'•'i'k 7 nig� t,,,•, - „�Coaperenvsomesp�bers;ed}ayy>� Unless the cooperative has Condoms um un ow ers 0, Tenants receive no income F Ovyne ”cetvd' Tax benefits ,-=y �." r.h,•. ~tel .�eaisirome .� given them up in exchange enjoy jl':,o 'tfieg co egtitf• tax benefits associated with tome taxi ene„IS r•� s t• ,AMef,ts 2homeownea jpc for tax-exempt financing, beaef of homeo ners homeownership. ass uatetl it' r "' ' G tom,> n,.�: _ % r ? ' I`sjs�oststates_,cooperatives` ' cooperative members enjoy vinmoits[aets io"dooniinii'y° soineoirriersfi'"�I'pama�f •'� A-.i ux=eg^%.'crt 4Z,E'•t� � ,'�. :S".e Wn r ice.I••`.Ls _ E fan elicme 1ers c nc 'C all of the income tax oils ovinersgrg sve vI'atever< Sta{esti meo n_eisAceiv`'y:' hate`v�pruperty� benefits of homeownership. pioptiet re' _ me er faz,tiehe(ifs'', �ene(its.are W In most states,cooperatives „'aviila6 eg o' t(r 'r' ;_ :° fdte lo" n?�O�efr• .Aer,fiomeosvn,e V P, - and their members receive ` "" .` � '` '.v, lidm"e wsi€rsrF'x,:,-" :.assess edtzar lower-,tax` ���.: • ;ys <a ,• �x whatever property tytax � .. benefits are available ro other homeowners.In some states,there are additional " y,; "':x property tax benefits or " <• ¢ savings due to the limitation ,�°`,.X ?;-,;._• f,uo'., .:�i 4, 59 y of resale prices. �' G Home Equity Cdoperauve membeid'Aild;,', Growth in equity is limited >Ifnit;o`wnersilidiIdxergdiij as•`'', Any increase in value Owriers build equity as the .,egpity'a ;itfe:valoe?oFFheii,a through a limitation of sllie;n4a(ue of t&eu{ails[- • belongs to the landlord and ,"valu)df,,their'hoirie, " �tooperaxive intens increas6' resale prices.Generally,a Ymirease ,andnas tfiei'r:,' reflects itself in increased j:ipiieases;•and'as'theii• ;'aiid tasaheir shareloan:iss` '' formula determines the i origage hi;laid dawgw;,- rents. ;miirtgage is paid jdown: portion the selling member ." will receive of the increase d in value of her cooperative ?a5 ' sy �° interest and the pay-down of y ' the cooperative mortgage. ,:X; '/,' "i,>,�;x3n"z.'`y` aVx•'�„y�h7`s:?a'"u`Y.;'Av•��:`^y�,"s;�"„+'"0�. <<%„a, �,i2'".,;Y'P' :� ya.j=f�. t'�b'? �-J�M'�.. � }.. ,>hf4"-Y�cM1Y J�•• �,u: ,.,YY�Y< „5' Y�> n l �•�l,F`�SSy a'4: -�*�'vY�. :"{.'�'!C�'vq:.�..�,'i.�fw�'�.u��4�x�-� \'2r`u` $A��!�a' Sion---n 1 ' For more information please contact, University of Wisconsin Cooperative Development Services Center for Cooperatives 131 West Wilson St., Suite 400 230 Taylor Hall, 427 Lorch St. Madison, WI 53703 Madison, WI 53706 Phone: (608) 258-4396 Phone: (608) 263-4775 Fax: (608) 258-4394 Fax: (608) 262-3251 CDS@co-opdevelopmentservices.com reynolds@aae.wisc.edu Page 1 of I Kim Moore-Sykes From: Chuck Armstrong [carmstrong@nicholsdevelopment.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 12:15 PM To: kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Site Plan Kim, as I mentioned in my voice mail this morning, attached is the preliminary site plan for our proposed Summerhill senior cooperative project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks! Chuck Armstrong Director of Business Development Nichols Development, LLC 12750 Nicollet Avenue South, Suite 300 Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Office: 952.224.4901 Cell: 612 750.0847 Fax: 952.895.1159 carmstrong@nicholsdevelopment.com 6/16/2005 KENZIE TERRACE > i.Wd� t• co t t \ EN Y PLAZA45 6C 7C z' 1C 56 - r' 8B :°ti 15C 3A .71 OB ` - ,.. e SITE PLAN 38 13� 22 37 4 20 10 73 70 / ASH 9 11 4 LB TRSH 3 2 0 1 0 GARAGE V32'-r-o• I _____ _ __ _____________________ __ od— EN Y PLAZA 6C ' I R 1C 5B 2B I 15C 3AI "11 4 4A 4 9B I ;Y4 pr I �q��' b y, f Af 'ARST` VING LgVlFt i STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: June 21,2005 Subject: Concept Review of Conditional Use Permit Request-2829 Anthony Lane South Date Application Received: No Application submitted to date. Property Address: 2829 Anthony Lane South Zoning District: LI 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: Eric Reiners,architect with Welman Sperides Architects,has requested a concept review of their proposal for a conditional use permit that would allow the IUO Local 49 to open their newly constructed catering kitchen and related facilities to the public. Originally, staff understood that this new facility was to be used for private, in-house use. In reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance,there is no allowance given for this use either as a permitted use or a permitted conditional use. The petitioners may consider proposing a text amendment to the Ordinance to allow catering in the LI zoning district as a permitted conditional use. The Commercial zoning district does allow this use as a permitted conditional use. See Section 1635.03 (c) and(p). Attachments: • Applicant's Letter • Letter from Hennepin County Human Services • Building Plans showing Catering Kitchen and related facilities H.\Plammng\Staff Reports\2005\062105 concept IU049 conditional use.doc May 25,2005 Kim Moore-Sykes City ofSt.Silver Anthony WELMAN 3301 Silver Lake Road �T St.Anthony,MN 55418 SPERIDES Re: International Union of Operating Engineers—Local 49 A R C H I T E C T S Partial Conditional Use Kim: Per our phone conversation, I am forwarding reference plans for the Local 49 building and a copy of the approval letter from the Hennepin County Human Services Department regarding the design and construction of the catering kitchen that was installed as a part of the recent renovation and addition. I will inform the administrative representatives at Local 49 that we have spoken and update them on the schedule you proposed to me for staff review, Planning Commission evaluation,Public hearing and Council approval. We understand that you must meet with City staff to review the building plan and proposed use, meet with the City Attorney and review various approaches to the issue, and summarize staff comments and Attorney input for"Concept Approval'at the Planning Commission meeting to be held on June 21'. We also understand that following preliminary approval by the Planning Commission, the issue will have to be published and opened up for public comment at a public hearing on July 191, and assuming positive feedback, City Council can approve the use at their meeting on July 26`x. Since the intended use should not overlap or interfere with normal industrial uses and neighboring businesses,we are not anticipating any opposition. If you have any questions or require any other information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Welman S ' es Ar leets,LLC E .Reine .A. Principal Enc.: Building Plans,Catering Kitchen approval Cc: Project File 7700 France Ave.So. Suite 375 Edina,MN 55435 phone:(952)996-9662 fax-(952)996-9663 wsarcWtects@wehnanarch com Hennepin County Human Services Department Public Health Protection Epidemiology:(952)351-5230 Epidemiology and Environmental Health Environmental Health:(952)351-5200 1011 South First Street,Suite 215 FAX:(952)351-5222 Hopkins,MN 55343-9413 www.hennepin.us December 17, 2004 APPROVED Welman Sperides Architects, LLC 7700 France Ave. S.#375 Edina, MN 55435 Regarding: Local 49—International Union of Operating Engineers, St.Anthony, MN Dear Mr. Reiners: The plans as submitted, along with the additional information on received December 16"', now appear to meet the general requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance Number 3 and MN Rules, Chapter 4626 and are approved. Equipment/Equipment Installation 1. Provide the shop drawings for the following custom fabricated items: #2 custom scrapping sink and 3-basin utensil washing sink. Plumbing 2. A basic plumbing plan has now been received. No correspondence has been received from MDH indicating the plumbing plans have been approved. 3. No grease trap is to be installed per the City of St.Anthony. 4., Contact Kris Anderson, Hennepin County Licensing Agent, at (952) 351-5202 for a Hennepin County Food License application prior to scheduling a pre-opening construction inspection with this office. 5. This establishment cannot open for business until it has been inspected and approved. To schedule a pre-opening inspection, call me at (952) 351-5215 at least one day in advance of the desired inspection time. Food deliveries cannot be accepted until this department gives approval. Please submit any changes to the plan and all additional required information as soon as possible. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at(952) 351-5215. Sincerely Lam, • , ynn A. Moore - Hennepin County Supervising Environmentalist i CC: Debra Anderson, Hennepin County Senior Environmentalist City of St.Anthony, Building Official An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper 0 f TRASH NOT BOX BY - CATERING SERVICE I2 I3 ON U c- �t �I > s Q:, 13 MECN RM MOP SINK ID X m w O U O ROOM FINISHES g FLOOR: QUARRY TILE 5 , 10 BASE: QUARRY TILE COVE BASE 2a O WALLS: FRP r= — CEILING: ACT "CLEAN ROOM MYLAR" OR EQUAL I ° FEN 1 CATERING KITCHEN I/A.=r-o" PRUlBcr NAl4&. _ LOCAL 49 COW&NO. IV smTrma 04-006 CATERING KITCHEN DAM 11-18-04 E3� 7700 FRANCE AVE,S. PJ3VnU N M. DRAWN BY: VJELNIAN SUM 375 ADDITION OF CATERING KITCHENEDUCHL SPERIDES 55435 MN A 1 C 6,T 8 C T S SHEUrNa A2 L L C PAX (952) 996.9663 PHONE (952) 996.9662 TAPERED RGID Fi•4LL SFCvE PLT ROOF SYSTEM G PFtEFK ML FLASWING _ .o ROOF FWICL l DECK SEE STFZ e EIFS ON I-RIGID FE511 .4'3•.4• D•.g• O _ D'SPLIT FACE CTU 9 OR DOOR] m HEAVY DUTY TRACX VVELMAN uF m O SLOPE BIT UP TO EXP MA,L _ SPERIDES ® TO BLAB — — - - - - - - - - — — -- - - — GRADE — A R C A I T 8 C T S • - 9'b' 70 0' $ 4'CONC.BLAB I ON 6'GRAN BASE I I I L L C CONC FTG.SEE SiR 4� sum FEW LArm5C.4PE SCIMEN I 7/0D 7?BAb41=5 AV®WBB. 9 o a m 7 wasw STORAGE BUILDING PLAN 3 SECTION I PAo o O O I PA�sD6s ALO Ir BIT PAFW W. �3 4 rPSICi4 1 I I l GONG.LURB I I O tsT4l�rtTl®4YNR11® C 4.