Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 01262021I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 3 JANUARY 26, 2021 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 7 Mayor Stille called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 10 1 I Mayor Stille invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 15 Present: Mayor Stille, Councilmembers Jenson, Randle, Walker and Webster. 16 Absent: None 17 Also Present: Interim City Manager Charlie Yunker, City Planner Stephen Grittman, Public Works 18 Superintendent Jeremy Gumke. 19 Guests: None. 20 21 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 22 ITEMS. 23 24 I. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 26, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 25 26 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Webster, to approve the City 27 Council Meeting Agenda of January 26, 2021. 28 29 Motion carried 5-0. 30 31 Il. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS — NONE. 32 A. Presentation of Northeast Youth and Family Services, President and CEO, Tara Jebens- 33 Singh Presenting 34 35 Ms. Tara Jebens-Singh made a presentation to the City Council. She thanked the Council 36 for the continued partnership and CARES Act relief as well as a platform to allow them 37 to reach out to the community. 38 39 Mayor Stille thanked Ms. Jebens-Singh for her presentation. 40 41 Councilmember Webster thanked Ms. Jebens-Singh for her commitment to youth in the 42 community and Suburban Ramsey County through the multiple mental health services 43 that are available, not only through the school base but also through community clinics 44 and the onsite day treatment program. Ms. Jebens-Singh noted the community 45 connections and partnerships are so important to them. The board is made up primarily 46 of representatives from the different municipalities that NYFS partners with and are 47 always looking to make those strong connections. 48 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 2 Councilmember Walker appreciated the services provided for the aging community in St. Anthony with shoveling and mowing. He asked if the staff that does that the same persons each time. He asked that because that would be a basis for developing some kind of a relationship with the resident. Ms. Jebens-Singh thought it may be a little bit of a mix because they do try to partner specific senior chore workers with routine seniors. They want there to be a friendship and a bond formed so that it is a person in that senior's life, and she would say vice versa. It is a mutual thing. 9 Councilmember Walker asked as far as the high school population is there a good sense 10 of tracking or referring them when they leave high school or go off to college. Ms. 1 I Jebens-Singh stated making sure that their clients have referrals to the next step is 12 important all along the way. She stated it is an important part to make sure folks are ] 3 ready for that next step and are not alone. 14 15 Councilmember Jenson asked for an overview of the relationship NYFS has with the 16 police department. 17 18 Ms. Jebens-Singh reviewed the history of the Community Case Management Program 19 with the Council. 20 21 Mayor Stille indicated the City has had a long relationship with NYFS and looks forward 22 to it continuing. 23 24 III. CONSENT AGENDA. 25 26 A. Approve January 12, 2021, Council meeting minutes. 27 B. Licenses andep rmits. 28 C. Claims. 29 D. Resolution 21-011; a Resolution Approving the Northeast Family Services Agreement. 30 E. Resolution 21-012; a Resolution Designating Mayor Stille as a participant in Outside 31 Organizations for 2021. 32 F. Resolution 21-013: a Resolution Designating Councilmember Jenson as a participant in 33 Outside Organizations for 2021. 34 G. Resolution 21-014; a Resolution Designating Councilmember Randle as a participant in 35 Outside Organizations for 2021. 36 H. Resolution 21-015; a Resolution Designating Councilmember Walker as a participant in 37 Outside Organizations for 2021. 38 I. Resolution 21-016; a Resolution Desi ng ating Councilmember Webster as a participant in 39 Outside Organizations for 2021. 40 41 Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Walker, to approve the 42 Consent Agenda items. 43 44 Motion carried 5-0. 45 46 IV. PUBLIC HEARING — NONE. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 3 V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF. 4 A. Resolution 21-017; a Resolution Approving Conditional Use Permit for a Car Wash 5 Facility with Vacuum Stations at 2701 Kenzie Terrace in the C, Commercial District. City Planner Grittman reviewed the resolution with the Council. 9 Councilmember Webster asked for clarification on the standard for residential properties. She 10 believed residential properties can be no more than thirty-five percent roofs and paved surfaces. 