HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 03172009 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
104973
Box: 33
Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011
Document: PL PACKET 03172009
a
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY, MARCH 171, 2009
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL.
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2009
VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
VII. 1. Administrative Lot Split N 3055 Old US Highway 8
VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
VIII. 1. PROPOSAL FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE N ISD 282
IX. OTHER BUSINESS.
X. REPORTS FROM STAFF.
XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not indudedon
the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at
the podium,state their name and address for the Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes The
Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or aired the matter to be scheduled on an
upcoming agenda.
XI. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
XI. 1. CLEAN-UP DAY N MAY 2, 2009 N 9:00 AM — 1:00 PM N 3801 CHANDLER DRIVE
XIII.ADJOURNMENT.
F:\P1anning\PC Agendas\2009\03172009 pc agenda.doc
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 FEBRUARY 17, 2009
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10
11 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
12
13 H. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
14
15 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
16
17 III. ROLL CALL.
18
19 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Stromgren; Commissioners Jensen, Heinis, Jenson, and
20 Crone.
21 Absent: Commissioners Goodwin and Chaput.
22 Also Present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes.
23
24 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
25
26 Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Jensen, to approve the Planning
27 Commission Meeting Agenda of February 17, 2009.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES
32
33 V.1. JANUARY 20, 2009
34
35 The following correction was requested to the January 20, 2009 meeting minutes:
36 Page 2, line 2: "...to the February 4-6 17, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting."
37
38 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Heinis, to approve the January 20,
39 2009 Meeting Minutes as corrected.
40
41 Motion carried 3-0-2 (Crone and Jensen).
42
43 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
44
45 None.
46
47 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
48
49 VII.1. ADMINISTRATIVE LOT SPLIT—3055 OLD US HIGHWAY 8
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 2
1
2 Chair Stromgren stated the public hearing on this administrative lot split was tabled at the
3 January Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant pending a request for
4 further information from the City Attorney and Planning Commission.
5
6 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
7
8 Chair Stromgren noted the applicant is not present tonight.
9
10 Commissioner Jensen stated the application seems to make sense, allowing for development
11 potential on two different lots. However, it would appear that coming forward with a cross
12 parking agreement, which would be amendable at such time as the future land plan is proposed,
13 would tend to make a lot split more accurate, as well as a cross access easement that would go
14 with the two parcels to the existing access out to Old Highway 88. He suggested conditioning
15 future approval on the receipt of such documents without restricting the ability to amend them in
16 the future. He stated it appears for the purposes of the use of the structure that the current parking
17 facility has more space than is used,pending a new tenant with extraordinary parking demands.
18
19 Chair Stromgren stated this is consistent with what the Commission asked the applicant to
20 provide. The applicant was requested to provide additional analysis regarding the use of the
21 building, what the code requires for parking to serve the existing building, and how that would
22 impact the location of the new lot. That information was not provided to staff prior to the
23 meeting. He stated since this item has been tabled once it may be running up against the clock
24 and action may need to be taken to close this and protect the City's interest. He noted the opinion
25 of the City Attorney included in the packet that approval without more information puts legal
on a nonconforming He noted the applicant would not be prohibited from
26 descriptiong
27 coming back in the future with additional information.
28
29 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m.
30
31 Motion by Commissioner Jensen to recommend approval of the administrative lot split at 3055
32 Old US Highway 8 with the following conditions to be met prior to City Council approval: 1)the
33 applicant is to provide a cross access agreement for Parcels A and B; 2) the applicant is to
34 provide a cross parking agreement to meet the minimum requirement of the square footage of the
35 structure on Parcel B over Parcel A.
36
37 Commissioner Jenson noted the applicant has not provided any communication on this
38 information, which was requested at the January Planning Commission meeting.
39
40 Commissioner Crone clarified that the motion on the floor would require the applicant to go back
41 to `square one' if the requested information is not provided prior to the February 24, 2009 City
42 Council meeting.
43
44 Motion seconded by Commissioner Crone.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 3
1 Chair Stromgren stated his position that the applicant did not provide the information requested
2 by the Commission and approval of the lot split would be allowing the applicant to bypass the
3 process.
4
5 Commissioner Jensen noted the approach of the Commission has been to provide a window for
6 approval or to request an extension of the applicant, further tabling the item. Denying the
7 application also leaves the applicant the option to request that the Council table the application
8 and take if off the clock. With the motion to recommend approval with conditions the applicant
9 will provide the requested information in the next couple of days if they are serious about the
10 request.
11
12 Commissioner Jenson stated his position that the Commission should uphold the principles of the
13 process and that the process the applicant was requested to follow is very simple.
14
15 Motion failed 2-3 (Stromgren,Heinis,Jenson).
16
17 Motion by Chair Stromgren, second by Commissioner Jenson, to recommend denial of the
18 administrative lot split for 3055 Old US Highway 8.
19
20 Chair Stromgren clarified that the recommendation for denial is not because the land
21 development would not be in the best interest of the community, but because the applicant has
22 not provided enough information to fully analyze the proposed plan. The recommendation for
23 denial is also consistent with the City Attorney's opinion that without additional information to
24 evaluate, approval would be endorsing a nonconforming condition.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 Chair Stromgren clarified that the recommendation for denial is not a comment on the
29 redevelopment; it is an objection to the process.
30
31 Commissioner Jensen noted in the past the Commission has discussed minimum lot size
32 requirements for a PUD. This proposed lot split would create two parcels in which each one
33 would be less than the 3-acre minimum. He questioned whether the blending of the two parcels
34 together in one application brings the size over the 3-acre minimum requirement. He suggested
35 further discussion by the Commission on whether 3 acres is still a reasonable PUD requirement.
36
37 Commissioner Jenson stated his support of additional discussion to analyze the PUD lot size
38 requirement.
39
40 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes indicated research can be done on the requirements in
41 cities of comparable size and whether it would be appropriate to lower the minimum size
42 requirement.
43
44 Consensus of the Commission was supportive of further discussion/analysis on the minimum lot
45 size requirements for PUD's on a future meeting agenda.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 4
1
2 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS
3
4 None.
5
6 IX. OTHER BUSINESS.
7
8 None.
9
10 X. REPORTS FROM STAFF
11
12 X.1. GTS LAND USE SEMINAR
13
14 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes indicated the Commission has been provided with the GTS
15 Land Seminar schedule. She requested commissioners interested in attending to contact her
16 regarding registration.
17
18 X.2. SILVER LAKE VILLAGE
19
20 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes reported that the City is in receipt of signed applications
21 for Radio Shack, Leann Chin's and Smash Burger in Silver Lake Village.
22
23 XI. COMMUNITY FORUM.
24
25 None.
26
27 XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
28
29 Commissioner Jensen asked if there have been any requests of the City Council for people in
30 need of housing or assistance due to the apartment fire in the City. Assistant City Manager
31 Moore-Sykes replied that approximately 170 people were displaced by the fire. As of today the
32 residents that are able to move back in are beginning to do so. There have been many offers of
33 help to the individuals. There are grants available for people that are displaced in this way, and
34 that information is being passed on.
35
36 Commissioner Jensen suggested including information regarding rental license criteria in the
37 next City newsletter for people that are in need or desire to rent out a portion of their homes.
38
39 XIII. ADJOURNMENT.
40
41 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Crone, to adjourn the meeting at
42 7:28 p.m.
43
44 Motion carried unanimously.
45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
February 17, 2009
Page 5
1
2
3 Respectfully submitted,
4 Carol Hamer
5 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
r STAFF REPORT
To: Chair,Planning Commission Report No.:
Planning Commission Members I
From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager 00
Date: March 17,2009
Subject: 3055 Old US Highway 8 Administrative Lot Split
Requested Action: Consider Lot Split Request
Date Application Received: Dec.23,2008
Property Address: 3055 Old US Highway 8
Zoning District: Ll
60-Day Expires: April 22,2009 with Extension to April 28,2009
Waiver Letter Required: Yes X Date Sent: 1/21/09 No
Future Action: City Council Action;March 24,2009
Background: Mr. David Lutz,General Counsel for The Wirth Companies submitted an application and
fees for an Administrative Lot Split without Platting on December 23,2008. Mr. Lutz met with Staff
regarding their proposal to split the property located at 3055 Old Highway 8. Mr. Lutz reported that his
client is proposing to split this property into two parcels in order to facilitate the future and eventual
redevelopment of that parcel currently comprising the parking lot.
The City attorney reviewed the proposed preliminary plat and advised Staff that he would not recommend
approval for this plat as configured and proposed. When Staff advised Mr. Lutz of the situation,Mr. Lutz
requested that the Planning Commission table the public hearing until February 17, 2009. Mr. Lutz was also
asked to present a parking analysis for Lot B for the rescheduled public hearing. Staff estimates that Lot B
has between 35 -40 parking spaces and that the parking needs for this building is approximately 65- 70
spaces total.
Mr. Lutz did not attend the rescheduled February 17th public hearing with the Planning Commission and
had not provided Staff with a parking analysis until February 18,2009,the day after the public hearing.
The revised site plan that includes the parking analysis was forwarded to the City Attorney for review
ahead of the City Council meeting scheduled for February 24, 2009. Mr. Lutz submitted a parking plan
that proposes 92 parking spaces with one space designated as handicapped parking. Claiming
misunderstanding of the date and time of the City Council meeting,Mr. Lutz did not appear at the
February 24th City Council meeting.
The City Council remanded this item back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing scheduled for
March 17, 2009. The City is still in conformance with the 120-day rule for Subdivision. Staff posted the
public hearing in the City's legal newspaper and mailed out notices to adjacent properties as required by
state statutes.
03172009 3055 Old hywy 8 Lot Split 02242009 Staff Report Format.doc
Action: The Planning Commission to recommend approval or denial of the applicant's request for Lot `
Split at 3055 Old Highway 8.
Attachments:
• Letters and documentation from Applicant
• Site Map (with Parking Analysis)
• Aerial Photo of Property (Hennepin County)
03172009 3055 Old hywy 8 Lot Split 02242009 Staff Report Format.doc
r
al 1110
e
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699
Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 - www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
February 27, 2009
Mr. Jerome Gilligan, Esq.
DORSEY &WHITNEY,LLP
Suite 1500, 50 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Dear Jerry:
Enclosed please find a copy of the site plan for the Wirth Companies' lot split for
3055 US Old Highway 8 that includes the parking for proposed Lot B and a
building plan showing the square footage of the building's footprint.
Also, the public hearing notice was sent to the City's newspaper on Wednesday
and letters noticing the public hearing went out to the neighboring properties
yesterday. I have also sent Mr. Lutz a letter advising him of the same.
Sincerely
Moore-Sykes
Assistant City Manager
612-782-3312
kim.moore-sykes@ci.saint-anthony.i-nn.us.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure
c5eamo,
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699
Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 - www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
February 27, 2009
Mr. David Lutz, Esq.
WIRTH COMPANIES
615 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Dear David:
I received copies of the site plan for the Wirth Companies' lot split for 3055 US
Old Highway 8 that includes the parking for proposed Lot B and a building plan
showing the square footage of the building's footprint that you sent on
Wednesday.
Also, the public hearing notice was sent to the City's newspaper on Wednesday
and letters noticing the public hearing went out to the neighboring properties
yesterday. This public hearing will be scheduled with the Planning Commission
at their regularly scheduled meeting on March 17, 2009 at 7:00pm at the St.
Anthony City Hall. The City Council will again consider Wirth Companies'
application for a lot split at 3055 Old US Highway 8 on March 24, 2009 at 7:00pm
at the St. Anthony City Hall. Your attendance at both meetings is required.
I have also sent Mr. Gilligan a packet with the site plan for his review.
Sincerely,
m Moore-Sykes
Assistant City Manager
612-782-3312
kim.moore-sykes@ci.saint-anthony.mri.us.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure.
rnennep>n k,ounty unique Aenais page I of 1
r
�HHennepin County Oblique Aerials
Images courtesy of:MicrosoftVirtual Earth TM 2008
Fught Data:April 2N6
i ~
C/p/I
R H
_ flfd US g
� b -
�k% P R
i J c
a ,y
A
erry In
�1�5�3://g1S.GQ.1�IitP���fl13.F.�1t2. s/ �C'ro�3e�4:,j�F a��/ .at�scyc.�s�a?s�� =060��23� OOQi� 12/20/2009
Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Page 1 of I
Hennepin County Oblique Aerials
Images courtesy of:Microsofte Virtual Earth 2008
Flight Date:April 2006 Show/Hlde Map on rol
i
Co
I
0
p
R fj i
t -
'mak T
- _ 6
I�ttp://gis.eo.i�ci� el�i,�.���:�.z�s/HCPj of�ei tg� 2a1�/P�irclseyc.�.sl��'?1'I�=0�02923Q 1009u 17/1.0/700'
su m e.o er
r, mem
Ir �
n,a.
am
w.ieia nv.��e
_;...: -
wwlow
„..,,,,..,,,.,,, _7\A
t
I. 7\t
ar �® epi -ow F N
Mu
J
W .I
�9
0
�a
ST. ANTHONY SUSINE55 CENTER-LOWER LEVEL �...
13 15 0c, 1o_.��t N a Asa LOWER
STAFF REPORT
To: Chair, Planning Commission Report No.:
Planning Commission
From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager tL ��
Date: March 17, 2009
Subject: St. Antony Baseball Association's Proposal to Post Commercial Signs on Outfield
Fence in Palm Field, Central Park.
Background:
Mr. Stephen Peterson, on behalf of the St. Anthony Baseball Association, contacted Staff to request
that the City reconsider the Baseball Association's request to post commercial advertising signs on
the Palm Field outfield fence in Central Park. Mr. Peterson said the Association had previously
discussed this with Staff about a year ago. We informed the Association that the City's ordinance
does not allow temporary banners or signs posted on fences.
Mr. Peterson reported to Staff that the Association is proposing to ask for a variance to the City's
Sign Ordinance. But in reviewing the attorney's opinion from Foster & Brever, it was determined
that they will need at least two variances. The School District 282, as property owners, will have to
apply for these variances. As part of the variance application, they will have to demonstrate an
hardship exists that is unique to their property and this hardship makes it difficult for the property
owner to use the property to its greatest potential in order for the variances to be considered for
approval.
The first variance the School District would have to apply for deals with commercial signs in the
Recreation/Open Space Zoning District,which is the zoning designation of the area Central Park
and Palm Field are located in. For this variance, the first consideration is Section 1400.07
Prohibited Signs., which states that signs that are not specifically permitted in this Chapter are
hereby prohibited. That being stated, Chapter 14 SIGNS does not specifically allow signs in the
Recreational/Open Space Zoning District.
Also, Central Park is surrounded by single family homes in the adjacent R-1 Zoning District that
does specifically restrict signs to one identification sign in the right-of-way frontage and one
address sign on the curb (1400.12, Subd. 1 Residential, (1)). The only Zoning District in the City
allowed to post commercial signs is Commercial and Limited Business (1400.12, Subd. 2
Commercial and Limited Business).
The next variance that the School District will be required to obtain is to Section 1400.06, Subd.
Placement of Si ns. This subdivision states that no sign, or attachments to it, may be erected,
placed or maintained by any person on rocks, fences, or trees. While Mr. Eric Brever, Esq., tries to
describe the fence around Palmer Field as a wall (Brever Letter, dated December 6, 2008, page 1,
2nd Paragraph), it is recognized as a chain-link fence (Ibid,3rd Paragraph).
Proposal for Signs on Palmer Field Fence 031709.doc
The Ci tyCode defines fences to mean a partition, structure,
wall or gate erected as a dividing
marker, barrier, enclosure or visual obstruction,but excluding buildings and bushes, trees and
other living landscaping. This ordinance does not differentiate between residential or recreational
or commercial fencing; it pertains to all fencing that meets the definition of fences as defined at
Subd. 1320.01.
Again, Minnesota State Statute states that the applicant for a variance must demonstrate that the
property owner's situation is unique and not created by the owner; that as a result of the City's
ordinances and strict enforcement, the owner is experiencing an undue hardship and the proposed
variance will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. The hardship argument
cannot be solely based on economics.
Attachments:
• Attorney's Opinion received by Staff from the St. Anthony Baseball Association
• School District Letter Supporting Proposal
Proposal for Signs on Palmer Field Fence 031709.doc
St. AnthonyLm New Brighton
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 282
March 4, 2009
City of St. Anthony Mayor and City Council
Planning Commissioners
Parks Commissioners
RE: Signs on the Varsity Baseball Field
Our school board is supportive of the installation of signs with advertising on the varsity baseball
field as a means to generate income for field improvements. The signs would advertise local
businesses, would be tasteful, and would only be up for a 120 day period during the summer
months. We are very fortunate to have one of the premier high school baseball fields in the state
of Minnesota. The income generated from the signs will supplement all of the volunteer labor
that we receive from the St. Anthony Baseball Association (SABA) and allow us to continue to
provide a first class playing field.
The varsity field is used by a wide variety of groups—including our town ball team, the St.
Anthony Hogs, our senior men's league team—the Norsemen, and several others. With the
extensive use of the fields to these groups, we need to continue the high level of maintenance to
keep our field in great shape. This is done outside of the school board budget as resources are
not available for the level of field maintenance that we have become accustomed to at Palm
Field.
We very much appreciate your cooperation on allowing for a temporary installation of signage at
Palm Field. Your assistance will allow us to maintain a source of community pride in our varsity
baseball field—home to the State Champion Huskies!
Sincerely,
(�� K --/�e
Dr. Rod K.Thompson
Superintendent
Dr. Rod Thompson, Superintendent ♦ rthompson@stanthony.kl2.mn.us
3303 33`d Ave NE ♦ St. Anthony, MN 55418 a p: 612.706.1000 f: 612.706.1020
Foster &Brevet,PLLc Robert J.Foster(612)436-3290
9B
Arroa ws Ar Iww Thomas E.Breuer(612)436-3291
Ede B.Breuer(612)436-3294
December 6,2008
Mr.Troy Urdahl
St.Anthony Village High School
3303 33`d Ave NE
St.Anthony,MN 55418
Re: St.Anthony City Sign Ordinance
Dear Mr.Urdahl:
You asked me to review the City of St.Anthony's sign ordinance regarding the
possible placement of advertisements along the interior wall of the St.Anthony Village
High School Baseball Field("Palm Field'). This ordinance does not appear to address
your question directly,however,there are several options I believe you have.
BACKGROUND
You have expressed the concept of the caseation of a partnership between St.
Anthony Baseball Association and Independent School District 282 regarding the
ongoing maintenance and upkeep of Palm Field. In order to fiord these maintenance
obligations,you propose selling advertisements that would be posted along the interior
wall of Palm Field. Such advertising is commensurate with similar baseball facilities of
size,use and age throughout Minnesota.
, Each proposed advertiser would be entitled to a six-foot in diameter
(approximately 27 square feet)posted item that would be placed along the outfield wall
of Palm Field. The current outfield wall is made of chain-link fencing but various ivies
have been planted along its entire length. It is hoped that the ivies will eventually fill in
and diminish the transparency of the current chain-link fencing.
Palm Field is located in Central Park,which is made up of land owned and
operated jointly between the City of St. Anthony and ISD 282. The land appears to be
zoned as recreational/open space. Any existing'signage located on the premises are
identification signs in substance and in nature.
The purpose of this proposal is to incorporate commercial advertising messages
via a fixed medium to Palm Field in a reasonably permanent setting. Currently,no
2812 Anthony Lane South, Suite 200 • St..Anthony,NW, 55418
Fam (612) 788-9879
www.fosterbrever.com
recM60MYopen space area in St.Anthony has any signage related to a commercial
entity as part of a permanent sign.
ANALYSIS
St.Anthony City Ordinances Chapter 14 is known as the"Sign Ordinance". The
Sign Ordinance defines a sign as"any structure,device,advertisement or visual
representation intended to visually advertise,identify or communicate information, or to
visually attract the attention of the public for any purpose unless located within a building
and not visible from the exterior of the building." Given the chain-link fences and the
relative elevation of the field compared to the surrounding parking lots,it is likely that
the proposed advertisements would be considered as"signs"under the ordinance.
The Sign Ordinance prohibits signs unless specifically permitted under the
ordinance. (Sec. 1400.07). Advertising Signs aie specifically prohibited in Residential
Districts(R-1,R-2,R-3 and R-4)but there is no mention of a specific prohibition in other i
zoning areas of the city(Sec. 1400.07 Sub. 10). The same section does prohibit wall
signs in excess of 15%of the total wall surface to which the sign is affixed,however,
given that you would be seeking approximately 540 square feet of signage on the fence of
Palm Field,which has in excess of 5400 square feet of surface area along its entire span.