�mut•!ml OVNM INTERNATIONAL ' ` CURB T UMON OF a I INNGRUM LOCAL 9 ® I �V_ ' 2829 ANTHONY LANE SOUM T NtnvEAroLIs•ayssais EXISTING BUILDING PROMT-. SLOPE — — I EI 1 LOCAL 49 AMMON Ty GowAlc �� dog i &REMODEL 4 yp 5OUTH ELEVATION s EAST ELEVATION b NORTH ELEVATION b WE5T ELEVATION I AIID VB'•1'-®' AIM I/B'•I-0' AIID VB'•I'-0' AID VB'•I'•0` 1 bmb]wdfT WI ILI]pim,=b.. I ,~ I I wpvrydm it lel I•m•dv e T I I3aarA.wl a•.m ln.I.n a u.• � � 9' I 5YA14 tl Ymneo4 40 I ;,. I Neme• ~ I MCHOIA4 S.SPEI®ES W I (ADDITION We Da xo: Teeel m I I LINE OF EXIST, I I CZNc amB I I VB'FT IDVERFL 1/8'/FT PARCQG DATE (SSV®FOR.. Typ 11 I& Tl~'P •CONC CIDP Q FFiELMNN2f KWUTC P .14. NE OF EXIST � I M DEHCd7 R1CPYa SET CONC CURB SWELL PACKKE CIS•I c B 67 CIS 63 I I I 10-I-d Q CIS•4 CIS 45 SPLASH BL= u-lo-d Q CIS•6 II I 24 PRO]BCf N0. d-Lmb DRAWN LEE DEEP \ 23 23 4 / ROCK FILLED DRY II I CIISCI�D E R M1 IW CLAY LID L I DATE 7.77•04 \ 6 74'•0' 41'-0' 74'-6' 70'-0' 40'-6' 70'-0' 74'-6' 70'•0' ID'-0' SUM NAIL \ 51TE PLAN 91 _Is_ I 1 a I I o 20SHEET NO. � I 8 SITE PLAN North A1 .0 I AID I'•70'-0' ] - tl'-1• 76.-,. 76'-'�• n•-�• B-7• 9'-6' Ll-�' �•-m• 7- Q.-m. �.-®" °,-m. °f-m. a-m. °.-m. °.-m.l B.-m. °•-m. °'_m. I °.-m. °.-®• le-m• e'-m• e•-I• -m• u•-m• I Q'-�' 'B• ♦1 LLNLAN SPERIDES WQ•I6 m •Q'IB' A R C H IT B C T S I Ll L L C TI90 FAA;=AVEIRM B a IIFE711M 3" C »RB NINMIU ASSW FBIC Imo) `v ImE I®F — - ImKa IQW ImU — — — — — — — — — — — PHCM 00.4)996.960 PAR p!A 9%.%m SEE DET CASE �DETAIL&/AbJ ImH I T`6' I ENTRT MAT I I EJfKCL9E ©m.m0asn'wHJ1eNe® VSF ® 8 0 0111181LY®LC.>ml INTERNATIONAL Wo LLGD LUT IN UNION OF OPERATING CMOR5 LVE , 11.5 --- ti ENGINEEI2.S LOCAL 49 a 2829 ANTHONY LAMS SOUTH ABNIMAPOUS.MN 55418 GATKALL I I IQI p � I Jdl PRO]itCF 7 IL 03 a �A LOCAL 49 II _ b SDE NEW Q ADDITION 7 — &REMODEL 4 O &B q _ -p5� — — — — — —— — — E �• 9 I I TTP 14a® 1 lent'coH�p�WpeulNJpy e) wNw IDS g � IJ^••+Anmteel emee We I..e w W S e m I ` ` fi.b d tllonee.la a b I N.Dn � W I NI[H0IA9 S.SPERM ES G I Date• Be[.No IBSBI 3 e � t ®: I ] ® 6 AaJ us,. { DATE: 159Q13D lOID I I I S I PR3RDYRT 9COMIC _� I I e I •-I•-M 0 DEWIN PIMM SET °�_T I tE T.e.w Q WM PACIWIE 1•27•a Q PER11T m ® m m OFD I rECH I d A LATERM ROOM $yy a-Im-w Di c B•I IO QpT O INO —II6) CB at T•.4j' CB 94 LB a5 N II•Ibw Q CB a6 q I IMSA 1 PRO76CT NO 04-Mb nT DRAT/N LEE METOL ELEG c CED 0 9 c�C]® E R 6•m ! � OATS 7.71-04 m s SET NOM. -u FIRST FLOOR SHRSI' N0, I FIRST FLOOR PLAN North A2. 1 A71 Ve••i'-m• A B G D E F G H 1.4' 76,-4, n.•�. n 7. B.-6. J n'.{�• �.-m. 136-0• I ?m'-�• 35'-�' I I WELNLkN e•-m• 4•-m• B•-m• sl-m• s•-m• B'-0• a-®• s•-m• e'-m• B'-m• e'-m• B-m• e-m• a-m• B- .-m• a-m• e'-d' e•-m• .;J SPE%DES A x C H [ T E C T s L L C I Aal I T FRANCE!AV@IVBB Aia su=m BDWA.UMMOS A stir 1010 10D 10E I0F 701A 1016 `, 10W I0U PHCM 013A 9969e62 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE `a PAR 07�9%966! 708 , 70 ® 705 1 704 (2E) Iw I I 6'-l• g 6'.lT II'-4• B'5' F-0' 35'-oi' I ©mFD�n.aaFANe® Aa®)Y-m OIIN811: 0 INTERNATIONAL 709 M1 I 1 70 A , UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 BOARD 2829 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH 707 NU B MAPOLIS,MN SMIS OFFICE OKE I I ' I ® 1 701 I I 7 I I PP.OJBCT 9 5'-8Y 4'•0• -b 700A ! LOCAL 49 " AMMON I 9 &REMODEL P3'-C 11'-0' m-9- N-0' 71.1 IS.oi. 7K W"m. "B' I !-0' =3'S• 1 evml«rD77 Wal ICI.91m.vyed0otlw �spueE I ffffl 5 A.J _ "g dhaaD4�mymltl®.e6 IhLt I.m �7 I l.GYEN V 7Y. I BREAK FILE9 ^ I OFFICE I OFFICE I 7N 1 1 I I I -g. I I R7G1h Sla�U d y m y.mdn We Im N We S I I I 7F1 ® ! 6 ••J R f8CTC19Y•AREA I I I KO —_J Nemc 718 1 779 1 77'78 — MCH01AS S. ES ALA 7nB 3 70C 70m 70E 1-31' n.0• e'-0• 6'- < 8B'-bj' IP-7j' g.b• 1 Daly Reg No.:10881 TOdET I DA78. L49D®Pol '•4 *41-1' PRCMsoDE9Kdl FRICNG SET'-l0 1'-0' B'-0' B'-0' B-0' B'•O' 78'-0' m,,. _ a ]-D-M Q SNELL PACKAGE OPEN Bmm• 7 m OFFICE �J ST FILE I1•T•04 Q PEM ]7B s ! O s RECESSED p • I a 9 B-10-04 Q C B FI ENTRY MT ''11 A•.1 I I 63'-y' B'•0' ' I F S-Il-04 Qj L B a7 PROVIDE NEW 9-2m-m. © C B 93 STOOP 5'4• I ® y to-I-04 0 L B u mn BQSFR LOC ' LOC COORD AAS JAIOR I II-]-m. ® C-B 05 G fi II-18-41 Q CB 86 SERVICE WINDOW fi fi ' m 0-4!' 0''S]' P..No 04-005 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 4L- ® 7770 773 771 O 776 O1GIR7 LEE a y DAR 7-77-01 s A SHM NAM SECOND FLOOR 971561 NO I SECOND FLOOR PLAN North . A2.2 • I 7 3 - - PREFN.I•ITL COPING - T PWPEI — T'-3 V+" EIFS WALL CAPITAL �PARAPET c I MAIN OFFICE EXIST RAKED PIC PAINT I \\ IIII I I WAI�PN�EL9 PAINT 7 / b COND F PAINT 7 3•-mWELMAN PAINT 1 I I PAINT 7 SPEPMES ROOF DRAWD*CNARGE \ II PAIM 1 I I I A R CHIT R C T S FST B- --__�-_�-------------------------� 77100 FRANCIS AVE�10013Th C -- ------------------------- ------J/� SOUTH ELEVATION 113304A. A ]•xoT+s asp 996-960PAX(9=986-760 431 VB°•I'-0" ©�]O�.T6IAJYNp® oaNOt. rteI PREFIN.MTL COPING INTERNATIONAL T T..3° T UNION OF OPERATING EIPS WALL CAPITAL ENGINEERS LOCAL 49 I.U.O.E, LOCAL 49 PARAPET 5541 PL WALL PANELS 2879 ANTHONY IAT TH I I I I I MII°IIQEAPOIdS,MN 55419 PANT I PAINT I — REVEAL TTP ,d,SECOND PANT] III FLOOR I PAINT 7 PROJECT PANT 1 113'•m• II ADDITION PANT li I I pLOCAL 49 PAINT 7 B T XALL I I YELTNG ALL PAMT 7 IOU PAMT PAINT 1 D(.REMODEL \ \ I III RAKED P4N�L SURFACE FIRST FLOCIR I I I I I hosgltvW)w.t IW PIm..]MDotba -- ------- ----- --- - ----------- -------- ----- ---- ------ ----------------- U.. t 7 WEST ELEVATION � ��'�`���` A31 VB'•I'-m" N.m NICHOLAS S SPUMES Au 3 7 I D.le Reg Ho. 18881 PREFIN.MTL COPING � TO A T 3/+• DATE. LS5118D PoB EIFS WALL CAPITAL RISrWATSC4MTC INT NATIO AL UNION OF OPERATIN ENGI ERS aPARAPET •-I+ Q DESON PRICING SET I I PL.WALL PANELS ba Q 9NFiL PACKAGE (I PANT I 1-]l•64 Q PER;7T PAINT 1 JENC REVEAL TTPBlob CB.I PAINT PA 2 �SECOND FLOOR 7 PANT IL B Y7 PAINT 1 III 1 II IIo4m To LOOf� e-]0-0+ CB.3 PIIIIIIIPAMT 7 I I E LOC 1 ISERVIGE I II III 11 Io-I-o+ Q, c e.+ PAINT I II III I I III Pd Blf 7 N-]-o6 ® C13 95 PANT I II-I60. Q B--6 RAKEDPANEL FIRST F PROJECT NO 04-006 DMWN La 3 NORTH ELEVATION I CRECRED ER. A91 VB•.I'-m• DATE 7.77.06 F G N J PfgFIN MTL COPINGSKEET NAIZ 7 A ELEVATIONS P -3 E WALL CAPITAL I I I I I I I I I e PARAPET ! EXIST PG WALL PANEL S PAINT IPAIN71 PANT 2-1\ III I I POINT 7 _O. FLOOR I " III III V I III I II PAINT I sxser.No . . . . PANT I II -ANT 7 JI PANTI L--___-_-__tJ FI Tm ----------------- EAST ELEVATION A3 . 1 A3, VB'•1'-0• LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS Avoiding Di"Sputes Regulating the use of land has always been a tricky business. It involves a balancing act, taking into consideration the desire for a well-managed and well-planned community, while remaining cognizant of the high value people place on property rights. By Tom Grundhoefer of surprisingly,with land plan- regularly review those regulations to request,the final plat must be approved nirng efforts becoming more make sure they are consistent with cur- within 60 days if all conditions of pre- prevalent and sophisticated,and rent law,in areas such as:sign ordinance liminary approval have been met. private property rights awareness rulings,adult entertainment decisions, Every city should also be aware increasing,society has seen an telecommunications regulations,park of another statutory requirement: increase in the number of con- and road dedication rules,legislation Minnesota's"60-day rule"(Minn. flicts (lawsuits) arising out of dealing with nonconforming uses,state Stat.§ 15.99).Under this law,a city government land-use regulation. law voting requirements,and"60-day" must either approve or deny a written esota is no exception to this trend. requirements. request"relating to zoning"within By any measure of evaluation,land Cities should also review their regu- 60 days of the time it is submitted to use and development disputes represent lations to make sure they are consistent the city.The city may extend the time a significant impact on Minnesota cities. with past staff and council interpretations, period for an additional 60 days,but In fact,as a percentage of total claims, and to make sure they are consistent only if it does so in writing and before land-use litigation represents more than with the city's comprehensive plan. expiration of the initial 60-day period. 20 percent of all defense and indemnity Finally,and perhaps most importantly, As a general matter,any written request dollars paid out by the League of they should be reviewed to ensure con- related to zoning ought to be treated Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust sistency with the council's current goals as triggering the start of the 60-day (LMCIT).The chart on page 7 shows and visions for the community.Regula- period.This requirement makes it the number of land-use related lawsuits tions that are inconsistent with what vitally important that cities scrutinize that have been brought against LMCIT the council and staff see as the future of applications as they come in the door member cites.The chart shows both the community can only cause conflicts to fust make sure that all information is the number of claims,as well as the when the particular applications have to present,and then to process those appli- associated costs.Given these numbers, be evaluated. cations in an expeditious manner. land use is obviously a topic worthy Process requests in a timely manner. Comply with all published notice of attention. Council and staff should be mindful that requirements.State statute prescribes all land-use related applications must be explicit notice requirements for com- Suggestionsfor avoiding disputes acted upon in a timely manner.Most prehensive plan amendments,rezoning This article offers some practical ideas people understand that cities must have requests,and subdivision approvals. for cities to consider in trying to more a reasonable amount of time to consider Generally,the law requires 10 days effectively head-off potential land-use land-use requests.On the other hand, published notice of comprehensive challenges.While a certain number of they are less tolerant of a process that . plan,rezoning,and subdivision actions. disputes and lawsuits are inevitable,the unduly prolongs the approval time In most cases,the law also mandates following suggestions may be helpful process. 10 days mailed notice to those with in avoiding some of the disputes.Almost In addition to ordinance require- property located within 350 feet of land every one of the following suggestions ments that some cities may have,state that is being rezoned.Some cities may is generated out of some real life exam- law is clear in a number of different ar- also have unique ordinance or charter ple encountered by a Minnesota city. eas about the timeframe for processing provisions that specify particular notice Regularly review land-use controls. land-use approvals.For instance,state requirements. Statutes and court decisions directly law requires that a preliminary plat be Avoid making promises.City staff, affect the authority of cities to regulate either approved or denied within 120 councilmembers,and planning com- land.Any city that has adopted a zon- days of submission to the city.Follow- mission members should try to avoid nig and subdivision ordinance should ing preliminary plat approval,and upon making representations or promises 6 MINNESOTA CITIES OCTOBER 2 0 0 3 Regulatory 0 41* r� i 7 I a- r - i More Discretion Disc/reti6n More Deference L3, s Deferen e t LegislativeQ46SI �u-dici �- - in i THE 60-DAY- RULE . Forms to Help Cities Comply By: Karen Cole Kennedy & Graven 612/337,=9212 kcole@kemedy-graven.com Prepared for 2003 Update for City Attorneys Used with permission KP,C-226479vi CL21aa A. A QUICK REVIEW OF THE BASICS Most cities are aware that a state statute --Minn. Stat. §15.99 — sets a time limit for certain land use decisions. Under the state law, Minnesota cities have 60 days to make three kinds of decisions: zoning, septic system and MUSA line decisions.) Cities may extend the 60- day period for an additional 60 days if they.give written notice of the extension and the reason for it before the initial 60-day period expires. If the proposer's application is incomplete, the city may reject the application and restart the 60-day time clock but only if the city notifies the applicant within 10 business days after receiving the application and only if the rejection is based on the applicant's failure to comply,with pre-existing city requirements. An applicant may waive the statute's time limits. To comply with § 15.99, cities must not only take action within the time limit -- they must also notify the applicant within the time limit. If a city denies an application, it must give written reasons for its decision"at the time it denies the request." The penalty for failing to meet the new time limits is a harsh one: automatic approval of the application. It is important for all cities to understand how the statute works to avoid inadvertent approval of land use applications. B. SOME FORMS TO HELP CITIES COMPLY I have identified a number of materials to help cities comply with the requirements of the 60-day rule. Model forms and samples used by other cities are attached.2 1. Define Your Information Needs in Writing. Cities may restart the statutory time clock if a zoning or septic system application does not contain all information "required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy" of the City. Cities should define their information needs for different kinds of applications and memorialize those requirements in writing. For example, cities should define in writing the information needed for a complete rezoning application, conditional use application, variance application, and for other zoning approvals. The information requirements need not be codified in a city ordinance. Written application forms or checklists adopted by the City will suffice. (A sample checklist used by one City is attached as Attachment A.) The City should be expansive in defining its information requirements. It is always possible for the City to waive a requirement not needed for a particular project. The City may not, however, restart the time clock by imposing new requirements that may be appropriate for a particular application but which were not"previously adopted." In defining information requirements, the City should review applications that have been received over, perhaps, the last five years. Were there instances where additional information was needed or requested by the City? The City may also wish to take into account the impact of project location, scale, and design on information needs. For example, it may be appropriate to require more or different Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven information-for applications in particular parts of the City -that involve, for , example, wetlands, lakeshore, or more densely developed areas. Similarly, more ' information may be needed for larger projects. The City may wish to suggest that applicants arrange a pre-application meeting with the City's staff. This will enable the City.to work with the applicant to assure that all needed information will be submitted, and gives the City the opportunity to waive information requirements not needed for a particular application. 2. Prepare a Log to Monitor the Timelines. Cities should devise a system to monitor thetimeline to assure that deadlines are not missed. The City should prepare a log to record when applications are received and to record the statutory deadlines. As soon as an application is received, staff Should calculate when the ten-day period will run, and when the 60-day period will run. These dates should be entered on the City's log. If the review period is extended, the new deadline should be recorded on the log as well. Staff should check the schedule to determine when planning commission and City Council meetings are scheduled to assure that the deadline can be met for each -application. A sample log to help cities monitor the time requirements is attached (See Attachment B.) 3. Prepare Three Key Form Letters. In addition to preparing and utilizing a log, cities should prepare three form letters. One form letter should notify the applicant that required information was missing from the application. The notice must specify what information is missing. Sending such a notice within ten business days of the application restarts the statutory time clock. (See Attachment C.) The City should also prepare a second form letter notifying the applicant that the City is invoking the statutory provision that allows it to extend the 60-day period. The new law allows cities to extend the 60-day limit for an additional 60 days. To do so,cities must give the applicant written notice of the extension before the initial 60-day period runs. The written notice must indicate two things: the reason for the extension'and the length of the extension (up to an additional 60 days). Reasons for an extension may include, for example, the need for additional staff review of complex issues or the need for additional public meetings or planning commission review. A Minnesota case has determined that cities may not notify applicants that the time period will be extended on the application form itself.3 Notice of the extension must be given after the application is submitted. Notice of an extension must be given in writing,not verbal y The written notice must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length. The City should think through the reasons it will use to extend the timeline and should incorporate those reasons in its extension letter.' (See Attachment D.) Lastly, the City should prepare a waiver form. Applicants may agree to waive the time limit set by the new law. The City should obtain any such waivers in writing. (See Attachment E.) Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven 0 4.' Be Sure Everyone is Mindful of the Timeclock at Every Step. It is critical that City decision-makers be aware of the § 15.99 deadlines at each step in processing an application. ' Each report prepared by City staff on a zoning application should prominently indicate the 60-day deadline. One way to accomplish this is illustrated in Attachment F. i The MUSA line is the metropolitan urban service area po � boundary in the seven-county metropolitan area. ,Property within this area is served by metropolitan sewage treatment facilities. 2 Many city attorneys and city officials assisted in preparation of this paper by providing copies of materials they are using. Special thanks to Desyl Peterson, Dave Ornstein, Michael Leek,'Julie Wischnack, Bonnie Baumetz,Patrick Peters, and John Sutter. a American Tower. L.P. v. City of Grant. 636 N.W. 2d 309 (Minn. 2001). - 4 Demolition Landfill Services. LLC v. City of Duluth. 2000 WL 1015 893 (Minn. Ct. App.July 25,2000),review denied (Minn. October 17,2000). 5 Each City should consider what grounds the City will use for extensions.- The fact that cities must specify a reason to extend the initial 60-day period suggests that a blanket extension applicable to all applications'will not pass muster. A blanket extension that is equally applicable to all cities and to all applications would "swallow" the general statutory 60-day rule and would ignore the requirement that a reason be provided for the extension. In a recent case, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered what kind of reasons would suffice. In that case, the Supreme Court rejected the position of the lower court that extensions could be granted only when there are "extenuating circumstances." American Tower. L.P. v. City of Grant 636 N.W.2d 309, 314 (Minn. 2001). The Supreme Court did suggest, however, that extensions should not be granted based on a blanket approach, but should be granted on a case-by-case basis. Id. at 313. What constitutes sufficient grounds for an extension? The need to collect further information on an application or to conduct further analysis of it because, for example, of its size or complexity or because of the sensitivity of the affected area, are solid grounds for an extension. Grounds for an extension could also include circumstances that distinguish one city from cities generally at the time of the application. The argument can be made that,while the 60-day limit was intended to apply to cities generally, it was not intended to apply to a particular city under specific circumstances. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven ATTACHMENTS A number of model forms and sample forms are attached. A. Sample Checklist for Application B. Sample Application Log C. Letter Restarting Timeclock Because Information Is Missing D. Letter Extending the Time Period E. Waiver Letter F. Sample"Deadline"Language for City Reports KRG226480v1 Karen R.Cole CL210-0 Kennedy&Graven ATTACFEWENT A Sample Checklist for Application The following sample checklist for a conditional use permit is adapted from a checklist used by the City of Brooklyn Park: That City has separate checklists for each type of application (e.g. variances, rezoning requests, site plan approvals, etc.). Each City should tailor these types of checklists to its own circumstances taking into account the types of applications received and the built and natural environment of the City. Remember: be exhaustive. Requirements inapplicable to a particular application may be waived at a pre-application meeting. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven How to Request a Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit application is required when the proposed use of a parcel of land requires City Council approval. The first step in applying for a'Conditional Use Permit is to contact the Department of Planning and Development. Applicants are also encouraged to contact the Protective Inspections Division and Fire Department to see if additional permits and/or licenses will be required. If you choose to pursue a .Conditional Use Permit request, a pre-application meeting should be arranged with the Planning Staff. Pre-Application Meetins: Applicants are strongly encouraged to-schedule a meeting with 20 the Planning Staff prior to the application submittal. The purpose of this meeting is to be advised how the City's policies and plans might affect your project and to assign a Staff representative to help you coordinate your application submittal. The Planning'Staff will provide you with a preliminary review for your project The applicant is responsible for understanding City Ordinances Sections 152.244 "Zoning Ordinance (Conditional Use Permit)"; Chapter 151 "Subdivision Regulations"; and Chapter 150 "Sign Ordinance." Based on this meeting, a decision can be made whether to submit a formal Conditional Use Permit application. The Planning Staff will also try to advise of other potential governmental jurisdiction involvement. The following items should-be brought to the Pre- Application Meeting: 1. The address or location of the property. 2. Any preliminary plans developed for the property. APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS: Application Fee: Check payable to the "City of Brooklyn Park." The non-refundable Rr application and an area identification sign fee for a Conditional Use Permit is$350. There is also an escrow deposit of$500.which is used to pay for City Staff time spent reviewing the application. Please note'that additional escrows and sureties will be required for on (and ofl) site improvements after approval and prior to release of the Conditional Use Permit Signed Application: Include authorization from the property owner on the application form or by attached letter if the application is signed by an agent. MSite Plan: Four (4) sets of full size prints and ten (10) sets of 11" x 1T' size prints, ALL FOLDED to 82" x 11". Additional drawing submittals may be required for the Planning Commission and/or City Council meetings. All drawings shall include the following: Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven L Certificate of Survey complete with boundary -topography and significant natural features. In addition, a complete legal description, the property description number(s), address and site location map shall be provided. 2. Site plan drawn at an appropriate engineering scale. A graphic scale is also required. 3. The plan shall state the square footage and percentage of coverage for the following: total site,building,hard surface,parking and landscaped areas. 4. All buildings, structures, walls and fences: location, size, height, elevations, finished materials and conceptual floor plans with proposed use and square footage. " 5: Off-street parking: locations, layout, dimensions, circulation, landscaped area square footage, total number of stalls required/provided and proposed surface, curb and gutter details. 6. Access:pedestrian,vehicular, service and points of ingress/egress. 7. Loading:location,dimensions, number of spaces,internal circulation. 8. Lighting: location, height, design, and detail. Lighting contours may be requested by - staff as necessary. 9. Signs:proposed location,size,height,material and illumination. 10. Landscaping: with a schedule of the plantings showing quantities, botanical and common name,sizes,root type; also size and location of existing trees. 11. Outdoor storage activities, where permitted in the district: type, location, and material. Also,indicate the height,location;and finished materials of screening devices. 12. Refuge and recycling facilities: location,size'and finished materials.- 13. Conceptual drainage and grading plan for site, showing proposed finished floor elevation of each building, street, parking, catch basin run and invert elevations and drainage flow. Retention and/or sedimentation of storm water runoff may be required for the site. The applicant should discuss these requirements with the Engineering Department prior to the development of a final site plan. 14. Street dedication and improvements, existing and required by City right-of-way standards(inquire with Engineering Division). 15. Easements and location of utilities serving the proposed development. 16. Statement of use, including type of business with number of employees by shift 17.Name, address,telephone number of developer,designer, and design company. PROPERTY OWNERS LIST: A list of property owners within a 500 foot radius of the subject property will be created by the City of Brooklyn Park as required by State Statutes. A fee of$1.00 per name will be charged against the escrow account that is established by the applicant. If the subject property is within 500 feet of the city limits, a property owners list should be obtained by calling the Hennepin County Auditor, Property Description Office, 6h Floor Administration Tower, Hennepin County Govemment Center (612-348-3271). Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven Note: No applications will be processed unless all of the required materials and information are complete and accurate. The applicant or a designated representative is required to attend the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. SPECIAL NOTE: You will also need to apply for a building permit and it could take up to four (4)weeks to process that permit through the building permit review process. You may apply for a permit and have a building permit review proceeding concurrently with the CUP review period. However,if the CUP is not approved,the money which has been spent during the plan review will be lost. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven This page intentionally left blank. ATTACIEVIENT B Sample Application Log _Following is a sample application log cities can use to track applications. We have this log on our computer system, and are happy to adapt it for any City that would like it. Also attached to provide an additional example is an application log in use by the City of Bloomington. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven The 60-Day Rule A Sample Application Log This sample log is intended to help cities keep track of deadlines under the 60-day rule. A B C D E F G H I Application Applicant Date Date Applicant Date 60-day Date Applicant Deadline for Date City Date City sent number application was was sent notice time limit tuns was notified of City action approved or response to received by the 'that required extension under extension denied the Applicant City information or waiver - application was missing This form is not as complex as it looksl Boxes A-C and E will always be filled out. Whether the other boxes are filled out depends on the City's procedures and the fate of a specific application. A. Assign each application a number. B. List the Applicant. C. List the date the City received the application. D. List the date the City sent the Applicant notice that required information was missing. If the City gives such notice,it must do so within 10 business days after the date in Box C. If the time clock is"restarted"by such a notice,assign the application a new number and record all subsequent deadlines on a new line. E. To calculate the 60-day limit,include all calendar days. F. If the City opts for an extension,it mast notify the Applicant before the 60-day time period ends. (The date in Box F must come before the date in Box E.) G. List the deadline under any extension or waiver. H. The City must act before the deadline. (The date in Box H must come before the date in Boxt or,if applicable,Box G.) 1. List the date that the_City sent notice of its action to the Applicant. It is best if the City not only takes action within the time limit,but also notifies the Applicant before the time limit runs. NOTE: Cities may also wish to jot down the tentative dates of applicable planning commission and city council meetings when the application is received to assure the deadlines will be met. B-2 Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven Agency Action Timeline Through Monday, January 6, 2003 Resolution of Partial Denial NA—Not Applicable. N2—Not Required Applicant Action Deadline Chron lozy Letter Xmt Applic, 120 Days Case 1AW131i0n 1]ato fit/1)n RX - I Number Re nest Bvl bate Action Mail Rcv LC:Early Learning Center 10/4/02 12/2/02 1/31/03 No 578613-02 ltenewal otf a temporary 1111 11/5/02 Approved Yes 1000 France Avenue conditional use permit for a CC 11/18/02 Approved day care center in a church srry G.smith 9/23/02 1/20/03 Yes 8903A-02 Temporary CUP for a 29 A HE 10122102 -Approved 0825 Johnson Avenue 228103 Yes fillh wheel trailer on the PC 12/5/02 Denied driveway 30 R in front of the CC 1/6/03 Cont.Hearing dwelling,3.5 ll from the south CC U21/02 Public Hearing lot line and a waiver to the screening [yland Hills Learning 11/13/02 1/11103 3/12/03 No 4556A-02 Renewal of a temporary HE 12/17/02 Approved Yes .enter conditional use permit for it CC 116103 Approved 400 Trance Avenue South daycare facility in a church :CS Concrete and Masonry 1/20/02 1/18/03 3/19/03 No 10608AB- 1. Conditional use PC 12/19/02 Approved Yes N/A 309 Garfield Avenue 02 permit for open CC 1/ 03 Approved storage(Case 10608A-02)and 2.' final site plait and building plans for a storage building Cnsc 106088-02 'fliers Towing,Inc. 11/21/02 1119/03 3/20/07 No 7272A-02 Renewal of a temporary 116 12/17/02 Approved Yes .201 Wes(96°'Street conditional use permit for CC 1/6/03 Approved open Mange of loved vehicles,trucks,boats, mcrentional vehicles and construction c ui ment "I'Acquisitions, LLC 1121/02 .1120/03 Yes 7549A-02 Temporary conditional tint PC 1/9/03 Public Hcaring .)/h/a(1'Cars - permit to allow sules of used Cc: 1/2//07 Alrlic-ipated )50 West 94'b Street cars D tae Applicant Action Doadlhre Cluoaolo Letter Xnv Applie- 120 Case Location IDalo 60 Da De Eat Number R uest Bvt Dale Action Mall Rcvd eonard M.Lcuhne 12/2/02 1130/03 3/31103 No 10276A-02 Renewal of a,temporary H13 111/03 Approved 901 Girard Avenue conditional use permit to park and store a 22'6"(Class 11 RV)motor home on the driveway more than'8-feet in front of ilio dwolling and a waiver to the screening requirement foiceStream Wireless 12/9102 1/30/02 3/31/03 No 4484AB-02 Conditional use permit and PC 1/9/03 Public Mearing 916 Wdst Old Shakopee final site plan and building cc 1/11/03 Andc/paled Load plans for a 74 foot lower and Dale associated ground egbipment - Iregory L.Baglar 12/4/02 2/1/03 4/2/03 No 5708A-02 Vadw=to reduce frnnl yard PC 1/9/03 Public Hearing 1821 Humboldt Avenue setback from 30 hd to 16.5 CC 1/21/03 Anl/c/paled - feet for on-garage and living Dale area addition to an existing sin c-fatni ltome 3MRI,Inc. 12111/02 2/8/03 4/9/03 No 9541A-02 Feral-site plan,and building PC 1/9/03 PublicMearing Abe The Olive Carden plans fora 311 seal restaurant CC !/1!/03 Anticipated 1701 West 80°i Street Dale gormandale Lake 12/17/02 2/14/02 4/13/02 No 921BA-02 Revised final development, Adm _'ondominium Associates, plan to nllow a relainingwall ho. and an-identilicationaign with 3301 Creekside Circle a five-foot setback from the front property line Mctro I'avni and Jcwclry, 12/19/02' 2/16/03 4/17/03 No 4551/1-02• Ilcnevnd rifn lcmpomry lilt 121—fin •huhlic llearing Inc. cmidiliitnut time prattui to GC 2810J Anlicilmed 3820 Lyndale Avenue operate a pawn shop Dale 2 Applicant Action Deadline Chronology Leiter XnA Applic. 120 Case Location Date 60 Da Da Ext" Number Request Evl Dale Action Mit Rcvd 12/20/02 2/17/03 4/18/03 No 7986A-02 Minor ruvision to final site Atlat 351 Killebrew Drive and building plans to allow placement of 1lttee roof mounted AT&T Wireless antennas(one additional sector—facing west leetham Furniture,Inc. 12/23/02 2120/03 4121/03 No 2643A-02 Interim use permit to allow PC 1/23/03 Public Nearing )hu Itel-untish Scratch'A lempontry retail tine of n CC' 2/.i/0.1 Anticipated lent I�urnilure Showroom slntctute Anted for Date 950 West 78"'Strect - redevclopntctu - Valser Automotive Group 12/24/02 2121103 4/22/03 No 7770ABCD 1. Rezone from 1-3 and I- PC 1123103 Public blearing 216 and 1400 West 79'" -02 3(PD)to CR-l(PD) CC 2118103 Anticipated Irecl, 1:101-09-13-17 (7770A-02); Date :lover Drive 2. Preliminary and final Development Plan for a new car dealership (77708-02); 3. Conditional use permit for a new car dealership (7770C-02);and 4. Preliminary and Final Plat of Walser 2"a Addition 777013-02 Valser Automotive Group 12/31/02 2128/03 4/29/03 No 8133C-02 Interim use permit for PC 2/6/03 Public Hearing •301 West 80'Street. employee and service CC 288103 Anticipated customer parking Date 4innesota Army National 1/6/03 3/6103 5/5/03 No 770OA-03 Renewal of a temporary PC 216/03 Public Hearing ivard conditional use permit for CC 2118/03 Anticipated 300 West 98"'Street transient merchant sales Date associated with public -interest shows and events )istribution; Mark Bernhardson Petrone.Lee Roger Axel Eric Wharton Niki Pierson Larry Lee Dick Holloway Duke Johnson Connie Ricci Planning Staff Dave Ornstein Clayton Lundeen Sandy Harvey Matk Reichel Original(File) Sandy Johnson Bob lames Keren Olson Mark Anderson 3 This page intentionally left blank. ATTACIIMENT C Letter Restarting Timeclock Because Information Is Missing If an application is incomplete, the City may restart the timeclock by sending notice within ten business days stating "what information is missing:" Following is a model letter notifying the applicant that information is missing. (A new letter should be sent whenever additional information is submitted if all required information has not been received.) Also attached are sample letters used for this purpose by the cities of Crystal and Bloomington. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven Date: Name of Applicant Address of Applicant Dear Applicant: On , the City of received your request for [insert name of permit or application requested.] Your request has been reviewed by the Planning Department staff. We have determined that the following required information is missing: [List in detail each missing item that is required "by a previously adopted rule, ordinance or policy"of the City.] Your application will not be processed until all of the required information is received by the City. Sincerely, Planning Director Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N CITY: . CRYSTAL Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us March 18, 2002 Subject: APPLICATION INCOMPLETE: Plat of , a division of an existing lot at (P.I.D. ) into two lots. Dear We have received the application described above. Unfortunately, your application is incomplete. We cannot consider your application until at a minimum the following items are submitted: 1. You need to specify which variances(s) you are requesting. I assume based on the Preliminary Plat that you are requesting a variance from the minimum lot area requirement, to reduce it from 7,500 sq. ft. to 7,037 sq. ft. You may also be requesting other variances but I am not aware of them. In any event, we cannot consider your application by making assumptions about what you are requesting. 2. You need to submit a Statement of Undue Hardship explaining how any variance(s),you are requesting meet the criteria in Section 515.56 of Crystal City Code (see enclosed sheet). 3. You need to submit a drawing showing exactly where the garage would be moved to or, if it _ would not be moved, how it would be reconfigured on the second lot to accommodate construction of a new'house. Distances to lot lines, the principal structure, etc. will need to be shown. Normally this is required to be shown on the Preliminary Plat but in this case we will accept it if you hand draw this information onto a copy of the Preliminary Plat. -However, it must be clearly drawn to scale (straight lines, accurate dimensions, etc.). 4. You need to submit an 8'/2" x 11" or 11" x 17" reduction ofthePreliminary Plat"; this also applies to any drawings made on a copy of the Preliminary Plat (such as the one mentioned in #3 above). March 18, 2002 - page 2 - Because your application is incomplete, and due to the lead-times necessary to advertise the required public hearing, the Planning Commission cannot consider the application at its April 8; 2002 meeting. 'In order for the Planning Commission to consider the application at the following meeting ori'May 13, 2002, you will need to submit the four items listed on the previous page no later than April 19, 2002. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING MINNESOTA STATUTES 15.99: State law requires that an application be approved if a decision is not made within 60 days of all required items being submitted. You have not submitted all required items. For this reason, the 60-day decision making period has not yet begun and, in accordance with the law, it will not begin until you submit all required items. This letter serves as the required notice to you in accordance with M.S. 15.99 Subd. 3. If you have any questions, feel free to call meat 763-531-1142. Regards, John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator enclosure Ucity of bloomington, minnesota 2215 West Old Shakopee Road •Bloomington MN 55431-3096•(952)563.8920•FAX:563-8949•TDD:563-8740 December 17,2002 Mr.Neil Terwilliger Mr.Robert Fields qhM Inc. dba The Olive Garden -Energy Development Fields , 5900 Lake Ellenor Drive 609 Chickapee Trail Orlando,Florida 32809 Maitland,Florida 32751 Staff has conducted a review of"the submission material,including an application form and check, for - " 4701 West 80"'Street that was delivered to,the City on December 11,2002. The application submission for final development plan for 311 seat restaurant is incomplete as information needs to be provided to allow for a complete evaluation and assessment of the proposal as a final developrrieat plan_ The item is not being placed on the January 9,2003 Planning Comrnissiop agenda and will be returned. The application submission is incomplete and cannot be accepted for the following reasons: 1. A preliminary review of the floor plan for the restaurant identified major concerns on what will be needed in the layout and design of the kitchen to support the proposed number of seats. A need"to enlarge the kitchen space may result in cnWeino"the building. U is imperative that-this matter be resolved for a complete application for final development plan approval. Please contact Richard Holloway,Pian Check Engineer for the City's Environmental Health Division,at 952-563-8979 to work to resolve building layout issues and contents. 2. The architectural plans indicate wood frarne construction. The zoning district prohibits Wood frame construction (sce Section 19.40.07(h)(5)of the City Code). The narrative does not include necessary information that would warrant variation from the Cite Code requiremem Discussion should be conducted with Tim Skusa of the City's Building and Inspection Division at 952-563-8930. 3. The architectural plans and site plans are not consistent or uniform in the provision of a code required trash and recycling facility pursu_nt to City Code regulations(see Section 19.51 of the City Code). The information provided on this miter is not complete based on the architectural and site plans that have been submitted. It is the hope of the Planning Staff that these issues can be resolved.and that you will resubmit the request with additional Information as a complete application submission. Upcomiag agenda closings are as follows:December 26,2002 for the January 23.2003"Plannin;Commission meeting;-January 8,2003 for the February 6,2003 Planning Commission meeting and January 22,2003 for the February 20, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Attached is Minnesom Statutes Section 15.99 Subd.3(a)that describes the Time Deadline for Agency Action. Please call me at(952)563-8925 if you have any questions or if I could be of further assistance in you application submittal. Sincerely, Robert Ivt.Sharlin, PIanner p6na1aglw V0prdn l.doc An Affirmative ActlonlEqual Ooonrtuntriom employer Minnesota Statutes DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION 15.99 Time Deadline For Agency Action. Subdivision 1.Definition.• For purposes .of this section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, cor._—..ission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory or home rule charter city, county, to%% ,.or school district;any metropolitan agency or regional entity;and any other political subdivision of the state. Subd. 2. Deadline For Response. Except as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to-the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic sysm-niss, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it r,:x state in wjriting the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. Subd 3, Application; extensions. (a)The time Limit in subdivision 2 begins upon theiagency's receipt of s v.-ritten requ6st containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the aunty. If ate agency receives a written,request that does not contain all iequired information, the 6b-day limit starts ove- only if the, agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what inflation is missing. (b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems; or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires rhe approval of more than one state agency idthe executive branch, the 60-day period in subdivision 2,begins to run for all rcecutive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agency. Tl:_agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required. (c) An agency response meets the 60-day time Iimit if the agency can document that the response %vas sent %i-_h::'60 days of receipt of the written request. (d) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal liw, or court order requires a process-to occ-before the agency acts on the request,and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law, or court order M-%.,:-. it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph, the deadline is extended to 60 cap s after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law,or order. Final approval of an agency rec.,ning a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph. (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior apT:aval of a federal agency; or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or reg:mal entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this a--agraph, the deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted. (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its . arznpated length,which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. Lze-s:595, c, 248.,art 18, L Amended by taws 1996, c.283, L Plc---f formsWead ine.doc ATTACIEWEENT D Letter Extending the Time Period Subdivision 3(f) allows the City to extend the 60-day period if several requirements are met: 1. The extension notice must be in writing. 2. The written notice must state the anticipated length of the extension, which may not exceed 60 calendar days. 3. The written notice must state the reasons for the extension. There must be some articulable reason for the extension. Some possible reasons for an extension,in the appropriate circumstances,are the following: 1. The application is complex and requires additional time for study and public input. 2. The application is proposed for a sensitive area and therefore requires additional time for study and public input. 3. The City must hire a consultant or prepare a study to evaluate the application,which will require additional time. 4. Because of its size,the City does not have sufficient staff at this time to complete the needed review of this application within the initial 60 days. Following is a model format for an extension letter. Also attached are sample extension letters used by the cities of Bloomington and Crystal. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven Date: Name of Applicant Address of Applicant Dear Applicant: On , the City of received your application for a [insert name of permit or approval requested] for property at [insert location]. [Summarize subsequent procedural steps if applicable.] The City hereby notifies you that it is extending the time period for City action under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The initial 60-day time period would run on ['insert date.] The time period is extended until [Note: this may not exceed 60 calendar days from the time the initial 60-day period ends unless the applicant has agreed in writing to a later date.] The reasons for this extension are [insert reasons]. Sincerely, Planning Director Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven MIDcity of bloomingtom minnesoto 221 West Old Shakopee Road■Bloomington MN 55431.3096•(612)948-8920•FAX:948.8949 ■TDO:948-8740 October 3,2001 Thomas Noble,"Jr. KeMington Investments 405 South V Street Mumeapolis,Minnesota 55404 RE: Case 7992B-01/ 1901 West 96' St. and 9601 Neu-ton Ave, -Dear Mr.Noble: You are hereby 'notified of Bloomington's extension of the agency action period"for your application for final site plan and building plans for a office/warehouse addition—Case 79912B- 01 at 1901 West 96`ti Street and 9601 Newton Avenue. The City received the above referenced applications on August 8,2001. The cad of the initial 60 day period is therefore October 6,2001. Through transmittal of this letter, the extended and now applicable agency action deadline is -December 5, 2001. This extension, based on your agreement to continue the item, is necessary to allow for resolution of utility and stormwater ponding details that will, also; be contained in a purchase agreement between the applicant and the City. The requirement for agency action time period extension is established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subdivision (3)(f) (copy attached). If you have any questions concerning this letter please contact me at(952) 563-8925. Sincerely, RobertM.Sharli n Planner cc Eric Berg Charles Houchell plarm m1/cordd=diiae/a oW e l.doc An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities Employer Minnesota Statutes DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION 15.99 Time Deadline For Agency Action. Subdivision 1.Definition. For purposes of this section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory or home rule charter-city, county, town,or school district;any metropolitan agency or regional entity;and any other political subdivision of the state. Subd.2. Deadline For Response. Except as otherwise,provided in this'section and notwithstanding anv other law to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a permit, license, or other governmental approval of Pm action. Failure of an agency to deay a request within 60 days is approval of the request If an agency denies the req-as; it must state in ATiting the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request Subd.3. Application; extensions. (a) The time Iimit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required information, the 60-day limit stars over only if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the.request telling the requester Var, . infotmati,ori is missing. (b) If as action relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion bf the metropolitan urban service area requires the approval of miore than one state agency in the executive branch, the 60=day period in subdivision.2 begins to run for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agezey. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required. (c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the agency can document that the response was set:: within 60 days of receipt of the written request. (d) The time Iimit in subdivision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal law,or court order requires a process to occur before the agency acts on the request,and the time periods prescribed in the state statute,federal law,or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph,the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the Iast process required in the applicable statute, law,or order. Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph. (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of it federal agency, or(2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district; metropolim or regional entity,or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph,the deadline for agency-action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted. (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by protidime written notice of the extension to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and iv anticipated lmgtb,which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. Laws 1995,c.248.,art 16, 1. Amended by Laws 1996,r-M, L '��9lfarmSl�Eadlute.doc n1oj bloomington, minnesota . 2215 West Old Shakopee Road■Bloomington MN 55431-3096■(951)563.8920•PAX:563.8949-TDD:563-8T40 May 23,2002. Donald L.Kzika,Vice President Del American,Inc/LeCesse Development Corp.. 474 S.North Lake Blvd, Suite 1020 Altamonte Springs,Florida 32701 David C.Sellergren Frednkson&Byron,P.A. 1100 Interactional Centre 900 Second Avenue South Minneapolis,MN-55402-3397 RE: Case 3974,ABC-02 You are hereby notified of Bloomington's extension of the agency action period for your applications for a revised preliminary- development plan (Case 3974A-02), rezoning to RO- 50(PD) (Case 3974B-02) and final development plan for a multi-family residential building (Case 39740-02)at 4300 and 4400 West 78d Street. The City received the above referenced applications on March 27,2002. The end of the initial 60 day period is therefore May 25, 2002. Through transmittal of this letter, the extended,and now .applicable agency action deadline is July 24, 2002. The extension is,necessary due to your requested continuation of the item to the June 3, 2002 in order to allow for continued discussion on a street modification agreement with City Staff The requirement for agency action time period extension is established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99, Subdivision (3)(f) (copy attached). If you have,any questions concerning this letter,please contact me at(952) 563-8925.• Sincerely, Robert M. Sharlin, Planner Copy: Dave Ornstein, City Attorney pl=ningh=WdcWindx39.74 02.dcc An Affirmative Action/Ecluai Opportunities Employer Minnesota Statutes ' DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION 15.99 Time Deadline For Agency Action. Subdivision 1.Definition. For purposes of this section, "agency" means a department, agency, board, commission, or other group in the executive branch of state government; a statutory or home rule chatter city, county, town,or school district;any metropolitan agency or regional entity;and any other political subdivision of the state. Subd. 2. Deadline For Response. Except as otherwise provided in this section and notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, an agency must approve or deny within 60 days a written request relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area for a perrnit, license, or other goyernmental app_royal of an action. Failure of an agency to deny a request within 60 days is approval of the request. If an agency denies the request, it roust state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the request. Subd. 3. Application; extensions. (a) 71w time limit in subdivision 2 begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by a previously adopted rule, ordnance, or policy of the agency. If an agency receives a written request that does not contain all required-information,,the 60-day limit starts over only if the agency sends notice within ten business days of receipt of the request telling the requester what information is missing. (b) If an action relating to zoning, septic systems, or expansion of the metropolitan urban service area requires the approval of more than-one state agency in-the executive branch, the 60-day period in subdivision 2 begins to run for all executive branch agencies on the day a request containing all required information is received by one state agency. The agency receiving the request must forward copies to other state agencies whose approval is required. (c) An agency response meets the 60-day time limit if the agency can document that the response was sent within 60 days of receipt of the%7iaen request. (d) The time limit in subdi%ision 2 is extended if a state statute, federal law, or court order requires a�process to occur before the agency acts on the request,and the time periods prescribed in the state statute, federal law,or court order make it impossible to act on the request within 60 days. In cases described in this paragraph., the deadline is extended to 60 days after completion of the last process required in the applicable statute, law,or order. Final approval of an agency receiving a request is not considered a process for purposes of this paragraph. (e) The time limit in subdivision 2 is extended if (1) a request submitted to a state agency requires prior approval of a federal agency: or (2) an application submitted to a city, county, town, school district, metropolitan or regional entity, or other political subdivision requires prior approval of a state or federal agency. In cases described in this paragraph,tate deadline for agency action is extended to 60 days after the required prior approval is granted. (f) An agency may extend the time limit in subdivision 2 before the end of the initial 60-day period by providing written notice of the extension to the applicant The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length,which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. Laws 1995,C.248.,art. 18, L Amended by Laws 1996,c.283, 1. Planning\farms\deadlinedoc City of Crystal 4141 Douglas Dr N CITY CRYSTAL Crystal MN 55422 voice: 763-531-.1000 facsimile: 763-531-1188 internet: www.ci.crystal.mn.us July 10, 2001 Subject: APPLICATION CONTINUED UNTIL AUGUST 13TH MEETING: Conditional Use Permit to at (P.I.D. - ). Dear As you are aware, at its meeting on July 9t' the Planning Commission voted 8-0 to continue the consideration of your application until its next meeting which will be held on August 13tH In accordance with M.S. 15.99 Subd. 3(f), the City is extending the maximum 60-day decision period for no more than an additional 60 days . The reason for this extension is to allow you and the property owner to resolve an apparent misunderstanding regarding the property owner's willingness to close the curb cut on Edgewood Avenue. The Planning Commission made it very clear in their discussion that they would not approve this request unless the curb cut is completely removed. Because you were unsure if the property owner is willing to reconsider their position on this issue, the Planning Commission chose to continue this item until its next meeting'to give you and the property owner time to deal with this issue. If the property owner has not stated in writing or by personal appearance at the August 13th meeting that they are willing,to close the curb cut as part of your proposal, then the Planning Commission will likely recommend denial of the request. The City Council would consider this recommendation at its August 21st meeting. No further extensions of time-for consideration of this.application will be t granted. As you are also aware, the Planning Commission wants to see a re-drawn parking plan that, among other things, shows which spaces would be used for each business. The Planning Commissioners each took the time to state what they would like to see in your proposal; you should take their comments into consideration when re-drawing the parking plan for the August meeting. The re-drawn parking plan or any other material you want to be considered by the Planning Commission needs to be submitted-to our office no later than Noon on Friday, August 3rd July 10, 2001 - page 2 - If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 763-531-1142. Regards, John Sutter, Planner and Redevelopment Coordinator cc: (PROPERTY OWNER - LOCAL) cc: (PROPERTY OWNER — HOME OFFICE) ATTACHIIMNT E Waiver Letter Subdivision 3(f) acknowledges that applicants may waive time limits under § 15.99. Specifically, an applicant may waive the time limit so that a City has more than 120 days to approve or deny an application (after extending the initial 60-day period by an additional 60 days.) Cities should never accept a verbal waiver but should always require a clear written waiver. The waiver should be received by the City before the statutory time period runs. A model format for obtaining a waiver follows. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven Date: Planning Director City of Address of City Dear Planning Director: On [insert date] I submitted an application for a [insert name of permit or approval] at [insert location]. [Summarize subsequent procedural steps if applicable.] The 60-day period under § 15.99 for approving or denying the application ended on [insert date.] By letter dated [insert date] the City extended the time period to approve or deny the application until [insert date.] I hereby waive the right to have the City act on the application by this date, and agree that the City may have until [insert date] to act on the application. Sincerely, Applicant Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven ATTACIBUNT F Sample"Deadline"Language for City Reports So xhat City decision-makers do not inadvertently lose sight of the deadline under § 15.99, each report submitted to the planning commission or city council on an affected application should clearly state the deadline. Following is sample language in use by the City of Shakopee for this purpose. Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven CITY OF SHAKOPEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R.I Michael Leek,Community Development Director SUBJECT: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plan to Re-guide Property from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential MEETING DATE: April 2,2002 APPLICATION DATE: January 31,2002 60-DAY DEADLINE May 31, 2002 (Extended 60 days period by letter dated February 4, 2002) CASE LOG NO.: 02-023 INTRODUCTION: [Text of the report to the City Council followed this heading.] Karen R Cole Kennedy&Graven WEB RESOURCES The NewBuyer website(www.newbuyer.com/homes/homeguide/)has con- ` tent from a variety of sources such as Freddie Mac and articles about shop,- ir ping for mortgage,for examplea �N- - -)05 Star Thbune•Page N3 NEIGHBORHOOD SPOTLIGHT ST.ANTHONY lestlons dAd A Anthotiv: An u ban Villa e you - g �a1STSt on,, _ communil yT Pat Kelly of'- _ - = =r St Anthony: y� �.7�,•� maintains ;r a� "I always ; liked _a A _= It Is ab.,=� sub- small-townfive"questions buyers urb and very >st�g agents aa$wer:- character - �ef�enlef� . dung this lovely;home? to both cit-. reason for selling is obvious'= By Lucie B.Amundsen _ rer if the seller is high)-; Special to the Star Tribune p University les and the'. Ie,I tried to buy with seller` It's been called "Mayberry" Minnesota, < yet we've is the seller carried back a' 'y:, for its small-town feel and"Pol- ' remained '7- ;age:In today s home sales":_-_ ish Edina" for the immigrants �d'� Insulated an the'seller earn'S to 6 °a -';" who prospered their way from iced by a mortgage'on the'.`;;, -` northeast Minneapolis: Ilroof m s mcltll�, so well? -. - - More formally, the 8,000 you pay for,thisborne?". '- `± residents of this first-ring suburb , ,,,. Problems." ws how much negotiation,".- bear the address of the City of - - St.Anthony O[, Photos by Lucie y informally,St. r"- F4; B.Amundsen/. A related- Anthony Village.Most,however, Special to thg•• kR gip.. _ - - �3 °,. .3 ?® question fo pare it down to a simple"St.An- �, \±• 4 Star mbune ask is:"What thou and live with _ the confusion is the current from nearby St.Anthony Park and f mortgage balance f St Anthony Main. had gotten to know the people in Until a few years ago,there was Rea'nt home sores and are there- The J 3-mile rectangle north of thena neighborhood ghborhood and really liked a bar called the Main Event that any other liens,:;' Minneapolis and bordered by the home-like flavor.In 1962,we had an informal class reunion the such'as a second,, Columbia Heights,New Brighton opened Jerry's Toys and Hobbies night before Thanksgiving. My * 'a "r ;mortgage,ahome' - and Roseville wasn't incorporated in the St Anthony rP0 Y Cen- kids would go and see students equity loan ora' until 1945,when plucky residents ter and ran it for 35 years.Jerry from classes 10 years ahead and mechanics'lien?,' blocked annexation to Minneapo° was instrumental in starting behind them.It really feels like a lte This shows—;, lis.Continuing that independent_ uing some community traditions like small town. F.. prospective' streak,St Anthony has its own po the Christmas sleigh rides and The good schools are a posi- b rs how much`'; rice and fire • �, departments Village Fest.It was wonderful five for everyone;our property k � .,,• , cash the seller er communities ofits size choose to Honestly,we could have used values remain high because of sale subcontract these services. a larger house,but I liked that my their reputation ,-purchase price'compared,`•`_i;'. Lively post-World War II childrenwere so close totheir dad's After 34 days,this 1,600- *ue,the seller has lots of-_=i' construction gave the village its work and he could always behome What do you think of the square foot home sold for Its A priceandterms.: owever,ifi, trademark ramblers,which con- for dinner,AndIalwayslikedthatit village changes like the new asking price of$245,000.It residence recently for onty'''= tinue to house many original or is a true first-ring suburb and very Wal-Matt and Three Rivers Park has three'bedwoms,two baths- - less,than,today's'asking'•, ;. early owners.The housing stock, convenient to both cities and the District taking las a large mbrhgagewith = mostly plaster construction,tends University over the Salvation and an attached garage. mversityofMinnesota,yetwe've Army Camp? , probably won't negotiate'-,. ;; toward hardwood floors,finished remained insulated from some of The changes are good.It shows fl ash We5iL i rumpus rooms and fireplaces. the cities'problems. that the village is open to prog- 3y,reeeM,professlorial.,, ._;�a; Recently,the Silver Lake Vil- rress.I'm also pleased that we are efects have you rev®sled on';;= lage Project-placed the aging Where did your children attend starting to have some more diver- s form?a Apache Mall with contemporary school? sity in the village;it is so good for tws or court decisions chain stores and housing options All six children went to St. the children. ne-defect disclosures. promising St. Anthony its first Charles (of Borromeo Catholic The area parks are all so well ex reveals a known defect, population growth in years.Other School]and then to St Anthony used here in St Anthony.rm glad Y Y , T a noisy barking dog neat amenities include a public golf High. Because the district is that the pari:on Silver Lake will be Sas no legal grounds for a '._a course and 2,3W feet ofSilver Lake small,everyone knows everyone; run professionally,but it is still ours. This home listed at$239,900" taton`larysiiit �s=, $fteiythe`sale-t,fir; shoreline at the newly opened it helps'kelp families involvedsol St AnthonyAnthAnthonyis going to have input and 28 days later for buyer:diiglit,tiave a tiasis for., Silverwood Regional Park of the Every activity has the auditorium $225,000.It has 1;800 finishod :buyer can prove the seller - Three Rivers Park District packed with parents,grandpar- Lucie B.Amundsen twat square feet,four bedrooms,two ct led defe - •- St Anthony also is known for ents,uncles and aunts. Lrcte0twowordycom. baths and an attached garage:: ;have their homes_; its small but highly rated school ted before°listing th'*foi ,. system "It is not dissimilar to , all-known defects,1n these -;;•. sendin a child to St' Anthony g private school Part of RMLS District 766 , 'y";' ` fir•. gal for sellers to r_efuse to " and compared with other first- ring suburbs to the west or south =y t Total number of sales:472 a. ' - �Doaarroluma:$109,754,211-', • - "�•' , have you had wRh,this�,.,a °= St Anthony is affordable Edina Average ust ante:$273,205 , . •s> :: -° =s , , -=•'i;,•, Realty agent David Forsythe said M1eNan llal pries:-S24s;900-' - utesand precedent court - � - � -� � - �� _.- : • ' p ofhishometown $• -..�,_ Average sale price:E232,530 .`$:",'"{. s-�-„�' e sellers to disclose past,z_ �_� „ �:.u`..•` McAlen eale'pilce:'$222,_750 _ -`,"` `�3x'�,=• :.�,°',,..�,,,- ° at have beau Pat Kelly,74,raised six chll- low sere pace:$89,900 .ton ,v: `+�t` I }} �"�'`• "'-�_;4 ''�; ars to know these before _ °°Y , dren with her late husband,Je +c' .. .. ..r,.-.:....w:�,,,:.a,.;.;.oa": r►S HI);ii goo •.`•r,, -, - s.' , -E After 34 days,this 1,600- " In their St.Anthony rambler. Average days on the market°42.3 "c squareioot home sold for Its y after,I bought my,liome, ; Mt McGlashe came over,to, ,;A llstllr�c asking price of$245,000.it 4" How did you choose St. An- SourceData for the:Minneapolis Area Association oemn has three bedrooms,two baths"' we were cbatting,'he said,'-: ,2n thony? of Realtors based on Information period from o'ee and an attachedgarage. Sld you about when that`'f ";'' My husband worked retail in from the Regional Muklple LlsUng April 1,2004, Service of Minnesota Inc. to March 31, use slid into,the house.":As�,.�;• St.Anthony for nine years.He zoos. ° ller didn't'*enty=seven 'rains later,I still worry if =,