Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08162005 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 104947 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 08162005 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 16, 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 July 19, 2005 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VIA Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the August 23, 2005 City Council Meeting VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. VIIA. AMCON — St. Anthony Marketplace — CUP and Variances VII.2.' Text Amendment Conditional Use Permit— 49ers Building VII.3. 2909 — 301h Avenue NE — Setback Variance for Egress Window VII.4. Silver Lake Homes -- Variance to Allow Balcony Grills VIII. Concept Reviews. VIIIA. 3645 Chelmsford Road NE — R-1 to R-2 Rezoning Request VIII.2. Text Amendment re: Egress Windows Permitted in the Sideyard Setback 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. HAP1anning\PC Agendas\2005\081605 pc agenda.doc X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. X.1. Zoning Ordinance Revision Discussion — Ordinance re: Vehicle Sales XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS. XII. ADJOURNMENT. H:\Plannmg\PC Agendas\2005\081605 pc agenda.doc v 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 • Page 3, line 12, reads: 1-foot x 19-foot garage; should read 11-foot x 19-foot garage 37 38 Commissioner Jensen 39 • 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 V Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 2 1 2 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 3 6.1 Desimnate 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 RUO 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 © 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 IUO 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 r 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 Rl, 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 37th 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 50/50 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''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. ;� STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: August 16, 2005 Subject: AMCON's Development of the Outlot,St. Anthony Marketplace Project Date Application Received: July 7,2005 Property Address: 2900 Kenzie Terrace/Hwy. 88 Zoning District: C 60-Day Expires: September 7, 2005 Requested Action: Paul Tucci,OPPIDAN,is requesting three (3) public hearings for the zoning petitions in support of their revised proposal for the outlot on the corner of Kenzie Terrace and Highway 88,St. Anthony Marketplace. Mr. Tucci has submitted applications and supporting documentation for the following petitions 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 public hearing for their revised proposed development. 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 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 in size 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 basis for this request. f. The circumstances creating this hardship are unique to this oddly shaped property. H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Staff Report AMCON Staff report.doc 2 w .. hin the spirit and intention of the zoning code and g. Granting of the variance will keep wit 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- Parking on 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. Attachments: •Site Plan • Building Plan • Applications • Letters of Support H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Staff Report AMCON Staff report.doc 3 x Pez -7/0�� Date: Fed: $130.00 Uty ofst-,Anthony Application for Conditional Use Permit Applicant: L G Phone:' IA-1 Address: Status-of Applicant: (Owner,Buyer,Renter,Agent,etc.) Street Address and/or Legal Description of Subject Property: 2111D AAAA iET.dJe64-F AAJ :9-IrzanK �s cAI01 Zoning Designation of Subject Property: Reason for Conditional Use Permit Request: RAd+A vd A n+ W 1•Eji WaSb J�e e-& 4 A APPLICANTS 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 gpecifically 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 Idcatr h to-ptovide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or-community. t�`" Additionally, applicants must submit ALL of the following information to City Hall by the 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: ® pPIDAN _ 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 55418-1699 RE: :Application for Conditional Use Permit—Proximity of a Restaurant to Residential Uses' ; St. Anthony Village Center Ancon 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 - 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. Break up mass and improve the landscape to the north side of the building h. The design of the building shall conform to Syyxq=Siose it>) S S'1i�y i. Hours of operation shall coincide with liquor service hours 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 a26 .1115 � - 2::: ) Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for Administr4tion: ity M- arVger Date: Pao 2J-xo j" Fee: 81 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . . . 100.00 CITY OF ST. Ali MONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance 5d-bAGk Applicant: Amcm Aa4hm UC Phone: "I -702 Address: 01Z Status of Applicant(Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): OamfA Legal Description of property proposed for variance: See~A Street Address: AW Wdpa T 2AAc d 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. 5U Iq,f,tA aAxaV 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance. would relieve an undue has dship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct e=aordimu circumstances applicable.to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signa of Applicant. EXHIBIT A Leal Description That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "St. Anthony Village Commercial Center Addition No. I" 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 l; 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 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 143.73 feet; thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of- 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 J ® PPIDAN Builder ojtowns.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 55418-1699 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 for a Building Setback - , Variance for the new building proposed on the northern "point"of the referenced site. The new Site Plan lays out a 4,500 s.'f. restaurant building in the point of this property. The building is designed'for a single use'-restaurant with liquor, generally iri 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. Sincerel 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 mayor ATTEST: City Clerk , Reviewed for Administration: City Manager � r Date: - a Fee: 81 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . . 0. CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance In It. Applicant: c � 6o Phone: •7D�•3SGD Addxess: LARI Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Legal Description of property proposed for variance: So �tA c ho Street Address: 1nz� T����. '�' '70y 2 - w Presently Zoned: Minnesota Statutes and City Ordmances require that the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary- . 15ft ,q4*64 c kAA0 -t-'vE 1, Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of 'the•parcel or lot, the proposed variance. would MUM= undue as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is'not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the-value or income potential of the parcel of land,but would correct extraordiMa circumstances applicable to this properly but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning di9trict. 3• The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the C Y9 Qrdinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signatur 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 1; 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 59 minutes 53 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of-way line, a distance of 143.73 feet; thence North 48 degrees 03 minutes 57 seconds East, along said southeasterly right-of- 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 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 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 ti of the locality as there is sufficient room afthe property line r 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 parldng 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 IT 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 day of F:a ayor ATTEST: 'City Clerk + Reviewed for Administration: City Manager ® PPIDAN Builder of towns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 4100 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 PHONE: 952/294-0353 FAX: 952/294-0151 WEB: www.oppidan.com July.6,2006 y 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-Amcon St.Anthony LLC Dear Kim: This shall'serve 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.Anthony Sports Boosters. However,the operator will have the option to cancel the lease witli 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 19th. Additionally, we have submitted the following: • A Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant within 250 feet of a residential use. • 'A Petition for Variance for Parking ori 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, althougha 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,. aul J. Tu —� CC: Gonzalo Medina Jim Winkels - Mike Supina O P I D A N Builder oft owns.Creator of value. 5125 COUNTY ROAD 101 #100. MINNETONKA, MN 55345 • PHONE: 952/294.0353 FAX: 952/294-0151 Wes: www.oppidan.com. July 6,2005 Ms.Kirn 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 brief narrative 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): 160/2.5 =:i Wstalls•plus 10 stalls'for employees=74 total stalls Grand Total Site Required: ��stalls Parking Provided:. 11.8 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 �S As you can see,�jib parking variance required has diminished with the new proposed site plan. We are short.4T4 alis from what is required. Furthermore,the tenants in the main retail building and the outlot will provide a mix of uses that will allow parldng"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 appproval 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 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(aoppidan.com From: Mike Supina [mai Ito: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 paul oppidan.com 7/12/2005 A 1-4 t pit rte m milpf 'IsR s r•- [ r � 1 �O1jNry ROAD 88 it D P t 9 < } gg � fs ii t t oEvao�TnP4E] ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RETAIL CENTER lit.ANTHONY VLL AM 1!!433OTA I r . aln t ®n llla e GZ5 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 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, Kim Moore-Sykes 4L Assistant City Manager kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mmus HALetters\Planning\2005\071205 60 Day acknwldg Itr AMCOM.doc FOSTER & BREVER, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW i4 y,Y 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 Mornson 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 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. Job 3Fter, J RJF:dk enclosures cc: G. Petersen/W. Forschen 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 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 $3.50 Pe fill EQUIPMENT LEGEND PISOR IL-L 0 0 16A OL L19 510 22 w N. O _t4 YvmL�JABmztx—LE--. fix_ — � L xe qi=250_-Fq— sf - c=w Z9 XQUIL-— RUWVY- 31 EfL f IL mmm TQM-- 2)SIML 25. B1PIiBHlaIEL ESL 60 to !, PO % , ® ( 9 42--1 AtWL— a 4 AL 0 JA L5r-- 8-e 9! AL-L .17 I'S rlSEW_ c 41 3i sm 'a ms_ omo_ Qft_ &R.FY_ Ln ALI LE— c m 11 0 13 64 -1 10 9,5 22- 23. 21- 76. 77 1 E71M A9 2 AL 17 17 .17 Ji- — —— — 75 LODEE13EOD 89 - - 0 CIE] V EF-b ff--b EFO CL u QQ QQ rl SHEETINDEX FS-1.0 FLOOR PLAN&LEGEND FS-2.0 ANCAL PLAN FS-3.0 ELEcTFucAL PLAN FS-4.0 WALL SPECOCAllcm PLM F: EQUPMENT PLAN o pmp- asw �rn.l•o a®/aMiu a IEa-tea► a°°II°a Lon TIM mm a M-mot �mm6 o.mNEW CLIM ®�r .a.wa R ��� 4 mal 4 11I Ig1�•00�71P ®r ® ®� II II II 7 a i3.10�$ �� ,t® ,®aim ® II II II II II • II • II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 4 II ii u � ti of ma II p and a �I-0001 t u II a.aa� aatx-•.aa a II II .as-aao,a II II wILL amlear Sam FUMMM " 1 11 IM/Fll Q'i u II u II 4 u u 11 II ~ fOiOm 1�mw /� 4 II II .mc-mot a LL a a sml-ao,aa a 4 W eu�NPAW ELWAMW U aom m.nao,• , -, - ntWL Or•I.,,aa J Q awr llll�Lam"M MILL aa1MNIQ .o[-as=, CC sa-moa a ss om eso,l-0ao1 a a.m, .s•I-•.m a W ANIM TIM Q J J NOMRAFAMM Z Q FfF a.•I-mol a mo,a .01-0=a •.a, F— to lrl A FLOW ww WEN otwaars am w ava aooa G2 PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT- ' AL ST. NTHONY VILLA E RETAIL °�1oms 1Z ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE, MINNESOTA mmomw 'n L480f.e7 do. bA FEWAURANT an d rY0 WE DATA `S m mm =AM to ff"m U*"ILF. 0 soils C-QMEKm . lal vm vw =VM vw 10 bd arw Rem sum ax am sum SK am IF 00 ELM a' z eum I EDOWNG FlffrAL W Zama v.an sw SK a" 0 .1a.�a0t90a 2140 SA 0 I/=W. 100020 a mom �, //O/� im ram® 110 aqua W swm/� z lumm Paa2.PUN= tu San Igo sow 1.171 O - Gl STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: August 16, 2005 Subject: City Code Text Change and Conditional Use Permit Request- 2829 Anthony Lane South Date Application Received: June 30,2005 Property Address: 2829 Anthony Lane South Zoning District: LI 60-Day Expires: August 30,2005 Requested Action: Eric Reiners,architect with Welman Sperides Architects,representative for The International Union of Operating Engineers,Local 49,has requested a public hearing for their proposal to amend the City's Zoning Code to include catering activities as a permitted conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District. Background: The IUOE Local 49 recently opened their newly constructed catering kitchen and related facilities. They are interested in opening 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 activities similar to catering or as a facility that would support catering 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 this request at a concept review,which was held on July 19,2005. 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. The applicant suggested at the concept review that the catering facilities would mostly used on the weekends when most of the operations located in the Industrial Park would be closed or limited in their operations. By allowing catering activities as a permitted conditional use, it will give the City the ability to place conditions on this use to protect the community and the public using these proposed catering facilities. Proposed Text: 1640.03 Permitted Conditional Uses. The following uses are permitted in an LI District only by a conditional use permit issued by the Council: (h) Assembly, meeting lodge,or convention halls. (i) Catering operations,cafeterias and delicatessens. H.\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Staff Report IU049text chg conditional use.doc 0 J. ' r � Attachments: • Applicant's Letter • Letter from Hennepin County Human Services • Building Plans showing Catering Kitchen and related facilities a H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Staff Report IUO49text chg conditional use.doc 06/29/2005 12:56 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY 9002/003 r Fee: $100.00 ' CIN OF ST. ANTHONY Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance C Applicant: Address: } 7-ci S, yU141 S- Phone:l 1a-?81-9WI Request fdr change regarding: (check appropriate item(s)) Restrictions u on buildings, structures, or amenities Permitted use _ Conditional uses Affected zoning district: =,'C1(A-& -,2.,aL- Proposed change(s) and reasons) therefor: �E�T Qr»enclrn�n�T (use additional sheet, if necessary) Signature Applicant 06 -30 -05 * 1.00 o00CH •' International Union of Operating Engineers LOCAL NO. 49, 49A,49B, 49D, AND 49E MINNESOTA • NORTH DAKOTA • SOUTH DAKOTA(East Hall) THOMAS H.PARISEAU,President •••• GLEN D.JOHNSON JOSEPH L.RYAN,Vice President °, Business Manager/Financial Secretary KYLE D.JONES, • ,'_�` 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 cateringibanquet 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 ® �...D S G 2827 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55418 FA S-�° E TELEPHONE (612) 788-7468 FAX (612) 788-1914 To Whom It May Concern: We at Building Fasteners have No Objections to allow Catering/Banquet Activities as a conditional use in the Industrial Zone District. We neighbor the Union Hall on the west side and the Management within the Union of Operating Engineers 49ers has been kind enough to allow our employees to use their parking lot as we have exceeded our space available on our own property. Sincerely, 1 Todd Boo Executive VP Building Fasteners 2827 Anthony Lane South Mpls, MN 55418 T � STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VII.3 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: August 16, 2005 Subject: 2909-30th Avenue NE—Variance to Allow Egress Windows in Side Yard Setback Date Application Received: July 22, 2005 Property Address: 2909-30th Avenue NE Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: September 22, 2005 Requested Action: The property owners of 2909 -30th Avenue NE,Marcus and Ramona Steadman, are petitioning for a 3-foot variance to the Zoning Code to be allowed to install an egress window in the 5-foot side yard setback on the west side of their property. BackgEound: By omission from the Zoning Code,egress windows are not a permitted use or allowed as an encroachment into the side yard setback of the R-1 Zoning District. Section 1600.03 Uses Not Specified states that if a use is not specifically permitted, permitted by conditional use permit or prohibited, the use will be considered prohibited;and Section 1650.03 Encroachments in Yards, does not include egress windows as an allowed encroachment. The property owners have reported that the west side yard of their property is the only feasible place for the installation of an egress window as the east side of their house has a drive way and the room that requires the egress window is at the west end of the house. They considered locating the egress window in the front of the house at the suggestion of Staff,but upon investigation discovered that the gas main enters the structure through the front of the house. The front of the house also has a stone facade that the owners have reported as original and would be difficult to replace or repair. Ms. Steadman came before the Planning Commission on July 19,2005 to discuss her plan for the installation of an egress window. The Planning Commission informed Ms.Steadman that currently, the Zoning Ordinance does not allow egress windows in the side yard setback. The Chair indicated that the Commission was reviewing various ordinances for possible revision and that they could look at amending the text to allow for an egress window in the setback,but that that process can be time-consuming. Ms. Steadman was informed about the variance process and those requirements if she wanted to pursue the installation of an egress window. Ms.Steadman indicated that she is concerned with safety issues for the family if they want to use the lower level of the home. A 3-foot variance is required because the minimum dimensions required of an egress window well that would provide access to the outside in the case of an emergency is 9 square feet,according to the information that is provided by the Building Inspector. H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\2909 30th Ave Egress Variance 08162005.doc t � 4 Attachments: • Petition for Variance • Attachment to the Petition of Variance • Letter from the Property Owners • Survey of Property H:\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\2909 30th Ave Egress Variance 08162005.doc Date: Fee: R-1 . . . �. $ 60.Other . . . .00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance Applicant: Phone: 76 3• q ZY-,24 7 9 Address: -Marcus s 2¢^»na1Sfead O Ckatm 44U' LT / CA;A�Al X � MPJ Nctw r) I ft? _3 4^ Ove NE 51617nMa/i /YJW Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): owit#-r Legal Description of property roposed for variance: Qu�d:� « /,� tS4tsdcu�'�,a.. No 3 .�Ad—,, SL a-ru Street Address: 9q D 9 30 " Avg IVE Presently Zoned: R 1 Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if necessary. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. Sde- a.+la.e ka.d. 2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. Signa re of Ap cant 07 -22-05 * 60 . 00CK Attachment to the Petition for Variance Condition 1 For personal safety reasons we want to install an egress window to the basement. The width of the lot is smaller than the current lot size requires. Also the home was built before current building codes for emergency escape and rescue were established. The existing lot will not permit the installation of a basement emergency exit egress window and window well on the west side of the property without encroaching into a required 5 foot side yard. The existing side yard is approximately 5 feet. The installation of the window well will project 3 feet into yard from the house leaving 2 feet to the property line. Condition 2 The purpose of this request is to ensure access to an emergency egress window from the basement of the house as required by current codes. The current City Ordinance requires a side yard of 5 feet. The existing house is approximately 5 feet from the property line and will not permit this installation without a variance. Condition 3 The current City Ordinance requires a minimum 5 feet side yard. While the Minnesota Building Code requires that if a portion of the basement is habitable space that at least one emergency egress window is provided. The existing house is approximately 5 feet from the property line and will not permit this installation without a variance. Certificate of Survey for: Mark Steadman 2909 — 30th Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55418 Mattke Surveying & Engineering, Inc. 7671 Central Avenue NE Fridley, MN 55432 763) 783-0300 58rW34,-E SCALE: 1"=50' �0lCB 6288 5� lien IS ° P N � 14,74,1 HOu� � House n Nouse 39 2 ae I o IM � I� g $ { 0 0 6222 N8S30'30'W �a 30th Avenue NE I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and o Dwotn hmn Monument set (ats IW12) that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor Denote.Irq" Monument Fwna under the laws of the State of Minnesota. o�� W. ),#-� Tedd W. Mattke, LS Date: /1 VD!r Minn. License No. 15612 The South Half of the West Half of Lot 20, Auditor's Subdivision No. 365 Hennepin County, Minnesota 05029 July 21, 2005 City of St. Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418 To Planning Commission and City Council Members: This variance request is to allow the installation of an emergency exit egress window from the basement of the house. For personal safety reasons we would like to add an egress window to the west side of the house. The size of the lot and the width of the side lot create the need for a variance. The installation will include a window well and window to meet current emergency exit requirements of the City. The location would be on the west side of the residence and will replace an existing window. The side yard at this location is approximately 5 feet. The window well for the egress window will encroach on this space by 3 feet. The adjacent property has driveway access adjacent to the property line with no structures closer than approximately 15 feet to the property line. We do not anticipate opposition to this request from the adjacent property owner. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Respectfully, Marcus and Ramona Steadman STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIIA From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager V." Date: August 16,2005 Subject: Variance to Allow Gas-fired Grills on Balconies-Silver Lake Townhomes Date Application Received: July 12, 2005 Property Address: 39th Avenue- Pratt Homes;Hunt Associates Zoning_District: Mixed Use 60-Day Expires: September 12, 2005 Requested Action: The applicant is requesting a variance to the City's Ordinance 1325.12 that does not allow open flames on balconies of multi-family structures. The Silver Lake Home development is asking to be allowed this variance so that they may install gas grills on the balconies of the multi-family units of the Silver Lake Homes project. The gas would be plumbed to the balcony area for the gas grills and they plan to install fire suppression systems over the balcony grills. Background: The Silver Lake townhomes that are being constructed by Len Pratt and Hunt&Associates are wood framed. The City's Code clearly states that no person 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. Staff has received and included with Staff Report a memo from the City's Fire Chief stating that do to the high risk to life safety posed by balcony grills, this activity must continue to be limited by City,State and Federal laws. Staff received one phone call from Autumn Woods stating their position against allowing grills on balconies. H.\Planning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Pratt Homes staff report gas grills balconies.doc 06/23/2005 12:11 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY Vuc, Date: Fee: R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00 Other . 100.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Variance Applicant: �1/UereZ one: Address: I _ �'1Pi d M Aj Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Owner �/ Legal Description of property proposed for variance: �' d 71T) �,a�l7Mn&5 Street Address: aNvl ,z o3 07 - N� X510 a -J ` caGJl1� Presently Zoned: v ' 07yN 55��I 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*hardshinas distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the ap//''plicab�/ac�e e ordinance''/b��e strictly enforced. �i�� ; !G of-�/W LaK C (�i C� jirIlI o-l ��r �Da�conie5 • 6✓���� i5 al�outeo( ►K �Iwtr�av - �i- — � 6 144 1,J dew Sriglan 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. ,�}-v�ovz�c by Sp��►�kl e.- Gc�a�s. 6v,l�s wi l( b�r11��'" vc;';( tt'.or O11 (46ru�� tri �W 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. f l ��L Uk bel �.�z G4y 04 K��Aad 6 < j �n csvt• /17 Al Si e 07 - 12-05 * 100 o00CK w � � D;4O FF=9 • 4MI r�.y mem, Mpg //// I Lm Emma/i/� / ----per �WitAt ��►11►��.�-�.�,.�� � loll .I , 't ••\,���Ss� STATEMINNESOTA . - PUBLIC *, OP.,rw 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 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 l 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 dwelling units no person shall kindle, maintain or cause an fire oro en Marshal/ g 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 DC_MUMSOTAapartment building owners to incorporate language into their leases that prohibits barbecue 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. AnthonySt • -Memo TO: Kim Moore-Sykes Fronx John Malenick, Fire Chief Date: July 18,2005 Re: BBQ's on Balconies In regard to City Ordinance 1325.12 disallowing open flames on balconies, the St. Anthony Fire Department does not at this time nor do we foresee a future need to alter our current code. Multiple Dwellings, buildings with three or more dwelling units, have always been and will continue to be what we consider a high risk to life safety. These are places where the careless or malicious acts of one individual can endanger and disrupt the lives of many others. Because of this, certain freedoms must be limited by city, state and federal law, open flame in multiple dwellings being just one of countless legislation. Where state law allows some leeway to the local jurisdiction, our city ordinance has restricted and reflected our discretion in this case. In addition, our experience in enforcing other housing ordinances prompts us to consider secondary offenses that may arise from the use of barbeques in close proximity to one's neighbors. I have no doubt the smoke and odor (though enjoyed by me) will be found offensive to some others. For this reason, if any changes are to be made to the ordinance, I would recommend eliminating the exception-to buildings of masonry construction. If this does not clarify our position in regard life safety, please do not hesitate to contact me or our city's Fire Marshall, Assistant Chief Don Drusch. Thank you for considering our opinion, i d John Malenick, Fire Chief 0 Page 1 . aoilla ter, 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, 38b 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 25t'- 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 23rd, 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(ct�,ci.saint-anthony.mn.us. Sincerely,` Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager Enc. cc: Carrie, Hunt& Associates H:\Letters\Planning\2005\071205 Pratt Aclmowledgment Letter Format.doc STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.1 From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: July 19,2005;August 16,2005 Subject: Concept Review R-2 Rezoning Request for 3645 Chelmsford Road Date Application Received: July 19, 2005 Property Address: 3645 Chelmsford Road Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: 9/19/05;waived as missed 7/19 concept review, extension requested to 60-Day Rule. Scheduled for Public Hearing on 9/20/05; Council action on 9/27/05. Spoke with petitioner via phone on 7/26/05. 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 comer 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 requests 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. This lot does meet the lot requirements for an R-2 District. HAPlanning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 071905Rezone concept review R2 3645 Chelmsford 062105 Staff report.doc 06/29/2005 12:54 FAX 612 781 9323 CITY OF ST ANTHONY 16002 Date: (] Fee: $225.00 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE Petition for Rezonine Applicant: r� sod Phone: 60-30�(-33915 Address: Q✓(� /� �Z x'03 Y Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Legal Description of property proposed for rezoning: Street Address: ��<< �✓ �C�1,IN1 Y"� . Presently Zoned: Change Zoning to: 1. Attach a statement to this petition stating why this zoning change is requested. 2. If an entire parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned, submit a map or plat with this petition showing the land proposed to be rezoned and all lands within 350 feet of its boundaries. 3. If a portion of a larger parcel of land is proposed to be rezoned, submit a preliminary plat prepared in accordance with sections 1500.01 through arincluding 1500.03 of the St. Anthony Code of Ordinances with this petition. A co w 'ch is included in this packet. SignWclof ant Sig&W4 of Ow r (if different from Applicant) .0 �'t, - X225 ® COCl Thursday 02 of Jun 2005, Xcel Energy ->6514846 6 Page 2 of 4 Xcel Energy NORTHERN STATES POWER 414 NICOLLET MALL,7"'FLOOR XM4FAP0LIS,MN 55401 June 2,2005 Mr. Troy Martenson 3645 Chelmsford Rd.N. St. Anthony,MN 55112 RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT 3645 Chelmsford Rd.N., St. Anthony, MN 55112 Stearns County Dear Troy: Our Transmission Engineers have reviewed the driveway encroachment request your submitted and has determined that the encroachment is acceptable to Xcel Energy under the following conditions: (1) Excavation close to structure location. A minimum distance of 15 feet of supported earth must be maintained from any part of the power pole. Support of the ground beyond the 15 feet may be provided by a slope no greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical. Support may also be provided by the use of cribbing, sheet piling, retaining wall or tunneling. The specific plan for providing the required support and the excavation plan for the proposed project must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval. (2) Grade change around structure location. Fill around or above power poles or metal tower foundations is not permitted. The grade around the power poles or metal tower must provide for surface water runoff—no surface water ponding around power poles or metal tower will be permitted. Any cost related to the adjustment of Xcel Energy's facilities will be at the requestor's expense. (3) Fill and grade change around guy wires and anchors. Fill above the steel anchor rod onto the guy wire is not permitted. The specific plan for any grade change or excavation in the vicinity of down guys and anchors must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval. Page 1 of 3 Thursday 02 of Jun 2005, Xcel Energy ->6514846376 Page 3 of 4 Page 2 June 2, 2005 (4) Grade change within easement. The ground elevation within the easement shall not be increased more than 1foot above the existing grade. Stockpiling of soil and/or material within the easement will not be permitted (5) Clearances to equipment and workers. A working clearance of 25 feet between the electrical conductors and any cranes or digging equipment used in or near the easement,or a clearance of 25 feet to the physical proximity of workers must be maintained at all times. In addition, any construction near the transmission line(s) shall comply with all OSHA Safety Clearances. If this clearance cannot be maintained, the contractor or developer must arrange for a line outage by calling Xcel Energy's System Control department (Steve Rollin 612/330- 2875). At least two weeks advanced notice must be provided in order to schedule a line outage. There is a fee of approximately $350.00 per day, per outage, for this service. This fee must be paid prior to outage. (6) Landscaping within the easement. Detailed plans for landscaping (including light standards) must be submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval. Generally shorter varieties of trees and shrubs may be considered. If planting is permitted, the line's voltage and the tree's mature height and the distance from the line must be considered. For maintenance purposes there shall be no planting with 15 feet of structure sites. (7) Building on easements. There shall be no permanent or temporary building allowed within the easement area (8) Fuel and refueling on easements. There shall be no fuel tanks stored or refueling of vehicles and equipment within the easement. (9) Fences on easements. If the easement area is fenced, gates must be installed to provide access to Xcel Energy for maintenance purposes. Chain link or other types of fences using metal material and constructed on or near an Xcel Energy easement should be properly grounded. Thursday 02 of Jun 2005, Xcel Energy >6514846376 page 4 of 4 Page 3 ,Tune 2, 2005 (10) Streetlights and signs on easements. No streetlights, signboards, identification signs or any other type of non-building structure shall be placed within the easement prior to approval. liaDetailed a with electrical b l submitted to Xcel Energy for review and approval to verify p code clearances. nsent that all other terms and conditions of the easement It is the express condition of this co covering this property shall remain in full force and effect Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Sincerely, Edwin 0. Trapp Siting and Land Rights 612-330-6956 1-715-852-5418,fax �f'i1t;+ r+";'•yri M ,I'__,'�' 8_.n, ,•�, _.•; r R 'r"�r ti �i o q, a�:" •' �lfy` ��'{ " 'l y"+,' +.�r '� t�''�^�r, s� 1► �e9. �\ ,��t.�.yam( ;.r;�: ,« /. r '.W{• fj , 4,� ,,.� '' � + ;��'!; '' >r w�Qaa7� 1 rot J ;, •1; i►�jyAri��+:/�t, 'x" ,�'�' �`' y„��i� r,1►�'u ,� � .•# :q�`� ,.....,� y � ,`'+1S + '1 tCf ,::1 Cf as:.f.�i Mi �lJl. �, .I� ,.{, •g y +� <'S �r//" }rj'� � - rk rj,,•+' r� • � t• I.. ctr p t„ '�+ r ,,a�^ '� r�y ,.,�'� � '=f i_f� 1fJ' r�!�' �':� Y•i'A 9,, ' ` .ir ' , fj' . '�i_'.. Z�*M. ► ..•'!.�/f�' ,IJ ' 1� r •.t:P a. F �, ' i.a ;• i A.,, � + �,:. .; r ..•her �.ray rP� v" k -r.•. I s v. �'rI � �9 �� �•A'y� � '� i�,+ f:.l" V r•. ,�'�. � '�. , ,4 i.j•.'J4i r• %( •+.f+. (-.ff, ! ��S 1. t � j' r 4�,✓ rr l` � y r/�'t Ma,a+ f^,a ,. - _ �. � •``•�'..Y, '1 3��. -% � �{"`'�..;.wt;`e`.�r".' ti'.r.k ,i j .:.•�I '=ii"•{ '.'i��-. i,"�!'�,,.�'' c7,1+.'�!'•r�r• i f :i` k4:s. , ��`' � .#Ir" 'i.At9 a�`''�,% i I'� 3r 1�.. �X.' rf =.i '� "a .r !y : i '•,k,. d� ( ,: l �` • •,c a :y ,i6'�,4' �' �ti,nfr + rir �^+ �� 'ra:�r•,.a: � r r+�R/'.i' ,, �.•, ,�',�;. � '4 SYS.j C ��. � .M;^,4.r � r.'j�. J�J;�"J=�} "•' ;�.. r „� �..•• .'i5i. �j}�' i • ,y;:h •w �y� ,i R� rW y'�Id �•- ; i{ � lt-.. i� - {• .�h�r+ �r�1 '�Jr.� T,ti ��i y �fl��.��,$• � f .1'fy-;i � �•/ ••i I �� ";'� A i: .,�''r;y +r •i 1 �,�; ;. +yy>< lel; ,«. 1 ,, ,•��+l�F * ..� i\I �°�' '+7 rr +' ,•JIEs#r�' a;� .ai� +�*i, ,r•�k�• � •`u .,♦e,, �r'��t,��•v�'J` ..7;•° Sa''- ��\ � �p r"T,�..`1 1r�S •„ �f� � �y �y::� ��y� O ♦y y �1yII S j; t.a^y' ,r ♦ 1S � -1�". '•t�;� ��•�� Y�.�; �, �i`i� rl{ � + r � r;1�1 �•,>R��1 .ice '�,. r`►f�� , 9'►• ,.. �K Y �" '•11!`,x! , s N t.. • r,r +`In'. - ,�,iaS¢Ftja _6+�. !r .`� 'S,'{ y`7: '/ !Yr S� r;.7r�,,. .a yr I �+ ,., !SS � •r �J�•' M ,y i' ��.�'r tom"' •I , _4 Ha i t'iH ru,14%I`w�1.�'. �..+� 1 l t•y� 'y7� L -14 •'�. .. �� •� �; 't R;,,. ."f�. ,,�. _ ,.�•'F. i 'r s .. 0.0.•• ^" ,P"I�5"�' 'Y} .' Y<' � ?f y.✓Y:'l�•fr�J' �� ui ' ;' .�::, tun •--a. a J A 14 t 4 � '.r( laynl atr 4 ..F� LhS 77 4 t- 4 •. r.... -_.• 1 „ . S:1". ,tea :.; - � ,ley, R..:. i� a,�d.,, '. it,1,` ' a.. _ S Y`�r��l��•'Y,S�4�r"�+'.r I�" 5� ill Y t 3}. r,. f . ...� ""fix' �i + �+� ��nj,.. � C'S'C .• �� •'t R � r�N^ ��'� 4 r,...y� I. � �t �'.�•f �Y ` s� }.,LST.i.' t� _ t i iJ �i, c '� .� �X t - . + i '! i� � %�, < as S-- K 3..'� ns .t x� 1:•.. Sr?,� ;;iw, dx y ^ ,}7�� t. ,;ir;� _ � �r ? rYl tai 'q #.,> 1 .i'. .� •1 OV ..§fit K1. L._ .. s.D1.•;t- .i• -+fir •• a � a� t ��`S,�•k�� i�f�6�i�.�w4�A IF tom, t MIR Y•t.' r11�\� tAA'�? 4 R`t'a• "*4.; F - _ �i: } r y '��,''� ',r_.rte '3't'1 } }n t�'" t J` % t �c�r•}'s�,'�� ��_ x. �, i ♦x `!' C•�t� 1S l i� - -..ePfM�EL4'P�..,..T..•.ytR*,: Ski t C' ..'s.. . a t�.� 1� t i} }�� •v, , ,9 i� :W�1��dN,x,2 - 7z:: t "4t. x.,« af�t'•e 1 3 tea..' y } k,��"�.t • �.C.� �y''.. �: S .tib -�`L�t�',�<s." �'� `+4� F` ._ ''�"+�.n �R *a.•{ ,, .5'+ � ta"�3� �'l.i. � ' ;.�xpp '�'j a" i:� �t }i ty3' �3. 11� AT ♦ 2 h ,fir�f i�'+-' P SS �.i� �+� a w � r, y t a-c�Cr�y : '. °�>'� P �" s �• t >° a • � t r t.w it}� 7� � r. • !,tt'ay-.��N¢,. E �ii,�. I X �+ ' '-r' $�Y� {l� 4 •., v �� � �; ��<�y. 1��y'd��l}� ap��+* :a _, z �'����e �5.:,: ,� - 0.=r Id � N ti 9 f-��t.: r a�a'++�'•z ' -tF+azO �a�, �'i�$rs.. It 5 ,.- ; 4.'c� �� h�. `'',tis- m#�.e ` ,y, �•�'. 1 r 1,�� ty.- t y,... '� v t TP♦ a # t g �5 F + j r' k�l�¢_ r _ �_ .Fji; - ���,�7•.� � ��r'�m.0. -� � c T ',t�_ ,��r 10 •._� ..�}'.' Y W- IV, •�. J �f* D V\' } I S,�M �x� •31��w� fa-" 4F *' s # �If _e - y �:.�- :. ,...,,: H.,e„>,� ..a, , .:,.m.. ... ..o-.'g .. ..., .,'t: .- - a•, :,., st.. .r F*?w,>::> . .v.,.... -A1 :t� :r°r, xK :' r.: +..,,5 w -,,: ,u.,:. ..,: ,h -... �, $: .. u.: ..,!F, � ,,.8 q. ..•-s- 'ti "�5s -f't'9�cr�'1 �' .A R'� R„"�y^�ri°" d°.:.+� ys:�. 'a+ y,. `cam .: • :��y,,.;a i¢ a,.. ..,. ^'' .�;s .r.. «.: : -, :.»n '- • -:� .,_;�xr .,.a.. -;d, '�`r 'a s:•.-,.9 ,Li $., �!s�l :a¢. .,�'r5 rte.', .fl �,:,y ,; +i Y, �r .,_- -a :..,ry�}�.. ''', •. '4 ":'L ,7;.,� sG 'F_ s^*'- .XIr�L - ,w. .$eb-d' •t„A... # :. Y+G �*• �.:.,rf .'� -. �5e •... �'.� r � ±r.�FS: '- ,g, �ri�' ,..�.,. ',.t "fes...� '.l; s >c'4c-_ f «71• •, r t + �^ Y A, ,rtcT'N.-- "3"'. +S' gr.'': Ott " ,4. �i :�v tl Clt(M•. .�,��( k- .7 '� .,k ;.wa. _ µ9, 'i .F. eLsfG.'er1�ti - .�:� a; ��.., -v°`-r',5�` e e;�.•�a'4 ?* - ,... � +,:: �!• u ati-. F. �"� cif Y�' t* e. `vt ,� i`u." a::0, r�•k.'S.9a , 3 *" _ }r _tr„ . 3 ..xd»� �+-a L q. s, s>u« s„ ^' .,�a Fry,.'-.:3�•r a.y.. :;:+a. ! �/ ,s't �u yy ,s��.C?r;�^�,,� :' ,^��y:.vy, fi'a.�c: s�,r-, .. �� >.:a' h: ,«�:: .°.Y>i�-^ 'i'.. ,� m•C"R ^?i .,'ST4J' •'b': Y.. �S.S 'ia.; L ~ >�'�1N•$� ,r .,f,'�, W- r, - ': ., .r'd . '- _'•3`' e�s N ,A � ,.. '. ,r4 s � :,�"i �. #� , T��$. ,.4�. S+i Fri ,_., a v5 x^. .;,t� ,'„�`� ..,.. ,'",,_. ..- '� ':. L$..... . . &..'; " c-.� a ,.., , . v4, .^�, ....hkv R` >. <+f.:. .... T.. ... :.,�.'» _..,� ,. ,r:a d,a';=ss• at'�'b:�' �r"E`..z",an. �.9.. K4 }, ��n 'L r. N.•. �;z,r,.. .. :.}.- ��,,,. }.�.+• �F: ., .r,. `. -.:- .3., r. '-,: ..s-• .....a<� �.�1,�a �' ,e,a. Ta• ::. F" ✓ 'a t .�.;f::`:3 ,.,s a. '�'�. '� .. s•3+t�.. rr,.<r,u-.� �' �. . . i .,tom'!_ � :.: .��. .. ,-�,:�, . ..a'�`. .., r; .- .,. ,+:<. .. ,:><a t vi.f �::... .9. _. ,.... "�.�'r 8. ,. ' ... p, .. �, ..` '�` m., •.+ 4�s' rr Vis,:, s; :, ,H xi�.k. - Y... _ ,. }, ..n'.,�..�� s ., .,k i ,. u• .-p,. ... kn.._:nr _,,x .. ''::s ,Y '.g%v'.--':: .'�' •n„ .i. « °�r a q, y�" r ,'1 N3 w'�d`��4 aw'"Y.z,..F-.1... 2,:,�.... k = , :, ... � t .�..a._. ar .r .:: a. r,: ,�.iz��,-.�,�4 ,R�"� z,-��� F. ��. :� ,s+ s.,.. �k� {w'. ��'x+e:,y �� �.z„•:m; qac. .ter. a .�p ' =•,t - r� ,L- .�v�.y,•, � w. �C.7`ws� ±,,,.kF - '« ..:.!„-» -x. } tr":• r' �y � - �..�+..Y,.. F $ ..TM ;.s '�^ , .:: }, ,.:., �., 'j k .a, „/4 P ,v,. �- _r'•F.p.,,� G d_,Y�{.r.4 ay."[._uy+� .f., a S '.M:�"''},` fits; <.(' �i�e` Y�� _ a�'.��.�t+``,Kt 'h '', > ;. h-^gr�..a y'v ,.-., ✓-., :'n�{. .5 W. � ,. ..-.:- , .. - �`'Z,`:�+�,.Rr%�,a' '.`Rv:r i�'• w,•:;�.gg.',',.-:, l ,*�-�..,. .pt_ .C” �+'. '��. .;•;fit �.� ,»�:•: y + x) (t• u, 4: �., '+4 � .., ..:;., � :7i^a91. fz�r^s,,,-.: {�,.y� 4 -'�E�. ". ..�q�,sl::i;�. � 3 ,tt'.::ss�,.,,y,,k ,r...r.y�i ��tl 'k x•^ ,,.,�.� ' ' p ..aY;,^�' -:v'�',t -a � ;3? r., _ r x: ti 1 e„ sem:.. ,T. •-,.� f�`.?.�' s' :Mf• , mk rte. i:,,:a'�'F -�, >�r��+farw� •vy• >-.'�a�' „rr- .f. � .�� ,rq,.,..3r* .�; t� '�� ,�5,� '. r y� „�.m-; '� :� � >< hdk- `'�! .., .,,. z r;.y �,+�rrs,-. . da-�,i,sVr, ;�:,. , .'. :��:f, 1. i4<' y..+r '4 - �ky�„"'xaW"M" ,� k.' ..,z>"•,..�.> d. .x... ,:e: .�. m. l�:,,-k .. :��k .,,.,�,-.?t•. =,�„ ,, -. .: ..: .'x,� ,.P �.-, •ks, 'k,��L ��-rawau.7°a�,.;>m •r:r'�.�. .:k,4.-;,$,..," pp 'va�m.r, E�+Y� r rFst'"r'rkd��'jje. -4�3� ,�a ti ��i�'u•.: r�y'•}' iM-: ��,. n - ,<- i Y 4� d ��y Y. . _ _ a•I 1., w , � f d Tri y.T Y - '�`44Y-r:. "' 1x� a°N" T"eVa ' ggy Ag z .:st„ L q ',g, a.-Ryaa i'... r,�'�+�':.;:r to ys.•'d^,Cr'r'rs,. '�k a�_,: ., :+5- "! ,yrs•:,ys.a,�_ eX roYt g+ '9 = -' > x s ;+; ' i .Y „xx�k'�'�, "r`#rz�'a'r,•}ssW,._r I� i ;ir 'Ix..a°' .. i'. R-�. � .e'�.-•'�k.� =it's ::i f .-.�'� ,-' �:"• -"' -i_ ....s r�r".*..:_fid. ,'.: •s.,T. - ,e• ; ' '� ,.,� ,.; b `� �''_ nil a• �'r'r�:r"_� ,>;- s?'" .y �,f '�:: x .. "C7 }� w.... ..y,. ..,�,..,Z,,,. .. f � i.• -"6�~�'������ _-,r'fi: a• r �,r.: ,-..,.p, .... „�� � t„r«a .,��("„' •t ;' .: � i$ �,. '�.,a r -k MrPii�v,a.Srw.� �,'M+ - �( �r•' t +�. SL '°5 �s 7d-?Y°w....a�'�a_'9�;^`tip y„.a„��..s* � .�.'�.':s- '"''�i\� !,• t... Wv�,� �, r4 y .:. *4' 1 A', r r•: !T[ '1�jam,♦-'8�;�. wy'....(" y. �.r *{� f�yt. ^ t.'R it 4V �i(y{ r<R,�• rf * f 1r 1•�t ;� �"' «� F ' '�Rt. 4� -^�li „rt } � ;' 7F d.1ti 1' (} +?.''}1` ; xt " �.#..K(„ At'.Ys.V t � V�I��J�! �'4 w".fc;�• ✓_.�fs ,y i"^'.;� w i may: r '�R� `�4e ' �i (• r `.e r �.� � : 1�a `. 1!",A,�.. h,sli `'� . (•. +� i• ,�.4tw y.,'" ? y j�, 5 4N `# x lw WA a { X-1 q'y larJAY d'• ROM 04 1. F � � � 71 z 71 Wl Uj �� � _ 11 4A d z OL W AM Z URN '5 h 9 M :f T A�N�,y9t�%(� ®t a kx�ja f ��..4 `` `.✓, 1/s ' s.'. / ""'w.* .s ra ��S''1'°`as'+� Roof rs �� +'t S � h,., it a '�•e r'� � �C. 7 r. rl r r Via. � - �-'����-��,�,�s F, M�• "�c? - - � x Tc <' -:zz zz SIN UA "+ .� ; , , , �U t■■ n■w - 4 . „ U�now t■Un■a■o MEN INS 0 t■a Is it's ill r 8 { N 4 1a } y s tii . aiOil thou e Administrative Offices 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 (612) 789-8881 FAX (612) 781-9323 August 9,2005 Mr. Tory Martenson 6715 Meadowlark Court Lino Lakes, MN 55038 Dear Troy: Enclosed please find a receipt for the $225 check that you submitted along with a Petition for Rezoning to rezone your property at 3645 Chelmsford Road, St. Anthony, MN. On July 26, 2005, I spoke with you about the need to reschedule the concept review for your rezoning request that had been scheduled for the July 19th Planning Commission meeting because you were not able to attend. The Planning Commission felt that because you were not available on July 19th to answer their questions, the City needed to reschedule your concept review. 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. If the City cannot complete the approval process within 60 days of receipt of your application, by law the City is required to notify the applicant in writing of the need to extend the 60-day period. Because of the need to reschedule your concept review,the City needs to extend this 60- day period to September 28, 2005,by which time the City's Planning Commission will have been able to hold a public hearing on your rezoning petition and the City Council will have met to take action on your rezoning request. The 60-day period for your request would have expired on September 19, 2005 Since the Planning Commission is responsible for holding public hearings at their regularly scheduled monthly meetings, the next meeting that will meet the statutory requirements for this petition is September 20, 2005. On the following Tuesday, September 27th,the City Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation for action on your rezoning request and the Council's action will produce a final disposition of your request that evening. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at City Hall, 612-782-3312 or via e-mail, kmoore &ci saint-antlhony.mn.us. H:\Letters\Planning\2005\080905 Martenson Acknowledgment Letter.doc Sincerely, ' oore-Sykes , Assistant City Manager HALettersTlanning\2005\080905 Martenson Acknowledgment Letter.doc ' y 2422 Enterpris . T Mendota Heigh- PIONEER LAND SURVEYORS • CIVIL ENGINEERS (651) 681 engineering LAND PLANNERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 625 Highway 1 Blaine, MN—11 (763) 7835` Description Sketch for: TRO Y MARTENSON Ho use Address: 3645 Chelmsford Road N89°31'12"E r-North line of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 6 - - - - - - - - 107.00 -- -� 37TH AVE. NE (CO. RD. g 40.00 foot Roadway Easement C g Per Doc. No. 4901042 % Q SET P _ FND IP 1 — —3' Wood Fence I —t— i s � 1 - ---------------- --�-- -- —�- - --- Centerline of a 75.00 foot NSP __� o i I Easement per Doc. No. 1675929 coo Z s (4 Overhead Lines) ,� n W us I W , I N I _ r N M t 0M I Q oC-4 ip No w I03 E ♦� r� ai I 3 a I W '� m 0 IN IEx .� Bearings shown are assumed I o° - — taARAteE `O p� tr S89*31'12'W 107.00 y O m.. i10WSTEPS p o U o ,?� ow 00 m 1 � .8- ~N � o� mt c to O ±23.9' i = ±23.9' p � ,6, W I I EN 55 Ps d E snNc I C� oGAQRAGEorovEWAY ood 4 ` -y 'J I N89°31'12"E 107 0 „ — s' WO°d ,- South line of I I Ex HOUSE PP Denotes Power Pole I 60 I �ss�FND I` o.eX NOTE: —0E— Denotes Overhead Electric Lines o t0.e2 N -_—�� Denotes Existing Fencefc.4a E/ 1. There Is a 0.6' fence `I TAS southeast comer of this EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION The north 220.00 feet of the west 107.00 feet of the east 960.60 feet of the Northeast Quart Township 29, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A The south 60.00 feet of the north 220.00 feet of the west 107.00 feet of the east 960.60 fee Quarter of Section 6, Township 29, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (+/— 6,420 Sq. Ft PARCEL B STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission 01� Report No.: VIII.2 From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: August 16,2005 Subject: Proposed Text Amendment to the City Code to Allow Egress Windows Encroach into Side Yard Setback Date Application Received: NA;Concept Review Property Address: NA Zoning District: R-1, R-1A; R-2 60-Day Expires: NA Requested Action: Review proposed text amendment to the City's Zoning Code to allow egress windows as encroachment no more than 3 feet into the side yard or front yard setback. Background: By omission from the St. Anthony Zoning Code,egress windows are not a permitted use or allowed as an encroachment into the side yard setback of the R-1 Zoning District. Section 1600.03 Uses Not Specified states that if a use is not specifically permitted,permitted by conditional use permit or prohibited,the use will be considered prohibited; and Section 1650.03 Encroachments in Yards, does not include egress windows as an allowed encroachment. This summer,Staff has received many requests to be allowed to install egress windows in setbacks. In many situations,the yard generally is sufficient to allow for this installation without going into the setback, side yard or front yard. And in these situations, the building inspector oversees the installation to ensure proper placement and dimensions as required by the building code. All the cities that responded to Staff's requests for information indicated that they do not have anything in their zoning ordinances that specifically address egress windows in the setback because it's more of a safety issue. As such,egress window wells are mostly allowed by their city's policy. The Cities of Blaine,Hopkins and Lexington have adopted policies that are based on the MN Building Codes for encroachments into the side or front yard for egress windows. Staff has not been able to locate any ordinances that have language that address egress window requirements or restrictions in the setback of a lot. Some cities,like New Brighton,address requests to install egress windows in the setback on a case- by-case basis. Proposed Text: Consequently,Staff found no clear-cut way of dealing with egress windows for other metro communities. Simply adding egress window wells to the already existing ordinance text would be the easiest text amendment: H:\PIanning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Egress Text Amd to Code.doc 1650.03 Encroachment in Yards. The following are permitted encroachments in required yards: (a) Chimneys,flues, sills,pilasters,lintels,ornamental features, egress window wells and bays which do not extend more than three fee into the yard or closer than three feet from the property line. Construction and installation of an egress window would still require a building permit and inspections by the Building Inspector so there would be some oversight and control over this encroachment into the setback. However,it gives adjacent property owners no opportunity for input on the proposed construction and installation of this type of window by their neighbor. The adjoining property owners may be concerned about the impact this window may have on their property in terms of storm water runoff or the closeness to their property and/or home. Should the Planning Commission and City Council share the same concerns,Staff would then proposed that egress window well encroachments be required to go through a permitting process similar to that required of garages in the side yard or rear yard setbacks. The proposed language is as follows: 1650.03 Encroachment in Yards. Subd. 1 Egress Window Setback Permit. There have been occasions, due to construction or design constraints,that it has become necessary due to safety concerns of bedrooms and habitable spaces in the basement of a dwelling to locate basement egress windows in the side yard of the structure. This in turn requires the adjacent window well for the egress window to possibly encroach into a required side yard setback. An egress window,which will be no larger than nine (9) square feet and have no dimension that is greater than three (3) feet may be located within the side or front yard setbacks if a setback permit has been issued for the egress window under the following provisions of this Section: (a) An application for a setback permit must be made in writing on forms provided by the City and must filed with Assistant City Manager, together with the filing fee in the amount required under Section 615.07 of the City Code. The application must include a survey showing the proposed location of the egress window and the structures on the property adjoining the setback in question. The application must also address the other matters to be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council,as set forth in Subsection(b) of this Section. The permit application will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, and notice of the public hearing will be given, all in the same manner as provided in Section 1665.04 for Conditional Use Permits. After the public hearing by the Planning Commission, the City Council will grant or deny the permit, stating its reasons for doing so. (b) In grantin or r denying the setback permit, the City Council will consider the proximity of the egress window to any structures on the adjoining property,matters of safety, any existing egress windows on the adjoining property, the ability to locate egress windows elsewhere within the structure and any other matters which may be relevant to the degree of encroachment into the setback. (c) If a setback permit is granted,it will run with the title to the property for which it was granted so long as the egress window for which the permit was granted continues to exist. If the structure is destroyed or removed, the permit will automatically expire. HAPlanning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Egress Text Amd to Code.doc Attachnhents• • City of Hopkins Information on Egress Windows • City of Blaine Policy • City of Roseville Policy • City of Lexington- Encroachment Ordinance • City of Bloomington-Encroachment Ordinance • City of St. Anthony Egress Window Information from Building Inspector HAP1anning\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Egress Text Amd to Code.doc City of Hopkins • Inspections • Building Inspections • Windows I Egress Windows Page 1 of 5 ILIL mi n n�emotes Inspecionslo, Building Inspections -Windows - Egress Windows What is an egress window? General Information An egress window is a window that is Installing A Basement Egress Window Building Inspections required in specific locations in a dwelling Complaints and is intended to provide an emergency Construction Debris, means of exiting a dwelling. Egress windows are only required in dwellings.Windows Dumpsters&Storage must meet specific size requirements to qualify as an egress window. Electrical Environmental Health Where are egress windows required? Fire Inspections Egress windows are required in every room used for sleeping purposes(bedrooms)on Mechanical any floor and in basements with habitable spaca If you are constructing a new home, the code requires that you put an egress window in each bedroom. It also requires an Plumbing egress window in the basement if habitable rooms will be finished in the basement. If Recommending you install a basement bedroom or bedrooms, an egress window is required in each Contractors bedroom but you need not provide another egress window if there are other habitable Requesting An Inspection rooms in the basement. The bedroom window(s)suffices for the habitable rooms. Resources&Links If you have an existing home and you add a sleeping room in an unfinished basement, Timeline for Permit the code requires that you install an egress window in the sleeping room or rooms. Applications Likewise, if you create habitable space in your basement other than a bedroom and you Utility currently do not have an egress window,the code would require that you install one as part of the installation of the habitable room. How To Apply For Permits& Build What are the size requirements for an egress window? Basements An egress window must satisfy four International Residential Code(IRC)criteria: Decks • Minimum width of opening:20 in. Foundations • Minimum height of opening:24 in. Garages • Minimum net clear opening. 5.7 sq.tt. (5.0 sq ft.for ground floor). Roofing • Maximum sill height above floor:44 in. Stairs&Guardrails Windows The window must have a minimum net clear opening of 5.7 sq.ft. Net clear opening [more] refers to the actual free and clear space that exists when the window is open. It is not the rough opening size or the glass panel sze, but the actual opening a person can Building Materials crawl through. Common Building Material The window opening must be operational from the inside without keys or tools. Bars, Characteristics grilles and grates may be installed over windows but must be operational without tools Fireblocking& or keys and still allow the minimum clear opening. Draftstopping Gypsum Wallboard Do the math [more] At first glance,you might assume that a 20-in. by 24-in.window would be acceptable for egress. However,those dimensions would yield a net clear opening of only 3.3 sq ft.To Truth-In-Housing achieve the required net clear opening of 5 7 sq.ft., a 20-in wide window would have to be 42 in. high. Likewise, a 24-in. high window would have to be 34 in.wide. Before You Buy Or Sell Contractor License Finding a Licensed Evaluator Most Common Repair/Replace Items Property Maintenance Rental License Rental Properties Smoke Detectors http://www.hopkinsmn.comJinspectionsibuilding/windows/egresswindows.html 7/20/2005 City of Hopkins • Inspections • Building Inspections • Windows Egress Windows Page 2 of 5 —•84r GUAR ODEI1tiPltiitlr Download Acrobat 2ti" e Reader FLS QDMNO WRD`TH� -T OP.J 113 q VPV=i&AREA Ei9i#RLS / "RA MEtZZTA1�i $1" \ &7 M aL MUN �> 6.T 6O.P'Jti �q per' y JJ � / q JfJ iIlk CLIIM %I NIP a�8"xaa�r nn r SAP r tea Nearly all window manufacturers specify which of their windows meet national egress requirements right in their catalogs and list the net free opening of their windows.This should take the guesswork out of selecting a window for you addition or remodeling project.Also,the sales person who sells you the window should be able to help you select a code compliant window provided that they know you need an egress window. Must i use a special type of window? A wide variety of window designs can be used for egress windows.You should select a window design that meets your architectural,aesthetic, space, and financial limitations. : s Casement windows with hinged sashes that swing free and clear of the opening can be ? relatively small and still meet egress 6° requirements. This makes them ideal for basement egress and for other areas where space ILL-5 is limited. Some manufacturers can install a special operator arm that allows the window to open wider than the standard operating arm to meet egress requirements. Others have an operator arm that can be pushed to open the window wider in an emergency. These meet egress requirements as long as you leave the "PUSH HERE"label in place Glider or slider windows have sashes that fill nearly half the possible window opening.They require a window nearly twice the size of a casement window. Even when it's fully open, more than half of a double- hung window's overall area is blocked by glass. This means that to meet egress window height requirements, a window must be nearly 4 ft. 9 in. in http://www.hopkinsm.n.com/inspections/building/windows/egresswindows.html 7/20/2005 City of Hopkins • Inspections • Building Inspections • Windows I Egress Windows Page 3 of 5 overall height. This height requirement makes it undesirable for most basement egress situations. Awning windows are problematic. Since the opened sash prevents escape from most window _ wells,theyre unsuitable for basement egress. And with most awning windows,the center opening hardware and height don't met egress requirements. Some manufacturers offer models with special detachable operators that meets egress requirements. Why don't my windows meet egress requirements? Some older homes were built before there were any egress window requirements. Many more homes were built when the egress window net free opening size was 5 sq.ft.Yet even newer homes often lack proper egress windows.Attics and basements were often legally remodeled into family rooms or offices(which didn't require egress windows)then later converted into bedrooms (which now do require them). When bedrooms are added to basements without the knowledge of inspectors • q and without the requisite egress window,they create a dangerous r underground firetrap. During remodeling, ' homeowners often unwittingly replace large P 9 egress windows with . smaller, non-egress windows And while the j code will require egress windows be installed when z.=„aroma , bedrooms are added on, they won't necessarily • X dictate that windows in existing bedrooms be ��. ` enlarged to egress size; its simply too difficult toy v. ^ 'mlirSYtCE monitor every situation. :Eso %ooa m �. �aLN Required or not, egress Y windows are crucial '� Kwmtr�' �`oPw�asntuesEo`� lifesaving equipment. If '” �A� ntsrae room has even the remote possibility of later becoming a bedroom, include an egress size window. Basement Egress Windows Basement egress windows present an added challenge. Besides the height,width and overall square-footage requirements that the window must meet,there are certain requirements for the window well surrounding the window ; Window wells must. i a • Allow the rescue window opening to be fully ` opened. u .° • Provide 9 sq. ft. of"floor area,"with a - minimum dimension of 36 in. in width and in caw ag is ' length. NMI3"de • Contain a permanently affixed ladder or steps for climbing out if the window well depth exceeds 44 inches in depth.The ladder must be at least 12 in.wide and project no less than 3 in. from the window well. It can't be obstructed by the open window or encroach on the required http://www.hopkinsmn.com/inspections/building/windows/egresswindows.html 7/20/2005 City of Hopkins • Inspections • Building Inspections • Windows Egress Windows Page 5 of 5 76`•.48'. Gr ar 7r b A b 1 e3 .�' 3' a� Replacement Windows If you're replacing a smaller window with a larger one that meets egress requirements, bear in mind that enlarging the height of the opening takes less structural work than enlarging the width. Increasing width might mean installing a larger, beefier horizontal structural header over the window opening-a major project. Increasing height is often only a matter of lowering the height of the sill below the window. If you are replacing windows in your home,there are some circumstances whereby you may need to comply with the requirements for egress windows. Please contact the Inspections Office or pick up the handout on replacement windows to determine if these rules will apply to your project For more information, contact Debbie Sperling at 952-548-6320. http://www.hopkinsmn.com/inspections/building/windows/egresswindows.html 7/20/2005 City of Hopkins • Inspections • Building Inspections • Windows Egress Windows Page 4 of 5 window well dimensions by more than 6 in. 69 a xy�r w F, X' Y$ A z' Yom`", 4• z 3+` Oft STE � kAwaVYF�,S s � Window wells may be made of rust resistant metal,treated wood,wood naturally resistant to decay, concrete, masonry, or plastic. Some window well designs have steps built or molded into them. If an egress window is located under a deck or porch,the code requires at least 48 inches between the top of the window well and the bottom of the deck or porch joists. Window Well Designs Window wells come in many designs. Following are examples of different designs. Some include ladders. Covers are permitted and shown in the last illustration. http://www.hopkinsmn.com/inspections/building/windows/egresswindows.html 7/20/2005 . �� �r �ss11�11i�n ®a,� :��lll�orkse�efor��11i3 � �uus�l�n�sta;lle.d��,�Before p �iEl� 1��1� - ►. I 9;83 1) Check Window Height and Width DOUBLE HUNG SLIDING CASEMENT 7 1�n + 71 Is the clear openable height, at least 24 inches? Yes ❑ no ❑ Is the clear openable width, at least 20 inches? Yes ❑ no ❑ 2) Check Window Opening Area (fill in the three blanks) F-LF] Lft] x Z�x Openable height (inches) Openable width (inches) Openable area (square inches) Is the clear openable area, at least 720 square inches.? Yes El no 1:1 3) Check the distance from the floor to the bottom of opening Is the distance, from the floor to the finished sill Yes F-1 No F-1 (bottom of opening) 48 inches or less? If you answered yes to all questions then the window should comply with the 2003 Minnesota State Fire Code. For assistance: Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division (651) 215-0500; TTY: (651) 282-6555; firecode@state.mn.us � Eglress Windsovy ilVo,r sheet'for Ground°Floor' i'i clo��ir►s Ipns Ya'I`lecl ffiM r qh 3y1, 0 �- 1) Check Window Height and Width DOUBLE HUNG SLIDING CASEMENT Is the clear openable height, at least 24 inches? Yes ❑ No ❑ Is the clear openable width, at least 20 inches? Yes 1:1 No 0- 2) Check Window Opening Area (fill in the three blanks) LFIJ X = Q Openable height (inches) Openable width (inches) Openable area (square inches) Is the clear openable area, /�\ at least 720 square inches? Yes El No 1:1 3) Check the distance from the floor to the bottom of opening Is the distance, from the floor to the finished sill Yes No (bottom of opening) 44 inches or less? If you answered yes to all questions then the window should comply with the 2003 Minnesota State Fire Code. For assistance: Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division (651) 215-0500; TTY: (651) 282-6555; firecode@state.mn.us Ri 30 Egress ,�Ndrklf ril lip �e 0 02.ff RP 1) Check Window Height and Width DOUBLE HUNG SLIDING CASEMENT F1 Is the clear openable height, at least 24 inches? YesF No Is the clear openable width, at least 20 inches? Yes 1:1 no 0- 2) Check Window Opening Area (fill in the three blanks) F1J_1 LFU x Openable height (inches) Openable width (inches) Openable area (square inches) Is the clear openable area, � at least 820 square inches? Yes 1:1 Nol 3) Check the distance from the floor to the bottom of opening cz�_Z Is the distance, N� from the floor to the finished sill Yes F-1 No F-1 (bottom of opening) 44 inches or less? If you answered yes to all questions then the window should comply with the 2003 Minnesota State Fire Code. For assistance: Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division (651) 215-0500; TTY: (651) 282-6555; firecode@state.mn.us NI � 'a ` a� �_ � +-� egad 1N1111i m� r/1/elf ,U1/orkshhee �W`hejn Instal=led Before Jusne 29, .'199"8 A 1) Check Window Well Dimensions 0 0 Is the clear horizontal distance, at at least 22 inches? Yes No Is the clear horizontal distance, at least as wide as the window? Yes No Is the window well large enough to allow the window to be opened fully? Yes 1:1 No EL 2) Check the vertical depth of the window well If the distance, [D from the bottom of the well to the F1Yes No top at grade is more than 44 inches, a ladder is required. If a ladder is required, is one provided? If you answered yes to all questions then the window should comply with the 2003 Minnesota State Fire Code For assistance: Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division (651) 215-0500; TTY: (651) 282-6555; firecode@state.mn.us SFMD Fact Sheet INS-FACT-01 March 31,2003 Page 15 of 16 :oAuU U�1%eltlV�/Aorsh:e°et � r,he,n FI$nsjta;liel rAno,rfte-r Jun ee 29, '199 ` 1) Check Window Well Dimensions 0 0 Is the clear horizontal distance, at least 36 inches? Yes No Is the clear horizontal distance, o at least 36 inches? Yes 1:1 No El Is the clear horizontal distance, 9 with the window open at least 30 inches? Yes No 2) Check Window Well Opening Area (fill in the three blanks) Q x _ Ll� CC@C e j Horizontal distance (inches) Horizontal distance (inches) Net horizontal opening (square inches) 1:1 El Is the clear openable area, L, C9,1 at least 1,080 square inches? Yes No 3) Check the vertical depth of the window well If the distance, ID from the bottom of the well to the El D top at grade is more than 44 inches, a ladder is required. Yes No If a ladder is required is one�pro ded? SFMD Fact Sheet INS- ACT-01 March 3 ,200 Pae 16 of 6 If you answered yes to all questions then the window should comply with the 2003 Minnesota State Fire Code For assistance: Minnesota State Fire Marshal Division (651) 215-0500; TTY: (651) 282-6555; firecode@state.mn.us JUL—,eb—deUM 10;45 Ul IY Ur t3LH1Nt 1NtDrtUI 1UN fo.)(ODO111 r.IOG City of Blayne Building Inspection Department Policy Guide Category: V: Land use zo-ning issues Date: 6/05/03 Code/Ordinance Section: 33:12 Policy Guide: Staff Subject: Egress window well encroachments into side yard setbacks. Background: There have been occasions, due to construction or design constraints; it has been necessary to locate basement egress windows on the side yard wall side of homes. This in turn requires the adjacent window well for the egress window to possibly encroach into a required side yard setback. The question arises is this allowed. Policy: Window wells are required by the State Building Code as an egress avenue. They are typically an at grade construction. They are not required to have guardrails above grade. Due to the inherent safety concerns involved the City of Blaine will allow egress window wells in side yard setbacks that comply with the following conditions: 1. They meet all the requirements of the MN State Building Code. 2. The clear width opening does not project more than 3'6"from the main structure into the side yard setback Duration: Review in 3 years of indefinite Building Official Approval TOTAL P.02 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville,MN 55113 INSPECTION SCHEDULING 651-792-7080 GENERAL INFORMATION 651-792-7084 FAX 651-792-7070 INFO"A TION REQUIRED WITH EGRESS WINDOWS Basements in dwelling units and every sleeping room below the fourth story shall have at least one operable window or door approved for emergency escape or rescue which shall open directly into a public street, public alley, yard or exit court. The emergency door or window shall be operable from the inside to provide a full, clear opening without the use of separate tools. GENERAL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Escape or rescue windows shall have a minimum net clear openable area of 5.7 square feet. The minimum net clear openable height dimension shall be 24 inches. The minimum net clear openable width dimension shall be 20 inches. 2. When windows are provided as a means of escape or rescue, they shall have a finished sill height not more than 44 inches above the floor. 3. Escape and rescue windows with a finished sill height below the adjacent ground elevation shall have a window well. Window wells at escape or rescue windows shall comply with the following: A. The clear horizontal dimensions shall allow the window to be fully opened and provide a minimum accessible net clear opening of 9 square feet, with a minimum dimension of 36 inches. B. Window wells with a vertical depth of more than 44 inches shall be equipped with an approved permanently affixed ladder or stairs that are accessible with the window in the fully open position. The ladder or stair shall not encroach into the required dimensions of the window well by more than 6 inches. 4. Bars, grilles, grates or similar devices may be installed on emergency escape or rescue windows doors or window wells,provided: A. The devices are equipped with approved release mechanisms which are openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. B. The building is equipped with smoke detectors installed in accordance with Section 310.9. *Attached are examples of drawings which may assist you. They are intended as a guide only. 24 HOUR NOTICE IS RECOMMENDED FOR ALL INSPECTIONS!! \\Victom\CommDev\PertmwWandouts\Egr Window doc R OCCUPANCIES An mozomey P OT N=0 wiDdOw is 90W Teqldmd M basamts wilb the mw e=a MW SM W&Mmment as to far ,3 u s7 sa PT - HEMR7 24 W11>714 20 04wa i 44 MAX SILL KMAT , CoAaa4r- The cn'Mcn t e=W OT dg yHADa PUM0gwdtff aneypcNa cowtor a 3wdt vs sh yxd must bea minimum of fto fed invoidt as MMUrW pupendimlu to ft Wu In WMch the window ts Page 1 of 1 Kim Moore-Sykes From: Mike Delmont[lexingtommn@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:16 AM To: kmoore@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us Subject: encroachments How's this???????????????????? Subd. 17. Permitted Encroachments - Yards. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following shall be considered as permitted enroachments within the yards indicated: A. In any yard: Overhanging roof eaves, open terraces, marquees, flues, sills, lintels, pilasters, cornices, gutters, open canopies, and awnings attached to the principal building, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the depth of the front or rear yards or twenty-five percent (25%) of the width of the side yards. Chimneys, flag poles, ornamental features, sidewalks, fences, landscaping, posts, or other similar amenities are permitted encroachments that are not restricted by area, placement, and land use intensity. B. Yard lights and name plate signs in residential districts, provided such lights and signs are three (3) feet or more from all lot lines. Lights for illuminated parking and loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes may be provided where necessary, provided that the glare is not visible from public rights-of-way or adjacent residential property. C. In front yards, balconies may extend a distance of four (4) feet or less, provided they are seven (7) feet or more above the grade at the building line. Patios or decks may extend a distance of eight (8) feet or less. Enclosed entryway not to exceed 64 square feet. D. In rear yards, balconies, breezeways, detached picnic shelters, swimming pools, recreational equipment, landscaping, driveways, steps, stoops, uncovered porches, patios, picnic tables, open arbors, trellises, laundry drying equipment, detached outdoor living room and outdoor eating facilities, provided they are not less than five (5) feet from any lot line. E. Encroachments in any yard that abut a public or private street, shall be considered as permitted encroachments, as outlined above, except that no encroachment shall be permitted within present or proposed street right-of-way lines. F. On corner lots, in any district, encroachments are not permitted in excess of thirty (30) inches above the curb line in a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb line of two intersecting streets, thence thirty (30) feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning." Subd. 18. Home Occupations. 7/26/2005 Bloomington City Code Chapter 19 page 3 Page 1 of 9 II Preface 11. Charter III. Code I SEARCH II <Back I Forward> II Part II. Code Chapter 19. ZONING Section 19.08. PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS AND SETBACK AREAS. (a) General. Except where otherwise regulated by this Code and as established below, all buildings, site features, and equipment shall maintain the setback requirements established for the zoning district in which they are located. (b) Except as prohibited by Chapter 17, Division E of this Code, the site features and equipment listed below shall be permitted to locate in yards and to encroach into required zoning district setbacks to the extent specified in this Section, but in all cases shall maintain the minimum setback indicated. (1) Yards. The established yards of the zoning code and any primary Zoning District. For the purposes of this Section, the terms'front yard", "side yard" and "rear yard" shall have the same meanings as defined in Section 19.03, except that any yard adjacent to a public street shall in all cases be considered a 'front'yard for setback purposes unless otherwise specified. (2) Setbacks from Public Streets. All setbacks from public streets or proposed public streets shall be measured from the planned widened rights-of-way in accordance with the Master Street Plan of the City. References to a'front property line" is assumed to denote the planned widened rights-of-way in accordance with the Master Street Plan of the City. (3) Required Setback. Except where otherwise noted, references to "required setback" means the minimum setback required for the principal building in the applicable zoning district. (c) In all zoning districts: (1) Utility poles and wires, water, gas and other public utility appurtenances are permitted at any location in a front, side or rear yard with no minimum setback from any property line. (2) Retaining walls up to four feet in height are permitted at any location in a front yard provided that a front setback of not less than ten feet shall be maintained and at any location in a side or rear yard with no minimum setback from any property line. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (3) Steps, stoops and exterior landings are permitted in a front, side or rear yard providing that front, side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (4) Private sidewalks are permitted in a front yard without a minimum front setback provided that a side setback of not less than five feet shall be maintained, and a side or rear yard providing that side or rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. Private sidewalks shall not encroach into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (5) Overhanging eaves may encroach up to three feet into a required front, side or rear setback. Where a required setback to a property line is reduced to less than three http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/code/Codel 9-3.html 7/28/2005 Bloomington City Code Chapter 19 page 3 Page 2 of 9 feet by reason of a variance or other approval granted by the City, the allowed eave encroachment shall in no event cross the property line. An overhanging eave may encroach up to six feet into a required front or rear setback when placed over steps, stoops or an exterior landing providing that the encroachment shall not exceed eight feet in width along the wall plane. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (6) Underground garages, in accordance with Section 19.64(k)(1), may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 15 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (7) Antennas and supporting structures, including satellite receiving antennas greater than one (1) meter in diameter in residential districts and greater than two (2) meters in diameter in nonresidential districts, shall not be located within a front yard and shall be located only to the side or rear of the principal structure where side and rear setbacks of no less than ten feet shall be maintained All antennas and supporting structures, including satellite receiving antennas, shall meet the applicable requirements of Sections 15.14, 19.47 and 19.63.05 of the City Code. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (8) Ramps and other devices for access to buildings and sites by disabled persons in compliance with the American Disabilities Act may encroach into any required front, side or rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet and side and rear setbacks of not less than two feet shall be maintained. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (d) In residential zoning districts (R-1A, R-1, RS-1, R-4, RM-12, RM-24 and RM-50): (1) Patios and terraces may encroach ten feet into a required front setback, five feet into a required side setback and 20 feet into a required rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet, a side setback of not less than five feet and a rear setback of not less than ten feet shall be maintained. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (2) Open decks and balconies not greater than five feet above grade at any point may encroach ten feet into a required front setback, five feet into a required side setback and 20 feet into a required rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet, a side setback of not less than five feet and a rear setback of not less than ten feet shall be maintained. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (3) Open decks and balconies greater than five feet in height above grade at any point may encroach five feet into a required front setback and ten feet into a required rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 25 feet, a rear setback of not less than 20 feet and a side setback of not less than ten feet shall be maintained. Such features are permitted in a side yard provided that a side setback of no less than ten feet shall be maintained. There shall be no encroachment into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (4) Chimneys may encroach three feet into a required front, side or rear setback, provided that front and rear setbacks of not less than 27 feet and a side setback of not less than seven feet shall be maintained. Chimneys shall not encroach into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (5) Awnings may encroach three feet into a required front, side or rear setback, provided that front and rear setbacks of not less than 27 feet and a side setback of not less than seven feet shall be maintained. An awning may encroach up to six feet into a required front or rear setback and up to five feet into a required side setback when placed over steps, stoops or an exterior landing, provided that the encroachment shall not exceed eight feet in width along the wall plane and that front and rear setbacks of not less than 24 feet and a side setback of not less than five feet shall be http://www.ci.bloomington.rnn.us/code/Codel9-3.html 7/28/2005 Bloomington City Code Chapter 19 page 3 Page 3 of 9 maintained. Awnings shall not encroach into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (6) Clothes lines and laundry drying equipment are not permitted within the front yard and shall be located only in side and rear yards where side and rear setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. In instances where the side or rear yard abuts a public street, the required setback shall be no less than the required setback for a principal building in the zoning district. These features shall not encroach into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (7) Arbors and trellises may encroach ten feet into a required front setback, five feet into a required side setback and 20 feet into a required rear setback, provided that a front setback of not less than 20 feet, a side setback of not less than five feet and a rear setback of not less than ten feet shall be maintained. A setback of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained from any public street. These features shall not encroach into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (8) Permanently installed outdoor fireplaces and barbecues are not permitted within the front yard and shall be located only in side and rear yards. Such features shall not encroach into the required side setbacks and may encroach up to 15 feet into the required rear setback provided that a rear setback of not less than 15 feet shall be maintained. In instances where the side or rear yard abuts a public street, a setback of not less than the required front setback shall be maintained. Such features shall not encroach into public easements of record without the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (9) Basketball backboards, rims, and support structures may encroach 15 feet into required front and rear setbacks and five feet into a required side setback in the front yard, provided that front and rear setbacks of not less than 15 feet and a side setback in the front yard of not less than five feet shall be maintained. In side and rear yards, side setbacks of not less than 15 feet shall be maintained. Such features may encroach on public easements of record with the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (10) Other recreational equipment and play apparatus over four feet in height are not permitted within the front yard. Such features are permitted in side and rear yards provided that side and rear setbacks of not less than 15 feet shall be maintained, including those instances where the side or rear yard abuts a public street. Such features may encroach on public easements of record with the written approval of the Issuing Authority. (11) Air conditioning equipment may encroach five feet into any required front, side and rear setback, provided that front and rear setbacks of not less than 25 feet and side setbacks of not less than five feet shall be maintained. Air conditioning equipment shall not encroach into public easements of record without written approval of the Issuing Authority. (12) Bay and bow windows may encroach two feet into any required front, side and rear setback, provided that front and rear setbacks of not less than 28 feet and a side setback of not less than eight feet shall be maintained. Such features shall not encroach into public easements of record without written approval of the Issuing Authority. (13) Entry vestibules less than eight feet in width may encroach six feet into any required front and rear setback, provided that front and rear setbacks of not less than 24 feet shall be maintained. No encroachment shall be allowed into a required side setback. Such features shall not encroach into public easements of record. (e) In nonresidential zoning districts: (1) Telephone booths are permitted in any front, side or rear yard, provided that a front setback of not less than 15 feet, a side setback of not less than five feet and a rear setback of not less than that required for the principal building in the zoning district shall be maintained. Telephone booths shall not encroach into public easements of record without written approval of the Issuing Authority. (2) Newspaper boxes are permitted in the front, side and rear yards when the property is occupied by a principal building, provided that a front setback of not less than 15 feet http://www.ci.bloomington.mn.us/code/Code 19_3.html 7/28/2005 Thousands of fires occur in residences rescue gear, which may include a breathing EMERGENCYeach year. Many of these fires occur at apparatus. night when the occupants are asleep. The size determined as a minimum for ESCAPE Severe injuries or death can be the escape and rescue is 5.7 square feet of result of these fires if the occupants clear openable area or 5.0 square feet for _ are asleep and unaware the fire is in grade floor openings (see Code for detailed GLlidelin_ progress. Death usually results from informaton). Since windows come all emergency - ' asphyxiation long before the fire reaches shapes, a minimum width dimension was windows ' window the occupants. needed to accommodate tall window shapes : .;, `�• In order to prevent the tragic loss of and a minimum height dimension for wide -.` life the Minnesota State Building Code window shapes. Studies have determined the requires smoke alarm to be installed in minimum net clearwidth needed is 20 inches. n --' dwellings to alert the occupants of a fire. These dimensions are part of the code The code also requires that sleeping requirements and assure the window or door rooms and habitable space in basement will provide for a safe exit or rescue. i' dwelling units have windows or doors, Emergency escape windows and doors must which may be used for emergency be located on the exterior of the building and escape or rescue if the fire has blocked open directly to a yard,street or alley so that the normal, escape routes in the home. the occupants may escape or be rescued Basements pose a special danger since directly from the room to the outside without they usually have only one stairway to having to travel through the building itself. act as a means of escape.This stairway In a fire,time is critical to survival.You may can be easily blocked by fire making not have time to instruct family members escape from the basement impossible. and guests on the proper window operation For this reason the Minnesota Building or to perform complex operations to get the Code requires that if a portion of the window open.The code requires windows basement is habitable space, at least and doors used for emergency escape of one emergency egress window or door is rescue to be readily openable without any provided. special knowledge or effort.The intent is that The size of windows and doors required windows be of the common double-hung, in the code are based on extensive horizontal sliding or casement type.Your local research to determine the proper building inspector will need to be consulted relationships of height and width of to assist you in evaluating special types of window openings to adequately serve for windows. both rescue and escape. Special windows need to be evaluated based People come in all sizes and windows on the difficulty and knowledge needed for come in all shapes.A fireman attempting operating or removing the windows. a rescue will likely be wearing full ` tedb Building Codes and Standards Division 408 Metro Square Building 121 East 7th Place St.Paul,MN 55101-2181 651.296.4639 TTY: 800.627.3529 Fax: 651.297.1973 www.buildingcodes. . • www.mncodes.org BOSD-GIO12 10-04 ESCAPE continued ::s- Window wells.Window wells required for emergency P. escape and rescue shall have horizontal dimensions that allow the door or window of the emergency escape 44 INCHES and rescue openings to be fully opened.The horizontal dimensions of the window well shall provide a minimum net clear area of 9 square feet(0.84m2)with a minimum horizontal projection and width of 36 inches(914 mm). Exception:The ladder or steps required by Section R310.2.1 shall be permitted to encroach a maximum of 6 inches(152 mm)into the required dimensions of the window well. Bulkhead enclosures. Bulkhead enclosures shall provide direct access to the basement.The bulkhead enclosure with the door panels in the fully open position shall provide the minimum net clear opening required by Section R310.1.1. Bulkhead enclosures shall also comply with Section R314.9. Bars, grills,covers, screens, or similar devices are permitted to be placed over emergency escape and rescue openings, bulkhead enclosures, or window wells that serve such openings, provided the minimum net clear opening size complies with Sections R310.1.1 to R310.1.3, and such devices shall be releaseable or removable from the inside without the use of a key,tool or force greater than that which is required for normal operation of the escape and rescue opening. Ladder and steps.Window wells with a vertical depth greater than 44 inches(1118 mm) below the adjacent ground level shall be equipped with a permanently affixed ladder or steps usable with the window in the fully open position. Ladders or steps required by this section shall not be required to comply with Section R314 and R315. Ladders or rungs shall have an inside width of at least 12 inches (305 mm), shall project at least 3 inches(76 mm) GR. from the wall and shall be spaced not more than 18 inches (457 mm) on center vertically for the full height of the A X B = 9 window well. SQUARE FEET Guard.Although the code does NOT specify requirements for guard around window wells to keep persons from falling into them,falls can and do occur. Because of the security devices such as grilles, bars and steel shutters. variations in size, location, and depth of window wells and Unless properly designed and constructed, these security since a guard could present an impediment to escape devices over emergency windows can completely defeat or rescue, the code is silent.The potential for falls into a window well should be evaluated by the homeowner and the purpose of the emergency escape and rescue window. suitable guards or visual barriers provide based on the The code makes provisions for use of security devices, location, depth and size of the well. Barriers, guards or provided the release mechanism has been approved by the covers installed to prevent falls must be placed in such building official and it is operable from the inside without the a way that does not impede use of the window well for use of a key or special knowledge. escape and rescue. If covers are used,the effects of snow Fire deaths have been attributed to the inability of the on the ability to open or remove them in an emergency individual to escape from the building because the security must also be evaluated. bars prevented emergency escape. Security devices should The ever-increasing concern for security, particularly in only be installed where absolutely necessary and only with a residential buildings has created a fairly large demand for permit after an evaluation by your local building and fire official. BCSO-GIo12 io-u 3 STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: NA From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: August 16, 2005 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Revision Discussion-Vehicle Sales Background: Staff has received several complaints recently from residents about all the vehicles for sale at Wiltshire Park School parking lot. Because this use is not listed as allowable in the Zoning Ordinance, selling vehicles in this manner is not allowed and would be towed away at the owner's expense and cited if these vehicles were parked on public property or public right-of-way. Wiltshire Park is considered private property and as such, the police can only respond if and when there is a call from the school staff. The Police and the Public Works Departments have been working with the School staff to determine a resolution to this situation. As a result of Staff discussion,I received a copy of the City of Falcon Heights' ordinance regarding vehicle sales. This ordinance language was used as an example of a possible ordinance that the City may adopt to alleviate the situation. This proposed language will be sent to the City Attorney and the Police Department for their comments. Proposed Text: Section 926-Restrictions on Vehicle Sales 926.01 Residential Districts. Subd 1 Motor vehicles and recreational vehicles which are permitted within the respective residential district may be advertised for sale and sold provided the vehicle is owned by the resident where the vehicle is parked and the3 vehicle is currently licensed and operable. Vehicles that are displayed for sale shall not be parked or stored on public property or the public rights-of-way within the City of St. Anthony. Subd 2 Commercial vehicles shall not be parked in a residential district and advertised for sale. 926.02 Non-Residential Districts. Subd 1 Motor,commercial and recreational vehicles shall not be displayed "for sale' or sold within non-residential districts unless the vehicle is owned by the employee of said business where the vehicle is parked and with the consent of the business owner. Attachments: • Copy of Vehicle Sales Ordinance from the City of Falcon Heights H.\Plammng\Staff Reports\2005\081605 Discussion on proposed Vehicle Sales ord.doc r' .., CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS RAMSEY COUNTY,MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 2004-01 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE FALCON HEIGHTS CITY CODE CONCERNING VEHICLE SALES THE CITY COUNCIL OF FALCON HEIGHTS ORDAINS: SECT 1. Chapter 9 of the Falcon, Heights City Code is amended by adding Section 9-13.08 to provide: 9-13.08 Vehicle Sales. Subdivision 1. Residential District. Motor vehicles and recreational vehicles which are permitted within the respective residential district may be advertised for sale and sold provided the vehicle is owned by the resident where the vehicle is parked and the vehicle is currently licensed and operable. Vehicles that are displayed for sale shall not be parked or stored on public property or the public rights of way on Snelling Avenue and its frontage roads, Hamline Avenue, Fairview Avenue, Roselawn Avenue and Cleveland Avenue. At no time shall any commercial vehicle be parked within a residential district and advertised for sale. Subdivision 2. Non-residential District. Motor, commercial, and recreational vehicles I shall not be displayed "for sale" or sold within nonresidential districts unless as partof an approved licensed sales dealership or for short termparking (12 hours or less) if the vehicle is owned by an employee of said business where the vehicle is parked with the consent of the business owner. SECT— I__. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon is passage. ADOPTED this 5'day of May, 2004, by the City Council of Falcon Heights, Minnesota. CITY OF FALCON HEIGHTS BY: ATTEST: 4u-Lan L. Gehrz, Mayor eather M. Worthington, Citgdministrator/Clerk • (n(W��L.(.WI�, Ube.�pP.aua�ug;�lalohkok�ps�=9%28%2005 _ �-.�i?_3�'si��i�,��..;�.: 0��(�;��y+• * P'� .•i`Y":T'X."���.�iti'="�•'+'t���'-•j4� az, I� Jjam: .. _. v.�i- :tpi „y.,7.•1.. _'�i_ •,t.;-5}+ +" z First Name u c o P� r lll�TT fijLast Name a ~ a z a C, RIK° < ''i` Title - Jurisdiction • f '8=fia { F7 `x�' � � lYMS Street Address :_ - '� py R _ t Y City for local government officials - State Zip appointed, elected and staff Daytime Phone( I Fax Number �) -- .�rn k, '�it��:r�",f»�'-�b�ls"F� ,f,>,. •�L°;:,'t:��-• ,-�:•.i;°N..'�'�tim��f-;'�^'rnF•'..,.,- E-mail � . 7 t ,zt _,Y y.,Y ;;i.^ ..,rrti- 'C Registration Opfions: 1 t°T�' I:L�,•.,.'x h`' i�..;�a 2=r.?.'. ✓ c +';-•_°h ;.��c..y`.;,k 1�} The Basics-$60.00 ha@f=d� w® l 11 Yd the Basics-$60.00 � fJat,•-k:MR ❑ -$10.00 7n ,a�.wC-`rr ..�--..•.?li:;�;ysr'"r> 7 '�ie.,�{'r9 _I. Lunch following o kshop -a ao .c t �` k< '�;;-•i d fir,. Payment®pfions: a x 11 Enclosed is check# 0 ,°) A(pay •+in the the amount of $ _j� �, 1,`.•.�• :a��,�;.,xrTk.�'ae�..,r®,.?a.�n•u;r 1y;f-+�-k3yyW'�ti�x;'•��;I;k�s0'!r�i.0::.,f'.:,i:0�.:�r1rt`A�1%e,`e,0,,.}�1�i',.,r�irrj,t-r�r�:.��{•,�?;�'yI.:'�':�t,ii`,?._•a;i:�"r�bt-Y;.0'�.>t�t1vi;@.•"i=l*.-€;r."..-+7�.J.f��>,°-'�.;�a ..r� able to Government Training Services) A 11 Please billme at above address 0 i�'•�"-;;�:.y,�+rMs-.,c'1• - t a -•+' -� _�'���>•`• PO# (if applicable). p Vi;µ y�,w`;s ` rt-o,,, ;•.r ;IF,.',r•t='':` NOTEA$10/AGENCY BILLING FEE WILL BE ADDED TO THE AMOUNT OWED IA w p 1./t �_ •L r '�_ "�S 'i,�,=p M �+ IYY �....- • -� ❑ Credit Card(VISA or MasterCard only): Cn ' f y.`'• ;.- card# ; ' of Manan Exp.Date 'S .4:t � 'dw;^, '�'''��t'r:.�.�„,^,,, ~�`�- °�-•a, �',�.t r,� "`��'?. •Ynr. E-mail address(required): "' ''r1 'xF` x` r� + ^ `*; ;Y'••-; YSYr=" Special Needs: j E: ' �Tfi ?, s r>'.a-`�, � ,Y"r?-�, aw 'f_ � t," �-•c tAa a-�;4';n�"e 4frt.E _ Ty,+..",..-•'!a: ,t`.3,G� lr. -?4..:''•V.`il".r.�'tr.: • k _ '•TSI_ .%7` ❑ 1 require some accommodations. Please contacta,. meat Circleone volcE or Trr >E LO INednesdaS'e temberJ28h 20A5= Q f2efur7n —s orm3 x r< � t ,. a:rm ., ,�. ,�. .. :. . - r.• y S em>er .� i >` IQ°Minnesota'; •'�',; �X',;• � '� <<•=-v�1 !�,r a.,:';,.4.= i r�, ,•t�_tw - f =��,- waY;,.-� •, ., -<-f` � F B�Il� �g-°_ -vie N _ ,,t.om,.-w• �'s,;.},:.:., ,_: •;.,i•.,F6'-°k-"n.fi ,F`e-'.ri„ _,.•> iF' -:. _'�,-.r.:,.' (�~If"°ss.•*.`Yy•'f.o:i:u.�'s'`s�h-;_,.aM1-a=3,t A-v2wF,e._s.�',,e3µ,y::rsle••;.,•e•.:rzt�ew.`Myd^txt�h•re"L;x:'ib"iu+l.lamee-'c�n.r1'or�¢v4;,�,'7"r:�?i,x`a��te.•'�a,,Js�:';Yap„.i..x`-\�p`` r :� COMNetUfies.t7Av2,3S3Univ'St-'Pau�MN9,551^l `;Yk-f cred '... `,..'J,..;F'=r?•..::••;..tY.:•la;.�:'_::' -ti=;>r r.ra,rx;+.,-;,r,.a.'tS`l+=r;'Tva''�'"-5''='{;•4�`•'.?.i7+r?e:w..;,o._�:rX�","r=";'r" r.o card"pctyrnent; � �t ,„4 �S _ .,- o '.''k•':' iG$p"°rr•_.,• s:n'a-•` ` .ham•- m•+<:-i as • o • - •w opti0n's,y6u;can-faxyourzr6 istr6tior-nt'o::°651 223=`580T)t; °`` - __ _�``i-•gyp-'Ny..y.._• Sc-'G:�}�� �.£-�•YJ( "-��.�t•4'ai--els., .v,�' GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICES is pleased to present condensed versions of its most l;i�"'A-1 3 <`:'`A :' +` + :,E•= r ` - ;M' rrr. 'K.e✓ e,i,e % '. .0 - -'r r% 7,�•l- gip_,_ .;_;'. POP ular Land Use Planning Workshops in . Tkai `collaboration wit ` Ih Minnesota APA on Wednesday, teJt ' tet t eco :. eg0. September 28, 200 T �:�- � ;.�• i, tx.`;: 5. hese two,4-hour )T t: g4 ZOnitng of,i?IanningF8�Zonnng.,_ a,: I;_ �. of Plealhnin ,; '° workshops are being offered as special pre- u= �: .. � r , ;u :Ys '. :•,.'- -t Y. ., ^r'.::,: i r--."t- r .i msµ..- �.•..1 "",-ani. .,�,,:,• ,.- -''i '?': � a- ��.:�� ..-' `S r. - _;+.,a conference events to the 2005 Mid-west Regional '.Wednesda t.5e tem 2 r Y% p be 5 8' ;'�, °ry `_l_=_'�1^ r.r''y -<�{'�nvr..TbTSa.. .✓ j�`^+�4.a.^.S.'`'.tz t=','i,_,t `'�1lUneadnte.s.:Fd.ca},._y = epeainStates Planning Conference in Alexandria, 0.<'l zlierrih< :30_a:Minnesota. m,7 ."f - "nr}, b.:.�, t •1�,,,t,.," ,N: �.,. These two programs cover basic issues related n �- t"s,' f A tir N _H.;4 a,'� ,,;r Y t,( },"�v,'E _ F r-7 �^ -;t-'•-�_�',, _- i 's., � ,:y�r•.r�. rr��'f f,r •,?.f, :}t1,.r.,{lr•1 T�_.+7',a ao�>) •`�'S,"'�•,r :d? ;.J.,�,:t., rem w ��i rh, y' to all levels of local government, regardless of N t:l•,0 ;-_ �. r a� g g �AArworkshop designed for those.pew't`o'land use !` ,Z-,;Thjsworkshop;g,pirs.piconcentrated'.look at^plan-';r_ ' their size or location. Content has been designed j,, " iiig,� r,.. -'''' .. E, 1^ - -'.y+ct ni ','d g �� planrnng;or�int�e?e"sfed�nvatNuls�andBolts'revievv�-�;T�•, ��`ning°an`d�zoriing'y;from the;history_of�land,use � , '' especially for citizen planners. Members of 1 r - x ',r ,''e p y p ;�,of;the�'funda lgMals S��This�t/z da�sessi�rn:povides��,�; { regulations a tl,itie'�source of,our.zoning aufhonty "�. planning commissions, boards of adjustment rxr padicipants witha base of information'-uponywhich t ' �,to theselements of)a.comprehensive'review and {• ", G , ..A.tr•'.. �; �.r; and appeals,and governing bodies well find them ;{Fto hel''O create,andiirnplementt-thei community,s . t tIllhe,bastcwzonm'gwtools.SVanarices ;eoriditional'use°;-,;`. particularly valuable. fplarn You will"learn how.tb,deve�or�achiovable°',c ,4 ;'^;`permits rintei use permits„PUDs,,performance and=measurdble lannit oals�and:ob ectives, K ' ' yzornn ;'ove�la 'zoriin anddesi n. uidelioes will,r = Location d'how'to'usethesim'Ie`rrfe`ntaiiontool`s ofzonn = € � 'g ' ` 4 ykr g ' kg `g Both workshops will be held at Arrowwood Resort `•., ry �Kr:r.: :��=-^.� pr:-:t; �P� . N-�°: i= :•,.g �Y be,dlscussed;`Legal issue"ssuch'as takirigs;ahe':' and subdivlslon,ordrnances �Partielpants:wlllzlearm ,? I t 60.,tlay rule,luse ofvanances CUPs•add•makmg and Conference Center(2100 Arrowwood Lane A6,'- ,> _' •-w � .".. �,:t =3_ ^ ��� abet praeties,to•gun;effective•PlanningCo'mrnisston? ;;Yfrecortl..will also:be coverect%"A.brief-overview.of the_;-• NW)in Alexandria,Minnesota. Those needing "fineetings�andKflow�to maximize their,-Irnpdct onalie enviror njentdl`revlew;pro'cess wi`II'explain:how,bn�l- overnight accommodations should contact N �r 1 future of•their comrhunity Arrowwood direct) at 320-762-1124 and mention •>r'„ s a .,� �” ._fix" y{,�.fo,use,EAWs;E15's andy ere t'v y :� . f � a: 1 �_ ,F ' ,a f, ,, ., • � k- process:.Ca'sestudies based on real projeets'vvill-be'. the Conference. Directions are available on the t ;Facu Bo6aLoc'ear hosexferi ve h'arids='ori`; ':k deliatedarid° our''`uestiofiseanswe'red € �`.-' Center web site www.arroww r" t ,� ! ,.., ►` .r . y x�° r -your.9 , , oodresort.coml. ezpe_rieii in,:,both-, imp) �. ementirigrzontn9'�, fi. rk.ar cli'subdiv Sion&d nanc � � � ',.F � � i } " f' �� � es�Heaias�workedlfor',city;'G` ' Facuttyi�Ptill Ca'rl'son',ri8s consulted''on planning;;,-' Fee �vtown,;�4`oun `andstate`Tannin"°de atmen`fsFin`g v��z'' ,tissues}for:over 25 P;ears;with'1FierMinfib0,blis;firm_`.'- The registration for each of these programs is ami Illi'riois'fWis opsin dndiMinnes ga His mosi e tint` Y (u ofaDahl "ren;'S''ardlow&Uban`,I'ries+ln,a'dditioii: $60/person,which includes handout materials vi -;a .<. Stu:,�� ;, ;A �"Y�, y •,�K � f;:wry r-. <g,... .} 'r .• ,,;.:..'r ` a osltlon was Plannln ,D,Ireetor,•or,Washm tong:•,. _ ' to-writiri rzonin ;or"dinances fo`rnumer"ous,com,, and refreshment breaks. A luncheon meal after `1;.t? ,', - =r,g`b.ii -A ' h1.g-F�'4^'{• ��ra � �gLL 'r' g " � _t'County,'Minnesota,-, .r., ; ' A • ._ " `�a f I;;I.unities the cilso;wrof`ti the-design guidelines for`= 'n the workshops is available for an additional ;� ,< ,j 1 • �� •, xY� -t ' ". n��?t` K ;° - t"'�: 3' ' <R�' t R,%B`umsyilles•Heart,.oflthe City':developmert;'.INest`St: charge of$10/person r €A r ,ti a: ...,, `:r g p ,`fir';' - ; ` ' k'• 1ztt �. J' :.'�ti kPoul's.RbliertFStreetcorridgr;andMa`nkatosUrban?• r1_••'�=i: ' ya i,2�.s ,•'"`'-:`X;"'x`.',.: psi `Ir^.7�Rb . ,f.y,L . ..1 ? '�Iw, x -� s ' :, N' ,„"n ,y.•µ.�':a esigrr'Framework: x rt „`-t;to Registration/Cancellation .��•�-mak, �,r�=r����..' .� _ "� �.. �. Y ` Register by September 21 using the form in this brochure. Fees will be refunded less a$15 service fee if the registration is cancelled by September Special Workshop for Local Officials--Flour fa Aii Dull ut f"km Uevdepw d 23. You may substitute another individual at any September 22-Breezy Point time If you find you cannot attend Check the GTS web site-www.mngts.org-for complete brochure and registration form Questions? Contact Government Training Services: About Government Training services cschoeneck@mngts.org Ss YOUR PROVEN RESOURCE FOR MEETING YOUR CONFERENCE,EDUCATION AND PROJECT NEEDS 651-222-7409 x205 or GTS is a non-profit organization dedicated to helping those who provide services to Minnesota citizens and communities MN toll free 800-569-6880 x205 meet current needs for knowledge and skills It has worked with policymakers,staff and appointed officials from all levels of government and their collaborators since 1976 �' lG ')'� i-1_�'� `"`� I ,n.' == =� 'i, �II .,(6-r' '' °�`�i� � � •L�� 3�� g� 1 az -� v ;e�� � - PUBLIC INPUT SHEET In order to address the City Council and to be heard on an Agenda item,please complete the following and pass this completed sheet to the City Manager. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, clearly state their-name and address for the City Clerk's record. Date: -It-:) al 05 Name: ACt_ AJ Address: -- Agenda Item Addressing: o1jS J