The ordinance fiuther specifically prolubits signs affixed to"utility poles and
fences";however,such is presumed to be the application of residential fences instead of a
baseball field's fences-4t was likely intended to apply to postings of a temporary nature
rather than reasonably permanent signs along a permanent barrier to entry—which is a
wall,instead of a fence. The ordinance also specifically prohibits Billboards,which are
defined as advertisements of products or services unrelated to the location of the sign. I
While the proposed advertisements would be for possibly unrelated services,the ability
for an advertisement to be posted hinges upon the donation to the maintenance of the
field,which runs counter to that definition. Therefore,such signs would not be
considered as billboards under the ordinance.
There are several exceptions to the general prohibition on signs.-The
advertisements could be considered temporary signs,which allow for the drives or events
of civil,philanthropic,educational or religious organizations. However,such signs
require council approval to be placed on public property and cannot be posted for more
than 14 days before and 3 days after the event. Given the desire to keep the proposed
advertisements posted for up to three years,this exclusion is probably not applicable.
The proposed advertisements could possibly be considered temporary commercial
signs,which cannot have a surface area in excess of 32 square feet and cannot be
displayed for longer than 30 days in each year, and requires the approval of the city
manager. Again,the time limitation is unhelpful for the proposed purpose,but this
section may be applicable.
I
Finally,flags and emblems of educational organizations are exempt$om the
signage prohibition. While this section could encompass,between it and the
identification signs exclusion,the current signage,it was likely not intended to cover
commercial advertisers in the manner proposed.
Given the above information,it appears that there are two possibilities for legal
erection of the proposed advertisements:
1.) Treat the proposed advertisements as temporary oommercial signs but
petition for a variance of the sign ordinance regarding the 30-day
maximum. This option is convenient and clears with regard to the
ordinance since it utilizes a specific exclusion currently on record with
the-city,which can resolve any concerns the City may have about
selective enforcement of its own zoning and sign ordinances.
However,the ordinance does refer to"temporary"commercial signs,
which is not currently proposed to be the case;furthermore,it was
likely enacted for the use of businesses to advertise their own
products,not a third party to advertise on their behalf- While this
option isn't perfect,it does provide a relatively straightforward path
for the erection of the proposed advertisements.
2.) Petition for a permit to erect the signs pursuant to Sec. 1400.09,which
allows for the City Manager to process the ordinance. The benefit of
this approach is that there are no rules or restrictions regarding its 1
application,and,if issued,it would provide a flexible means of dealing I
with the longer-term issues. However,the lack of any guidance to the
City Manager as to the appropriateness of the proposed advertisements '
as applied to the sign ordinance may be troublesome to the City
Manager,as he would then be forced to"legislate"from his position.
It is my suggestion that you consider a hybrid approach to this issue in
approaching the City. Given that option(1.)does yield guidance that these signs could
be considered appropriate,the City Manager may be more inclined to allow a full sign
permit. Furthermore,that the purpose of these advertisements would be to pay for the
maintenance and upkeep on St,Anthony's baseball facilities,there is an economic
incentive for finding a way to issue such a permit.
Do not hesitate to contact me to discuss this matter in further detail.
Sincerely,
ZIP
Eric B.Brever
Vinyl signs 4'x6' advertising local
businesses. To be mounted on the inside of
the outfield fence at the St. Anthony High
School varsity field on April 1st and
removed on Sept 1st. We would propose a
variance to the sign ordinance allowing the
School District to authorize the use of sign
advertising at the field. We would propose
a two year trial variance with the hope that
we could continue the sign program
indefinitely.
The proposed sign advertising would be
administered by SABA (St. Anthony Baseball
Association) with all proceeds going to baseball
facility maintenance and improvements.
S P '1,N QCLEAN;URD&
SATURDAY,MAY 2,2009
9:00 AM TO L•00 PM
Public Works Garage,3801 Chandler Drive
St.Anthony residents who would like to dispose of junk cars,auto batteries,tires,old appliances,recyclables and good
condition clothing and household Goods will be able to do so on M ay 2nd,the City's Clean-Up Day! Tree and brush waste
will also be accepted for a fee based on weight.
• HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE— NOT ACCEPTED AT ST.ANTHONY LOCATION
Household hazardous waste includes all paints,stains,varnish,solvents(used to clean paint,stain,etc),fertilizers,
herbicides,pesticides,etc If you have a question about the product you have,please call the followin6 telephone
numbers. Staff at either of these offices can help with disposal of dangerous or hazardous household chemicals.
Hennepin County residents:Call 612-348-3777 for more information.
Ramsey County residents: Call 651-633-3270 for more information.
• RECYCLABLE MATERIALS— ONLY THE FOLLOWING ARE ACCEPTED AT ST.ANTHONY LOCATION:
— Document Shredding Available for Residents only.
—Fluorescent Light bulbs —FREE OF CHARGE
JUNK CARS — Junk cars will be accepted by Freeway Towing. To have your vehicle picked up,
call 651-633-5525. Car owners must provide Freeway Towin6 with the title of the vehicle or a bill of sale.
• TREE&BRUSH WASTE — Volume-based fee. See chart below.
• MISCELLANEOUS JUNK&CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS- Volume-based fee.See the Chart below.
FEES FOR SOLID WASTE AND MISCELLANEOUS JUNK DISPOSAL
• Minimum Charge per Carload...........................................................$25
• Car Trunk................................................................................$10420
$20
• Station Wagon/Mini Vans.............................................................$25-$30
• Pick-Up/Full-Sized Vans(1/2 Full).....................................................$30
• Pick-Up/Full-Sized Vans(full)............................................................ 0
• Small Pick-Up(1/2 full)................................................................... $25
• Small Pick-Up(full).........................................................................$45
• Propane Tanks........................................................................$10-$15-$25
• TIRES - Passenger car tire $ 5.00 per tire; with Rim — $6.00
Light truck tire $ 5.00 per tire; with Rim — $6.00
Semi-truck tire $ 10.00 per tire; with Rim $11.00
Other larger tires $20.00 per tire; with Rim — $21.00
Rims $1.00 per Rim
APPLIANCES&ELECTRONICS- $15.00(plus$10 surcharge on air conditioners,refrigerators and freezers
due to different type switches and Freon). Electronics and appliances accepted include televisions,stoves,
washers,dryers,residential furnaces,refrigerators,dishwashers,freezers,water heaters,microwave ovens,trash
compactors,garbage disposals,humidifiers,dehumidifiers,VCR's,computers,monitors,and printers.
• SCRAP METAL $5.00 per load
Types of metal accepted include:steel,sheet metal,aluminum,copper,brass. Please remove rubber,plastic,wood,
and other non-metal material from the metal,as much as possible.
• CLOTHING&FURNITURE -The Ultimate in Recyclin6
The Salvation Army will be accepting clothing in clean,good condition.Clothing should be in boxes or ba6s.These items can be
dropped off on Clean-Up Day on Max)2,2009 between 9:00am and 1:00pm at the City Public Works facility,
3801 Chandler Drive. Donation receipts will be available. Items that are worn,stained, or torn will be
considered solid waste and charged a volume-based fee.
Kiwanis will also be acceptin6 household goods and furniture donations at curbside for Bridging, a non-profit
organization that benefits those in desperate need,including victims of family violence,disasters and the homeless
to rebuild their lives with dignity and stability;"to bridge the bap between those who have and those who have
not." The St.Anthony Kiwanis,for a$15 donation,will pick-up household and furniture donations for Bridging at
curbside bg appointment only. For additional information or an appointment for pick-up,please call Jay at 612-
782331 by Friday,April 24th. Pick-up will be scheduled for Wednesday,April 29;Thursday,April 3l}and
Friday,May 1.
• AUTO BATTERIES-$1.00; HOUSEHOLD AND BUTTON BATTERIES-No Charge.
Curbside Pick-Up is available only to those who have donations for Bridging or who are not able to take their
diems to the Clean-Up event at Public Works. Any items picked up at curbside will be assessed a volume-based
fee depending on the items collected. See previous page for clean-up fees. Call Jay at 612-782-3314 during
business hours,Monday through Friday,8:OOam-4:30pm for more information regarding fees for curbside pick-
up or to set up an appointment.
City Staff will be available at the Clean-Up Day event to answer questions and hand out information on
recycling. Call City Hall at 612-782-3301 if you have any questions prior to the event.
The City reserves the right to refuse any item.