1 I She also wondered what percent is set for commercial properties. Mr. Grittman explained the 12 standard for most residential properties is thirty-five percent. The City does allow smaller lots 13 that are a single family to be forty percent. Multi -family is actually fifty percent and there is no 14 standard in the Code for commercial or industrial property right now. He noted those properties 15 are reviewed for stormwater management by the City Engineer to control stormwater according 16 to the City's standard stormwater management conditions, 17 18 Councilmember Webster indicated in reading through the report it states the use will not be 19 detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity 20 or to the values of the properties in the vicinity. She asked what the City's due diligence is to 21 really determine if a project meets this requirement. Mr. Grittman stated the City's responsibility 22 is to make reasonable judgements about what the impacts of the use are likely to be and then 23 measure those against what would be allowed by right effectively under the zoning of the 24 property and then assign conditions to mitigate what the Council believes to be the impacts of the 25 proposed use. 26 27 Councilmember Walker stated the third condition Mr. Grittman spoke of to mitigate things like 28 noise pollution, issues concerning the air, traffic and so forth. He could understand theoretically 29 how that could mitigate those kinds of harms, given this third condition, but he wondered if there 30 was any evidence beyond just theoretical considerations that these measures will in fact reduce, 31 to a significant degree these particular harms to the residents. Mr. Grittman explained staff relies 32 on their experience with similar situations to make reasonable judgements as to what conditions 33 would apply and mitigate the issues staff would foresee. Short of that, staff tries to look at what 34 other evidence is out there in the marketplace with these kinds of uses and these kinds of land 35 use situations. 36 37 Councilmember Jenson thought reading the conditions that were applied to this request, he 38 thought it does a pretty good job of mitigating the aesthetics of the look of this as to how it could 39 fit into the look of the neighborhood. The lighting is going to be mitigated and will shoot 40 downward and also to prevent headlights from shining through into the neighborhood. It does 41 talk about sound abatement dealing with enclosures for the vacuums, but they do not see much 42 related to potential excess car exhaust and wondered what staff thought about that. He would 43 like to add related to car exhaust though is that within about a three-minute drive of this location, 44 there are three other car washes that are nearby. One is on Silver Lake Road and 39`h at the 45 Holiday Station. Another is on 39`h and Stinson Boulevard, the old Tunnel Car Wash and then 46 one on 37`h and Old Highway 8, the Speedway, which is a car wash. He stated people have a City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 4 I choice of three other car washes that are nearby so he was wondering if that will possibly 2 mitigate some of the traffic or reduce some of the traffic that might go into this particular 3 location and reduce the amount of car exhaust that people are concerned about. Mr. Grittman 4 explained with regard to car exhaust on site, certainly idling vehicles create car exhaust but just 5 as Councilmember Jenson pointed out, there are car wash facilities and other commercial drive 6 through facilities all over the Metro area that have existed for many years and the State Pollution 7 Control Agency manages air quality in the Metro area and he is not aware of any situations 8 where idling cars in drive throughs have caused a violation of any of the PCA standards for air 9 pollution. Staff's presumption here is that this would be similar to all the other facilities that are 10 out there within the allowances for what the State has set for air quality. 11 12 Councilmember Randle asked if the applicant was aware of the new proposed conditions. Mr. 13 Grittman indicated the applicant was aware and at the Planning Commission meeting when these 14 were first proposed and actually had reviewed the staff report and has been a part of the process 15 since December and fully aware of the eleven conditions that the Planning Commission has 16 recommended. 17 18 Mayor Stille stated there is talk of the Minnesota Noise Standards and he wondered how that 19 factored into staffs recommendation and Planning Commission, if at all, in regard to meeting 20 those or violating those. Mr. Grittman explained the State has noise regulations which is a 21 pollution control agency set of standards and staffs presumption is that any commercial use, this 22 one included, is going to be required to meet the noise requirements of the PCA. The City 23 cannot issue a permit that would create a violation of those standards. If the applicant is granted 24 a permit and construct and violate those standards, they would not be violating the Conditional 25 Use Permit but would also be violating State Standards and could be penalized or otherwise dealt 26 with for that. The applicant is obligated to meet those standards and staff builds that into their 27 review. Staff s expectation is that noise mitigation staff is proposing is to reduce that well below 28 what State Standards are so staff is not using that as its expectation, staff is using something 29 lower. 30 31 Mayor Stille stated as staff talked about with the exercise, the mitigants, and what the City is 32 striving to accomplish here in response to this application, what are the ramifications if the 33 Council denies this. Mr. Grittman thought denial would have to be based on solid, factual 34 evidence that leads the Council to believe that it is not possible for the applicant to operate this 35 facility within the confines of what the Ordinance allows and there is a presumption in the law 36 that Conditional Use Permits are an allowed use on the property. The City has a high burden to 37 meet if the Council were to deny the permit. If the Council does deny the permit the City is open 38 to a potential lawsuit. A lot of conditions can be added that are reasonable to avoid potential 39 issues, but it is hard to deny one. 40 41 Mr. Tom Archambault, applicant, and owner of Boulevard Auto Works, 2801 Kenzie Terrace, 42 addressed the City Council. 43 44 Councilmember Walker Mr. Archambault how he will control noise pollution from the car wash 45 itself. Mr. Archambault explained the noise pollution from Kenzie Terrace is 68-85 decibels 46 standing twenty feet away from the street. A Mr. Car Wash franchise, located in Shoreview, the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 5 1 same ratings are the same distance was 68 to 75 decibels which was similar or slightly less than 2 what the street at Kenzie Terrace was. He explained he has information from the equipment 3 vendor about the blowers, the units that help dry the vehicle and also information about the 4 vacuum cleaners. He stated regarding the blowers, if he was standing fifty feet away from those 5 units there would be a decibel rating of 79 decibels with no barrier between him and blower 6 itself. The blowers will be in an enclosed building which the blowers inside of and are at the east 7 end of the building which is away from the condominium complex and there will be a door there 8 that will be closed almost one hundred percent of the time. His hope is that the door will only 9 open and close to allow vehicles out of the tunnel car wash. He did not anticipate leaving the 10 tunnel open unless for some reason the building needs to be aired out. He stated at a hundred 11 feet away the decibel level is 75. At the exit of the building, heading west the building is at least 12 125 feet with a driveway and setbacks with property line. There is likely 150 feet between the 13 residents and the actual area in which the noise will be coming out of the building. 14 15 Mr. Archambault explained when it comes to the vacuum cleaners, the vacuum motors 16 themselves will be inside the building and will be inside the enclosed equipment room. The 17 noise will be very minimal when the door opens and closes because there will be a completely 18 enclosed room where the vacuum blowers are inside of. He stated the rating of noise there at 19 fifty feet are 75 decibels. 20 21 Councilmember Randle asked if there was an environmental impact study done for air quality or 22 was one even required. Mr. Archambault indicated he has not had an environmental impact 23 study done but have done phase one environmental of the soil and the property itself and have 24 done soil boring and testing of the sample bores but in terms of air quality and things of that 25 nature to his knowledge it is not required of them nor has one been completed. 26 27 Mayor Stille asked with regard to the length of the facility, it can accommodate cars while being 28 washed and also dried and wondered if the door will be closed during that time or will cars 29 continually be going through which would leave the door open. Mr. Archambault explained 30 because this is an express tunnel car wash the blowers or dryers will be set back probably fifteen 31 feet from the exit of the building so the vehicle will go completely through the dryer prior to 32 reaching the door itself. 33 34 Mayor Stille asked if it was safe to say that the door will be shut until the drying cycle is done 35 and then open up to allow the car to go out then will close again. Mr. Archambault indicated that 36 was correct. 37 38 Mayor Stille asked what the anticipation is with soundproofing within. He explained he has been 39 reading that some of the motors can be built such that there are boxes around them with extra 40 insulation, maybe even insulation on the walls, etc. to help with acoustics and sound and he 41 wondered how that effects equipment quality. Mr. Archambault indicated he would try to 42 answer that but Mr. John Grotkin, RJ Ryan and the project manager would be able to speak to 43 some of the soundproofing of the building itself. He explained when it comes to soundproofing 44 of equipment, very similar to what he has in his current facility right now, there is a car wash bay 45 in the back of that building with a pressure washer and around it they built a sound deadening 46 box because the building itself is built of cinder blocks and sound travels through the building City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 6 1 fairly easily and can be quite loud. He would try to soundproof the car wash as best he can in 2 order to try to be the best neighbor he can. 4 Mr. Grotkin reviewed building materials and soundproofing with the Council. 6 Mayor Stille asked how the doors were made for soundproof. Mr. Grotkin explained the doors 7 will be a thinner material but should hold in the noise. 9 Mayor Stille thought if this gets built the applicant may want to re-evaluate the quality of the 10 materials for the doors. 11 12 Mayor Stille noted there were a few residents in attendance that wanted to speak. 13 14 Ms. Susan Guthrie, 2616 Paul Avenue, stated she was kind of stunned at what she just heard. 15 One of the comments was "fear of what we don't know" and that they are all going to be 16 reassured and will know something different than what they are fearing. She was not sure that 17 was fair and what she feared was that what they really have here is that no one really knows 18 anything. What they are dealing with is reasonable assessments, judgements based on 19 experience, presumptions, and nothing scientific or factual. She stated if they were in the City of 20 Minneapolis there would be environmental impact statements and there would have to be to 21 close out a CUP. The project would have to be looked at and satisfied. There is just much that 22 has not been done. Whatever was seen online was not much of what was presented tonight at the 23 meeting. It is very hard as a citizen to follow what is going on when the information that was 24 available to her outside of the Planning Commission, is basically nothing. Basically, in order for 25 a CUP to be given, existing laws regarding the impact of the project must be satisfied. She 26 indicated she was not satisfied and thought that they do need to know what the cumulative 27 decibel amount will be from all blowers and all of these vacuums going at the same time. They 28 remember that this is not far away from housing and within twenty to thirty feet of existing 29 homes. It is hard to image that along with health, safety, and general welfare, which she 30 believed is the burden of the applicant to prove it is not detrimental as opposed to the neighbors 31 having to prove that it is detrimental. All of these things are very concerning to her. She 32 guessed there are legal requirements, and this is not about guessing, this is about knowing. She 33 is pleased with certain aspects of what has been said but they have to remember that this is right 34 in the middle of housing. She explained this is a quality -of -life issue and is hard to imagine that 35 the property values will not be severely affected having that kind of noise level. If that happens, 36 that is talking about stability of neighborhoods, people moving, and the inability to walk in an 37 area. She thought this needs to be rejected at this point. If it is sent back to staff to review and 38 come up with some more definitive delineations of what the actual risk is to the neighborhood, 39 she would hope that there will be further sessions with the neighborhood. She would hope that 40 the residents could have a dialogue with the planners. She did not think that this use for the land 41 is appropriate with all of the residential surrounding it. There are many other uses that could be 42 considered. 43 44 Ms. Cary Zarhbock, 2704 27`h Avenue NE, explained she has lived at that address for 34 years 45 and love living in St. Anthony. She stated she was at the meeting on behalf of concerned 46 neighbors, herself, her husband, Gary, including the single-family homeowners on 27th Avenue City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 7 1 NE, as wells as many residents of the Kensington at 2601 Kenzie Terrace. She noted in the 2 packet are multiple letters from concerned residents and a petition signed by more than 70 3 residents of the Kensington, identifying concerns not addressed by the Planning Commission. 4 She really values the work of the staff and of the Planning Commission and the Council that 5 contribute their time to ensure that St. Anthony is a place where people want to live. As 6 concerned citizen, as committed residents here they do feel like it is their responsibility to point 7 out the concerns that have arisen with this. She noted the residents do not have any animosity 8 towards Tom, personally, and really do appreciate that he has been a good neighbor with his car 9 business. However, a car wash is not consistent with St. Anthony Code. It is not an appropriate 10 use of the land he owns. The residents would be willing to engage with him around planning for 11 an alternate business and would have engaged earlier if he had reached out prior to submitting 12 the application. The residents feel that the Planning Commission has not fulfilled their statutory 13 responsibility relative to the Conditional Use Permit for this commercially zoned property that is 14 adjacent to single family and multiple family homes. She explained during the December 15`h 15 Planning Commission meeting when asked who burden it was to provide hard evidence of 16 detrimental effect Mr. Grittman incorrectly stated the burden would be on the people making the 17 claim of detrimental value. In fact, as noted in the letter from Tim Keane, Attorney at Law, 18 Minnesota case law shows that the burden is actually on the applicant to prove, based on facts 19 and the record that the use will conform. There has been no such request from the Planning 20 Commission to that applicant. Even though the Planning Commission recommended approval of 21 the CUP, during the December 15`h Commission discussion, Commissioner Socha stated she had 22 a hard seeing how it would not be detrimental to some point on neighboring property values and 23 the neighbors agree. In the absence of Planning Commission or applicant action St. Anthony 24 residents did solicit expert opinion so this is not fear of the unknown, this is actually the residents 25 solicited expert opinions, and while these were provided to the Planning Commission before the 26 January 19`h meeting, they were not considered. Real Estate agents are considered as experts 27 relative to property value and in the Council packet there are two letters from independent real 28 estate agents, Kathy Daniels, and Ella Ritzman, noting significant negative impact on property 29 values on adjacent single family and multi -family homes. There is also a letter from Steve 30 Platisha, who is professional engineer and noise expert. Based on the decibel levels provided to 31 Tom and in response to a neighbor's question during the December Commission meeting, the 32 noise expert states that a vacuum at a car wash dryer noise at this level occurred for more than 33 six minutes an hour, the levels would exceed State Noise Pollution Standards. She stated 34 nowhere in the application nor at the planner's analysis were specific decibel levels requested, 35 described nor analyzed. 36 37 Ms. Zarhbock stated the City Planner and Planning Commission also neglected to consider or 38 assess the impact of air pollution from idling cars and offered no mitigation from this detrimental 39 impact. The car wash plan as seen allows for two lanes of cars idling resulting in sixteen cars 40 waiting their turn in the car wash. These are directly adjacent to the alley which is directly 41 adjacent to backyards as well as the patios and balconies of the Kenzington. This Conditional 42 Use Permit approval is not consistent with St. Anthony's sustainability plan and it is committed 43 to a reduction of cars idling through the young lungs at work initiative developed due to 44 documented pollution and ill effects of idling cars. The Planning Commission also neglected to 45 consider the impact of noise pollution from car radios while cars wait their turn in the car wash 46 and offered no mitigation to this detrimental impact. She stated in summary, they respectfully City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 8 request that the St. Anthony City Council fulfill its Statutory responsibility and deny the CUP for the Boulevard Car Wash. 4 Ms. Lisa Charmer explained she lives right behind where the car wash is being proposed. She 5 stated she is already inundated by floodlights from the Kenzington that literally flood her entire 6 backyard and into the bedroom windows. She would like to know what the lighting would be 7 and how much it would flood the alley and backyards. She asked if the hours of operations go 8 into the evening on any days and how late would they go. She also wondered if there was any 9 kind of fencing that would be provided to keep the car wash separated from the backyards of the 10 residents. She stated those are her biggest concerns and thought it was great this will be a local 11 person wanting to do this and was sure he is earnest. She noted it is a different proposition if a 12 person is living right there with this literally in the backyard. She thought this will drastically 13 affect her property value and she opposed this. 14 15 Mayor Stille explained the floodlights at the Kenzington does not have anything to do with this 16 particular action. He noted Mr. Charmer may wish to approach the Board of the Kenzington to 17 see if there is anything that can be done for the lights that flood into her backyard from that 18 facility. In regard to the hours, as proposed, the hours would be lam to l Opm. The fence will 19 run parallel to the alley for the entire length of the alley. 20 21 Mr. Jesse Piktuma, indicated he wanted to call on the City to deny this project based on some of 22 the concerns already heard and some of the concerns that will be heard throughout the meeting. 23 First of all, the conditions recommended by staff to address some of those concerns are design 24 concept. He did not know who designed the car wash and did not think the City should be 25 designing it. He wants to be ensured that he will not be assaulted by noise from the car wash or 26 subjected to the noise and pollution from idling cars. He wants to ensure that his family will 27 remain safe and their health and wellness protected. He wants the City to do its duty to protect 28 their health, safety, and general welfare. He wants to make sure the engineers that are designing 29 the facility are doing their ethical duty as professional engineers to hold paramount the health, 30 safety, and wellness of the public. He explained he has seen no evidence, no data, and no 31 engineering calculations that these design concepts are going to be sufficient to accomplish those 32 goals. He stated he has only seen design concepts and guesses that these design concepts may 33 reduce the negative impact. What is needed is a professional engineer recognized by the State of 34 Minnesota to provide a design that controls noise, air pollution and other pollution that is suitable 35 to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents. He was very concerned about 36 the noise and that this site is so adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Their quality of live will 37 certainly suffer and his property value will suffer. He also understood there will be the potential 38 for garbage trucks to access the outdoor dumpster on this site which will also cause loud noise. 39 He anticipated traffic and parking spilling out onto Wilson and 27`h Avenue creating crowding 40 and potential safety issues. He did not think any engineering study was done to understand the 41 pollution and noise impacts this could have on the neighborhood. He asked the Council to deny 42 this project. 43 44 Ms. Susan Cox, 2616 27`h Avenue NE, echoed many concerns raised by the residents. She 45 understood this lot is considered commercial, but it is very close to residential properties. She 46 stated the car wash itself as well as the idling cars is very close to the north lot line where City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 9 1 directly on the other side of a narrow alley are people's backyard that go all the way up to the 2 alley. She explained even though the flood lights at the Kenzington is not a part of this, she has 3 had to install light filtering blinds on her windows and also even though the plans state that the 4 lights from the car wash will face down she did not feel significant mitigation of the concerns 5 that residents have brought up. She stated her biggest issue is that Mr. