Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 07192005 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 104946 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 07192005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JULY 19, 2005 7:00 P.M. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. III. ROLL CALL. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. V. MEETING MINUTES. V.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of June 21, 2005 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VI.1 Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the July 26, 2005 City Council Meeting VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. NONE VIII. Concept Reviews. VIII.I. Text Amendment Conditional Use Permit— 49ers Building VIII.2. 3645 CHELMSFORD ROAD NE — R-1 TO R-2 REZONING REQUEST VIII.3. AMCON - St. Anthony Marketplace VIII.4. Variance to Allow Balcony Grills -- Silver Lake Homes 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 their name and address for the City Clerks record and limit their remarks to five (5) minutes. X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. X.1. Zoning Ordinance Revision Discussion HA\P1anning\PC Agendas\2005\071905 pc agenda.doc XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS. XII. ADJOURNMENT. H:\Planning\PC Agendas\2005\071905 pc agenda.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 June 21, 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, and Young. 18 19 Absent: Commissioner Jenson 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Young, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting 26 agenda as presented. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously 29 30 V. MEETING MINUTES. 31 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of MU 17, 2005. 32 33 The Commission had the following corrections to the minutes. 34 35 Commissioner Young: 36 • Page 2, line 44,reads: `plans to place key rock'; should read: `plans to place pea rock' 37 38 Chair Stromgren: 39 • Page 5, line 19, should read: `He questioned why it should be allowable as an RI since it is 40 already allowable in ROS.' 41 • Page 7, line 6, should read `the Planning Commission to leave the language' 42 • Page 7, line 31, reads: `to register with'; should read: `to register for' 43 • Page 7, line 32, should be `Register of Historic Places' 44 0 Page 9, line 4, reads `Chair Stromgren asked'; should read: `Commissioner Jenson asked' t Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 2 1 • Page 11, line 4,reads: `19 Russian Olive trees were removed.'; should read: `19 Russian 2 Olive trees were added.' 3 4 Commissioner Jensen: 5 • Page 9, line 23, reads: `building design or the text amendment.'; should read: `building 6 design without the text amendment.' 7 8 Vice Chair Hanson: 9 • Page 9, line 29, reads: `Vice Chair Hason'; should read: `Vice Chair Hanson' 10 11 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the meeting minutes 12 of the Planning Commission of May 17, 2005 as amended. 13 14 Motion carried unanimously 15 16 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 17 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the June 28, 2005 City Council Meeting. 18 19 Chair Stromgren stated that the Commission would discuss designating a Planning Commission 20 representative for the next City Council Meeting on June 28, 2005, after the meeting. 21 22 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 23 24 7.1 2513 West Armour Terrace NE—Petition of Variance, Rear Yard 25 26 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. 27 28 Ms Moore-Sykes stated that this is a request by Mr. John Kaczmarczyk for a variance to the rear 29 yard requirements of the City Ordinance to construction a 26-foot by 30-foot garage in the rear 30 yard setback of his property. She stated that the property is located at 2513 West Armour Terrace 31 and is currently designated as R-1 zoning. She reviewed the property layout stating that this 32 residential interior lot is approximately 10,106 square feet and is 20-percent covered with 33 impervious surfaces and the proposed garage would increase the lot coverage to 28-percent. She 34 explained that because the proposed garage is too large it would not be eligible for a garage 35 setback permit as allowed by Section 1650.02, Subd. 6. She further explained that the applicant 36 is looking to build a garage approximately 780-square feet in size and the City Ordinance 37 requires that the garage would not cover an area larger than 528 square feet and have no 38 dimension greater than 24-feet within either a side yard or rear yard setback. She noted that the 39 applicant has been advised that the garage setback permit is for a smaller garage and it was noted 40 that the applicant would prefer the larger size. She stated they discussed moving the proposed 41 garage forward 10-feet to comply with the 25-foot rear yard setback and Mr. Kaczmarczyk 42 reported that moving it forward would bring the proposed garage to within 5-feet of his existing 43 back porch, which would be in violation of the State Fire Code, which requires a 6-foot clearance 44 between structures. She stated that Mr. Kaczmarczyk also reported that having 15-feet between Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 3 1 the porch and the proposed garage would allow access to the power poles in the back area of the 2 property,which is part of a utility easement. 3 4 John Kaczmarczyk, 2513 West Armour Terrace, stated that he retired in October and is now in 5 the process of fixing his home. He reviewed stating that it is a 1953 style home with a 14-foot by 6 20-foot garage next to the house. He explained that the setback would give him a decent size 2- 7 1/2 car garage that would only increase the lot cover to 28-percent. Asking for 10-feet back and 8 extend 2-3 feet beyond the breezeway,no alley, with the easement, could get a tractor into the 9 back portion of the property. Has a tree on east side so can't turn garage sideways. 10 11 Commissioner Young asked if there was a garage on the original site and also clarified that the 12 applicant is asking for a 2-1/2-car garage. Mr. Kaczmarczyk explained that a 1-foot by 19-foot, 13 one-car garage, did exist and was removed. He confirmed that he is asking for a 2-car or 2-1/2- 14 car garage. He stated that it is a gable, 30-feet deep with the roof facing the neighbors to the 15 opposite and it is set back on the property. He stated that with the breezeway on the back he 16 needs to get it a bit farther back in order to attach it to the house otherwise he would have to redo 17 the entire roof on the house. 18 19 Commissioner Jensen asked if he had considered a 24-foot by 30-foot size garage versus the 26- 20 foot size noting that with his understanding of the code if he went to a 30-foot size he could go in 21 an apply for the permit. Mr. Kaczmarczyk explained that it would not work because he has the 22 30-foot side that is gabled. Stated could have 30 x 24 noting the 30-foot is the problem which is 23 the gable end side. He explained that the contractor told him the gable end is stronger if garage 24 door is installed on the gable end side. He explained that with a 24-foot by 30-foot size garage 25 he would only gain 8-feet on one side and 10-feet on the other adding that he would like to have 26 a big enough garage to be able to park both vehicles and include a workbench in the garage. 27 28 Chair Stromgren asked if he had considered turning the garage 90-degrees. Mr. Kaczmarczyk 29 stated that they tried but only gained four feet with that option. He noted that he wants the 30 roofline to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and not the opposite. He provided the 31 Commission with a photographic visual of the site. 32 33 Commissioner Jensen noted that a service vehicle would not be able to access the back yard area 34 for utility repairs. Mr. Kaczmarczyk confirmed stating that the backyard is currently fenced in 35 noting that this is the reason for the variance request. 36 37 Chair Stromgren clarified that this is a condition that has exists all over the City. Mr. 38 Kaczmarczyk noted that this was built in the 1960's adding that there are other garages in his 39 neighborhood that are set back and must have required variances. He stated that if it was near the 40 35-percent for lot coverage he would agree that it is a rather large garage but it would cover 28- 41 percent, which is not an unreasonable size garage. 42 43 Chair Stromgren clarified that his issue is not so much the size of the garage as much as it is 44 getting pushed further back into the yard. He noted that he did not see where any of the other 45 garages in the neighborhood are set back that far on the lot. Mr. Kaczmarczyk agreed stating that 4 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 4 1 there are two other garages in the neighborhood, one is approximately 25-feet and the other is 2 approximately 40-feet noting that neither has a breezeway on the back. 3 4 Mr. Kaczmarczyk stated that it was his understanding that the 25-foot requirement in the back is 5 so that a vehicle could be brought to the back to work on the utility lines. 6 7 Chair Stromgren clarified that the 25-feet is set back by the zoning ordinance adding that it is not 8 a utility easement. He stated that as far as the zoning ordinance is concerned it is to preserve the 9 open space in the yards and manage stormwater runoff. 10 11 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. 12 13 Commissioner Jensen clarified that he does not view having a 26-foot wide garage as an 14 incredible harm to the community noting that his difficulty is the code has rules and it is not the 15 Planning Commission's job to override the rules,but the Council has the discretion to take their 16 advise and do as they see fit. He stated that he does not read the code to state that they should 17 deny a garage that would be 24-feet by 30-foot deep garage because it does appear that there are 18 provisions to allow this. He stated that he would like to propose, if the applicant is willing to 19 work with the 24-foot, they could get a permit, but if they choose to go to Council, he has no 20 choice but to propose a denial of the variance request. He stated that he cannot make the 21 findings, it's a rectangular lot that is not unusual and there is nothing that is not caused by the 22 design. 23 24 Chair Stromgren clarified stating that he sees the 24-foot width requirement but it also has the 25 528 square foot area requirement, which is clearly over by 252-square feet. 26 27 Commissioner Jensen acknowledged and explained that the two provisions of the R-1 are in a bit 28 of a conflict. He stated that they do not have a problem, as a community, of allowing a garage 29 that would be under 1000 square feet so long as they are in the building setback area, but if you 30 are down under 528-square feet it is ok to be within the setback area as long as they apply for the 31 special permit. He noted that as a housekeeping ordinance provision the ordinance has two 32 different allowances, if the applicant was 25-feet back from the rear line and 7-feet back they 33 wouldn't be able to deny a garage of a 1000-square feet because it is less than his house size, but 34 it is caught in between. He stated that it is a reasonable proposal but the provision does not allow 35 anything wider than a 2-car, 24 by 22-foot, detached garage. He stated that it is not the Planning 36 Commission's responsibility to change the rules. 37 38 Chair Stromgren noted that there are also three requirements outlined in the City Code as well as 39 by State law that have to be satisfied in order to be able to grant a variance. He reviewed the 40 requirements stating that all three would have to be satisfied to grant a variance. 41 42 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he would like to see the applicant.get his garage. He stated that 43 hopefully between now and the Council meeting next week they could find some form of 44 compromise. He stated that it would improve the quality of his property. 45 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 5 1 Chair Stromgren acknowledged noting that part of the rationale for the limitation on size is 2 having to do with the City not wanting a pole barn size building in the back that overpowers the 3 size of the house. He stated that the levels were set and the Commission has to abide by them 4 and ensure that the requests meet all three criteria. 5 6 Mr. Kaczmarczyk stated that technically to get up to the 35-foot range he would be willing to go 7 to a 40-foot by 24-foot size garage, 25-feet back. He expressed concerns stating that it would be 8 gaudy in appearance and out of the ordinary. He acknowledged it would still be smaller than his 9 house, he would have a long driveway and it would be 40-feet wide, which would be more gaudy 10 than a 30-foot by 26-foot. He stated that if he could get something within that range he would be 11 satisfied. He stated that he would be willing to redo and come back for review. 12 13 Chair Stromgren suggested that he work with Staff to make the changes and present them at the 14 Council level. 15 16 Vice Chair Hanson clarified that a chain link fence exists to the east and that there is only 8-feet 17 between the house and the fence. Mr. Kaczmarczyk confirmed and explained that he is five feet 18 away on the west side and with the 26-foot wide it would be 31-feet which is 2-feet into the 19 breezeway. He stated that he would have 24-feet between the breezeway and the side fence. He 20 stated that it is open now but with a garage in that area they would not be able to get a vehicle 21 through the area. 22 23 Commissioner Jensen stated that the 15-feet recognizes some of the health and safety 24 opportunities for the community by keeping it wide enough for a vehicle to get through noting 25 that the applicant could move the structure to be within five and not have to be here. He stated 26 that as a community they would have to give up the opportunity to be able to get a vehicle 27 through to the back if that is one of the few openings that presents itself for the next several 28 years. He stated that most of the houses built have 15-feet between them and not many trucks 29 could get through. He noted the code compliance stating that the Commission cannot change the 30 code. 31 32 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Galyon, to recommend denial of the 33 Rear Yard Variance Request for 2513 West Armour Terrace NE as applied, 26-foot by 30-foot 34 garage because there were no findings of undue hardship. 35 36 Motion carried unanimously 37 38 7.2 3645 Chelmsford Road NE—R-1 to R-3 Rezoning Request 39 40 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. 41 42 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that staff has provided the Commission with a revised report for the 43 request to rezone at 3645 Chelmsford Road noting that the reason it was revised is because 44 Commissioner Jensen brought it to her attention that there could be some right-of-way issues 45 with this property because it is located adjacent to a county road and a city road near a corner lot. t Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 6 1 She noted that the original staff report suggested that the lot size was approximately 23,541 2 square feet and after doing considerable research and discussing with the Public Works 3 department and City Engineer it appears that there is a right of way issue with the county road of 4 40-feet. She stated that according to Hennepin County Property records the total taxable lot size 5 is 19,260 square feet, which is shorter by 40-feet due to the right-of-way for the County. She 6 stated that she discussed this with the City Engineer and he explained that the City's right-of-way 7 is already accounted for on the plat map and with that they do drop down to 19,260-square feet. 8 She stated that the proposal is to rezone the property to an R-3 to accommodate four townhome 9 units in a single building. She explained that the ordinance states that an applicant can have no 10 less than three units in a building and no greater than eight units in a building. She stated that 11 based on the calculations it appears that Mr. Martinson would have enough property to go 12 through the process to develop townhomes if the rezoning is approved. She explained that the 13 applicant would require a rezone to R-3 in order to be able to build the four townhomes on the 14 site. She stated that the applicant has tried previously to split the lot but because of the utility 15 easement the attempts have either been denied by the City or upon discovering the easement, 16 petitioners have cancelled their applications. She provided the Commission with photographs of 17 the area and an overview of the County Plat Map. She stated that the proposed project is very 18 similar to the townhome complex located on the old Clark Station site at the corner of 33rd 19 Avenue Northeast and Stinson Boulevard in St. Anthony. She stated that the townhomes would 20 be a north/south orientation on the lot with access onto Chelmsford. She reviewed the easements 21 and driveway access points with the Commission. 22 23 Commissioner Jensen clarified that the application is only for rezoning and that the site plan is 24 not available for review at this time. Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed. 25 26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan suggests that the property is an R-1 27 zone yet all of the zoning maps indicate that the property is zoned R-2. She stated that there was 28 some question as to whether this was spot zoning but they were not able to find any information 29 to indicate that this was the case. She stated the property next door is zoned R-1 and that the file 30 also indicates that a permit that was taken out in 1976 was for a double-bungalow. 31 32 Troy Martinson, 3645 Chelmsford, stated that he had received a letter from Xcel stating that the 33 site plan submitted was reviewed and determined that the driveway crossing over the easement to 34 access Chelmsford Road was acceptable and they gave him permission to place the driveway 35 over the easement area. 36 37 Commissioner Young asked Mr. Martinson if he had discussed this proposal with his neighbors. 38 Mr. Martinson stated that he had not discussed his proposal with the neighbors yet adding that he 39 would be very willing to meet with them and review what he would like to do. 40 41 Robert Hastay, 3408 37th Avenue Northeast, stated that his home is immediately adjacent to the 42 east of Mr. Martinson's property. He stated that for the 30-years that he has lived here it has 43 been zoned a single family home. He expressed concerns that the proposed townhomes would be 44 a detriment to the other properties in the area and that the townhomes could possibly lower the 45 value of his home. He noted that his grandfather had owned all of this property at one time 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 7 1 adding that the property had been rezoned back to an R-1 in 1988. He stated that he is strongly 2 against having the proposed multi-family unit next to his home. 3 4 Chair Stromgren asked if the current structure is physically a single family home or a duplex. 5 Mr. Hastay stated that the structure was originally built as a duplex and it still is. He noted that 6 he has not rented it out since 1988 and has lived in it as a single family home since that time. 7 8 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. 9 10 Commissioner Jensen stated that he is having difficulty with the maps and where they would 11 measure for the property lines. He clarified that if the property were changed to allow 12 townhomes,then the property, in order to match the plat map, would be made narrower than the 13 example provided. He stated that considering that intersection with four units accessing he is not 14 convinced that having four is anything that his is in favor of right now. He stated that he is 15 currently not in support of this proposal adding that he is not convinced that having four units on 16 this location would work. 17 18 Commissioner Hoska recalled that a similar request was before the Planning Commission 19 approximately two years ago and asked what the impact was to the property values when the 20 townhomes went in and did they have any opposition to the project. 21 1. 22 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that they probably had discussions about the impact on the 23 neighborhood and traffic changes. She stated that the property was a commercially zoned site 24 that was rezoned to R3,and it was a type fit. She stated that it also required two variances to get 25 it all in and reviewed with the Commission. She stated that it was a difficult redevelopment 26 effort because of the variances. She stated that the developer did have to go back a couple of 27 times to try to redesign the development with the least amount of variances. She stated that she 28 does not have any information on the impact to property values noting that it did clean up the 29 area. 30 31 Chair Stromgren stated that he understands the concerns with some of the areas yet given the 75- 32 foot easement,which is extremely large and preserves a large amount of open space for one lot. 33 He noted that it is rare for them to see a developer come forward with this much open space. He 34 stated that there are some good positives in this proposal unlike previous applications that were 35 clearly spot zoning. He noted that this is adjacent to other multi-family districts. 36 37 Vice Chair Hanson acknowledged Mr. Hastay's concerns noting that there is a potential for 38 headlight glare and asked that this be considered when designing the future development. 39 40 Mr. Martinson stated that the area has a very good grade noting that he also plans to build a 41 retaining wall to the south, which would eliminate the potential for glare from the headlights. 42 43 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the access would come from Chelmsford because it is a county 44 road and they likely would not allow any additional curb cuts on the road. She provided the 45 Commission with a view of the property coming in from Chelmsford. ` v Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 8 1 2 Vice Chair Hanson clarified that there would be no access to the garages off from 37`t'. Ms. 3 Moore-Sykes confirmed that there would be no access from 37th and reviewed the curb cuts and 4 access points with the Commission. 5 6 Chair Stromgren clarified that the City's application process requires that the applicant submit a 7 landscaping plan prior to the permit process. Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed and reviewed the 8 process with the Commission. 9 10 Commissioner Jensen stated that in looking at the submittal the dimensions don't quite add up 11 noting that they are not here to approve a site plan or building plan at this time. He expressed 12 concerns stating that he is looking at the rezoning. He stated that the schools have parking lots 13 all over the power line easements and is not too sure they would be able to get access. He noted 14 that there is a fair amount of grade and there would be a need for a fair amount of retaining walls 15 through area. He noted that the structure would be considerably closer to the curb than the Clark 16 Avenue site and the Clark Avenue structure is actually less than what is being talked about. He 17 stated that there are a number of site issues that would have to be worked through and there are a 18 number of trees on the site and those are conditions that would have to be considered in the 19 variances. 20 21 Mr. Hastay referenced the suggestion for changing the grade of the lots. He stated that he would 22 be very interested in how the water flow would affect his building. 23 24 Chair Stromgren assured Mr. Hastay that the City has to review all plans to ensure that the 25 stormwater flow is addressed properly. 26 27 Ms. Moore-Sykes further clarified by stating that the City also requires the homeowners to 28 control the stormwater flow and to ensure that the runoff does not flow to neighboring properties. 29 30 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Hoska, to recommend approval of 31 the R-1 to R-3 Rezoning Request for 3645 Chelmsford Road Northeast. 32 33 Motion carried unanimously 34 35 7.3 Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment—Rezoning, Section 1665.03 36 37 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 38 39 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the next two agenda items are text ordinance amendments. She 40 stated that Staff is asking that the Planning Commission review the proposed ordinance text 41 amendment that updates the City's Code on it's rezoning process. She stated that the City 42 Attorney advised staff that in 2001 the State passed legislation that amended Section 462.357, 43 Subdivision 2(b) of the Minnesota Statute, and that the City should change its rezoning language 44 in the City Code to reflect this amendment. She explained that the change allows only Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 9 1 supermajority vote on rezoning requests that want to change residential zoning to either 2 commercial zoning or industrial zoning. 3 4 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. 5 6 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Galyon, to recommend approval of 7 the proposed Ordinance Text Amendment-Rezoning, Section 1665.03. 8 9 Motion carried unanimously 10 11 7.4 Proposed Ordinance Text Amendment—Conditional Use Permits, Section 1665.04 12 13 Chair Stromgren opened public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 14 15 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the proposed ordinance text amendment updates the City's Code on 16 its conditional use permit approval process. She explained that currently, the City Ordinance 17 requires a 4/5ths vote for all requests for a conditional use permit. She stated that the City 18 Attorney advised staff that since a supermajority vote is no longer required for rezoning requests, 19 requiring it for a conditional use permit seems inconsistent, especially if the request meets the 20 conditions of the City's rezoning code. 21 22 Chair Stromgren closed public hearing at 7:57 p.m. 23 24 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Young, to recommend approval of the 25 proposed Ordinance Text Amendment-Conditional Use Permits, Section 1665.04. 26 27 Motion carried unanimously 28 29 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW 30 31 8.1 Conditional Use for 2550 Highway 88 (formerly the Hitching Post) 32 33 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that staff received a call from an individual who is interested in 34 purchasing the Hitching Post as a new site for his family's boat and motor business. She 35 explained that the applicant understands that the Hitching Post had a conditional use permit to do 36 motor repairs and asked if that permit went with the building. She noted that staff advised the 37 applicant that the permit does not go with the building. She stated the applicant would be using 38 the site for water vehicles noting that they are also interested in having a small engine repair shop 39 as part of the business. She stated that in reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance, the commercial 40 zoning district does not allow motor repair as a permitted conditional use but it does list auto 41 repair as a permitted conditional use. She noted that Section 1635.04, Accessory Uses, does 42 allow incidental repair if it is necessary to conduct a permitted principal use adding that boat 43 motor repair would appear to be incidental to boat sales. She indicated that she was not able to 44 discuss this with the City Attorney prior to this evenings meeting. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 10 1 Paul Harris, 1708 Central Avenue Northeast,Vice President, Hannay's Wholesale Marine 2 Distributors, stated that they are a family run marine business and have been in business since 3 1950-51 timeframe. He stated that they have been located at 18th and Central since 1971 and the 4 business is both wholesale and retail. He indicated that they would plan to move the retail 5 portion to this site and reviewed. 6 7 Chair Stromgren asked what their plans would be for storage and display. 8 9 Mr. Harris explained that storage would be somewhat of an issue noting that they plan to utilize 10 the 18''and Central location for storage. He assured the Commission that no customer boats 11 would be kept outside and that they area would be kept as clean as possible. He noted that they 12 do not expect a lot of traffic to the retail sites. 13 14 Vice Chair Hanson asked if they plan to display boats inside the building. Mr. Harris confirmed 15 stating that they would be able to place 20 to 25 boats inside the building. 16 17 Vice Chair Hanson asked what kind of storage would be considered for the site. Mr. Harris 18 stated that the site has a small, fenced in area that they plan to utilize noting that it is possible that 19 the area could be enlarged at a later time. 20 21 Commissioner Hoska referenced previous minutes stating that there was concern brought 22 forward by Mr. Cavanaugh regarding noise issues and asked what they do to keep the noise down 23 when people bring in their power motors for repairs. Mr. Harris explained that they place the 24 motors into test tanks, which help muffle the sound of the motor. He further explained that the 25 tanks would be located in a run room and buffered for sound. 26 27 Commissioner Jensen asked if Staff would get further clarification on the conditional use permit 28 process. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would update Mr. Harris as soon as she hears back 29 from the City Attorney. 30 31 8.2 Senior Cooperative Development—Nichols Development 32 33 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that staff received a call from Terry Bartz, La-Nel, asking to come 34 before the City with their proposal to construct a senior cooperative on the site adjacent to 35 Autumn Woods. She stated that currently the site is zoned R-1 and would have to be rezoned to 36 R-4 to accommodate this project. She stated that the proposed location is a site that the City has 37 worked to redevelop for several years adding that the senior cooperative proposal is appropriate 38 for the area because Kenzie Terrace Condominiums are located to the northeast and Autumn 39 Woods is adjacent to the site to the east. She indicated that staff met earlier to discuss the project 40 noting that they would have to meet with the developers to review the site plans, discuss grading, 41 engineering and storm water retention requirements and to also consider the dimensional 42 requirements for the R-4 Zoning District. 43 44 Paul Brewer, La-Nel Financial, owners of Autumn Woods, stated that in 2002 they entered into 45 an agreement to purchase five lots on Kenzie Terrace from the City. He stated that they are Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 11 1 currently working to put together a housing development on the site noting that they had come 2 before the Planning Commission in 2002 to obtain the preliminary approval to build 38-units. 3 He provided the Commission with a brief overview of the site noting that they came to the 4 decision that it would not be feasible to build the apartments and agreed with the City to come 5 back with a new proposal. He stated that they have been in discussions with a `for sale' co-op 6 developer, Nichols Development adding that Chuck Armstrong, Director Business Development 7 for Nichols would provide an overview of the proposed development. 8 9 Chuck Armstrong, Director of Business Development,Nichols Development, stated that they are 10 currently in a fact-finding mode in an effort to develop and construct a 56-unit, four-story senior 11 cooperative that would include parking. He provided the Commission with a brief history and 12 background of Nichols Development noting that they have financed approximately 25 senior 13 cooperatives in the State of Minnesota. He explained that Nichols Development was started in 14 2000 in an effort to improve the build process. He stated that their first project was Summerhill 15 and reviewed with the Commission. 16 17 Mr. Armstrong explained that with a senior housing cooperative no services are provided unless 18 specifically asked for. He further explained that the housing cooperative is geared for active 19 seniors age 55 years and older adding that it provides homeownership opportunity with the 20 ability to get away from all of the maintenance. He stated that it is their hope to come back in 21 late July, early August to file their application. He stated that they also plan to hold community 22 meetings in order to gain feedback from the residents. He noted that the plans would also 23 include compliance with HUD requirements and insurance. 24 25 Mr. Armstrong indicated that this would be approximately an 11-month process to build the units 26 noting that all of the units are sold prior to breaking ground. He stated that they are very open to 27 working with City staff throughout the process to bring a high quality senior housing 28 development to the community. He stated that the intent is to go from an R-1 zone to an R-4 29 zone noting that the project would probably require height variances in addition to possibly 30 having density issues to address. He stated that it is important that HUD oversees the process 31 noting that HUD insurance would require 3-percent operating reserve and 4-percent replacement 32 reserve as a required schedule adding that a Board of Directors would govern the building. He 33 assured the Commission that the units would be well maintained and affordable. He stated that 34 they plan to use a combination of stone, brick and hardy board noting that they plan to provide a 35 wide range of amenities including guest rooms. 36 37 Vice Chair Hanson stated that one of his concerns is the number of units noting that 57 units is 38 high. He asked if they have discussed a potential expansion of the site noting that there is piece 39 of property for sale that is close to the proposed project. Mr. Armstrong agreed that some of the 40 units they have built are located on relatively tight sites and some have been built on 2-acres in 41 size. He explained that they base the unit design on the homes the owners would be coming 42 from. He stated that as far as discussing the expansion of the property, this is the first 43 conversation noting that he would probably explore the possibility. He assured the Commission 44 that even if they build on the current land,without expanding, they would build a nice building 45 with beautiful landscaping. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 12 1 2 Commissioner Jensen asked if there are would be any circulation issues or concerns for the Fire 3 Department. Mr. Brewer stated that they have not gotten into that level of detail yet in the design 4 of the site plan. He explained that they would be working through the easements and would 5 probably have to re-plat the subdivision in order to incorporate the additional lot. 6 7 Commissioner Hoska noted that this is a corner property and asked if they have considered 8 purchasing any of the homes that abut the back of the property. Mr. Brewer stated that they have 9 gone through that process three times now and have not been successful. He stated that they 10 would have to purchase all of the homes and some of the residents are not interested in selling. 11 12 8.3 Conditional Use Permit—49ers Building 13 14 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she was contacted by Eric Reiners, an architect with Welman Sperides 15 Architects, to request a concept review of their proposal for a conditional use permit that would 16 allow the WO Local 49 to open their newly constructed catering kitchen and related facilities to 17 the public. She stated that staff originally understood that this new facility was to be used for 18 private, in-house use. She stated that in reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance, there is no 19 allowance given for this use either as a permitted use or a permitted conditional use. She stated 20 that the petitioners might consider proposing a text amendment to the Ordinance to allow 21 catering in the LI zoning district as a permitted conditional use. She noted that the Commercial 22 zoning district does allow this use as a permitted conditional use. She stated that she would 23 continue to work with them and see what happens with the proposal. 24 25 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 26 27 9.1 NONE 28 29 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 30 31 10.1 Code Enforcement Discussion—Fire Chief John Malenick and Rick Lundeen 32 33 Fire Chief Malenick stated that the Fire Department has been responsible for enforcing several of 34 the municipal ordinances noting that in the past it was a very difficult enforcement process. He 35 stated that it could take several days to sort things out. He stated that they recently appointed 36 Rick Lundeen as their Housing Code Official adding that Mr. Lundeen would work most 37 weekdays and has been doing a great job so far. He stated that over the last couple of months 38 they have started to encounter and discover loopholes in the ordinances adding that some of the 39 items that concern citizens are not even included or outlined. He stated that they would like to 40 begin discussing code enforcement with the Planning Commission and asked the Commissioners 41 to review some of the issues they have identified. 42 43 Rick Lundeen stated that he and Fire Chief Malenick have concerns regarding garage sale signs. 44 He stated that he would like to meet with Ms. Moore-Sykes to discuss what is permitted. He 45 suggested including reminders with the City water bills or as a `Did You Know' section of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 13 1 City newsletter in an effort to educate residents. He stated that he would like to review several 2 items with Ms. Moore-Sykes including garage sale permits,rules for vehicle sales and proper 3 addressing for homes. 4 5 Chair Stromgren recalled that one of the earlier issues was with respect to native plantings and 6 prairie restorations. He stated that based on research most cities are changing their ordinances to 7 allow them and asked for suggestions on conditions and controls. Fire Chief Malenick clarified 8 that currently prairie plantings are not considered a noxious weed and are allowable. 9 10 Fire Chief Malenick assured the Commission that their intent is stay current and on top of the 11 housing code issues and compliance. He asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to touch base with him to 12 discuss their concerns and to set up a timeframe for review with the Planning Commission at a 13 future meeting. 14 15 Chair Stromgren noted that the Planning Commission is looking at reviewing adjustments and 16 changes to the ordinance in the July timeframe and suggested that they work to incorporate their 17 changes in time for their review in July. 18 19 10.2 LMC Land Use Issues—June 15, 2005. 20 21 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she recently attended the Lakes of Minnesota Land Use seminar 22 and provided the Commission with copies of the handouts she received in class as reference 23 material. She stated that one item she heard very clearly is to make sure they have complete 24 findings of fact and that each case is clearly documented in the event that there are any issues. 25 She noted that the City of St Anthony does a very good job with the findings of fact process 26 adding that they should be sure everything is in order before proceeding with an application or 27 request. She stated that she also included information on the 60-day rule and what Cities should 28 be aware of noting that it was a very good refresher course that brought her up to speed with the 29 current legislation. 30 31 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS 32 33 Commissioner Jensen suggested placing the Public Comments section of the agenda at the 34 beginning of the meeting. 35 36 Chair Stromgren explained that it was his understanding that the Public Comments section used 37 to be at the beginning of the meeting but was shifted around by Council because they were 38 getting a lot of people who were speaking on public hearing items before the public hearing took 39 place. 40 41 Commissioner Young stated that she attended the City Council meeting last month and the 42 Council asked her to convey their sincere thanks for all of their hard work. 43 44 Commissioner Jensen noted that one of their work programs was to deal with a walkable 45 community and sidewalks in the future noting that he would be willing to forgo one of his Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 21, 2005 Page 14 1 stipends to address this issue. He stated that he has observed people going to the bus stop noting 2 that there is a lot of activity at the intersections. He acknowledged that there is a red flapper flag 3 inp lace indicating that it is a new sign noting that a lot of communities and locations have the 4 flexible baler that sits in the middle of the street. He noted that he did not know if this would 5 impede fire access along the road but it certainly seems that many ignore the sign. He asked if 6 there would be the ability to put some money from the General Fund towards this to improve the 7 public safety in this intersection. 8 9 Vice Chair Hanson stated that the Commission and Staff have spent a lot of time on the Sunset 10 Memorial/Amcon Development proposal noting that it was his understanding that Council 11 agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendations and asked if there was an update. 12 13 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that their request was denied at the City Council level noting that she 14 has not heard anything further from either Sunset Memorial or Amcon Development. She 15 indicated that Qwest might be back again noting that they are meeting again next week to discuss 16 their site plans. 17 18 XII. ADJOURNMENT 19 20 Motion by Commissioner Hoska, second by Commissioner Galyon, to adjourn the meeting at 21 9:00 P.M. 22 23 Motion carried unanimously. 24 25 Respectfully submitted, 26 Bonnie Sullivan 27 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager 01 0S Date: July 19,2005 Subject: Concept Review of Code Text Change and 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, representatives for The IUO Local 49,has requested a concept review of their proposal for a text change to the City's Zoning Code that would include catering activities as a permitted conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District. The IUO Local 49 recently opened their newly constructed catering kitchen and related facilities and is also proposing to open them 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 Commercial zoning district does allow this use as a permitted conditional use. See Section 1635.03 (c) and (p). Concerns regarding traffic and parking associated with this proposal created a need to discuss them at a concept review. Because the uses allowed in this district already create high volumes of traffic, accommodate parking needs and suppose increased noise levels,including catering activities as a permitted conditional use for the Industrial Zoning District would not significantly increase parking, traffic or noise. By allowing catering activities as a permitted conditional use will give the City the ability to place controls on this use to protect the community and the public using these proposed catering facilities. Attachments: • Applicant's Letter • Letter from Hennepin County Human Services • Building Plans showing Catering Kitchen and related facilities H.\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\071905 concept IU049text chg conditional use doc J6/29/2005 12:56 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY 1002/003 Date:,�0 Fee: $100.00 CITY OF ST.ANTHONY Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Applicant: d� �- Address: '?moi SJ VUf.,�(s. Phone: 79?-9WI Request for change regarding: (check appropriate item(s)) Restrictions upon buildings, structures, or amenities Permitted use's Conditional uses Affected zoning district: =,chAS+2JaL Proposed change(s) and reason(s) therefor: �E�rT aner,drn�AJT (use additional sheet, if necessary) Signature fApplicant 06 -30 -05 *1-00 . 000K International Union of operating Engineers LOCAL NO. 49, 49A,49B, 49D, AND 49E MINNESOTA • NORTH DAKOTA • SOUTH DAKOTA (Fast Hall) THOMAS H.PARISEAU,President GLEN D.JOHNSON JOSEPH L.RYAN,Vice President Business Manager/Financial Secretary KYLE D.JONES, • / A Recording-Corresponding Secretary = �' Affiliated with the A.F.L. -C.I.O. JAMES J. HANSEN,Treasurer '" 2829 Anthony Lane South,Minneapolis,MN 55418-3285 Phone (612) 788-9441 Toll Free (866) 788-9441 • Fax (612) 788-1936 June 29, 2005 Saint Anthony Village Administrative Offices 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Re: Text amendment zoning To whom it may concern: Local 49, International Union of Operating Engineers, request to include catering/banquet operations as a permitted conditional use in the Industrial zone district for the following address: 2829 Anthony Lane S. If you have any questions, please contact James Hansen @ 612-788-9441. Sincerely, James J. Hansen, Assistant to the Business Manager/Treasurer, Local 49 JJH/llf BRANCH OFFICES Box 279 2002 London Road 308 Lundin Blvd. 1848 2nd Ave SE 8381 North Enterprise Drive Bagley,MN 56621 Duluth,MN 55812 Mankato,MN 56001 Rochester,MN 55904 Virginia;MN 55792 (218)694-6206 (218) 724-3840 (507) 625-3670 (507) 282-0401 (218) 741-8190 2109 251st Street 2901 Twin City Dr. 3002 1st Ave. No. 1521B 24th Ave So. 101 South Fairfax Avenue St.Cloud,MN 56301 Mandan,ND 58554 Fargo,ND 58102 Grand Forks,ND 58201 Sioux Falls,SD 57103 (320)252-2162 (701)663-0407 (701) 232-2769 (701) 775-3969 (605)336-1952 06/29/2005 13:57 FAX 002 International Union of Operating engineers LOCAL NO. 49,49A,49B, 49D, AND 49E MINNF-SOTA • NORTH DAKOTA • s0I)TH DAKOTA (Fa1.rl Hall) THOMAS 14.PARIS Al i,Presiciem GUN D.JO HNSO N JOSEPH L RYAN,Vicc PresictentBusiness Managel/Financlal SerlYtaly KYLF.D,,)ONFS, Recording-Coes)x>nding SccrcKary JAMR.Sl HANSF•N.Trvamirr Alltllatrcl with rhe A.F.J. -C.1.(), la 2829 Anthony Iane South,Minneapolis.MN 55418-3185 P11c111c• (612) 798-944,1 - Totl 1"ree (866) 788-9441 • Fax (612) 788-1936 June 29, 2005 Saint Anthony Village Administrative Offices 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Re: Text amendment zoning To whom it may concern: Local 49, International Union of Operating Engineers, request to include catering banquet operations as a permitted conditional use in the Industrial zone district for the following address: 2829 Anthony Lane S. If you have any questions, please contact James Hansen @ 612-788-9441. Sincerely, James J. Hansen, Assistant to the Business Manager/Treasurer, Local 49 JJH/llf BRANCR OFFICES Box 27.9 2002 Innclun%xa1 809 j.1111dih Blvd. 181$Incl Avc•Nl, 84+11 Ntwdt ntictpiiyc Drive Babdcy,MN 56621 1)uiuth,MN 53812 Mankato,MN 56001 Rochester.MN 53904 Virginia, MN 55791 (219)094-6206 (218)72,W840 (,507)62-54400 007).2N2dk1Ul9 (:.1H)7�11.81.)U 1109 251;11 S1rvc•I 2901 Twin City lir, N002 1.1 Avc. No. 1,121 B 2.1111 Ave,Si1, 101 Soutb 1':urliix Avcnuc SL Cloud,MN 56901 Mandan,ND 581.54 Fargo.NI) 58102 Grand Pork,.ND 58201 Sioux Falls.SD .57103 (320) 252.2162 (701)66U407 (701)232-2769 (701) 775-8!)(i!) (!i()i)336.19.52 May 25,2005 Kim Moore-Sykes City of St.Anthony WELMAN 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony,MN 55418 S PERIDES 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 261. 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, R'elman S es Ar itects,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 wsardvtects@welmanarch corn r -Mz&V zi L V M" LIL ► 2u 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 16th, 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 ynn A. Moore Hennepin County Supervising Environmentalist l CC: Debra Anderson, Hennepin County Senior Environmentalist City of St.Anthony, Building Official An Equal Opportunity Employer Recycled Paper r TRASH � NOT BOX BY CATERING SERVICE 17 II ® a 0 13 MECN RM MOP SINK " 10 X 0 ' (D w ° OV ° ROOM FINISHES g FLOOR: QUARRY TILE 5 10 BASE: QUARRY TILE COVE BASE 1a O WALLS: FRP — CEILING: ACT "CLEAN ROOM MYLAR" OR EQUAL 0 I 1 CATERING KITCHEN rnna�cr NA�m _ o LOCAL 49 COIAbLNO. 04-006 CATERING KITCHEN DAA 11-18-04 7700 PRANCE AVE,S. nav8rox on DRAWN BY. VVELA4AN 5 Mb3755 ADDITION OF CATERING KITCHEN HL SPERIDES 55435 AQcsirscre 42 L L C PAX (952) 996.9663 PHONE (952) 996.9662 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager 05 Date: July 19,2005 Subject: R-2 Rezoning Request for 3645 Chelmsford Road Date Application Received: Concept Review- R-2 Rezoning Request Property Address: 3645 Chelmsford Road Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: N/A 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-2 Two-Family Zoning District. Background: Currently, the property is zoned R-1,has an existing single-family structure on the lot and is a corner lot. The lot size is 19,260 SF (107' x 180') 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. The owner also went before Council at its June 21St meeting with a petition for an R-3 Townhouse Zoning District rezoning request. The Council denied the request due to concerns about spot zoning. Mr. Martenson is now proposing to submit a rezoning request that would change the current zoning of R-1 to R-2. The R-2 Zoning District requires that a corner lot have an area of 14,000 SF and 100 feet in width at that building setback line. H:\Plannmg\Staff Reports\200 5\07 1905 Rezone concept review R2 3645 Chelmsford 062105 Staff report.doc r STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager F "" Date: July 19, 2005 Subject: Concept Review of AMCON's Development of the Outlot,St. Anthony Marketplace Project Date Application Received: N/A-Concept Review Property Address: 2900 Kenzie Terrace/Hwy. 88 Zoning District: C 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: Paul Tucci,OPPIDAN, is requesting a concept review of their proposal for the outlot on the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88,St. Anthony Marketplace. Mr. Tucci has submitted applications for the following as well as an updated landscaping plan. A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Restaurant within 250' of residential area. B. VARIANCE PETITION- Building Setback-Out Lot C. VARIANCE PETITION-On-Site Parking Background: At the May 17th Planning Commission meeting,AMCON presented several requests,including those listed above, at a public hearing for consideration in order to finish their project associated with the St. Anthony Marketplace project. In 2003,their proposal was to build a 6,000 SF building that would house a popular sports bar and grill. When the sports bar and grill owners decided not to put a store in St. Anthony, the developers put together another plan that reduced the size of the building to 4,500 SF and would include a coffee shop with a drive-thru and space for two other retail shops. The proposal was brought before the Planning Commission at their May 2004 meeting. The Planning Commission's recommendation on this proposal was passed to the City Council for their approval. At the City Council meeting on May 24th, the City Council voted to deny all of the requests for the proposed project. The developers of the project have again revised their proposal and have a plan for a 4,500 SF restaurant, similar to the original proposal but smaller. They are before the Planning Commission for a concept review with the intention of scheduling a public hearing for their petitions at the Planning Commissions August meeting. They are hoping to obtain Council approval for this project as well as an amendment to the Developer's Agreement at the August 23rd Council meeting. The revised applications are as follows: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Restaurant within 250' of Residential Area. AMCON is required to secure a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the proposed restaurant planned to be located in the outlot at 2900 Kenzie Terrace. The City Ordinance,Chapter 16,Section 1635.03 (p) requires a CUP for a restaurant located within 250 feet of a residential area. A single-family residential area (R-1) exists on the northeast side of Kenzie Terrace and north side of St. Anthony 1 Boulevard. A resolution approved by the City Council in July 2003 granted AMCON a Conditional Use Permit for the proposed restaurant being closer than 250 feet of a residential zoning district. Since that restaurant was never constructed, the originally approved CUP expired. The conditions approved for this site in 2003 are listed below: a. Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match buildings and must be located on the southwest corner. b. Lighting must be "down-spill", with no spillage to residential properties across Kenzie Terrace and conform to adjacent area (St. Anthony Boulevard). c. Hours for outdoor seating shall not exceed 10:00 p.m. d. No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from any residential district. e. City engineers must approve the plan,including a determination that the proposed plan will not have an adverse impact on the current water run-of situation. f. The patio will be on the east side of the building. g. Break up mass and improve the landscape to the north side of the building. h. The design of the building shall conform to the design of the existing main building. i. Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours. B. VARIANCE PETITION-Building Setback-Outlot. In revising the original site plan due to changes in proposed uses and the location of those uses, AMCON has presented a site plan that proposes a 4,500 SF building,which represents a reduction of the building footprint by 1,500 SF. This revised site plan also reduces the number of variances required for the construction of the building planned for the Outlot. Section 1635.05,Subd.4 of the City Ordinance states that the front yard of a commercial building needs to be at least 35 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths on the two adjacent lots. Since this site is on a corner lot, the 35-foot front yard requirement was used. As the revised site plan shows,the northwest corner is 5 feet from the property line and the northeast corner is 12 feet from the property line. As Mr. Tucci states in his letter dated July 6, 2005,with the reduction of the size of the proposed restaurant, the new proposed plan encroaches less into the setback than the original site plan that received a setback variance in 2003. The current site plan requires a variance of 30 feet for the northwest corner and a variance of 23 feet for the northeast corner. Previously,Council had approved a variance of 30 feet for each corner. Resolution 03-053,A RESOLUTION RELATING TO VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER OF KENZIE TERRACE AND HWIGHWAY 88,approved on July 15, 2003, identified the following findings of fact based on hardships that exist for this property in support of granting the setback variance: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area. b. Undue hardship exists and is a result of an oddly shaped parcel that is generally triangular in shape with a rounded side. c. These circumstances are not caused by the applicant or property owner. d. The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the locality,but would essentially replace existing blighted structures with new, more aesthetically pleasing buildings. The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the requested variance because even reconstructing the existing blighted buildings on their same footprints would require setback variances. e. Economic considerations alone are not the basic [for this request]. KTIanning\Staff Reports\2005\071905ConceptReview AMCON Staff report.doc 2 r " f. The circumstances creating this hardship are unique to this oddly shaped property. g. Granting of the variance will keep within the spirit and intention of the zoning code and further, it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Since no construction occurred within the year of their approval, the variances expired. The applicant is now requesting a similar setback variance to the northwest corner of the proposed building as it does extend into the building setback 12 feet and coming within 5 feet of the property line. C. VARIANCE PETITION-Parkin on n Site. Previously, AMCON received approval for a parking variance for their project in 2003. There is some discrepancy as to the number of parking spaces that were covered by the variance,but Resolution 03-053 referenced a variance of 27 spaces. Mr. Tucci suggests that the original proposal needed a variance was closer to 50 parking spaces. According to the revised proposed site plan for this property and as the result of the reduction of building square footage,AMCON has significantly reduced the number of parking spaces that they need to address with a variance. Section 1650.05,Subdivision 1, (6) states that Commercial properties are required to have one (1) space for each 300 SF of gross floor area. Mr. Tucci states in his letter that the 18,500 SF of retail space, a reduction of 2,000 SF from the original plan, requires 62 parking stalls. Section 1650.05, Subdivision 1, (3) requires that restaurants have parking spaces equal to the total seating capacity divided by 2.5,plus one space for each employee on the largest shift. That required number of parking spaces for the two restaurants,Jersey Mike's and proposed restaurant is 87 spaces. The total parking spaces needed for this site is 149 parking spaces;the parking spaces provided by AMCON's site plan is 118,for a deficit of 31 parking spaces. AMCON's proposed timeline for approval of their most recent submittal is as follows: July 19-Concept Review Aug. 16- Public Hearings at the Planning Commission Meeting Aug. 23 -Council Action on the Planning Commissions Recommendations Council Approval of Proposed Developer's Agreement Attachments: • Site Plan • Building Plan • Applications • Letters of Support HAPIannmg\Staff Reports\2005\071905ConceptReview AMCON Staff report.doc 3 a -- - OPll IDAN - - Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 •-#1001 • MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353 Fax: 952/294-0151 "• WEB: www.oppidan.com July 6, 2005 Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony,MN 55418-1699 RE: Request to Amend Development Agreement St,,Anthony Village Center=Arncon St.Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shallserve as a request of the City of St. Anthony to amend the Development-Agreement, dated November 3, 2003,•by and between Amcon St.Anthony,LLC ("Amcon")as developer and the City of St.Anthony("City"). The request is to amend the agreement for the following items: • Modify the plans to reflect the new Site Plan for the entire site;Landscaping'for the site and the new building elevation for the outbuilding on the northern point of the center." • Modify the dates in the agreement to allow for the construction to begin this late, summer early fall(Sept-"Oct,2005)on the outbuilding. • Modify the document to allow for the restaurant with liquor to be 4,500's.f on the out building. The restaurant will be required to maintain a minimum food ration of 50% of sales.` This will be done in an effort to maintain a"restaurant"and not promote a bar. •` Eliminate the City's recapture right if the outbuilding is substantially complete within 8 months of the City approving the modification and issuing a building permit for the outbuilding. Developer will submit plans to the City for permitting within 30 days of final City approval of the modification and amendment to the Development Agreement. • We would,require.the operator to lease,space to the St.AnthonySports Boosters. However,the operator will have the option to cancel the lease with-the boosters if the pull tab operation is driving the ration of food below the 50% minimum." Again this is in an effort to maintain the space use as a restaurant and not a bar.. We have processed applications for the proposed modification to the site plan. This application Was heard on a conceptual basis in front of the Planning Commission on April 19". Additionally, we have submitted the following: , 1 � • A Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant within 250 feet of a residential use. • A Petition for Variance for Parking on the Site. • A Petition for Variance for Building Setback. Each of the above submittals has a brief narrative included with it. Generally,the overall site has improved: The total square footage on the-entire site has decreased from 26,000 s.f.to 24,500 s.f. Landscaping green area is approximately 1%greater. We are coordinating our landscaping with-the City landscape plan for the right-of-way areas to insure a cohesive plan for the site. Paving is basically the same as before. Parking, although a variance is still needed;has improved. Previously,parking,,based on what I understand,of the size of the previous restaurant(approx. 225 seats)and City codes,would have required a variance of approximately 50 stalls. If Jersey Mike's was factored in,that would increase to approximately 60"stalls. The new plan, counting Jersey Mike's as a restaurant and"placing a 4,500 s.f., 160 seat restaurant on the endcap,would require a variance of 41 stalls. Overall,we feel that the new Site Plan and Restaurant size are more conducive for the-property. Parking is,by our calculations, closer to meeting City requirements. Previous approvals already have allowed-a restaurant within 250 feet.of residential and have allowed for the building setback variance. The proposed building position lessens the need for the building setback variance. The building is designed to look like a four-sided building,thus enhancing the views to residential and the"Gateway"comer of the city. We look forward to working with the City of St.Anthony on this amendment. As always,please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have on this request. Sincerely, el Tu CC: Gonzalo Medina Jim Winkels _ - Mike Supina fez Fed: $130.00 Date: City ofSt.Anthony Application for Conditional Use Permit Applicant co G Phone: j Address: Status-of Applicant: (Owner,Buyer,Renter,Agent,etc.) Aa Street Address and/or Legal Description of Subject Property: T aZ 70Z• l 1.4 +4c/�� Zoning Designation of Subject Property: Reason for Conditional Use Permit Request + W t APPLICAN'T'S PLEASE NOTE: Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following criteria must be satisfied before a Conditional Use may be authorized. Please respond in writing to these criteria,using additional sheets,if necessary. 1.) The requested Conditional Use is one of the Permitted Conditional Uses spermy listed for the Zoning District in which the Conditional Use is to be located. 2.) Explain how the requested Conditional Use will not be detrimental to the health,safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values of improvements in the area. 3.) Explain why the requested Conditional Use is necessary or desirable at the above tY service or a facili which is in the interest of public convenience �. locatro��to-provide a and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or-community. ,r✓ t� I l by Additionally, applicants must submit ALL of the following e Tuesday that is thirty (30) days prior to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard at a Public Hearing. 1.) Completed application for the specific request and payment of the fee. 2.) Complete survey and site plans of the subject property (including dimensions and elevations) showing the building, driveways, curb cuts,ingress, egress, etc., on the property and in relation to adjacent properties. 3.) - Explanation of materials to be used and plans for screening,landscaping, fencing and dumpster enclosures. 4.) Drawings of completed buildings, if appropriate to the project, and materials used. 5.) Storm water retention and drainage. The appropriate watershed district or water management organization are required to be notified of the project. 6.) A letter explaining the reason for the Conditional Use Permit. In the letter,please describe that the circumstances to warrant the need for the request. An incomplete application will not be scheduled before the Planning Commission or City Council. Signature of the Applicant: 0P;PL1b>TNI Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 CouNn RoaD 101 • #100, • MtNNeroNxn,-MN 55345 PHONE: 9521294-0353 ; Fax,952/294-0151 Wes:www.bppidan.com July 6,2005 , Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager ' City of St.Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony;MN 55418-1699 RE: .Application for Conditional Use Permit—Proximity of a Restaurant to.Residential Uses' St. Anthony Village Center - - Amcon St.Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shall serve as a brief narrative for the Application for Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the proximity of a Restaurant to Residential Uses for•the development referenced. Per City of St Anthony Codes,a restaurant cannot be located closer than 250 feet from a residential'-parcel. = Previously,the City granted a CUP for the placement'of a 6,000 s.f. restaurant on the northern point of the site,which was within 250 feet of residential properties(a copy is attached). The new site plans moves-the restaurant location slightly to the east on the pad site,but would-require the same CUP as previously granted within the.250 feet. . Overall,there-is,no change in,the site plan that was previously approved other than the square, footage,of the restaurant has'been reduced to 4,500 square feet, from 6,000 square feet. This is based upon market conditions and the site'constraints. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have on this Application-for Conditional Use Permit.' Sincerely Paul J.T c CC: Gonzalo Medina Jim Winkels Mike'Supina ' CITY OF ST.ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 03 -052 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER OF KENZIE TERRACE AND HIGHWAY 88 WHEREAS, two conditional use requests from Amcon Construction for the redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88(Stonehouse/Fire Department properties)were presented to the St.Anthony Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 15,2003: 1. Restaurant location.This is a permitted conditional use for a commercial district. The request is for a location less than 250 feet from a residential district. Following are the conditions the Planning Commission recommended for Council apprdval: a. Garbage areas must be enclosed with materials that match buildings and must be located on the southwest comer. b. Lighting must be"down-spill",with no spillage to residential properties across Kenzie Terrace and conform with adjacent area(St.Anthony Boulevard) Hours for outdoor seating shall not exceed 10:00 pm No music or other artificial noise shall be audible from any residential district e. City engineers must approve the plan,including a determination that the proposed plan will not have an adverse impact on the current water run- of situation The patio will be on the east side of the building g Breakup mass and improve the landscape to the north side of the building h. The design of the building shall conform to g C'?WAWV ��� L Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours S 2. On-sale liquor store.This is a permitted conditional use for a commercial district and no conditions were added for Council approval. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.Anthony hereby approves the conditional use requests from Amcon Construction for redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88,as recommended by the Planning Commission at their July 15,2003 meeting,and with Amcon's conformity to the conditions stated above. Adopted this _day of Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: Oity er O' Date: 90-6 Fee: 81 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . . . 100.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance %*bAc-k Phone: %�� ,a,PPlicant: Z Address: Status of Applicant(Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Legal Description of property proposed for variance: Soo Street Address: AW . -5i Presently Zoned: 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. 5e, 41,.tA c%ecP NORM � 1, Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance. would relieve an undue hardslziv. s 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 gxgraordi� circumstances applicable.to this property but nbt applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. g. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the ► Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the Parcel of land. Signatuk of Applicant. EXHIBIT A Leal Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1" and of the unplatted portion of the North Half of Section 7, Township 29, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section 7; thence on an assumed bearing of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 05 seconds East, along the North and South quarter line of said Section 7, a distance of 1227.04 feet to a point on the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard and the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 31 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 92.51 feet; thence southeasterly and.southerly, along said southwesterly right-of- way line and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 88, on a tangential curve concave to the West, having a radius of 150 feet and a central angle of 56 degrees 16 minutes 18 seconds, a distance of 147.32 feet; thence South 24 degrees 36 minutes 48 seconds West, tangent to said curve, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 144.95 feet to the intersection with the southeasterly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. 1;" thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said southeasterly extension, a distance of 73.41 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot l; thence South 24 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds West, along the southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 35.06 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with and distant 100 feet northeasterly, as measured at right angles, from the southwesterly line of said Lot 1; thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 343.75 feet to the southeasterly right-of-way line of Kenzie Terrace (also known as County Road No. 153); thence North 50 degrees 48 minutes 12 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 98.21 feet; thence North 55 degrees istance of 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said 57 dsecterly night-of-way line, aonds East, along said southeasterly ni43.73 ght of- feet, thence North 48 degrees 03 mi way line, a distance of 54.36 feet; thence North 57 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 123.62 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard; thence South 43 degrees 28 minutes 01 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 71.91 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 OPPIDAN Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345, PHONE: 952/294-0353 FAX:-952%294-0151 WEB: www.oppidan.com July 6, 2005 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony- 3301 Silver-Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1609 RE': Petition for Variance—Building Setback New Building—North Side of Site St. Anthony Village Center-Amcon St:Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shall serve as a brief narrative for the Petition for Variance fora Building Setback' Variance for the new building proposed on the northern"point"of the referenced site. ;The new Site Plan lays out a4,500 s.f. restaurant building in the point of this property. = The building is designed-for a single use"restaurant with liquor, generally in the same location as the 6,000 s.f. restaurant building was previously approved, with the except that the new building is approximately 1,500,s.f smaller,than before. The building will have a patio area on the east side. The placement of this building,requires a-setback variance. The"building is placed in a mariner that on the northwest side is encroaches to within 5 feet of the property line and on the northeast comer, the encroachment is 12 feet. 'On July'15, 2003,the City approved a Variance for Building Setbacks that allowed for the building to encroach to within 5 feet of the property lines on both the northeast and . northwest corners (a copy of the Resolution is attached) . This new,plan has less encroachment than the previously approved building and variance. - -The general location is that of what was approved. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have on this Petition for Variance. :. ;Sin�cerell Paul J. ucci CC: Gonzalo Medina Jim Winkels Mike'Supina CITY OF ST.ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 03 -053 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER OF KENZIE TERRACE AND HIGHWAY 88 WHEREAS, variance requests from Amcon Construction for the redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88 (Stonehouse/Fire Department properties)were presented to the St.Anthony Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 15,2003: 1. Two front yard setback variances of 30 feet each for a proposed setback of 5 feet at the building comers.Following are the findings by the Planning Commission: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area b. Undue hardship exists and is a result of an oddly shaped parcel that is generally triangular in shape with a rounded side 1) These circumstances are not caused by the applicant or property owner 2) The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the locality,but would essentially replace existing blighted structures with new,more aesthetically pleasing buildings 3) The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the requested variance because even reconstructing the existing blighted buildings on their same footprints would require setback variances 4) Economic considerations alone are not the basis C. The circumstances creating this hardship are unique to this oddly- shaped property d. Granting of the variance will keep within the spirit and intention of the zoning code and further,it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. One rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for a proposed setback of 10 feet at the southeast comer property line job.Planning Commission findings are: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area b. Undue hardship exists based on the following: 1) Circumstances creating the hardship is an irregular parcel with a jog,not the result of the owner/applicant 2) The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the locality as there is sufficient room at'the property line and adjacent buildings and streets.In addition,the project improves the rear yard setback condition as compared to the existing blighted buildings 3) Economic consideration alone is not the reason for the variance request 4) Because of the overall shape of the parcel,the property cannot be put to reasonable use without the need for variances C. The variance will maintain the spirit and intent of the zoning code d. The circumstances creating the need for the variance are unique to this property because of its odd shape 3. A parking variance of 27 stalls for a proposed 120 parking stalls for a sit down restaurant and adjacent retail(147 required) a. The property is currently blighted,is poorly planned and is overall a detriment to the locale b. An undue hardship would result if strict adherence to the ordinance is required,based on the following: 1) The hardship results from the odd shape of the parcel,and was not created by the owner/applicant 2) The variance would not alter the essential character of the locale,but would represent an improvement to the area 3) The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the variance because of its odd configuration 4. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship C. The circumstances creating the hardship are unique to this property d. The granting of this variance will maintain the spirit of the zoning code because of the staggered peak business times for the proposed uses of the property,which will allow for adequate parking for all the uses at any given time of day. NOW,THEREFORE,BE TT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.Anthony hereby approves the above variance requests from Amcon Construction for redevelopment of the comer of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88,as recommended by the Planning Commission at their July 15,2003 meeting,. Adopted this a_day of ayor ATTEST; City Clerk ' Reviewed for Administration: City Manager Date: �•V✓ Pee: 81 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . 0 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGF l?etition for Variance Applicant: c .Phone• 5 • 7DZ'3$GD Address: States of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Legal Description of property proposed for variance Street Address: _2 IAJ Presently Zoned: e that the following conditions must be satisfied Iyl;nn -cote Statutes and City Ordinances require for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary. eu A44A cA8WA)A Met VE sisal smrounclings, shape, or topographical conditions of 1, Bec$use of the particular phy the parcel or lot, the proposed variance. would reIieve an undue•hat�lun es distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. desire t 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon R increase the'value or income potential of the parcel of land,but would eircumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning di9triict. 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. Signat*ofApplicant- EXHIBIT A Le Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village CoTown lal Center ai Addition No. I" as of the unplatted portion of the North Half of Section 7, p follows: bea Commencing at the north quarter corner of said Section �cshe1Northence on an assurneth and South quarteraine orf lg of South 00 degrees 32 minutes 05 seconds East, along said Section 7, a distance of 1227.04 feet to a point on'e lsouthwesterly o and t be described; thence Southf of tl St. Anthony Boulevard and the point of beginning 31 degrees 39 minutes 31 seconds East, along d and said southwsterly gdtsouthwesterly right-of- -of-way line, a distance of 92.51 feet; thence southeasterly way line and the westerly right-of-way line of Highway No. 88, on a tangential curve concave to the West,having a radius of 150 feet utla24 de tees 6 ncentral angle�nut degrees seconds Wests 18 seconds, a distance of 147.32 feet; thenc hS night-of-way line, a distance of 144.95 feet to the tangent to said curve, along said westerly rig Y intersection with the southeasterly extension of the north hence North 62 degreeasterly line of Lot 1,Bs 53 minuses Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No , 08 seconds West, along said southeasterly extensiminutes 52 seconds West, along the northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence South 24 degrees 54 southeasterly line of said Lot 1, a distance of 35.06 fe�tno��annlessfrom the southweection with a line sterly with and distant 100 feet northeasterly, as measured a g g line of said Lot 1; thence North 62 degrees 53 minutes 08 seconds West, along said parallel line, a distance of 343.75 feet to the southeasterly oit 48 minutesway line of 12 seconds Eastalso known as County Road No. 153); thence North 5 degrees along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 98.21 feet; thence North 55 degrees 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way thews erlyce f 143.73 right of feet; thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said so way line, a distance of 54.36 feet; thence North 57 degrees 16 minutes 29 seconds East, ion wit along said southeasterly right-of--way line, a distance ? thence feet to 43 degrees 218 he intersect the southwesterly right-of-way line of St. Anthony Boulevard minutes 01 seconds East, along said southwesterly right-of-way line, a distance of 71.91 feet to the point of beginning. A-1 Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 •- PHONE: 952/294-0353 FAX: 952/294-0151 WEB: www.oppidanxom. July 6, 2005 Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager' City of St.Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony,MN 55418-1699 RE: Petition for Variance—Parking St. Anthony,Village Center Amcon St.Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shall serve as a briefnarrative'for the Petition for Variance for a Parking Variance.for the entire site, including the new-restaurant building proposed on the northern"point"of the referenced site.-Per City of St Anthony Codes,parking for a commercial development and the uses this site has are as follows: • Retail Centers: 1 stall for every 300 gross square feet of Building Area • Restaurants: 1 stall for every 2.5 seats plus 1 stall for every employee on the largest shift. With that as the base,we have calculated'the parking needs of the site-as follows: Retails Space: ,18,500 square feet total.requires.62 parking stalls Restaurants: Jersey Mike's(Seats 25).= 10 stalls plus 3 for employees= 13 stalls Sit Down Restaurant:,(160 seats): _ .' lob ►�° � .- - - - 160/2.5 =,Wstalls'plus 10 stalls.for employees=74 total stalls Grand Total Site Required: ��stalls Parking Provided. 1.18 stalls The previous plan that was approved had 20,000 s.F of General retail and 6,000 s.£ of Sit Down Restaurant that would have 225 seats. The required parking for the previous approved plan was as.follows: Retails Space: 20,000 square feet total requires 67 parking stalls - Sit Down Restaurant:,225 seats: 225/2.5=90'stalls plus 14 stalls for employees= 104 total stalls Grand Total,Site Required: 171 stalls Parking Provided: 120 stalls, SI (,jS As you can see, e parking variance required has diminished with the new proposed site plan. We are short.AT'1'4Ialls from what is required. Furthermore,the tenants in the main retail building and the outlot will provide a mix of uses that will allow parking needs to be spread evenly over the course of a day, allowing for more stalls to be open at night for the restaurant user. The previous approval'stated that the variance was 27 stalls(see attached). Since I was not part of that process,I cannot tell you-how the determination of only 27 stalls was made. 'However, based on the,size of the former building,the size of the current restaurant proposed and its seating - and our history with restaurant tenants,the 225 seats for a 6,000 s.f.,restaurant is conservative. Based on using 225 seats,the variance previously would have been 49 stalls. Overall,we think the new plan is much friendlier for the customers of the center and the neighboring,property owners. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have on this Petition for Variance. Sincerely, Paul J. ucci CC: Gonzalo-Medina Jim Winkels' Mike Supina - CITY OF ST.ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 03 -053 A RESOLUTION RELATING TO VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CORNER OF KENZIE TERRACE AND HIGHWAY 88 WHEREAS, variance requests from Amcon Construction for the redevelopment of the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88(Stonehouse/Fire Department properties)were presented to the St.Anthony Planning Commission at a public hearing on July 15,2003: 1. Two front yard setback variances of 30 feet each for a proposed setback of 5 feet at the building comers.Following are the findings by the Planning Commission: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area b. Undue hardship exists and is a result of an oddly shaped parcel that is generally triangular in shape with a rounded side 1) These circumstances are not caused by the applicant or property owner 2) The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the locality,but would essentially replace existing blighted structures with new,more aesthetically pleasing buildings 3) The property cannot be put to reasonable use withouttexisting requested variance because even reconstructing he blighted buildings on their same footprints would require setback variances 4) Economic considerations alone are not the basis C. The circumstances creating this hardship are unique to this oddly- shaped property d. Granting of the variance will keep within the spirit and intention of the zoning code and further,it is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. One rear yard setback variance of 10 feet for a proposed setback of 10 feet at the southeast comer property line job.Planning Commission findings are: a. The property is currently blighted,poorly planned with regard to layout and is an overall detriment to the area b. Undue hardship exists based on the following: 1) Circumstances creating the hardship is an irregular parcel with a jog,not the result of the owner/applicant 2) The variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character 2 of the locality as there is sufficient room at the property line and adjacent buildings and streets.In addition,the project improves the rear yard setback condition as compared to the existing blighted buildings 3) Economic consideration alone is not the reason for the variance request cannot 4) Because of the overall shape of the parcel,the property be put to reasonable use without the need for variances C. The variance will maintain the spirit and intent of the zoning code d The circumstances creating the need for the variance are unique to this property because of its odd shape 3. A parking variance of 27 stalls for a proposed 120 parking stalls for a sit down restaurant and adjacent retail(147 required) a. The property is currently blighted,is poorly planned and is overall a detriment to the locale b. An undue hardship would result if strict adherence to the ordinance is required,based on the following: 1) The hardship results from the odd shape of the parcel,and was not created by the owner/applicant 2) The variance would not alter the essential character the thearethe locale,but would represent an improvement 3) The property cannot be put to reasonable use without the variance because of its odd configuration 4. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship C. The circumstances creating the hardship are unique to this property an of this variance will maintain the spirit of the zoning code I The g proposed uses of because of the staggered peak business times for the the property,which will allow for adequate parking for all the uses at any given time of day. the t. y hereby proves the NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED�tion for r redevelopment of the ccil of the City ofomerr of Knenzie Terrace and Highway above variance requests from Amcon Constru 88,as recommended by the Planning Commission at their July 15,2003 meeting,. Adopted this a_day of ayor ATTEST; City Clerk ' Reviewed for Administration: Cid,Manager Page 1 of 2 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Paul Tucci [Paul@oppidan.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:30 PM To: kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Cc: gmedinakami@comcast.net; townlakere@comcast.net; Robert Foster; jwinkels@amconconstruction.com Subject: FW: st. anthony Kim: Here is the corrected Landscape plan for the new submittal on St. Anthony. It is the same material plantings as before but the outlot building is labeled as a Restaurant, not Retail, and the Drive-Thru lane is eliminated. I will mail out an 11" x 17" copy tonight. Paul Tucci Oppidan, Inc. 5125 County Road 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone: 952-294-1243 Fax: 952-294-0151 e:mail paul(cDoppidan.com From: Mike Supina [mailto:msupina@amconconstruction.com] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:21 PM To: Paul Tucci Subject: RE: st. anthony Paul: Replace the previous Landscape Plan I sent to you with the atached PDF file, thanks. Mike Supina From: Paul Tucci [mailto:Paul@oppidan.com] Sent: Mon 7/11/2005 1:25 PM To: Mike Supina Subject: RE: st. anthony Mike: Can you change the outbuilding from Retail to Restaurant so we are consistent with the other plans. Thanks, Paul Tucci Oppidan, Inc. 5125 County Road 101, Suite 100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone: 952-294-1243 Fax: 952-294-0151 e:mail paulaoppidan.com - ,ninnnc U) rn � �/ ` | || � c: rn lit, , /a § . :� ! � ! /. : a | «y . 7 pa VAAL) f A \ t ) j q �� � ��\ � j | §�� | |§ | | ` \ � � � � } )i} | | � > z LA m C) \ \ �) \ � | c i ca c -u > z z C) ` ` � j \ pRoposeD oem-OPLIBm ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER Err.Amn.Kw vLL#jw- WRAMMA PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT- STm NTHONY VILL E RET IL ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA ®-- :- ®r ®r Br ®r ®r +.' l.m e.m m 'Ym�` • e1m u m.. -r, A :� - #10 4im Am 0 0 WE DATA PFA� no= zmo lzm am =Mom 0 =AM Zn AUM-IPPEL 1W.Ul ILF. FAMM a emmulm VND we vm emt FlWVW > =Vm mw um 10 wvm F'sm WAND amw Vam Am aK ar-W pmume O&M ILF.ON* --ILK /// EXffrNQ KETALW son V.am AM V.a" 0 0 VOID Rw0..m0mm .ma IIAW$A•1/m ILK 4y/0111 I z Qb % V. % � lmF..O 11B so" "W sma to 9N0 in m.0 z /O Tema..a.F.1mam wm %lb co 29 Ar2OW Gl I v� I111 Y pq i88� igg iggigggg f1�6 4gY Pq �L� P�P'i Is NJ .B r t t t t t t t t d ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER ' Ur.ANn-M 1f VAJ.AM MMPM9orrA 0 � I r I i I� i i !} 1 1 1 FOSTER & BREVER, PLLC 0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2,4 THOMAS E. BREVER (612) 436-3291 ERic BREVER (612) 436-3294 ROBERT J. FOSTER (612) 436-3290 Writer's email:rfoster@fosterbrever.com Legal Assistant: DeAnne, 612-436-3297 July 7, 2005 Mr. Michael Morrison City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 RE: St. Anthony Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a The Village Grille and Pub Dear Mike: I have had conversations since we last appeared in front of the St. Anthony City Council on this matter. From that City Council Meeting, it was determined that the City Council did not want the restaurant and bar to be in the end cap of the main building in the neighborhood shopping center located at County Road 88 and St. Anthony Parkway. There was discussion about putting the restaurant in the building on the outlot located at the northern part of the Property. My client has negotiated with the shopping center owners and has agreed to take all 4,500 square feet of the proposed outlot building. The restaurant will be called "The Village Grille and Pub". As I stated in our earlier City Council Meeting, the restaurant will have a European pub feel, using woods and color schemes to achieve this desired effect. I have enclosed for your review, ten copies of a proposed layout of the restaurant. You will note from the layout that there is a differentiation between the restaurant portion of the business, which is located on the westerly side of the building, and the bar portion. It was clear from our conversations with the City Council that, much like Applebees in the Apache development,there was a desire to have a distinct bar area and restaurant area. The proposed charitable gambling booth is located in the bar area. We would like to have feedback from the Planning Commission and the City Council as to whether charitable gambling is desired in this location. If charitable gambling is desired, my clients will include it but if it is not desired, they will not include a charitable gambling booth. Suite 200 • 2855 Anthony Lane South • St. Anthony, MN 55418 Fax: (612) 788-9879 www.fosterbrever.com I Mr. Michael Morrison Page 2 July 7, 2005 I have also enclosed a preliminary menu for the restaurant. The food selections and prices are both preliminary and may change as my clients receive additional input from their suppliers and the community as to the type of food that would be popular in this restaurant location. The price of these items may also change. It is our intent to bring a preliminary layout of color schemes for the restaurant to the Planning Commission and the City Council. My clients are anxious to provide a restaurant in the City's gateway that will enhance that gateway and be an attribute to the community. I believe as this restaurant is currently laid out and conceived, The Village Grille and Pub will be that restaurant. It is my understanding that the developer has submitted, on today's date, the necessary variance requests for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. I would ask that you notify me of the hearing dates for these submittals. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Jb --7J. s,ter RJF:dk enclosures cc: G. Petersen/W. Forschen I MENU THE VILLAGE GRILLE AND BAR APPETIZERS: -Chicken Tenders and Fries $6.25 -Cheese Bread $4.75 -Onion Rings $4.50 -Fries $4.25 -Chili and Cheese $4.75 -Loaded Fries (cheese, bacon and sour cream) $5.25 -Waffle Fries $4.75 -Queso Dip and Chips $3.95 -Quesadillas (beef, chicken or Rueben) $6.75 (cheese only) $5.75 -Nachos (beef or chicken) $6.95 -Potato Skins $5.75 -Wings-plain or buffalo $5.95 -Cheese Curds $5.95 -Mozzarella Sticks $5.95 -Sampler Platter(onion rings, wings, tenders & curds) $9.50 SOUPS AND SALADS: -Cup $2.50 -Bowl $3.50 -Soup and Salad $5.25 -Chili (cup) $2.95 (bowl) $3.95 -House Salad $3.50 -Cajun Chicken Salad $7.25 -Oriental Chicken Salad $7.25 -Chef Salad $7.25 -Honey Dijon Chicken Salad $7.25 SANDWICHES: (Add $1.00 for Waffle Fries) -Chicken Philly $7.25 -Philly Cheese $7.25 -French Dip $6.75 -Rueben $6.95 -Open faced Steak Sandwich $7.50 -Grilled Chicken Sandwich $6.75 -Cajun Chicken Sandwich $6.75 -Clubhouse $6.95 -BLT $5.95 -Grilled Ham and Cheese $6.50 -Grilled Cheese $4.50 -Fish Sandwich $6.75 -Rachel $6.95 f MENU THE VILLAGE GRILLE AND BAR BURGERS: -The Village Burger $8.50 -Mushroom Swiss Burger $6.95 -Bacon Cheese Burger $6.95 -Cajun Burger $6.95 -Patty Melt $6.95 -Basic Burger $6.50 HOUSE SPECIALTIES: -8 oz. Ribeye Steak $9.95 -10 oz Ribeye Steak $12.00 -Shrimp (popcorn) $6.50 -Fish and Chips $7.50 -Steak and Shrimp $13.50 -Large Breaded Shrimp $11.50 HOUSE SPECIALTIES: -Burrito Supreme $6.95 -Enchiladas $6.95 -Fettuccini Alfredo $8.50 (with Shrimp) $10.50 (with Chicken) $9.50 WRAPS: -Buffalo Wraps $6.95 -Clubhouse Wrap $6.95 -Chicken Bacon Ranch Wrap $6.95 -Chicken Caesar Wrap $6.95 KIDS: -Mac and Cheese $3.95 -Chicken Tenders $4.25 -Corn Dogs $3.95 -Kid's Steak $4.75 -Grilled Cheese $3.95 -Burger $4.25 DESSERTS: -Ice Cream Sundae (kids) $1.75 (reg. $2.75) -Turtle Cheesecake $3.50 -Brownie a La Mode $3.50 . a011a Who e July 12, 2005 Mr. Paul Tucci OPPIDAN 5125 County Road 101, #100 Minnetonka, MN 55345 RE: AMCON's Petitions for Parking Variance, Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit Dear Paul: This letter is being sent to acknowledge receipt of the following applications and applicable fees for consideration: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- Restaurant within 250' of residential area: B. VARIANCE PETITION- Building Setback-Out Lot C. VARIANCE PETITION- On-Site Parking Minnesota State Statutes require that any land use or zoning related applications be approved or denied by the governing body within 60 days of receipt of the completed application by the political subdivision. To be in compliance with this statute,the City responds to submitted applications in the following manner. AMCON's request for the above-listed actions for North Outlot at St.Anthony Marketplace will be presented to the Planning Commission for a concept review on July 19,2005 and public hearing on August 16,2005. Following this public hearing, the Planning Commission,which is an advisory body to the City Council,will make their recommendation for approval or denial to the City Council. The City Council will make a decision on your applications at the August 23rd Council meeting. A representative from AMCON is required at all three meetings. If a representative are not present at or is unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on the above- referenced date,the Planning Commission will automatically table AMCON"S request until their next meeting. If you have questions or concerns regarding this process or your application,please feel free to contact me at 612-782-3312. 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699-www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us -(612) 789-8881 •FAX(612) 781-9323 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure. Sincerely, Kin Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.nm.us HALettersTlanning\2005\071205 60 Day acknwidg ltr AMCOM.doc . sin ills 'e' r July 12,2005 Mr. Robert Foster, Esq. FOSTER& BREVER, PLLC Suite 200 Anthony Place 2855 Anthony Lane South St. Anthony,MN 55418 RE: AMCON's Petitions for Parking Variance, Setback Variance and Conditional Use Permit Dear Paul: This letter is being sent to acknowledge receipt of the following applications and applicable fees for consideration: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-Restaurant within 250' of residential area. B. VARIANCE PETmON- Building Setback-Out Lot C. VARIANCE PETITION-On-Site Parking Minnesota State Statutes require that any land use or zoning related applications be approved or denied by the governing body within 60 days of receipt of the completed application by the political subdivision. To be in compliance with this statute, the City responds to submitted applications in the following manner. AMCON's request for the above-listed actions for North Outlot at St. Anthony Marketplace will be presented to the Planning Commission for a concept review on July 19,2005 and public hearing on August 16,2005. Following this public hearing, the Planning Commission,which is an advisory body to the City Council,will make their recommendation for approval or denial to the City Council. The City Council will make a decision on your applications at the August 23rd Council meeting. A representative from AMCON is required at all three meetings. If a representative are not present at or is unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on the above- referenced date, the Planning Commission will automatically table AMCON"S request until their next meeting. If you have questions or concerns regarding this process or your application, please feel free to contact me at 612-782-3312. 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony,Minnesota 55418-1699•www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us •(612) 789-8881 •FAX(612) 781-9323 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community,a walkable village, which is safe and secure. Sincerely, Kim Moore-Sykes 4L Assistant City Manager kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us H•\Letters\Planning\2005\071205 60 Day acknwldg ltr AMCOM doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIIIA From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager 04 Date: July 19,2005 Subject: Variance to Allow Gas-fired Grills on Balconies Date Application Received: Concept Review Property Address: 39th Avenue-Pratt Homes; Hunt Associates Zoning District: Mixed Use 60-Day Expires: N/A Requested Action: The applicant has requested a concept review of their proposal to install gas grills on balconies of their multi-family units. The gas would be plumbed to the balcony area for the gas grills and they plan to install sprinklers over the grills. Background: Staff has received calls about the likelihood of installing gas-fired grills on the balconies of the townhomes that are being constructed by Len Pratt and Hunt&Associates. These townhomes are wood framed and would have the gas plumbed to the gas-fired grill. The builder is proposing to also install sprinkler heads over the gas-fired grills in the event the grill would cause a fire. The City's Code clearly states that may set, kindle, maintain or permit any fire or open flame on any balcony of a multiple dwelling or apartment building in any barbecue, torch or similar heating,cooking, burning or lighting equipment or device, except in dwellings of all masonry construction. (Section 1325.12 Balconies) The state fire code does apparently make some allowances for electric or gas-fired grills provided that they are wired or plumbed to the building's electric or gas supply. The attached information* sheet on barbecues and open flames on balconies and patios does acknowledge that many cities do prohibit this practice by ordinance, as does the City of St. Anthony. The applicant has requested a variance to Section 1325.12 so that they may be allowed to plumb gas to gas- fired grills that are installed on the townhome balconies. H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\071905 Pratt Homes concept review gas grills balconies.doc 06/23/2005 12:11 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY w�VVL f Date: Fee: /OD.CZ? R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . Ir 100.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance Applicant: 1 I Uef 1=�e A _ 6_ Phone: l -7 ho Address: I tz �Vl Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): lNoe/ Legal Description of property proposed for variance: ZD45, V0 Street Address: x2401 � 03 d - Nl✓ bio a �a -3S`�'�cc oned /UE Presently Z : ► ' °"`/ ^� 55��! 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 distinguishe from a mere inconvenience,should the applicab}e ordinance''/be strictly enforced. H;wbA-it ; jF.-5 t� oT 51 icer Lek c (�i!' e G'a T qy/// v", �r IoafCOr -// - 1`J �(0 l+'ti �I�M,�ar /i7?�5 -%,P.. L'vytC✓�l� . Y�u.l !M!J Ivl z��.,jh-c�-1/r�� •e,�'�vi9 G�a 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. ,?(' vr��na� Ci�Guraa�f�aKr�� �1 ccn;ec, Lal=e v�LI me b/ i pwiv%ker /�-ea --s. 6nl& wi�� � /'T'A4 � � �.0r 1'M r; > SCI�or uQ) (fie .�� k��r kea�s w►j �e gc.� �� �0 �►'� C)SOS°t� 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. ©.,-d( ; UJee. lie)ie�e - 2 c+ 04�,�c'e-46I- �.K� r. 1 i on �;blL IDIcovi,es cid xo� a,��,cl �� ���I�r -Fro �• -- � Si e 07 -12-05 * 100 . 000K i �I ' •rsi �r - I VIP .I ,l .' _ _.. ♦ ,gllrl� 5111 �;� ertih■ i MINNESOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OPUBLIC °F State Fire Marshal Division 444 Cedar Street, Suite 145, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-5145 Phone: 651/215-0500 FAX: 651/215-0525 TTY: 651/282/6555 IDP Internet: hfp://www.dps.state.mn.us Barbecues and Open Flames on Balconies and Patios Alcohol& Gambling Enforcement Every summer, barbecue grills reappear on the balconies and patios of multi-family dwellings for another season of outdoor cooking. The use and storage of solid fuel or Bureau of cookie equipment on atios and balconies has resulted, however, in a number Criminal propane gP Apprehension of fires in the state of Minnesota. Capitol Security In many towns and cities,this practice is prohibited by local ordinance or by adoption of Crime Victim Appendix H in the 2003 Minnesota State Fire Code (MSFC). The fire code does not Services prohibit barbecue grills on balconies and patios of multi-family occupancies unless the Driver&Vehicle local governing body has formally adopted MSFC (03)Appendix H. Services Emergency Here is a reprint of the text of Minnesota State Fire Code Appendix H: Management Emergency Appendix H Fires or Barbecues on Balconies or Patios Response Commission 1.1 Open Flame Prohibited. In any structure containing three or more State Fire dwellingunits no person shall kindle, maintain or cause an fire or en Marshall ' P y P Pipeline Safety flame on any balcony above ground level, or on any ground floor patio within 15 feet of a structure. State Patrol Traffic Safety 1.2 Fuel Storage Prohibited.No person shall store or use any fuel,barbecue, torch, or other similar heating or lighting chemical or device in the locations designated in Section 1.1. Exception: Listed electric or gas-fired barbecue grills that are permanently mounted and wired or plumbed to the building's gas supply or electrical system and that maintain a minimum clearance of 18 inches on all sides,unless listed for lesser clearances, may be installed on balconies and patios when approved by the chief. An option available to local jurisdictions that have not adopted Appendix H is to encourage NaNTIEapartment building owners to incorporate language into their leases that prohibits barbecue s "n grills from being used or stored on balconies and patios. To determine if an ordinance regulating open fires on balconies or patios has been adopted where you live, contact your local fire marshal or fire department. SFMD Fact Sheet INS-FACT-14 March 31,2003 Page 1 of 2 SFMD Fact Sheet INS-FACT-14 March 31,2003 Page 2 of 2 Barbecuing in any environment presents certain hazards that people should consider so that they can take precautions to reduce the likelihood of starting a fire. Here are a few tips that can help make barbecuing safer. • Charcoal briquettes should be stored in a dry area because damp or wet charcoal is sensitive to spontaneous heating once dried. • The use and storage of barbecue grills should be restricted to the out-of-doors. Never use barbecue grills for home heating or indoor cooking. • Charcoal briquettes should be allowed to cool naturally a safe distance from structures and combustible materials and then disposed of properly. • Charcoal lighter fluid should be properly stored, away from living areas of the home. • Propane cylinders shall be stored outside at least 20 feet from building openings such as windows and doors [NFPA 58 (2001) Section 5-3.4]. If you have any questions relating to the adoption of fire code appendices or any other code issue,please contact the State Fire Marshal Division at(651) 215-0500 and ask for a code specialist. You can also email questions to firecode(a,state.mn.us, or visit our web page at www.fire.state.mn.us for the latest information on fire in Minnesota. aill lit ® tfflael July 12, 2005 Mr. Len Pratt Silver Lake Homes I, LLC 24 University Avenue NE, #150 Minneapolis, MN 55413 RE: Variance Petition for Silver Lake Homes, 38th Avenue NE and 39th Avenue NE Dear Mr. Pratt: Enclosed please find a receipt for the $100 check that the City received from your office via US Postal Service to be applied to the fees for a Petition of Variance to the City's ordinance restriction to grills on balconies of multi-family structures. Several weeks ago, I spoke with your architect, verbally outlined the process and the timing of variance request submittals. I took the opportunity of writing this letter to acknowledge receipt of the aforementioned payment and variance request application. By Minnesota statute, the City is required to take action on zoning and land use planning applications within 60 days of acceptance of the application. Since this petition requires that the City hold a public hearing, the Statutes also require that we publish a public notice of public hearing for two weeks prior to the date of the regularly scheduled meeting. Since this petition requires that the City hold a public hearing, the Statutes also require that we publish a public notice of the public hearing for two weeks. That notice for your petition will be submitted to the City's legal newspaper for publication the week of July 25th- The public hearings are held by the Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled monthly meetings. The next meeting that will comply with the statutory requirements for this petition is August 16, 2005. This meeting will be 36 days from receipt of the fee and petition, which was July 12, 2005. On the Tuesday following the Planning Commission meeting, August 23`d, the City Council will consider the recommendation for action from the Planning Commission and the Council's action will produce a final disposition of your petition. While it's not part of the formal public process, the City would like to encourage you to attend a concept review of your proposal on July 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. This meeting is 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony,Minnesota 55418-1699•www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us •(612)789-8881 •FAX(612)781-9323 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community,a walkable village, which is safe and secure. Page 2 of 2 intended to give the applicant an opportunity to present their proposal to the Planning Commission and participate in an informal discussion with the Commissioners of the proposal. Some applicants use this meeting to receive feedback on their proposal that they use to prepare for the public hearing process. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at City Hall, 612-782-3312 or via e-mail kmoore@a,ci.saint-anthony.mn.us. Sincerely, Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager Enc. cc: Carrie, Hunt & Associates H:\Letters\P1ammng\2005\071205 Pratt Acknowledgment Letter Format.doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: N/A From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager i0 Date: July 19, 2005 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Revisions The following is a list of revisions that have been suggested by Staff, residents,the City Attorney and Commissioners. Earlier this spring, the Planning Commission asked Staff to compile all the suggestions, including the previous Assistant City Manager's file, and schedule a time to discuss these proposals. The following are what have been submitted: Amend Section 1660 - Regarding Conformity language (City Attorney) Accessory Uses (ACM) Customary Home Occupations as Accessory Use (ACM) Non-Commercial Opinion Sign Ordinance (City Attorney-information) Amend Section 810 to include language allowing native prairie plants (Resident) Amend City's Code regarding hot tubs and swimming pools (Resident) Listing of Ordinance language clean-up from the Fire Department(staff) Listing of possible Revisions/Additions (Planning Commission?) H:\Plannmg\Staff Repo rts\2 00 5\07 1905 Ordinance Revision Information.doc ` Lindgren, Jay From: Gilligan, Jerome Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:38 PM To: Lindgren,Jay Subject: Nonconforming uses Here is current law(462.357, subd 1e)with respect to nonconforming uses: Subd. 1 e. Non conformities. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair,replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (1) the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or(2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, a municipality may impose reasonable conditions upon a building.permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or gecupancy. A municipality may,by ordinance,permit an expansion or impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. Under this law and Sectio nI660City Code the cemetery is permitted to repair, replace and improve its property. Any expansion would need a variance. Section 1660 of City Code probably should be amended to conform with this section since it still has the provision of prior Minnesota law at i more an o of fair marIceFvalue o noncon ormmg use is removed or destroyed perrrntte noncon orm n nds. f ") VSA �f 2�( I d V1o�C ah at N» 14 WI-e i� Y � Y' 08/26/04 THU 10:46 FAX. 6123402643 0 005 Land Use,Platting and Zoning 850.11 City of Edina growing season. The grooving season guarantee period for plant material installed after June 1 shall begin the following year. 850.11 Single Dwelling Unit District Subd. 1 Principal Uses. A. Buildings containing not more than one dwelling wait. B. Publicly owned parks; playgrounds and athletic facilities. C. publicly and privately owned golf courses, but not including driving ranges or miniature golf courses as'a principal use. Subd. 2 Conditional Uses. A. Religious institutions; including churches, synagogues, chapels and temples. B. Elementary schools, junior high schools and senior high schools having a regular course of study: accredited by the Minnesota Department of Education, preschools and community centers. C. Publicly owned and:operated civic and cultural institutions including, but not limited to, administrative Off-Ices, libraries, public safety buildings and places of assembly. D. Golf course club houses. E. Parking facilities and other uses which are accessory to conditional uses including, but not limitedto, n�series andvate daY care�Permitt�by paragraph eri and nunneries, but excluding pre. C. of Subd. 3 of this Subsection 850.11. F. Temporary Conditional Uses allowed pursuant to Subd. 5 of Subsection 850.04. G. Day care facilities, pre-schools and nursery schools. Subd. 3 Accessory Uses. A. The following accessory uses are permitted on the same lot as a single dwelling unit building, 1. Accessory garages. 2. Greenhouses, garden houses, decks, patios and gazebos. 3. Tool houses and sheds for the storage of domestic supplies. 4. Private swimming pools, tennis courts and other recreational facilities 850-60 Supplement 2002-2 08/26/04 THU 10:46 FAX. 6123402643 Ca 006 City of Edina Land Use,Platting and Zoning 850.11 for use only by residents of the principal use and their guests. 5. Improvements customarily incidental to single dwelling unit buildings including, but not limited to driveways, sidewalks, flagpoles and clotheslines. 6. Customary home occupations. 7. Day care facilities, licensed:by the State, located within the single dwelling unit building. 8. Temporary retail sales of evergreen products from Conditional Use properties pursuant to a permit issued in accordance with this Subsection 850.11 A,_ Uses and facilities accessory to and on the same lot as a golf course, including maintenance buildings, golf driving ranges, swimming pools, tennis courts and other gelated recreational facilities. B. Preschools, nurseries and day care .within elementary, junior high and senior high schools and religious institutions. C. Rooms for residential occupancy by persons employed by religious institutions or golf courses. Subd. 4 Interim Uses of Elementary, Jutdor and Senior High School Buildings Owned by Independent School District No. 273. A. purpose and Intent. The Council recognizes that several public elementary, junior high and sedior high school buildings owned by Independent School District No. 273 (the "School District") have been, or will be, wholly or partly closed for public education purposes due to the: decreasing school age population of the School District. It:further recognizes that many such buildings will be retained in School District ownership in order that they may be reused for public education purposes in the future if the School District's school-age population increases_ Therefore, the Council has determined;that the school buildings should be allowed to be temporarily occupied by appropriate uses during this interim period in order to preserve a substantial public investment, to prevent the deterioration of such public properties thereby adversely impacting surrounding private properties, to prevent an undue:financial burdenupon the School District, and to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City. However, it is not the purpose and intent of this Section to allow the permanent reuse of such public school buildings for the interim uses permitted or allowed by this Section. B. Permitted Interim 'Uses. 1. Schools for teaching music; dance, arts or business vocations which do not require a conditional use permit pursuant to paragraph D. of Subd. 4 of this Subsection 850.11; and 2. Administrative offices and: meeting rooms (excluding lodge halls) for 850-61 Supplement 2002-2 08/26/04 THU 10:45 FAX 6123402643 0002 City of Edina Land Use,Platting and zoning 850.07 850.07 General Requirements Applicable to all Districts Except as Otherwise Stated. Subd. 1 General. No building or structure shall be erected, constructed or placed on any property in the City, and no building or structure or property in the City shall be used for any purpose, unless in full compliance with. the restrictions and requirements of this Section and other applicable provisions of this Code. Subd. 2 Storage of Refuse. A. All Properties Except Single Dwelling Unit and Double Dwelling Unit Buildings. All refuse, as defined. in Section 705 of this Code, or similar material shall be kept within closed containers designed for such purpose. The containers shall not be located in 'the front yard and shall be completely screened from view from all lot lines and streets. B. All Non-Residential Properties Within the 50th and France Commercial District. No non-residential building within the 50th and France Planned Commercial. District shall be (i) added to or enlarged in any manner; or (ii) subjected to an alteration whereby the use of any portion of a building is converted to a restaurant without first providing sufficient areas for the storage of refuse and servicing of refuse containers. Areas for the storage of refuse and servicing of refuse containers which existed as of the effective date of this Code shall not be eliminated or reduced in size. C. Single Dwelling Unit and Double Dwelling Unit Buildings. All refuse, as defined in Section 705 of this Code, or similar materials shall be kept within closed containers designed for such purpose. Such containers shall not be located in the front yard and shall not be visible from the front lot line except as allowed by Section 705 of this Code. Subd. 3 Dwelling Units prohibited in Accessory Buildings, Temporary Buildings, Trailers and Recreational Vehicles. No accessory building, temporary building, trailer or recreational vehicle in any district shall be used in whole or in part for a dwelling unit or units, except for accessory buildings which are specifically allowed for residential use by this Section. Subd. 4 Customary Home Occupations as an Accessory Use. A. Customary home occupations which are permitted as an accessory use by this Section shall comply with the following conditions: 1. only the residents of the dwelling unit shall be employed on the lot or within the dwelling unit. 2_ No exterior structural modifications shall be made to change the residential character and appearance of the lot or any buildings or structures ou the lot. 3. No loading, unloading; outdoor storage of equipment or materials, or other outdoor activities, except parking of automobiles shall occur. 850-38 Supplement 2002-2 08/26/04 THU 10:45 FAX 6123402643 _ _ fa 003 Land Use,Platting and Zoning 850.07 City of Edina 4. No signs of any kind shall be used to identify the use. 5. All parking;.demands generated by the use shall be accommodated within l nt at any One the accessory garage and the normal dr p aces in p eway area g s arleasorequired for time occupy more than two parking s multiple residential buildings. 6. No more than ten automobile trips weekly by individuals other than the ated to the dwelling unit as a result residents of the,-dwelling unit shall be gener of the use. 7_ No sale o(products or merchandise shall occur on the lot or within any structures or bildings on the lot. B. permitted custornaTy home occupations include the following and similar occupations if, and only during such times as, they comply with all of the conditions ' of paragraph A. of this Subd. 4: t 1. Dressmakers, tailors and seamstresses. music and t 2. In single dwelling unit and double dwelling unit buildings only, t dance teachers providing instruction to not more than five individuals at a { T time. 3. Artists, sculptors and authors.. i 4. insurance : agents, brokers, architects and similar Professionals who t typically conduct client meetings outside of the dwelling unit. 5. Ministers,'.rat)bis and priests. t 6. Photographeis providing service to one customer at a time. t 7. Salespersons; provided that no stock in trade is maintained on the lot or in the building pr structure on the lot. 8. In single duelling unit and double dwelling unit buildings only, rental of rooms for residential occupancy to dnot more ents of the an two dwelling ns per dwelling unit in addition to the pernnanerat res; C. The followin g;uses have a tendency to increase in size or intensity beyond the conditions impose;d �y this Subd. 4 for home occupations and thereby adversely affect residential ;properties. 'Therefore, the following shall specifically not be permitted as customary home occupations: 1. Barber shops and beauty'parlors. 2. Repair services of all kinds, including, without linutation, auto repair and plia'at painting, apce repair and small engine repair. 3. Music, dance or exercise instruction which provides instruction to groups of more than life individuals at a time.. 850-39 Supplement 2003-02 08/26/04 THU 10:46 FAX. 6123402643 IM 004 Land-Use,Platting and Zoning 850.07 City of Edina 4. Medical and dental offices. 5. Upholstering 6. Mortuaries. . 7. Commercial kennels as defined by Subsection 300.01 of the City Code. 8. Tourist homes, boarding houses or rooming houses, and other kinds of transient oceupaxtcies. 9. Commercial.food preparation or catering. 10.Automobile:and equipment sales. 11.Landscaping and lawn maintenance service where landscaping materials and equipment are stored or parked on the premises. D. Permitted customary home occupations by. residents who are physically unable to be employed full time outside their residence may be allowed as a temporary conditional use, with variances from the conditions of paragraph A. of Subd. 4 of this Subsection 850.07, pursuant to the provisions of Subd. 5 of Subsection 850.04. Subd. 5 Fences in the R-1 and R-2 Districts. Fences erected in the R-1 District and R-2 District shall conform to the following: A. Fences exceeding four feet in height shall not be erected within a required front street setback or side street setback, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 2. of Subd. 7 of Subsection 850.11. B. No fence shall exceed eight feet in height. C. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties. D. No fence shall-be installed 'oso as ostruct a n 1405 oof lusCode- required clear view at street intersections as regwred by Sect Subd. 6 Exceptions to Setback Requirements. The following shall Dot be considered as encroachments into required setbacks: A. Overhanging eaves not supported bposts rerthan three feetrs, and int the required ay windows not extending to the floor, which do project setback and which arc not within three feet of a lot line. B. Sidewalks and driveways, but not patios. C. Fences which do not exceed the height limitations imposed by this Subsection 850.07. D. Awnings and canopies attached to the principal building and not supported by posts or pillars, which do not project more than three feet into the required setback Supplement 2003-02 850-40 MEMORANDUM TO: Sue Hall FROM: Jerome P. Gilligan DATE: August 2, 2004 RE: Proposed Non-Commercial Opinion Sign Ordinance Enclosed please find a proposed Non-Commercial Opinion Sign Ordinance for consideration by the City Council. This proposed ordinance is drafted to address constitutionality concerns related to the treatment of opinion signs in the City's current sign ordinance. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a person's ability to express their views, but does not guarantee an absolute right to anyone to express their views at any place, at any time, and in any way they want. The well-established test for assessing the validity of time, place and manner restrictions requires that the restriction be content-neutral, be narrowly tailored to meet a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative means of communication. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 101 L.Ed.2d 420, 108 S.Ct. 2495 (1988). The First Amendment forbids government from regulating speech in ways that favor some points of view or ideas at the expense of others. Accordingly, Minnesota courts have consistently held that restrictions on speech must be content-neutral. Brayton v. City of New Brighton, 519 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. App.1994). In the Brayton case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that a New Brighton sign ordinance did not violate first amendment principles of free expression, despite a numerical limitation. The Court distinguished the New Brighton ordinance with a Minneapolis ordinance at issue in a case it decided four years earlier in which signs expressing opinions critical of the city government were completely prohibited. Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456 N.W.2d 460 (Minn.App.1990). In the Goward case, the Court found that the Minneapolis ordinance placed a total ban on a particular category of speech, specifically, opinion signs, and therefore was content-based and unconstitutional. Id. at 465. In Brayton, the Court distinguished the New Brighton ordinance from the Minneapolis ordinance as the former did not totally ban anything, but rather, expressly allowed opinion signs subject only to certain reasonable restrictions. In summary, restrictions on opinion signs are a burden on speech and therefore must be content-neutral. Complete prohibitions on particular categories of speech, such as opinion signs, have been held to be content-based and thus unconstitutional. Conversely, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on opinion signs have been upheld. In Chapter 1400 of the St. Anthony Village City Code, the Sign Ordinance, Section 1400.07 Prohibited Signs. provides that"[s]igns that are not specifically permitted in this DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Chapter are hereby prohibited." Opinion signs are not specifically permitted and are thereby effectively prohibited. St. Anthony's total ban on opinion signs is analogous to the Minneapolis ordinance in the Goward case and, therefore, is subject to the same constitutional concerns. 2 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP CITY OF ST. ANTHONY ORDINANCE 2004- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO NON-COMMERCIAL OPINION SIGNS AMENDING SECTIONS 1400.04 AND 1400.08 OF THE ST. ANTHONY CITY CODE The City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby ordains: Section 1. Section 1400.04 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by adding a new subdivision 18 and renumbering the subsequent subdivisions, to read as follows: 1400.04 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms have the meanings given them in this Section: Subd. 1. Advertising Message. That copy on a sign describing products or services being offered to the public. Subd. 2. Animated Sign. A sign which includes action or motion. Subd. 3. Billboard. A sign erected for the purpose of advertising a product, event, person or subject not entirely related to the premises on which the sign is located. Subd. 4. Business Frontage. The linear frontage of that portion of a building facing the right-of-way and occupied by one separate business. Subd. 5. Canopy. A permanent roof structure attached to and supported by the building. Subd. 6. Changeable Copy Sign. Any sign which is characterized by changeable copy, letters or symbols, regardless of method of attachment. Subd. 7. Directional Sign. An on-premises sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Subd. 8. Electric Sign. Any sign containing electrical wiring but not including signs illuminated by an exterior light source. Subd. 9. Flags. Devices generally made of flexible materials, such as cloth, paper or plastic, and displayed on poles, strings or wires,but excluding the flag of any country or state. Subd. 10. Flashing Sign. An illuminated sign which contains flashing lights or exhibits noticeable changes in light intensity. Subd. 11. Ground Sign. Any sign which is freestanding by virtue of being structurally independent of any structure or object, and is affixed to the ground by means of a base with no visibility between the bottom of the sign and the base on which it is attached, and landscaped to enhance the appearance of the signage. Subd. 12. Historical Identification Symbols. Those symbols which have historically been identified with the service the establishment provides, are common to similar enterprises in all other localities and are not a particular trademark or business identification. Subd. 13. Illuminated Sian. A sign designed to give forth any artificial or reflected light, either directly from a source connected with the sign or indirectly from an artificial source, so shielded that no direct illumination from it is visible except on the sign and in its immediate proximity. Subd. 14. Identification Sian. A sign which contains no advertising but is limited to the name, address and number of a building, institution or person and to the activity carried on in the building or institution or the occupation of the person. Subd. 15. Major Anchor. A single tenant in a shopping center that is at least 20% of the total square footage and in excess of 50,000 square feet. Subd. 16. Marquee. Any permanent roof—like structure projecting beyond a building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of the building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather. Subd. 17. Marquee Sign. Any sign attached to, in any manner, or made a part of a marquee. Subd. 18. Non-Commercial Opinion Sign. Any sign which is not a commercial sign and which expresses an opinion which is deemed by the State or federal courts to have greater protection under the constitution of the United States or the State than a commercial sign. For purposes of this definition a commercial sign is any sign which advertises or identifies a product, business, building, place,service,event or any other matter or thing of a commercial nature,even though the matter or thing may be related to or involve a non-profit organization. Subd. 19. Pedestal. A foundation or base of a ground sign which either directly supports the signage or completely screens the supporting members of the sign. Subd. 20. Person. An individual, firm, association, organization, partnership, trust or corporation. Subd. 21. Political Sian. Any sign which states the name or picture of an individual seeking election or appointment to a public office, or pertaining to a forthcoming public election or referendum, or pertaining to or advocating political views or policies erected on private property, which is erected by a bona fide candidate for political office or by a person or group supporting such a candidate and which contains the name of the person or group chairman responsible for the erection and removal of the sign. 2 Subd. 22. Pylon Sign. Any sign which is freestanding by virtue of being structurally independent of any structure or object other than uprights, braces or poles, without guywires or pedestal. Subd. 23. Projecting Sign. A sign other than a wall sign, which is affixed to a building and projects outward more than 15 inches from the building wall or structure. Subd. 24. Public Service Sign. Any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to the community. Subd. 25. Real Estate Sign. A sign pertaining to the sale, lease or rental of the real estate upon which it is located. Subd. 26. Roof Line. The uppermost line of the roof of a building, or in the case of an extended facade, the uppermost height of the facade. Subd. 27. Roof Sign. A sign erected upon the roof or parapet of a building, the entire face of which is situated above the roof level of the building to which it is attached, and which is wholly or partially supported by the building. Subd. 28. ShoppingCenter. Any shopping center as defined in Section 1635.05, Subd. 8. Subd. 29. S.�. Any structure, device, advertisement or visual representation intended to visually advertise, identify or communicate information, or to visually attract the attention of the public for any purpose unless located within a building and not visible from the exterior of the building. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the term includes any symbols, letters, figures, illustrations or forms painted, or otherwise affixed to a building or structure, any beacon or search light intended to attract the attention of the public for any purpose, and any structure or device the prime purpose of which is to border, illuminate, animate or project a visual representation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term sign shall not include official notices issued by any court or governmental body, notices posed by a public official in the performance of official duties, or traffic control signs established pursuant to governmental authority. Subd. 30. Sign Surface Area. The area in square feet of the smallest rectangular figure which circumscribes the area enclosed by the actual copy of a sign including both sides of a sign with copy on both sides and including border and trim of the sign. The supports, uprights or structures in which any sign is supported will not be included in determining the sign area. Subd. 31. Street. A public highway, road, alley or thoroughfare. Subd. 32. Strip Mall. Any group of four or more occupant retail or service establishments on one or more contiguous tracts of land in single ownership, compromising 7,500 to 75,000 square feet of floor area with parking provided on the tract _. or tracts of land for use in common by patrons. 3 Subd. 33. Temporary Sign. Any sign, banner, pennant, valance or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric or cardboard, wallboard or other light materials with or without frames; intended to be displayed for a limited period of time only. Subd. 34. Wall Sign. A flat sign which does not extend more than 18 inches from the face or wall of the building upon which it is affixed, painted or attached, running parallel for its whole length to the face or wall of the building, and which does not extend beyond the horizontal width of such building. Subd. 35. Wall Surface. The total surface area of the building face to which the sign is attached, including windows and door areas, measured to the extreme outer limits of the wall surface. Subd. 36. Window Sign. A sign affixed to or inside a window in view of the general public, but excluding merchandise on display. Subd. 37. Professional Building. Any multi-story building of 50,000 square feet or more occupied by professional service oriented businesses, such as legal, clinical or health care related retail or service establishments with parking provided on the tract of land for use in common by patrons and occupants. Subd. 38. Electronic Message Sign. Any sign that displays a message electronically through the use of light emitting diodes (LED's). Section 2. Section 1400.08 of the St. Anthony City Code shall be amended, by adding a new subdivision 16, to read as follows: 1400.08 Signs Requiring No Permits. Signs described in this Chapter, if they meet all other requirements of this Chapter, may be erected without a sign permit. Subd. 1. Political Signs. All political signs of any size may be posted from August 1 in a State General election year until 10 days following the State General Election. For Local Elections, which are usually held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of odd numbered years, all political signs of any size may be posted four weeks prior to a Local Election until five days following a Local Election. Political signs are not allowed to be placed within ten feet from the curb and ten feet from the property lines. If political signs are placed in violation of these setbacks, they will be removed by the City Code Inspector. Subd. 2. Directional Signs. Directional signs having a surface area not greater than 5 square feet. Subd. 3. Construction Signs. Signs denoting the architect, engineer, or contractor, when placed upon work under construction, provided that the total sign surface area of all such 4 signs does not exceed the greater of 12 square feet or a ratio of one square foot of sign surface per 100 square feet of floor space in the construction project, up to a maximum of 32 square feet. Subd. 4. Memorial Signs. Memorial signs or tablets, or names of buildings and date of erection when cut into a masonry surface or constructed of metal or stone and attached to the building, not exceeding a sign surface area of 4 square feet. Subd. 5. Identification Signs. One identification sign per residential dwelling unit, which sign shall not exceed a sign surface area of 4 square feet per surface and shall have no more than two sign surfaces, and one address sign on the curb in front of each dwelling unit. Subd. 6. Freestanding_Signs. Freestanding signs for garage sales or similar events occurring within the corporate limits of the City, not exceeding 4 square feet in sign surface area, erected on private property with permission of the land owner, and displayed for not more than 3 consecutive days. Subd. 7. Window Signs. Temporary or permanent window signs duly authorized by zoning and other laws of this City, provided that all such signs on a frontage shall not have a total sign surface area greater than 50% of the glass area, excluding doors, on such frontage and provided that a minimum of one-half of the open window space must be below a horizontal line which is 5 feet above the interior floor of the commercial establishment. Merchandise displays in windows shall not be considered a part of the sign area if such display is not intended to be continued for a period of more than 8 weeks. Subd. 8. On-Site Temporary Subdivision Signs. One on-site temporary sign advertising a group of lots for sale within a subdivision or group of houses for sale within a housing project, provided that the total area of such sign shall not exceed 64 square feet with no single dimension in excess of 16 feet. The display of such sign shall be limited to a 6— month period. At the expiration of such period, the applicant may request a further extension of time, otherwise the sign must be removed. Subd. 9. Temporary Signs, other than Political Signs. Temporary signs, other than political signs, pertaining to drives or events of civic, philanthropic, educational or religious organizations, provided permission of the Council must be obtained to erect such signs upon or over public property and provided further that such signs shall not be erected or posted for a period of more than 14 days prior to the date of the event and must be removed within 3 days after the event. If prior permission is not obtained from the City Manager, the sign shall be removed immediately. Subd. 10. Temporary_Commercial Signs. Signs which do not have a sign surface area in excess of 32 square feet and which are erected or displayed for a period of time not to exceed 30 days in any year. Permission of the City Manager must be obtained to erect such signs. If prior permission is not obtained from the City Manager, the sign must be removed immediately. 5 Subd. 11. Flags and Emblems. Flags and emblems of governmental, civic, philanthropic,educational or religious organizations. Flags of the United States, the state, the city, foreign nationals having diplomatic relations with the United States, and any other flag adopted or sanctioned by an elected legislative body or competent jurisdiction, provided that such a flag shall not exceed 60 square feet in area and shall not be flown from a pole the top of which is more than 40 feet in height. These flags must be flown in accordance with protocol established by the Congress of the United States for the Stars and Stripes. Any flag not meeting any one or more of these conditions shall be considered a temporary sign and shall be subject to regulation as such. Subd. 12. Residential Real Estate Si ns. Real estate signs, provided the combined sign surface area of such is not greater than 6 square feet. Real estate signs must be removed within 7 days after the closing date. Subd. 13. Commercial Real Estate Signs. Real estate signs erected on private property, provided the combined sign surface area is not greater than 32 square feet. Real estate signs must be removed within 7 days after the closing date. Subd. 14. Signs Affixed on Benches at Public Bus Stops. Subd. 15. Replacement of Existing Business Identification Signs. A business identification sign designed to replace an existing business identification sign which lawfully exists under this Code, so long as the new sign has the same dimensions and is in the same location as the existing sign, and is not a prohibited sign under Section 1400.007. Subd. 16. Non-Commercial ®pinion Signs. Subject to the provisions of Sections 1400.06 and 1400.07,non-commercial opinion signs are permitted as follows: A. In all residential districts subject to the following restrictions: R-1,R-1A and R-2 All other Districts 1. Maximum size 6 sq.ft. 15 sq.ft. 2. Maximum number 1 per lot 1 per lot 3. Maximum height 6 feet 6 feet B. All non-residential districts are subject to the following restrictions: 1. Maximum size 16 sq.ft. 2. Maximum number 1 per lot 3. Maximum height 6 feet 6 Section 3. 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 , 2004. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Passage by City Council: , 2004. Publication in St. Anthony Bulletin: , 2004. 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: 09/15/04 MEETING DATE: 09/21/04 TO: Chair Stromgren & Planning Commission Members FROM: Susan M.H. Hall, Assistant City Manager t_—_ SUBJECT: Petition by Tony Jordan, 2813 Silver Lake Road Requested Action: Tony Jordan, 2813 Silver Lake Road, has approached city staff about amending City Ordinance Section 810 to include language about native prairies being allowed. City staff has suggested he start with the Planning Commission to begin the conversation. Mr. Jordan has provided the attachments. Background: Section 810 of the City Ordinance relates to weed control (see attached). The maximum height provided in the ordinance for weeds is 6 inches (810.03). The prairie plantings that Mr. Jordan refers to are taller than the maximum height allowed. Variances can only be made to Chapter 16, the City's Zoning Code. Therefore, Mr. Jordan would need to request a text amendment to the City Ordinance. The Planning Commission will probably want to study the issue in some fashion, as has been the case with similar requests, before giving a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments: • Submission by Tony Jordan • Section 810—Sidewalks and Weed Control '` '•I a ra.,':.= s y(':'w .rr•"ti_.Ate.,.,l .� 'iz.x.tavw at, s r �» '�, �` „,'a a '5 bSa�' "t- �, Wiz. r7r`-1 i•. s M ..z �':�j-..� ,':.. , s yA dY bx tit n2 �.� S ..�: xs L � r �.,. 7 r'3-'� .p y^f,+h.,=H Com' � 4Y -�u$'� ; „`.''�,`�'^, '' '�.C+.�' -'�.' C i ti.;_. G-�t 4 � s�da„c � , " }`.: tj+c_ }� -;-t4 r e.' .'�2`^'. 'x r' an•''$' ,.., wk� mss.. f' f,'1tsr'sc. "°'fit.. Y"'. '.�'i`.,,n, ,c �k ,y,. _ Y s :4'4 Gtr \ i ` ''� `T$ y c,.� 'yl•- c__ 3 'a�rai f va„ �1 ,.,..m-„-1 s +c i Tr t 4�, e E Y �'� It r ri. ,. ...,s..:.M ',.y r ;eL'` N.--�' �'e,.-` - - - _ $ L +�c .;rc s` �-=-:. _ 1.1. i t _ ,., �, . .. .. % - . _ ... :i:• .. - _. _ - --�Y,.-._ .y " .:... -..:%'e S e 4 .•. ' S y- 1. �. -.. : : ra n 2 . —rair._ ie e1.s o, o s , % c . -�: '.—�-..'-" Restoring native plant con�rin5. ities since 1977 M _ i �. _ z u ' f A - t� P r ' F .f, }t ' - " 1 ...1 - r } r = _ - �, . - +� _ r �� ti .. I- . I ..' ... % -'-. -'.lj'-'�� �N� V��f- , �' � ---�' 4*-" � � L` �- r f' - z s� r t� R a� — . �,.r .. 1 - c� rd /. ;,1 r 1 , �. _ � `, e '�r,. �. _ 7 _ + - = v a ♦ t M -. i -:.> - _ - _ f. . . 0 _ '- d. � :.: �� , '_ :,: . -' *. - , i. 11 ., sF .- .. rY i T: _ - . s _ .- = 4 - - - . ; -. - - ' . ,.3 �rT 1 �.�— - 1-1- . - .. .. — . .%, � . ` _ :. ,! , — . - , . . .. — . - ... . �. - '­�- - - .. .1 — . - — .1 . ' C — -- , — - ­ I . -1. I -� . . ?."".:. .. , � ! —.. �- . ;".--..�--."- �— - ; I . — �.. ., .. .. . � - : ..1, . - ,?� '; — --., %m . — � '.. - ... .. , . 1 . ... -'-, -- - ...—� ' I . z; - .� : -, .1, -.; .� . " t .,:-. I - 1 � 1-1 ..� ..... - .. I i - mo;,. Z , I .. :. --� . ---, - — r. I - !": .- ;%� . .. I �. It , . 1 . '� � �e— i . :. - .. . 1 7i . .. - - : . . ..' - - `­ ' I-� .— ... .—.1-1— .. . . I -.:. -_ �_ F -.. . ,—, �'-- _' : - - . . .. .— " %' ;. —. .I -- 11 - — -1 — I ; II . . .- —1 — — , . 2004 -- - ' '2005 . I .— .- A ". . �� — ,::" . . I 7. I. . I PURPOSE; SERVICES,- PRODUCTS, . . S Tia�y-'�r �� •n, ry, .; ,�'se'x, fi--1 .ay'+� ..,�i OW - 100 ��Y.r r� tip' �, N � h t*=F-'Y -t , —, , Pl, .-�i tie t r l M,'f�" :r a `.c z•'s`w .r'�' s x �-.�'ra cs •4 aw a71 rY +# ,_, r' 1 ? • • •" -• • "• • eR S I 'h it '' 1/ •• • • ••• • • • ••• • 1 I 1 i .'` l l if{' • • • • • tIt ryh I I I I �', , A- II Y I r, ,4 F r r. I e li 4r. 1� I\ Ir I� I I �1) k r • • • .. f s c l li it aI/ �1 I.a 1 .I : �. , " e)t - �,...Il;{I 11� �,-; + i1 - a "t� I 1 R tr' • • �I I, , ,!I /c IJr � III' tit 7 / • • • • - • •- G V�,�ya;1 It, ,, ' GI. I I r 1 a, c . f 'r �II/ ' r iqr , I . S i I.: �,!i x,.111`\ 11 r , r '2I •� i, M1. a I' • •• • -• • • •'• • t-+ - 1 I:- ir,l•f' i 1 .Jy} I 1/1 k- i, e f / rel c: lr rl�j \' •• • • • • •• i I�._.' .<..I I 1 r ( ,F %Irtl -fh '79 c S �t `j - - 1'', ll �t a f l I • • • • • • rt7 I ' / �. t.. \ I r 7I'a . A I \ill i, � . 1 I ' / _ • •- • • • • • •• • • '`.. I ' !:i4 L. / - JAI / /. ,. -;k„ _ r 1' • • ••" • ;l I4 j; ,I. -� ,6 �r rv�i < U 1 \ rr� 11 n.,.e s1 .1 \i, a 0 • .• !••• • • \. ..�( '.r rr -rr _ .- 1ir � . 1� h. •••• • • • •. • •" {. \z- 1.1. J1. • • • • • •• • • •.l \ ,I I_ ,\ t, \` ;,. . ' ." i s I. • • . • • • I J. i i +. I •I I o 1 1 I •'I 'I / I' I I . I ..1 1 'I I # I + I I I I I I , • t• I• d I r • I�-I ❑p7 I rr i ` 1 tl Jf 1� 1L If It ��x r{f I I )A -SIJ ',I 'i,a +-r��?�t -�� ifii�6 i'.-`�r,o-� - f _ - -. 1 rb tr?I�4r ,SI,r?7 r e I� �� R-f fF1j-''1 r�0�✓' L'`�'J��sr--)tt sso - r Y,1 ; �, I,�d+,trf� {'iso 7fi�f l'b� ,k �c.; 1.Ff 1 I`1 I`IP-TTS i �7 ;1-'lg-dS+�IyF,ft `� r-- ..�tl Fay i{rrf �iD�r'r �C. s I '+ h 7 f. "`' -C�I�i of 9 rt rs-.. k J ak' u its I h -a �L i A hula I ski 5 !'Ef f ''F �I�F 1 6 ` P IF.Cryo -����I , _I�'a -} 91��SJ ,(c �- I i�! 4u�T r �• �4 L`i r 3�Y �a- Y iT Y tJ I°III ,3 Dk Tr fry, �z�t 1 f1 T -.ti - c -. Iaw�i �,P -r pltit ,`� L ItrTr� 'r�^ 't i.c ?Y cL 1�� ,P.t T�rr� tl .111 'l � ar �, r' 1 r'q � � �, �11 a, >�. _ r`�. r- Wi t 5,1P, at 3 . .S F '4 4�.+k is �N tI D N i.,i 1 iG ' - - - e -- _ - -r - F LtC r sl t r I''.!� �� ek- '� Jrl .i( Err? 1r7tty � ;�fl ri ),�1 j' S. C.r-t^ t I r,gr"''c >'l t }; L Y u-i�,1 ti .,r �. la 1 v , aY _��ti e . la r" y. ( ,Y (�t if..� ✓=1 > '� t^ �l ">, 11t Y�' .r r - `I` r `'�. -�y .s i i ._._.� I ,3L�_n _ I �I 1' o1 Ili' ti el / 1.t dl �I 5 �at31 71r f I t :_lS/ l f J _xi Y it a it-il�t� 1 lj�� 11� IIfJ1, 115o r r,.,,,i ! a19�' i �J l 10-f T 1 J 5 / r`�illL YY E't I� ..... L,.'_.IJ j F - J -4— 1fir F / yy,-, V J f? ,}r '-3i ALL J 1 rid d6, IlaJ�, iC�)y3 j t r JFt.,_,t t la {-, 1,tr C.,F"t.fLl r3! - (CLM j [ r�1:1t'1-01!,-` 3 - y1 11 \'/ j _ s `' __ I _ F i t.1 6 rJ G k { t,1 If [ v ,d a4a _i. - - 1 - a !r'1r� lis f�(ii r!.i l 7t ifJ�� 1��(-�� �, -fly/ rca lei� ra" _ .J ' l'' a � llzz ale r- , /.L UI�-i� ; � . -.: ;1 �.h>'s 1 I�Gz„ 1L r4{.s �rl . fir s1Y� �,, }3� !Cyr FS ��r 76 f dr] -Y-a n;It* �j v �- < r `'• r FTi r - r s ._,c --J _ i r n. 7 /�1taTT tr�dr> r -* , r i�c �ai I4 f 1� ]mal� ]L al•.��� t?c , rt 1 D yf�'r r 1, 1-n 11 l�C^ .-( {_y v c AA f `_ - -� 5 ?,0. .E �a rG�CJua, I 111_ tiFl� _ r• 17--j- fBr l� ��I �j 9c-fir M-1 1.LlSyv``[nn'+ c�V_, �i IdN , ��3 �_�'��' ' f�� r '�-'J 1 t� aka y���rl 17". .�s�l ll4 a uy��1 ly�zr-F.�JfI ��G �7 .'}�� ryp 9lt �,Ji ri ...,! c What makes F a plant community native? �y Native landscapes consist of diverse, indigenous species that have adapted,over thousands of years, to climatic extremes and local soils. Minnesota has four primary plant communities • PrairieS are open grasslands that occur in relatively dry climates where precipitation levels are generally inadequate for optimum tree growth.The grasses and wildflowers of some prairies are tall and dense while other prairies—depending upon soil and moisture conditions—are sparsely covered with short Savanna — an enchanting mix of trees and prairie. grass and flower species.While pre-settlement Minnesota included nearly 18 million acres of prairie, today only about 150,000 acres remain. • Savannas usually provide the transition between open prairie and woodlands, occurring where precipi- tation can support widely scattered,drought-resistant trees. While prairie grasses and wildflowers dominate the ground cover,scattered bur and pin oaks are not uncommon. PRI's headquarters near Princeton is located on the Anoka Sand Plain in an area that was once savanna. • Woodlands include the mixed conifer forests of northern Minnesota and the deciduous hardwood Woodland— a rich maple—basswood forest. forests of the central and southeast. Forest communities also exhibit diverse characteristics that are dependent on climate, moisture and soil conditions. PRI's enhancement work in woodlands often begins with removal of the aggressive exotic, buckthorn. • Wetlands can occur within any plant community and include plants that adapt best to saturated soil or standing water. Wetlands include marshes, fens and the banks of rivers,streams and lakes. Wetland plant communities are essential to a healthy environment, primarily because of their storage and filtering capacities, and great efforts are necessary to define, protect and restore them. Increasingly, PRI is participat- ing in significant shoreline stabilization projects,as well as the restoration of conventional basin type wetlands. Wetland— a central Minnesota marsh; includes Joe—pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum) and giant sunflower(Helianthus giganteus). 3 Planning, producing, protecting... PRI offers full-service package • installation services • materials access Contracted installations are the heart and soul of Essential to the success of PRI projects is the fact PRI's business. We complete successful projects by that almost all seeds and plants are produced at making the best possible use of the materials, our Princeton, Hawley or Munger sites, meaning techniques and equipment we know will work. they are genuinely site-specific and readily available. PRI has planted more acres, on more sites, using a Because we do not have to rely on other producers, our greater variety of plant materials than any other customers are assured of the availability of the key restoration company in the Upper Midwest. Whether building blocks needed to create successful, diverse, high your project is large or small,there are many quality native landscapes. good reasons to turn to PRI. • expertise • site evaluations and design proposals Our experience with and understanding of native A staff ecologist will inspect your site to learn plant community restorations are extensive. PRI about its soils,slope,size, existing vegetation and knows how to solve problems, improvise when necessary other environmental elements.A list of species and achieve quality results—staking our reputation on specific to your location and an outline of each and every project. We offer a competent full- recommended restoration procedures and materials time staff of 40 educated, experienced, committed will be prepared for you. For public, commercial or individuals who are eager to assure you a success- corporate projects, site evaluations and proposals are ful restoration project. Five service locations posi- free. For residential installations, not involving an tion our crews closer to your project for efficiency architect or landscape architect, a 'lat fee of $100 and economy. is applied against the total cost of PRI-implemented projects. Psst... prairie restoration ir First year prairies are a:nerally mowed once or twice. Second year prairies begin to bloom and show signs of stability. 4 PRI has state—of—the—art equipment for handling prescribed burns. Selective weed control is sometimes necessary in early growing years. Low maintenance, not NO maintenance... Managing your native landscape PRI will evaluate your native or restored site and recommend a specific management strategy to maintain a healthy natural landscape. Services include: • Long-term management plans Well-conceived plans provide a critical link to good resource management. Staff develop practical, realistic plans by assessing site history,existing plant communities, potential management problems and suggesting annual work schedules and manage- ment recommendations. These plans are especially helpful to managers of corporate grounds,business campuses,golf cours- es,parks and large residential sites.' To achieve maximum results we prefer to include landowners and grounds personnel in the planning process. • Prescribed burn management Historically,fires played a significant role in the health of grassland ecosystems by discouraging proliferation of woody plants and exotic species. PRI has the staff, equipment, training and experience to acquire the necessary state and local permits and safely carry out prescribed burns on prairie sites of all types and sizes. • Exotic species control A healthy,natural landscape includes a mix of native plants coexisting in balance with each other and the conditions of the site they occupy. Invasive exotic (non-native) plants can upset this balance by out-competing and displacing native species. Weedy plants like leafy spurge, Canada_thistle, buckthorn and sweet clover are examples of invasive species that pose serious threats to remnant and restored landscapes. PRI has management strategies and services to control these and other exotics. 1rogress; patience required Mature prairies take three or more years to develop into diverse, colorful, low maintenance landscapes. 5 Prairies, wetlands, woodlands, shorelines,.. Not all nature landscapes alike There is a native plant community for every site. extend the period of vulnerability, requiring some While Minnesota ecologists recognize 58 separate special measures such as: cover crops of oats or types, many have been greatly altered from their wheat,and/or light mulching with clean oat, wheat natural state and present serious challenges for or prairie straw. restoration ists. While the methods for restoring some sites may be obvious,other situations present High-traffic areas present special problems. unique challenges requiring special considerations. While native plantings are ecologically sound and require less mainte- In heavily shaded nance than turf, areas competition ---, _ they are not a good from tree roots `= _ �, _� solution in areas of presents a difficult ..= :-r: =,<r- =2 r, fig- heavy foot traffic. challenge, requiring A balance between woodland wildflow- turf areas and ers and other - `- natural areas works shade-tolerant best, the ratio being native plants. Prairie determined by grasses and flowers g - _ ���a =- �� = � individual needs, are sun-loving plants "''' ``L'' '" site constraints and that can adapt to design objectives. edge areas and the Generally,a higher partial shade of percentage of natural open woodlands but area works well on should not be used larger sites while in fully-shaded sites. small, residential In close proximity sites may be most to shallow-rooted successful when less trees like maple and than half the avail- basswood,deep- able area is natural. rooted prairie species are not the Designed areas right choice. often require ongoing However, they are maintenance to hold well suited to land- the desired patterns, scapes with scattered textures and colors deep-rooted oaks. of the design. While non-native In erodible areas ornamentals can be prairie grasses and Prairie smoke (Genum triflorum) seed heads in June. included in these wildflowers are an designs, native excellent solution. Deep root systems hold soil and plants provide an interesting, more natural, less low-maintenance prairie perennials provide ongoing intensively managed alternative. PRI does not use protection from water and wind. However,any non-native ornamentals in designed settings, but we planting on a steep area is vulnerable to washouts occasionally work with other contractors who do. and the slow top growth of prairie perennials may 6 NAnYE Home - kits now available PRAUM PLAfffMC especially for do-it-yourselfers Many homeowners want to develop a self-sustaining natural plant r` community on their own. While it is hard to argue with time and DO NOT OR MOW SPRAY money-saving factors,the benefits of a natural landscape extend far beyond finances and low maintenance weekends. Diverse natural areas enrich both the environment and PRI customers by making optimum use of existing soil 1 and water conditions to provide critical habitat for songbirds, butterflies, wildlife and even essential insects. As plantings mature it is often the colorful, ever-changing beauty of natural landscapes that customers rate as the most significant plus of"going native:' Creating your own natural landscape is a relatively simple task with a PRI Home Prairie IG4 Home Woodland 10t or Shoreline Restoration Kit. Prices and contents differ depending on type and site size but usually include seed mixes, seedlings,video instructions,a plant identification book and PRI bag. A Prairie Kit that will cover 1000 square feet is priced at about $175. Seeds, plants and gifts... Check out PRI retail shop and website Our Princeton location features a retail operation that carries PRI-grown native seed mixes and potted plants, a variety of bircifeeders, birdhouses, nature books, unique nature-focused children's gift items, games,decora- tive-garden accessories and more. Customers are invited to use our in-house computer program, PRESTO,to determine the best selection of species for their particular site. Knowledgeable staff will answer questions and offer suggestions to ensure the success of native landscaping projects. Retail Hours: April-December:9-5 Monday-Friday; April-June: 9-2 Saturday/Sunday; July-October: 9-2 Saturday. To visit the retail shop in Princeton: From the south, take 169 north to county road 9 (about three miles south of Princeton); turn west on county 9 for one half mile; turn north on county 45 for three miles and watch for PRI sign on the left. From the north, take 169 to Rum River Drive on the south edge of Princeton; turn west (right) for one quarter mile to Tstop; turn left on county 45 for one half mile to PRI sign on the right. For further information visit www.prairieresto.com or call 1-800-837-5986. �LyAM. OW4,W We are h Princeton ^: St Cloud Hwy 95 H169 " $ r 1-9lk R4,Ever 1- 5 Mpls/St.Paul Plant production using local seed provides excellent options. 7 Now in five locations • PRI's Princeton headquarters includes administrative offices,seed production fields,flower plots,greenhouses,seed cleaning and retail operations. Address: P.O. Box 327, Princeton,MN SS371; Phone:763-389-4342;Fax:763-389-4346; E-mail: info@ prairieresto.com. • Bluestem Farm - 20 miles southeast of Moorhead,MN on the edge of the Red River Valley; includes staff offices, seed fields and a base for equipment and materials to service western Minnesota and the eastern Dakotas. Address: P.O. Box 1027,Hawley,MN S6S49; Phone: 218-498-0260; Fax: 218-498-2862; E-mail: pribs@corpcomm.net. • Prairie Creek Farm - six miles east of Northfield,MN; headquarters for personnel and equipment to serve the south metro area,Rochester,Northfield and other areas to the south. Address: P.O Box 30S,Cannon Falls,MN SS009; Phone: S07-663-1091; Fax: S07-663-1228; E-mail: pri@rconnect.com. Pink prairie rose (Rosa arkansana) and purple western spiderwort • Boreal Natives - twelve miles west of Duluth; produces (Tradescanda occidentalis). greenhouse seedling plants for woodland,wetland and shore- line restoration projects throughout northeast Minnesota 0 0 and northwest Wisconsin. Address:3943 Munger Shaw Road, PrairieCloquet,MN 55720; Phone: 218-729-7001; Fax:218-729-7007; Restorations, ffic*�Yll E-mail: prairie@cpinternet.com. • Watertown - PRI's newest site located in a small Bringing people together with the land g g h p p g industrial park on the edge of downtown Watertown,just 20 miles from Ridgedale Shopping Center. Provides a base PRI range... for personnel and equipment to serve the west suburbs and Lake Minnetonka area. Address: P.O 1127,Watertown, Upper midwest region MN 55388; Phone: 9S2-9S5-3400;Fax:952-9SS-3401; E-mail:seinde@prairieresto.com. We are committed to providing the highest quality I native grass and wildflower seeds and plants,grown in production plots rather than gathered from natural stands.Thus,we are able to maintain purity, f• ' control quality and improve production without Bluestem Farre • oreal NCC etlWeS_'i having a destructive impact on native remnants. North Dakota We rely on local genotypes in an effort to imitate Princeton• t the natural character and distribution of plant •Water• ralrleCreek offtce gene pools,generally limiting product sales to Z within a 200-mile radius of our production centers Min-la in Princeton, Hawley and Munger,Minnesota. For South Dakota i projects beyond those ranges,we provide consulting, custom-grown materials, installation and land man- Nab="t services. agemen ® Printed on Recycled Pager St. Anthony Fire Department Housing Code Complain# Form Incident# &94 —CJS Date Recieved: r7 -Dy Violation Address/Location: Iv k Name of Violator: Cx/r Reporting Person: Address: Telephone: VIOLATION: .a. W Action Taken: o t�►�. � o �fi-a^- lN� 1 SQA Housing Code Official: // G . ah- Aug. i Aug. 15 2004 Resident 2813 Silver Lake Rd. St. Anthony, MN. 55418 Re: Yard Conditions On Aug. 11, 2004, in response to Housing Code concerns in your neighborhood, we observed the following condition located at 2813 Silver Lake Rd., which is inconsistent with City Ordinance. 1. A visual inspection of the rear yard showed that the wild growth on the above referenced property is in need of mowing or removal. In their present state they are in violation of City Ordinance Section 810. Subd. 03 and Subd. 04 of Section 810 states: 1. Any weeds or grasses, noxious or not shall not exceed 6 inches in height. Weeds, which have gone or are about to go seed shall be removed from the property. 2. The grass must be mowed within five (5) days after you have received this letter. 3. If you do not mow, the mowing will be done at your expense. If you have any questions, please contact us at (612) 788-4885 and refer to incident number 04-056. Sincerely, John Malenick St. Anthony Code Enforcement Department 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699-www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us -(612) 789-8881 -FAX(612) 781-9323 Our Mission is to be a orooressive and livable community.a walkable villaae. which is safe and secure. . aVie thou s e CZ5 Aug. 15 2004 Owner 2813 Silver Lake Rd. St. Anthony, MN. 55418 Re: Yard Conditions On Aug. 11, 2004, in response to Housing Code concerns in the neighborhood, we observed the following condition located at 2813 Silver Lake Rd., which is inconsistent with City Ordinance. 1. A visual inspection of the rear yard showed that the wild growth on the above referenced property is in need of mowing or removal. In their present state they are in violation of City Ordinance Section 810. Subd. 03 and Subd. 04 of Section 810 states: 1. Any weeds or grasses, noxious or not shall not exceed 6 inches in height. Weeds, which have gone or are about to go seed shall be removed from the property. 2. The grass must be mowed within five (5) days after you have received this letter. 3. If you do not mow, the mowing will be done at your expense. If you have any questions, please contact us at (612) 788-4885 and refer to incident number 04-056. Sincerely, John Malenick St. Anthony Code Enforcement Department 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony,Minnesota 55418-1699•www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us •(612)789-8881 •FAX(612) 781-9323 Pfnr Miccinn is in ha a nrnnraccivp and iivahlp r_ammunihr_a walkahie village_ which is safe and secure._ August 23, 2004 John Malenick St. Anthony Code Enforcement Department St. Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 Re: Yard Condition, 2813 Silver Lake Road Dear John, In response to your August 15th letter, and conversations between your office and Prairie Restoration, Inc. personnel that took place on August 20t, I knocked on the door of thirteen of our neighbors on Saturday, August 21". Armed with a letter and a personal commitment I approached all of the homes on Hwy 8 to our south (2812 to 2832) and all of the homes on our block of Silver Lake Road (2801 to 2839). Six of our neighbors answered their door and spoke with me. One of the neighbors spent about 45 minutes with me and expressed their concerns"I think you're crazy" "I don't understand it". I left their home feeling good about our discussion and our relationship but I don't think they are about to change their yard over to a prairie. The other five neighbors I spoke with were noncommittal, unaware, unconcerned, or supportive of"what ever you want to do in your own home and yard". The point of my contacting the neighbors was to let them know that our space is not a"lazy neighbor's" neglected yard but a prairie restoration project. We want our neighbors to know that our motivation is environmental and economical (even though the initial installation and maintenance is quite expensive) including the following points: 1. The petroleum used to mow is better used in other ways. 2. Mowing the large yard every week pollutes the air and disturbs the quiet. 3. That noxious weeds will always be removed when discovered and that the prairie is professionally maintained. 4. That once matured, the prairie plants will not need watering. 5. That native song birds will thrive in the matured prairie. 6. Next year there will be a path through the prairie and a bench, for quiet reflection, for any of the neighbors to use. 7. The prairie will be the largest garden in the neighborhood, providing a variety of color, motion and natural beauty to enjoy. 8. That our restored prairie expresses our connectedness with the earth. At each home visited on Saturday the attached letter that includes my name and number was left. They can contact me with further questions or concerns. I am asking our neighbors and the city of St. Anthony Village to allow this change to take place. Sin erely, Tony Jordan use—Y� Cc.Prairie Restoration ., v� .Cs .d 133 rte"1— f; Regarding the backard J 2813 SLk. I received a notice from the City that indicated a concern expressed by the neighbors about our backyard. The city staff indicated I should talk with my neighbors about what we are doing in an effort'to have everyone be OK with the change that is occuring. After years of mowing our yard and being unhappy with the environmental & financial impact of doing so we looked for an alternative. We have hired Prairie Restoration, Inc. to transform our backyard back to a "virgin"prairie. Our yard is at the end of the first year of a process that will take a few years to mature. The goal is to have the biggest natural garden (prairie) in the city. Prairie Restoration has also been hired to do managment & will be mowing the yard this fall. The only plants in the yard are Minnesota flowers and grasses. All noxious weeds are pulled when regonized. By next year there is to be a path winding through the yard with a bench located in a quiet spot for peaceful reflection. Please call with any questions, suggestions or concerns. Please give us time to have this yard mature. Thank you, Tony Jordan (651) 482-9608 Susan Hall From: pktillmann [pktillmann@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:27 PM To: shall @ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Code for Hot Tubs . F1 pool-tub.pdf AT172388.bct Hi Sue, I found a couple things on the internet regarding code for hot tubs and swimming pools. Both Edina and St. Paul have the fence requirement, as we do. But both go on to say that hot tubs do not need a fence if they have a locking cover that is locked when the tub is not in use. Here's the St. Paul memo I found. 1 OFFICE OF LICENSE,INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Janeen Rosas,Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL LOWRY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING Telephone 651-266-9090 Randy Kelly,Mayor 350 St.Peter Street,Suite 300 Facsimile- 651-166-9114 Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102-15 10 Web www hep.us 62.114. PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL POOLS AND HOT TUBS Private outdoor residential pools,both above and below ground, and hot tubs are permitted as an accessory use within the rear yard or nonrequired side yard, except that, for rnahiple-family developments, the planning commission may detem>loe the location of the pool or tub. Private outdoor pools and hot tubs shall meet the following requirements as applicable. (1) There shall be a distance ofnot less than ten(10)feet between the adjoining property line and the outside of the pool wan for above ground pools. For in-ground pools,there shall be a distance of not less than five (5) feet between the adjoining property line and the outside of the pool wan. (2) There shall be a distance of not less than four(4) feet between the outside pool wall and any building located on the same lot. (3) No swig pools shall be located less than ten(10)feet from any side street or alley right-of-way, or the distance required for side yard by the zoning code,whichever is greater. (4) No swimming pool shall be located in a public easement. (5) AIl yards containing swimming pools shall be completely enclosed by an obscuring fence not less than four (4)feet in height. The gates shall be ofa self-closing and self-latching type,with the latch on the inside of the gate,not readily available for children to open. Gates shall be capable of being securely locked when the pool is not in use. (6) AIl yards containing hot tubs shall be secured as in clause(5)or shall have a cover which shall be locked when the hot tub is not in use. (7) Overhead Conductor Clearances. The loIlowing parts of pools shall not be placed under existing service- drop conductors or any other open overhead wiring nor shall such wiring be installed above the following: pools and the area extending 10 feet;horizontally from the inside of the walls of the pool; diving structure; or observation stands, towers or platforms. Check with Electrical Inspector if there are any questions. 1.01 FENCE REQUIREMENTS PERM IT- No person shall construct, or cause to be constructed, any fence in the City of Saint Paul without first obtaining a permit from the buffing official. If a Contractor is hired by a homeowner the Contractor is responsible for obtaining the proper permit and license. FEE- $15.00 for the first 200 lineal feet or fraction thereoferected and $5.00 for each additional 100 lineal feet or faction thereof SITE PLAN- A site plan mast be submitted showing the location, length,height and type of fence (wood, chain link, etc.)being installed. HEIGHT OF FENCES -No fence shall be erected exceeding six feet six inches(6'6') in height above the sidewalk of finished grade of any residential parcel. Fences and all supporting structures shall be completely within the boundaries of such parcel All fences erected between the front property line and the front setback line shall be no more than three feet six inches(3'6') in height(non-obscuring fencing such as chain link are exempt). Fences and all supporting structures including footings must be on the applicants property. If a reliable reference for establishing the lot fines is not present, the Building Inspector may order that a land survey be made. Ifthere are any questions,please call 266-9002 between 7:30 and 9:00 a.m and discuss any problems with the Building Inspector before starting construction. CORNER CLEARANCE- No obscuring fence above a height oftwo feet(2')from the established street grades shall be permitted in a front yard on the corner side. SWIMMING POOL.FENCES: - An yards containing swimming pools shall be enclosed by an obscuring fence not less than four feet(4')in height. The gates shall be of self-closing and self- latching type,with the latch on the inside of the gate,not readily available fDr children to open Gates shall be capable of being securely locked when the pool is not in use. BARRED WIFE FENCES- No barbed wire fence shall be constructed within the limits ofthe City of Saint Paul unless the following conditions are complied with: 1) No barbed wire may be installed in a residential district or on a lot occupied residentially. 2) Barbed wire, not exceeding three strands,may be permitted on the top of a fence,providing that the arms do not project over public property. The minimum height of the bottom strand of barbed wire shall not be less than six feet(6) from finished grade. 3) In all cases where a barbed wire fence is requested, an application shall be made to the Budding Inspection and Design Division. 4) A certificate of insurance indemnifying the City of Saint Paul shall be submitted with the application subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and in amount as set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04. (Form obtained from our Zoning Section) EL ECTRIFENCES - No above ground electric fence shall be constricted within the city limits of the City of Saint Paul, except at Carni Zoo for the containment ofzoo animals. Susan Hall From: Kim.Tillmann @thrivent.com Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:53 PM To: mmornson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Cc: shall @ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Planning Commission Seat To: Mike Mornson City of St. Anthony Village via email Dear Mike, It's with some regret that I send you this letter to let you know that I will resign my planning commission seat at the end of the year. I have enjoyed being a part of the commission, especially during the last few years of positive change in St. Anthony. However, I have found that I am no longer able to give the time required to be an effective commissioner. As with many in the corporate world, a merger and cost cutting have made my "day job" much more demanding - both in time and stress level. Because of this, I have had to rethink and cut back on my volunteer activities. We currently have a strong commission and I hope there will be several good applicants interested in filling my spot. Regards, Kim ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kim Tillmann Senior Staff Actuary, Risk Product Pricing Thrivent Financial for Lutherans (612)340-8225 kim.tillmann@thrivent.com ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 St. Anthony Municipal Ordinances Possible Revisions/Additions Permits for garage sale signs Clarify maximum occupancy for single family home or apartment unit - Rules for Vehicles for sale Construction dumpsters time limit Lawns/yards of wild flowers/prairie/ exotic plants and vegetation Establish maximum #of vehicles parked on property Establish uniform fire hydrant color- exceptions? review RV/ boat parking/storage - Establish rules for PODS or storage of personal belongings in yard 2005 Planning & Zoning Ordinance Clean Up 1. 1335.17, subd. 2: All references to state building& fire code should reference the International Building Code and International Fire Code. 2. 1315: create separate definition for hot tub from pools, allowing for a locking cover in lieu of the 6' fence. Edina has a similar provision with ANSI standards for the locking cover. Could also look at the 4' vs. 6' fence requirement, which is more than most other communities. 3. 1615.05: Side yard at corner lot—modify similar to standard front yard language, allowing setback at side yard to be the average of the setbacks (from the same street) of the 2 adjacent properties. 4. 1615.05, subd. 2: Add language to this section, something to the effect of: "New construction, remodeling and/or additions to existing residences, on existing parcels that are smaller than the minimum width or area, shall be permitted." This may also require additional text for 1500.05, subd. 4 (2). 5. 1400.12, subd. 4 (1): Delete the second sentence allowing larger that normal signs, thereby allowing the standard criteria in 1400.10 to be the maximum. 6. 810.03 & 1335.17, subd. 11: The issue of an ordinance change to allow native plantings came up in the Sept 2004 meeting, and needs to be addressed. There was quite a packet of info for this one, and moreilnfo on the EPA website at: http•//www epa gov/grtlakes/greenacres/weedlaws/JMLR.html#A%20HISTO RY. Examples: http://www.ci.rochester.mn.us/attomey/ordedt/ord48.txt hiip://www.ci.bloominp,ton.mn.us/code/CodelO 4.html#b10 37 Roseville simply added a line stating that nuisance weeds did not include prairie restorations. 7. f �o /e TUTUMN-WOD� JULY 1, 2005 Mayor Jerry Faust 4033 Silver Lake Terrace �A��� � ny, MN 55421 Dear Mayor Faust: - I am writing this letter in behalf of the Auturrm WoodLApar neMs Res udejnts. to the ' liberty of visiting and taking picfures ofHannays Boat cn Centr N—enue as I know s, ou d-likes o gtake,;over the F3itcliing Posh I have enclosed scop es of the" ictured 10�,as - $ ` vel f eat concern of what rpy � gh �{ � ., ' � p y, p� I �� � �resi�en�s mi t b foo at.•{I hoe ou�will+sh -� gq � - a va ��x a r��., t e�e�pietur,s,.an�°my ldtte,�,v@,,.the Cit3r�Co�inci�l' I trustilthat-her-e�would be some ofFestrictioor-�todan�eIfllillot allow this. , .e.afdisp�ay for the surrounding community to have to look at? G' �: { Thank you for anything you can,dogo reagent=ar yr @peasant issues for the future. + Sincerel ' Rose itzjerrells, Manager Autumn Woods Apartments encl 2600 Kenzie Terrace • St.Anthony, Minnesota 55418 612/781-8301 Fax 612/781-8307 autumn@lanel.com • www.autumnwoodsapt.com . n I i 74 MM • 11 i i - 3 � c' Y } �Mr .z• } "t9 tr. k t� t k Y TI 1 :'9ut cz 5 ea t #�e 0PY� PO x } 9 ; _ fI ILA 1 } � t 7 E Y Metropolitan Council July 12, 2005 RE: Local Comprehensive Plan Update s Dear Local Official: The Metropolitan Land Planning Act(MLPA) requires communities to review and update their comprehensive plans every 10 years, with the next update due by December 31, 2008. The Metropolitan Council is working on several items to assist you in this process. Here is what to expect from the Council in the next few months: • Now that all metropolitan systems plans have been adopted, systems statements will be issued in late August or early September. Systems statements are customized summaries of the systems plans for each community, and describe local planning requirements that local units must address to satisfy the 2008 update required by the MLPA. Each community will have sixty days to review and discuss with Council staff potential issues regarding the contents of its systems statement. If these issues cannot be resolved, the community may request a hearing to consider amendments to the systems statement. • A redesigned Local Planning Assistance Handbook will be available in late September. It will provide guidance on comprehensive plan content and the Council's plan review process. The new Handbook will be unveiled at the American Planning Association 's Upper Midwest Conference, September 28th-30th in Alexandria, MN. Shortly thereafter, the Metropolitan Council's website will have on an online version of the Handbook, and paper copies will be available. • In October, the Council will host seven local planning information forums. There will be one in each County to discuss the 2008 plan update process. The Council's Planning and Operating Division staff will be available to answer questions about specific elements and requirements. Watch for announcements and current information at the Metropolitan Council website, http://www.metrocouncil.org , and at the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities website, www.amm 145.org. Sincerely, Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Local Planning Assistance C(Documents and SettmgslkmoorelLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FdesIOLK7Uuly 2005 Local Officials CP Update Letter l.doc Village of Saint Anthony 2005 Survey of Residents Decision Resources, Ltd . Qua ' ty o� � oc�� ��a�� ng 2005 Village of Saint Anthony 70 58 so 50 45 40 ' 27 30 20 '; Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure E12001 Study E12005 Study Decision Resources, Ltd. L '� ke V'� 2005 Village 0f Salm Anthony Location 33 33 Safe J, 4 Schools 5 5 Small Town 27 26 People 7 E12001 Study NeighborhoodE:3 5 02005 Study 5 Quiet Clean . 5 Sense of Community 112 Scattered 2 3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Decision Resources, Ltd. Most Ser'� Ous ssue 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Unsure 20 Apache Mall 31 Taxes 20 More Business ' Crime City Government - 3 Flooding 3 Schools14 X2001 Study Housing 3 =2005 Study Roads 3 Financial Issues 3 Growth 7 City Services 3 Aging City 2 Nothing 12 Scattered s 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Decision Resources, Ltd. Sense of Community 2005 Village of Saint Anthony 80 -------------------------------------------69---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 70 - ------------------------------6-3- 60 --- ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 --- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M2001 Study 40 --- -------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M2005 Study 26 30 22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 9----------9------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10 2 0 �M�M Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure Decision Resources, Ltd. I O e � n O s of 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Very Safe 43.0% �j O O �L None 65.3% Unsure 4.0% Unsure 2.0% Very Unsafe 8.0% �, ,"�; Scattered 7.9% t- a. Fe N, F Silver Lake Road 3.0% Reasonably Safe 37.0% y. Somewhat Safe 10.0% Apache Mall 5.0% Everywhere 14.9% Walking Alone in Neighborhood after Dark Other Areas Afraid to Walk Alone at Night Very Safe 34.0% None 74.0% IIS Unsure Very Unsafe e ;�: 3.0/ Reasonably Safe 4.0% 43.0/ Scattered Somewhat Safe `s 14.0% Unsure 17.0% O O Everywhere 2.0% �oOg 9.0% Decision Resources, Ltd. Pub '� c Percept'� ons 2005 Village ®f Saint Anthony Past Change in Neighborhood Crime within Past Two Years Increased 0 Decreased About Same V L o 0 Unsure 1° 0 Recall Name of Saint Anthony Police officer 02001 Study Yes 02005 Study No 0 Unsure Participation in neighborhood Anfi-Crime Activities'during Past Year U04 Yes , Nor _ o , 0 20 40 60 80 Decision Resources, Ltd. ti II i - Y .'b ��1 � . �.-.r°, o �, I e L _ .. T >!*,� - 5r �- ��'•-.•1 •a* 1'i..�-G , '� - __ '�j S' _4_ii,.� 4 T. � � r y � s 4 �+ �' _ dad _ �.>.�r,�. •.�;riS ?., � i ``rF 'T.1 F �I� =K �� Y �•. 41 Ir '' - �• 'AM1 _ �• '.G:IV -�J r� �e4' •moi �ti•4• � - - A ,- `•��;i �l - - " - ' i � -�I�•'� .fhb! ! iii• - J '~�. 1 „��,1i�• 743 ��' .„ �. '�� 7� All it lip -�!X- 6 Oft 6, •` ti`s` IIS 'P w- ' 'Lq h,S. V1L�fJ' SSI, A. cY! - •� yy '• V .c f µ - o-U - �StA� �� •d�� � A. 4' .y 1F r. A-6til' RI A", ad V� r -r}" �J!I "r � I�i� �.•,�.`9 L. •.$ 7 F_ .yam �,y. ,�E' �'3-.�'- Iii = J,. . "�I M �• -s pia . "f "�. y .. -- f ih .r a�,Yf4. .�{�'f ,5. F,�.-, .y�7N• AH- *S Ura' -.+ - - •5 I. dal v �W JF City Services 2005 Village ®f Saint Anthony 2001 Police • 2005 • • • 2001 Fire • • 2005 • 2001 EMS • i 2005 • 2001 Sanitary Sewers • 2005 • 2001 Animal Control 2005 • 2001 Park Maintenance 2005 Moll • 2001 Recreational Programs 2005 2001 Property Enforcement 2005 i 2001 Pavement Repair/Patching 2005 Street Reconstruction µ• 4 2001 Snow Plowing • 2005 • 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 IMPositive ®Negative Decision Resources, Ltd. 6 611 fir. .�a: I: -+ ► it •_ T . �..• lh, Y tip: . 4 ` . 1� � - ; �� � '.�. . � �p _ L �� ��q � ark •`_ _ — — O — — Y til ��" _ � `-: 1r . IF V, VIP _ r!F r qu 4 ';.G` ' _ I_ : IIS .,•; _ _ 4K 1;i,� JOI h: r 1 1 1 1r Ar ii }:- _ -• •� V}L 1f�l `: }'' Y , . ' �.' tier K•c Property Taxes and City Services 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Tax Increa$e to Maintain Services at Current Levels Favor Oppose Unsure X2001 Study Reduction in City Services for Property Tax X2005 Study Cut Favor Oppose Unsure 0 20 40 60 80 Decision Resources, Ltd. L ILI f QIP .v , � __ �" � €r • . �-� "�., -a `4 61 'S M r _ r��"�• '�TM„L' s ! = A! J �.. � � � tiN, r.�'i'dAI xr���• 1 -�4'� 1 J F ��L "7! � ��rr -k L "r' 'yL L - { r tit s' ,r, •,� jy �L� ' `L �- .1:r A. ' + �,. •' °y" ,� _ •�' ��� ' LF6cY r• AIF.. - �y ti dr Af .•• I� y, r} YY L Y. 1_ tiy„ `i �~; ` "1? 1'' • Alot Y`• 1 y r i4 1 Ih W I I '' A I- J - 5 `=s�,M�-rte ��„ ' � r 1f '• 1. `LA S Pi } ' % �,:• �W„ •r; RoY � rot; a „ • r T . � _ +� y � a� F- ,., } Mw x61 r I fiIrsG •y1^ Perception of Property Tax 2005 Village of Saint Anthony 50 41 40 33 35 31 30 21 20 '' 16 13 10 ' 1 1 0 Very High About Average Unsure Somewhat High Somewhat Low FM2001 Study X2005 Study Decision Resources, Ltd. Va us of V'� age Ssrv '� Ces 2005 Village of Saint Anthony 80 70 65 - - ------------------------------------------ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 --- ------------------------- 50 40 - ------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30 ------------------------------------- -----------V----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 13 20 ----12---- -------------------------------------------------- ----------1-0------------ ----------- ------------------------ 10 0 Excellent Good Only Fair Poor Unsure 1 =2001 Study =2005 Study] Decision Resources, Ltd. Silver a e Redevelopment 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Good Idea/Strong 42% +:?� ti 'C'• ���� Cs,� �oY "�'� _moi S'{ �� r• Unsure 6 /o o � �. Bad Idea/Strong Bad Idea 3% Good Idea 5% 44% Decision Resources, Ltd. 0 • � Redeve opment� � 0nu0 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Strong Support 41% P �q,�•�Th r 4 a tv• _ .L,� BVI '.� Unsure Strong OpposeSupport 43% Oppose4% 5% Decision Resources, Ltd. Municipal LiStores 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Yes 61 .0% 80 Selection 7 83 Prcies 4 91 Courtesy/Friendly 8 80 Knowledge 9 No 39.0% 8g Assistance 6 Visited Any Store during 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Past Twelve Months IMPositive ®Negative Staff and Facility Quality Dimensions Decision Resources, Ltd. See Store Advertising 2005 Village 0f Saint Anthony Grocery Receipts 12% Northeaster 4% SA Bulletin 15% Nowhere 21°/ o Unsure 5% Scattered 2% h ci ph'f wSR7�•'1,L ° �`4 = r 1 Mail Coupons 10% Sun 3 /o x�� �� .� �..- �E � ���� . On Building 8% l=ocus 3% Village Notes 2% Mailings 16% Decision Resources, Ltd. Extend Store Hours 2005 Village Of Saint Anthony Favor 31 % Strong Favor 14% oppose "(ISI % f�,��, ;. ,�: � � - ._�•� ',r: � ;" - � - ,� Unsure 21% Strong Oppose 22% Decision Resources, Ltd. Drain Tile System 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Yes 35.0% Yes Yes 83.0% 87.0% Unsure Unsure _ . ..�, 1 .0% 4.0% Unsure No 13.0% No No 52.0% 16.0% 9.0% Drain Tile Sump Pump at Sump Pump System at Residence Discharging Residence Water to Exterior Decision Resources, Ltd. Hauling 2005 Village ®f Saint Anthony �1 Present System 52 16 Area Assignment 21 13 M2001 Study Single Hauler 12 -2005 Study 12 Indifferent 9 Unsure 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Decision Resources, Ltd. Pr'onc'opa nformat'oon Source 2005 Village Of Saint Anthony UnsureNone 5 Village Notes 30 Newsletter Cable TV 5 Saint Anthony Bulletin W: Star Tribune I �® 02001 Study E12005 Stud Northeaster 17 Grapevine Focus Internet 3 Scattered = 4 L- 0 10 20 30 40. 50 Decision Resources, Ltd. Quantityof I ion 2005 Village of Saint Anthony About Right 85% a Unsure 3% Too Little 12% Decision Resources, Ltd. "Village e 2005 Village of Saint Anthony Very 49.0% ---------- Yes No Yes 92.0% Unsure 14.0% 85.0% No 2.00 Not Too o '!&4w H' •. ,.,rr 1;rt'-•te r 5.0% Unsure 8.0/o dot: � 1.0% Somewhat 44.0% Recall Receiving Newsletter during Household Members Effectiveness in Past Year Regularly Read Keeping Informed Decision Resources, Ltd. Message Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Victoria Young [vmyoung@stthomas.edu] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 10:52 AM To: jfaust@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; hgray@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; bthuesen@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; rstille@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; dhorst@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us; kmoore@ci saint-anthony mn.us; mmornson@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: Governor's appointment of Dr. Victoria Young to Residence Council Just thought you all might be interested to know this! I'm very excited to have been appointed! Victoria FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Brian McClung July 8, 2005 (651) 296-0001 GOVERNOR PAWLENTY APPOINTS YOUNG TO GOVERNOR'S RESIDENCE COUNCIL Saint Paul—Governor Tim Pawlenty today announced the appointment of Victoria M. Young to the Governor's Residence Council. Young, of St. Anthony, is an assistant professor of modern architecture and the allied arts in the Department of Art History at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. She is the director of the Art History Graduate Program at St. Thomas and vice president of the Minnesota Chapter of the Society of Architectural Historians Board of Directors. Young earned her doctor of philosophy in architectural history and her master of architectural history from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and her bachelor of arts degree in architectural history summa cum laude from New York University. Young replaces Arlene Leyden as a representative of higher education for a four-year term that expires on January 5, 2009. The Governor's Residence Council develops and implements an overall restoration plan for the governor's residence and surrounding grounds and solicits contributions to restore, maintain, improve and furnish the building. The council consists of 19 members, including 13 appointed by the Governor. See: http://www.govemor.state.mn.us/Tpaw_View_Article.asp?artid=1442 7/11/2005 PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the Secretary's record. Name: l QfZ/�L� , " Address: c33 �© _c � Agenda Item Addressing: During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five(5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the Secretary's record. Name: w Address: 3r,2 f-7- 3 pin Zlf c Agenda Item Addressing: Of 4v 2e 4T During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: kms HAFormsTlanningTublic Input Sheet.doc i PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the Planning Commission and to be heard on an Agenda item, please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the Recording Secretary. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the Secretary's record. Name: Address: Agenda Item Addressing: During the Public Input portion of the Planning meeting, individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their name and address for the City Clerk's record and limit remarks to five (5) minutes as a courtesy to others who may also want to address an issue. Name: Address: Issue of Concern: kms HAFormsTlanningTublic Input Sheet.doc Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 July 19, 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 Galyon, 17 Jensen, Jenson, and Young. 18 19 Absent: Commissioner Hoska 20 21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Young, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the meeting 26 agenda as presented. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously 29 30 V. MEETING MINUTES. 31 5.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of June 21 2005 32 33 The Commission had the following corrections to the minutes: 34 35 Chair Stromgren: 36 O Page 3, line 12, reads: 1-foot x 19-foot garage; should read 11-foot x 19-foot garage 37 38 Commissioner Jensen 39 o Page 4 line 36, reads: `Commission's responsibility to change the rules.'; should read: 40 `Commission's responsibility to change the rules without cause.' 41 42 Motion by Vice Chair Hansen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to approve the meeting minutes 43 of the Planning Commission of June 21, 2005 as amended. 44 45 Motion carried unanimously Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 2 1 2 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 3 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the July 26 2005 City Council Meeting 4 5 Chair Stromgren stated that Planning Commission representative would not be required to attend 6 the July 26, 2005 City Council Meeting because there are no public hearings scheduled for this 7 evening. 8 9 VII. PUBLIC HEARING. 10 11 NONE 12 13 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW 14 8.1 Text Amendment Conditional Use Permit—49ers Building 15 16 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Eric Reiners, architect with Welman Sperides Architects, 17 representatives for The RUO Local 49,has requested a Concept Review of their proposal for a 18 text change to the City's Zoning Code that would include catering activities as a permitted 19 conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District. She stated that the IUO Local 49 recently 20 opened their newly constructed catering kitchen and related facilities and is also proposing to 21 open them to the public. She stated that in reviewing the City's Zoning Ordinance, there is no 22 allowance given for this use either as a permitted use or a permitted conditional use. She stated 23 that the Commercial Zoning District does allow this use as a permitted conditional use, per 24 Section 1635.03 C and (p). She explained that the concerns raised regarding traffic and parking 25 associated with this proposal created a need to discuss them at a Concept Review. She noted that 26 because the uses already allowed in this district create high volumes of traffic, accommodating 27 parking needs and the supposed increased noise levels have already been addressed, including the 28 catering activities, as a permitted conditional use for the Industrial Zoning District. She stated 29 that Staff does not believe that opening the catering facilities to the public would significantly 30 increase parking, traffic or noise. She stated that allowing catering activities, as a permitted 31 conditional use, would give the City the ability to place controls on this use to protect the 32 community and the public while using the proposed catering facilities. 33 34 Eric Reiners, Architect, Welman Sperides Architects, representing the RUO Local 49 explained 35 that they decided to undertake the addition to primarily expand their offices, which occupied the 36 upper level of the existing structure. He stated that the meeting hall was located in the lower 37 level of the building noting that this is where the monthly meetings and annual Christmas Parties 38 were held. He stated that the proposal includes replacing the existing serving kitchen with a 39 slightly upgraded catering space so that food could be brought in for meetings and special events. 40 He stated that as the plan began to evolve they communicated with the City and verified that 41 they could expand the kitchen to full catering noting that they were told that this would be fine if 42 it is only for union use. He stated that this is the only location like this in the area adding that it 43 provides them with the opportunity to be able to utilize the facility for other events. He stated 44 that there is approximately 4000 square feet in the lower level of the union hall that they would 45 like to open up for intermittent use when not using the facilities for their monthly meetings. He Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 3 1 noted that Prom Catering is the currently the contracted caterer for the facility and would remain 2 for outside events. 3 4 Commissioner Young asked what the hours of operation would be for the facility. Mr. Reiners 5 stated that specific operating hours for the facility have not been determined yet. 6 7 Commissioner Young clarified that there is no liquor license for the premise. Ms. Moore-Sykes 8 confirmed stating that Prom Catering would carry the liquor license and would be responsible for 9 carding and ensuring that the facility remains in compliance with all liquor laws. 10 11 8.2 3645 Chelmsford Road NE—R1 to R2 Rezoning Request 12 13 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Staff is asking the Planning Commission to review a request by 14 Troy Martenson, owner of 3645 Chelmsford Road to rezone from an R1 Single-Family to an R2 15 Two-Family Zoning District. She stated that currently the property is zoned R1, has an existing 16 single-family structure on the lot and is a corner lot. She stated that the lot is 19,260-square feet 17 with a 75-foot utility easement given to Xcel Energy and is across the northern portion of the lot. 18 She stated that the property adjacent to the east is zoned R2; the properties directly across 37`h 19 Avenue to the north are zoned R4. She indicated that there have been several attempts to split 20 this lot but because of the utility easement, these attempts have either been denied by the City or 21 upon discovering the easement, petitioners have cancelled their applications. She stated that the 22 owner also went before the Council at its June 21St meeting with a petition for an R3 Townhouse 23 Zoning District rezoning request. She stated that the Council denied the request due to concerns 24 about spot zoning. She stated that Mr. Martenson is now proposing to submit a rezoning request 25 that would change the current zoning of R1 to R2. She noted that the R2 Zoning District requires 26 that a corner lot have an area of 14,000 square fee and 100-feet in width at the building setback 27 line. 28 29 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that the applicant is not present and asked the Commission how they 30 would like to handle this request. 31 32 Vice Chair Hanson noted that the City Council was against the original recommendation and felt 33 strongly that this was a case of spot zoning. He referenced the letter of explanation included with 34 the application stating that these are the changes the City Council was hoping for. 35 36 Commissioner Jensen asked if it is the normal practice to hold off on the Concept Review if the 37 applicant is not present. 38 39 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the applicant paid the fee for an August public hearing adding that 40 the review could be moved to August. 41 42 Commissioner Jenson stated that the Commission has reviewed proposals in the past for larger 43 lots requesting rezoning and subdivision noting that the requests were turned down to protect the 44 R1 zoning. He noted that the R2 structure next door is a church. 45 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 4 1 Chair Stromgren noted that there is also a duplex located in that area that is zoned R2. 2 3 Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed stating that the owner admitted to using the structure as an R1 4 Single-Family unit but that it was originally zoned as R2. 5 6 Chair Stromgren suggested forgoing the Concept Review. 7 8 Commissioner Young stated that she was hoping to see some form of proposal and hear an 9 explanation of the applicants' intentions. She noted that the intent is to build something that 10 resembles a single-family home noting that the residential buildings adjacent to this property are 11 all R1 adding that she has very strong feelings about the request based on the fact that this is an 12 R1 community. She noted that the R4 across the street and the ROS don't read as well in an area 13 like this and it is something that should be considered. 14 15 Chair Stromgren stated that with the information already received his concern is what would be 16 included for next month. He stated that he believes the Concept Review could be done at the 17 public hearing level if the applicant can provide detailed plans. 18 19 Commissioner Jensen stated that they are in favor of the R3 noting that it would be compatible 20 because this corner and the size of the structure could relate quite well depending on how it is 21 designed and if the access issues are addressed. He agreed that it would be good to review a 22 detailed site plan. 23 24 Commissioner Galyon agreed stating that he too is in favor of reviewing a detailed site plan. He 25 asked what kind of communication is put out to the residents of the area asking for their input on 26 the issues. He asked if the applicant or the City is responsible for collecting the feedback from 27 residents in the area. 28 29 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that letters outlining the proposal are sent to all residents within 30 350-feet of the property. She further explained that the letters would explain what is happening 31 with the lot and clarify the proposal noting that the letter is their invitation to attend the public 32 hearing. 33 34 Commissioner Galyon stated that it would be in the best interest of the applicant to do due 35 diligence and visit with the residents of the area to make sure that what they are planning is not 36 upsetting anyone. 37 38 Motion by Commissioner Galyon, second by Commissioner Jensen, to recommend continuance 39 of the Concept Review for the proposed R1 to R2 Rezoning Request for 3645 Chelmsord Road, 40 NE to the first Planning Commission meeting in August 2005. 41 42 Motion carried unanimously 43 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 5 1 8.3 AMCON— St. Anthony Marketplace 2 3 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Representatives from AMCON are back before the Commission to 4 request a Concept Review of their proposal for the Outlot on the corner of Kenzie Terrace and 5 Highway 88, St. Anthony Marketplace. She stated that Mr. Tucci submitted applications for a 6 Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant within 250-feet of a residential area; a Variance Petition 7 for the building setback on the Outlot; a Variance Petition for the on-site parking and an updated 8 landscaping plan. 9 10 Paul Tucci, OPPIDAN, representing AMCON St. Anthony, stated that he is back to provide the 11 Commission with an update noting that the last time this proposal went through Council there 12 was a lot of discussion. He indicated that the resounding comments were two-fold, stating that 13 the Council would prefer to see a restaurant on the Outlot. He stated that the Council was 14 concerned that at 3400 square feet that the structure would be too small for restaurant and that it 15 could possibly turn into a bar versus a family-style restaurant. He stated that the plan is basically 16 the same plan from the first Concept Review and public hearing except that the restaurant is now 17 moved to the front, the drive-through window has been removed and a concrete patio has been 18 included and the parking requirements have been adjusted. He noted that they also increased the 19 size of the restaurant by approximately 1000 feet adding that the variance request still holds for 20 the setback and reviewed. He indicated that they have talked to the City's Landscaping Engineer 21 about the changes and would continue to work with Staff throughout the process. He stated that 22 it is their plan to use the same landscaper to ensure consistency. He noted that the storefront 23 elevations are the same adding that they no longer have multiple signs and assured the 24 Commission that the signage would meet all City requirements for size. He reviewed the 25 elevations from each side of the structure noting that they have added more windows and a door 26 exiting to the concrete patio to the east. He stated that the north elevation remains the same and 27 includes opaque glass to give the look of a storefront. He stated that they have also added more 28 glass to the west and carried the side look around to include the canopies. He stated that the 29 restaurant would have roughly 155 seats noting that the last proposal used 125 in the 30 calculations. He provided the Commission with an overview of the kitchen facilities and dining 31 area noting that it is similar to the original proposal adding that the dining area is a bit larger. He 32 stated that the menu offered would be American-fare, similar to a Champs style restaurant. He 33 stated that their understanding is that the liquor license would be 50/50 and outlined in the lease. 34 He assured the Commission that this restaurant would not be another Stonehouse noting that 35 they do plan to accommodate pull tabs, but they do not want this to be the impetus to push it over 36 the 50-percent ratio requirements. 37 38 Commissioner Galyon noted that the pull tab business tends to come to bar businesses adding 39 that he would like to ensure that everyone understands that the deal could be terminated if it 40 causes the operator to go over the 50150 limit. He stated that he wants to be sure that this ratio is 41 not violated. Mr. Tucci assured the Commission that this concern would be addressed internally 42 within the documentation. 43 44 Commissioner Galyon asked if the patio area would also include outside dining. Mr. Tucci 45 stated that this is the intent for the outside patio area noting that per City Ordinance this area has Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 6 1 to be confined and fenced if they serve alcohol. 2 3 Commissioner Jensen clarified that the parking would be shared by all businesses. Mr. Tucci 4 confirmed stating that the Liquor Store, H & R Block, the Cell Phone Company and Jersey 5 Mike's would all share in the parking. He stated that the biggest seating shift would typically be 6 in the evenings and reviewed with the Commission. 7 8 8.4 Variance to Allow Balcony Grills— Silver Lake Homes 9 10 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the applicant has requested a Concept Review of their proposal to 11 install gas grills on balconies of their multi-family units. She stated that the gas would be 12 plumbed to the balcony area for the gas grills and they plan to install sprinklers over the grills. 13 She stated that Staff has received calls about the likelihood of installing gas-fired grills on the 14 balconies of the townhomes that are being constructed by Len Pratt and Hunt& Associates. She 15 stated that the townhomes are wood framed and would have the gas plumbed to the gas-fired 16 grills and the builder is also proposing to install sprinkler heads over the gas-fired grills. She 17 reviewed City Code noting that the State Fire Code apparently does make some allowances for 18 electric or gas-fired grills provided that they are wired or plumbed to the building's electric or 19 gas supply. She referenced the information sheet included in the agenda packet stating that it 20 does acknowledge that many cities do prohibit this practice by ordinance, as does the City of St. 21 Anthony. 22 23 Ben Charles, Pratt and Hunt Associates, clarified that the development being discussed is the 24 Village Condos. He stated that there would be 256 units total with 64 units per building. He 25 stated that the current plan is for all units to have balconies with very specific designs that would 26 allow them to have gas grills on the balconies. He explained that the gas grills would be 27 mounted 18-inches from walls adding that the natural gas would be five feet from the building 28 and would include the installation of a special sprinkler system. He stated that other Cities have 29 permitted the gas grills based on these specifications and conditions. He explained that the 30 reason they are seeking a variance is because future residents of the condos have expressed a 31 keen interest in having the grills. He noted that the Property Management Group is also in favor 32 and have outlined very specific conditions within the contracts that would be strictly enforced. 33 34 Commissioner Jenson asked for further clarification on how the fire protection works; what 35 activates the sprinkler system and once it is triggered, how is the fire extinguished. He also 36 asked how the system would be reset and useable again, and do they have it wired so that 37 residents would not be able to bypass the sprinkler system. Mr. Charles stated that it is his 38 understanding that the sprinkler systems would operate in a similar fashion as the indoor 39 sprinkler systems. He stated that the system would be set to trigger at 165-degrees adding that 40 beyond that he would have to do further research and provide the Commission with an update. 41 42 Chair Stromgren asked what kind of sprinkler system would be installed. Mr. Charles stated that 43 he is not prepared to answer that question, as he has not had an opportunity to review the letter of 44 recommendations from the Fire Chief. Chair Stromgren advised Mr. Charles to be prepared to 45 answer this question next month. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 7 1 2 Commissioner Young referenced the guidelines used by other Cities and asked if the balconies 3 would be masonry or wood frames. Mr. Charles stated that when he read through the various 4 City Ordinances he did not see anything that specifically addressed masonry or wood-frame 5 balconies. 6 7 Commissioner Galyon stated that he did a bit of research himself and asked if the balconies 8 would be waterproofed. He indicated that charcoal could be used in gas grills for smoking foods 9 and expressed concerns that the coals could fall to the floor and burn. He asked if the sprinkler 10 systems would be installed throughout the building. Mr. Charles stated that the Homeowners 11 Association has outlined and stipulated that any other type of fuel source other than natural gas 12 would be prohibited and enforced. 13 14 Commissioner Jenson asked if the stoves in each unit would be gas or electric. Mr. Charles 15 stated that he is under the impression that the stoves would be gas. Commissioner Jenson 16 suggested that they make a decision and remain consistent in all units. 17 18 Commissioner Jensen noted that if they plan to pipe gas to the buildings the units would also be 19 piped for gas. He stated the stove type would be an option for each tenant to choose from. 20 21 Chair Stromgren asked Commission to differentiate between how the property would be 22 maintained and protected if it is a rental unit versus owner-occupied property noting that an 23 owner would be more apt to maintain and protect the assets of the unit. 24 25 Commissioner Jenson stated that his overall concern is the design of the structure and 26 implementation of the process and guidelines. 27 28 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 29 30 9.1 NONE 31 32 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 33 34 10.1 Zoning Ordinance Revision Discussion 35 36 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that there has been a lot of interest in this over a long period of time. 37 She stated that the ideas to look at, as far as revisions to the ordinance, vary noting that she 38 received an email from the City Attorney dated May 24, 2005, that discusses non-conformity of 39 uses and states that second paragraph of Section 1660 of City Code probably should be amended 40 to conform the section because it still has the provision of prior Minnesota law that if more than 41 50-percent of fair market value of non-conforming use is removed or destroyed that the permitted 42 non-conforming use would then end. She stated that there has been some discussion about non- 43 conforming uses, what is a non-conforming use and how stringent the City's control should be 44 over non-conforming uses. She stated that this is one item that should definitely be reviewed and 45 discussed. -She indicated that she found a file that contained several copies of ordinances from Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 8 1 various cities regarding accessory uses and customary home occupations as an accessory use. 2 She noted that home occupation comes up frequently in discussions with residents and basically 3 the ordinance does not allow home occupancy. She asked if this is something that they might 4 want to consider expanding noting that there are issues to address including traffic concerns, 5 disturbing the peace of the area noting that the City is aware that there are home businesses and it 6 would be difficult to seek them all out. She explained that the City responds when a complaint 7 has been made. 8 9 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced another memo from the City Attorney that discusses non- 10 commercial opinion sign ordinance. She explained that the concern is whether the City could 11 control this kind of signage noting that they should discuss the first amendment rights of the 12 United States Constitution. 13 14 Chair Stromgren explained that this was a topic of discussion at a number of meetings. He 15 further explained that there was a serious concern with the constitutional issues in that approving 16 something that would put the City into a position where they could be embroiled in lawsuits and 17 expend City funds given the size of the City. He noted that they have a number of good models 18 to review that have been tested at the Supreme Court level and should be fairly safe. 19 20 Ms. Moore-Sykes agreed noting that it also states in the memo that while they have the ability to 21 express views there is no guarantee or an absolute right depending on the time, the place or the 22 manner of expression. She noted that they cannot incite riots or harm another adding that the 23 City Attorney does make points along those lines. She stated that it appears that this was never 24 acted upon noting that it was proposed and the City Attorney put together an opinion. She stated 25 that she did not find anything to show that it was ever approved as an ordinance in 2004. 26 27 Chair Stromgren explained that the issue was tabled at that point due to a very heavy agenda and 28 docket during those months. He stated that the City was very busy at that time with the Apache 29 project. 30 31 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that discussions have also been held regarding prairie restorations and 32 grasses, how it would be used and controlled by the ordinance within an urban setting. 33 34 Chair Stromgren noted that there are some constitutional issues here that have not been tested 35 adding that the City cannot unilaterally restrict someone's right to place a grass that is technically 36 not considered to be noxious weeds. 37 38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that there is an instance where a homeowner in the Village did indeed 39 plant prairie grasses and there were concerns about the lines of sight for traffic and pedestrians, 40 as they can get relatively tall. She noted that the grasses are drought resistant and native to 41 Minnesota. 42 43 Chair Stromgren noted the home where this came up is actually a backyard that fronts the 44 southwest corner of Silver Point Park where the hockey rink comes in. He stated that this is an Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 9 1 item that should be considered to include some form of buffering to the neighbors, control to the 2 boulevards or adjacent to neighbors and traffic issues. 3 4 Commissioner Jensen stated that the text amendment somewhat broke down in the idea of 5 attempting to be specific to prairie grasses noting that there are all types of long grasses around 6 the large water quality pond east of Silver Lake Road, none of which constitute prairie on City 7 property. He asked who it is to say that it can only be on City property and why can't it be part of 8 someone's backyard, side yard or front yard if there is a reasonable maintenance plan. 9 10 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced rain gardens noting that they also come into the discussion at this 11 point if the City allows prairie grasses and native planting. She stated that rain gardens in the 12 ditches and low-lying areas should also be considered. 13 14 Commissioner Jensen stated that he is curious noting that a number of the items being discussed 15 are currently not covered within the City Code. He noted that they may find a way, as the 16 community moves through the nuances, that they move away from the code statement that 17 specifically prohibits it and if they then have a mechanism such as a temporary conditional use 18 permit that would allow a two to four year use period that the City Attorney could defend, as far 19 as the length of time, noting that it tends not to run with the land quite as long. He stated that if 20 they require the applicant to come back after a period of time the City would then know by 21 complaints or other issues whether the stipulations placed on that approval have been met 22 through the test of care or operational concerns. He explained that at the end of two specific 23 periods the community would then have to make the decision to withdraw it or make it a 24 permanent conditional use noting that at least the City bought some time to deal with change in 25 lifestyle product design, the nuances or the care of an individual property. He stated that there 26 are several language issues pertaining to catering kitchens where it might be more difficult to 27 deal with code amendments that allow one case or not adding that this might be a mechanism 28 that would help assist the Commission and Council in dealing with issues that are between the 29 lines. 30 31 Commissioner Jenson asked Ms. Moore-Sykes what the Council wants the Planning Commission 32 to do. 33 34 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the City Council would like the Planning Commission to review 35 the proposals, determine which ones the Commission wants to work on and try to come up with 36 the recommended language or ideas. She stated that a temporary conditional use permit is 37 something that is akin to a reverse moratorium instead of preventing they are allowing use for a 38 specified amount of time. She stated that this could be discussed with the City Attorney as a 39 possibility to use this as a tool for some of the more creative ideas that the residents have. She 40 noted that there are some items like the non-conformity that she would have to get clarification 41 on from the City Attorney and bring back to the Commission for their review adding that there 42 are items that the Commission could begin to work on such as home occupation. 43 44 Chair Stromgren agreed that the Commission could move forward on the changes recommended 45 by the City Attorney that have been generated based on his experience or changes from the State. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 10 1 He stated that the rest are issues that they could move forward with noting that they way it is 2 addressed and how the language would be defined is something that does need to be worked on. 3 4 Commissioner Jensen stated that he has some questions on the 50-percent damage in a non- 5 conformity issue noting that it is not very well defined as to who makes the call on the 50- 6 percent. He indicated that some want to administer it based on what the Assessor says noting 7 that most people that this is intended to benefit for would see it on their tax statement, which 8 combines the lot, the property and what the property is being insured for. He expressed concerns 9 stating that they do not want to discover that the Assessor has a value in his file cabinet that is 10 $50,000 less than what they are being taxed for. He stated that he wants to be careful that if they 11 are allowing something to be built that it qualifies under reasonable standards. 12 13 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that there have been some changes noting that the 50-percent is one of 14 the changes. She explained that if it was destroyed to a certain degree and the owner wants to 15 continue it, it would be allowed to unless it hasn't been used for a year or more, then it would not 16 be allowed to continue. She stated that if they completely removed the building that creates the 17 non-conformity then it would not be renewed. 18 19 Chair Stromgren clarified that it reads 50-percent and no permit applied for within 180 days. 20 21 Commissioner Jensen clarified that his concern with the 50-percent, based on building codes and 22 other things, is that there is a discrepancy because of the limited market value and the assessor's 23 market value deals with structure, land and land improvements. 24 25 Chair Stromgren clarified that the 50-percent comes into play if they don't act on a permit in six 26 months. He stated that it is protecting the City's interest not to have a detrimental property 27 sitting unused for an extended period of time. 28 29 Ms. Moore-Sykes introduced Ramona Steadman, 2909 30'h Avenue Northeast stating that she has 30 some questions regarding egress window/side yard requirements to be five feet between the 31 house and the property line. She noted that she has dealt with this issue several times with 32 residents who want to make improvements to their property but require an egress window for 33 safety purposes. She explained that most do not want an egress window in the front as it detracts 34 from the view of the front yard. She noted that the back yard is not always convenient adding 35 that the side yard area appears to be the most convenient location for an egress window. She 36 explained that the ordinances states that there be a minimum of five feet between the building 37 and property line for the side yard and has to be a total of 15-feet for both side yards and some of 38 the residents only have five feet on the side where they want the egress yet they can't encroach 39 into the setback. 40 41 Chair Stromgren clarified that the interpretation so far is that the window well is an 42 encroachment in the setback and is not allowed. 43 44 Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed stating that is not allowed. She noted that the ordinance does allow 45 an encroachment for stoops, eaves and other structures into the five-foot setback on the side yard Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 11 1 2 Commissioner Jensen asked if this is an interpretation or do they specifically prohibit the egress. 3 4 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced Section 1615, the regulation portion of Chapter 16 stating that an 5 egress is not listed as an allowable item within the ordinance and therefore is prohibited. 6 7 Ramona Steadman, 2909 30th Avenue Northeast stated that they just recently purchased a home 8 that has a den in the basement and they would like to install an egress window that would meet 9 safety regulations. She stated that the property sketch she has shows the house at five feet, plus 10 or minus. She stated that she and her husband tried to measure it was real close to five feet 11 adding that they are not sure without the certificate of survey, which would cost approximately 12 $700.00 to $1000.00, which is prohibitive for them to do. She explained that they have 62 feet 13 across and one side is just the five feet, which is the side where they want to install the egress 14 window. She stated that she was under the impression that the Commission would be discussing 15 items like this tonight noting that as far as the smaller lots with garages sometimes there is not 16 enough room to make these improvements to make the house better. She explained that the front 17 of their house has a stone front in addition to the gas line adding that they would have to move 18 the gas line and build the egress window up into the stone face of the house, which aesthetically 19 would not look as nice. She stated that this is why she is here and is hoping that this is 20 something that the Commission would address. She stated that she was not sure if she had to 21 have a certificate of survey and asked if this is a requirement. She asked if she is responsible for 22 talking to the neighbors and get their comments and would that be enough for them to get 23 approval. 24 25 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the problem with finding pins is that sometimes, over the years, 26 the pins end up moved or removed due to erosion and changes in the landscaping and 27 measurements taken may not show the true location of the property line. She further explained 28 that the certificate of survey would verify and document the true property line. 29 30 Ms Steadman asked if this is what is required for a fence adding that she does not understand 31 why locating the pin is ok for a fence and not a window well. 32 33 Chair Stromgren further explained that when a surveyor comes out to survey the property they 34 don't just locate the pin and they go back to know benchmarks such as fire hydrants and other 35 utilities located in the street that they know have not moved. He stated that a certificate of survey 36 is the only way that staff knows where the actual property lines are located. 37 38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the certificate of survey is also a for the protection of the 39 homeowners. She explained that situations have occurred where improvements have encroached 40 onto a neighbors' property based on the pin that they thought was where it was supposed to be. 41 She stated that it could be a very expensive process adding that she would not want to see them 42 be in a situation where they would have to remove the improvements due to an encroachment. 43 44 Ms. Steadman asked if there is an allowance for a variance. She clarified for a stoop it would be 45 allowed but as far as a fence or egress it would require a variance. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 12 1 2 Chair Stromgren stated that this is something that the Planning Commission could review and 3 evaluate to determine if it could be included as a specifically listed permitted encroachment into 4 the setback. 5 6 Ms. Moore-Sykes further clarified that this is a process that requires several readings and public 7 hearings to get the changes adding that if they are planning to build the egress in the next month 8 or two that they would have enough time to change the ordinance. 9 10 Ms. Steadman clarified that Commission recommends and requires that they get the certificate of 11 survey before this process could go forward. 12 13 Commissioner Jensen stated that if the outside dimension from the structure to the pin is not five 14 feet or less it would seem to be able to fit within the spirit of what is intended. 15 16 Chair Stromgren explained that part of the problem with an egress window is that the window 17 well should be three feet deep and a lot of the common small window wells would be 16, 18 or 18 20-inches. He stated that the code requirement for the egress is three feet deep so that the 19 window can swing open. He stated that part of the concern might be that if you only have five 20 feet and you remove three feet, you are only left with two feet. He stated that if two neighbors 21 place an egress directly across from each other would only leave four feet between the structures 22 to walk and get emergency equipment through the area. 23 24 Ms. Steadman clarified her understanding that based on the current ordinance it would be legal 25 for each house to have two feet each. 26 27 Chair Stromgren confirmed stating that based on how the ordinance is currently written they 28 would not be able to install an egress window well. He stated that there are two options to 29 consider, the first would be to change the ordinance, noting that the Commission has heard her 30 concerns adding that the Commission would include this item in their evaluation of the City 31 ordinances. He stated that the second option would be for them to apply for a variance noting 32 that it is not a very quick process. He explained that they would need to have the certificate of 33 survey in order for the Commission to be able to evaluate the request. He stated that this is also 34 intended to protect the homeowner because if they build something that encroaches their 35 neighbors' property they could be required to remove it. 36 37 Commissioner Jensen stated that what they might be able to do, if the decide to contact a survey 38 company, is to specifically describe that side and if they talk with their neighbor on that same 39 side they might be able to split the costs because it might be a benefit for both of you to resolve 40 future construction or sale issues. 41 42 Chair Stromgren noted that if they are planning to do any improvements in the future they could 43 continue to use the survey once a survey has been certified or assigned. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 13 1 Ms. Steadman asked how they would know if a survey has been done. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated 2 that she could check noting that if they do have one on file it was probably done in the 1950's or 3 1960's when the lot was platted, which is a significant amount of time to pass adding that the 4 pins have probably shifted. 5 6 Commissioner Jensen stated that part of the concern is the constructability and explained that in 7 order to dig five feet down in the ground they would have to hold up the ground on the outside of 8 the egress pit and they would have to communicate with their neighbors the temporary disruption 9 while it is being installed. 10 11 Ms. Steadman assured the Commission that they have talked to the neighbors and they have said 12 they are ok with them installing the window. She stated that she would get it in writing from the 13 neighbors. She stated that she does not feel comfortable without the egress window noting that 14 she is thinking in terms of safety and in adding value to the house. 15 16 Commissioner Galyon referenced the hot tubs and swimming pools and asked what the issue is. 17 Chair Stromgren explained that the code does not differentiate between a hot tub and an Olympic 18 size pool in the backyard. He stated that many municipalities allow hot tubs without the fence 19 and with a lockable cover so that safety concerns are addressed 20 21 Commissioner Galyon clarified that a hot tub in our language is considered the same thing as a 22 swimming pool. 23 24 Chair Stromgren confirmed that currently it is and part of the issue is that the City is aware that 25 hot tubs are probably being installed and the resident pulls a permit for the electrical work and it 26 is the language is triggered by the permit process. 27 28 Chair Stromgren clarified that procedurally moving forward with these that a number of them the 29 City Attorney would generate language on. 30 31 Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed stating that she would also be doing research on how other Cities 32 address these issues. 33 34 Commissioner Galyon asked how they would add more items for review. 35 36 Commissioner Jenson suggested bringing the suggestions to the City Office and then through the 37 Planning Commission. 38 39 Commissioner Jensen suggested that Ms. Moore-Sykes contact the City of Bloomington noting 40 that they have a lot of different lot sizes and have a lot of history in dealing with issues like this. 41 He stated that it would be nice not to create additional work for the Planning Commission if code 42 has already been written. He stated that it would also be nice for the residents to not have to go 43 through the process and then run into the construction timelines and constraints. He noted that 44 there are many situations where if the immediate neighbors are willing to sign off on it and there 45 was an administrative approval that staff could give, where two staff people would be authorized Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 14 1 to sign off on it in an effort to move it forward and if it is deemed to be more significant it could 2 then be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated that their time would be better spent 3 by trying to find a way to have a code amendment that wouldn't prohibit the process, if they 4 weren't specifically listed and gave staff more latitude in the spirit of the code and if it truly is a 5 gray area then testimony from the residents to the Planning Commission could then help to 6 resolve issues. 7 8 Chair Stromgren agreed stating that this was the reason for driving it forward to allow the smaller 9 lots redevelopment. He stated that they were aware that these issues would come up as the 10 homes age. 11 12 Commissioner Jensen provided an example stating that how this egress pit could be worded is 13 that the first person in would win adding that they would have a condition that the person next 14 door would not be able to install a pit within ten to fifteen feet of the existing pit and they would 15 probably have a fence to deal with it. He noted that there is nothing in the code that would 16 prohibit plants or other things that create the same kinds of obstructions. He stated that they do 17 have a lot of gray area and for an overall benefit on issues like this it would be better done 18 administratively. 19 20 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she would contact the City of Bloomington and get the information 21 to see what could be included within the City ordinances. She stated that she would also review 22 the information with the City Council and the City Attorney to see how it could work within our 23 ordinances and try to bring something back to the Planning Commission for their review in 24 August or September. 25 26 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS 27 28 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced a letter from Rose Fitzgerald, Manager of Autumn Woods 29 Apartments, regarding Hannay's Boat and Marine adding that she submitted photographs of what 30 it looks like in Minneapolis. She noted that she did respond to Ms. Fitzgerald's letter and also 31 provided the Commission with a copy of the letter for review. She stated that staff would 32 monitor and keep an eye on this concern going forward. 33 34 Chair Stromgren stated that he is not sure, based on the photographs, what is in violation. 35 36 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that anything on display outside has to be moved back inside at the 37 end of the business day. 38 39 Chair Stromgren clarified that they do have a small fenced area on the west side of the building 40 that is hidden from view, except for Autumn Woods. He noted that when he has looked at that 41 area it appears to always be full adding that the applicant was very clear that he was not going to 42 store anything inside that area. 43 44 Commissioner Young asked if they know what the City of Minneapolis' code is for this property. - 45 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that it is a commercial area and they do allow some outside storage. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 15 1 2 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that she recently spoke with the Finance Director regarding the 3 Comprehensive Plan noting that it has to be reviewed every ten years. She noted that a day later 4 the City received a letter from the Metropolitan Council that indicates that it is time to start 5 thinking about the Comprehensive Plan for budgeting through 2008. 6 7 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the City commissioned a City survey because it had been several 8 years since one had been done. She stated that she included a copy of the survey in their packet 9 for their review noting that based on the responses they received the City is doing things right 10 and the residents were very positive about the work all of the Commissions and Council are 11 doing. She stated that the survey was done in May or June and that 400 people were surveyed for 12 approximately twenty minutes. She stated that the questions were asked about the services the 13 City provides and school issues. She indicated that the results would be included in the next City 14 newsletter. 15 16 Commissioner Jensen noted that one of his peers is working on part of the plans for the 17 Minneapolis portion of the St. Anthony Parkway and it was his understanding that there would 18 be some communication with both New Brighton and the other Cities involved as the parkway is 19 redesigned. He stated that he is presuming that the communication would evolve as the project 20 moves forward adding that it would be nice to see updates. He noted that Ingram and Associates 21 would be working on the plan with the Minneapolis Park Board. 22 23 Chair Stromgren stated that he would be interested to know what happens with the parkway 24 simply because he noticed that the map for the Grand Rounds, which comes down the parkway 25 across the river stops at Stinson and stays within Minneapolis' borders and follows Stinson down 26 to New Brighton Boulevard and comes up around to the south side of Hillside Cemetery, which 27 excludes the portion of St. Anthony. 28 29 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that as soon as she hears anything she would forward the information on 30 to the Commission. 31 32 Chair Jensen clarified that they are currently exploring and making comments for linkages when 33 they exist at the borders, which only makes sense. He stated that he also has information that 34 relates to pedestrian walk signs from some of the suppliers. He noted that they cost 35 approximately$300 to $400 and he stated that from a safety point of view it would be well 36 warranted to consider. 37 38 Commissioner Galyon asked if they have heard anything from the Silver Lake Task Force. 39 40 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that information would be included in the upcoming City newsletter. 41 She stated that if anyone is interested in participating in the Task Force on Silver Lake Road 42 Reconstruction they should send a letter of interest to the City Manager, Mike Mornson, at City 43 Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road. She stated that the deadline is August 1, 2005. 44 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 16 1 Chair Stromgren asked if there would be a Task Force if there is a Comprehensive Plan update or 2 is that strictly consultant driven. 3 4 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the last update included both noting that a number of people 5 from the community were interested in participating and they were invited to task force meeting 6 for their input. She stated that the information was then provided to the consultants noting it was 7 a very successful exercise. She indicated that that they have not gotten this far in the planning 8 process yet. 9 10 Commissioner Jensen asked if they remind the residents of State law changes in the City 11 newsletters when it clearly has an impact on the community. He suggested creating a more 12 cohesive communication with adjoining cities so that everyone has a clear understanding of the 13 current laws when it comes to enforcement. 14 15 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that they do put in reminders from time to time and agreed that the 16 pedestrian issues and crosswalks would be a good topic to include. She noted that they also 17 include updates regarding dogs in parks, leash laws, and snow plowing issues and suggested that 18 the pedestrian topic would make for a good topic in the fall newsletter. 19 20 Vice Chair Hanson stated that he would like congratulated Commissioner Young for being 21 appointed to the Governor's Residence Council. 22 23 XII. ADJOURNMENT 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Jenson, to adjourn the meeting at 26 8:40 p.m. 27 28 Motion carried unanimously. 29 30 Respectfully submitted, 31 Bonnie Sullivan 32 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.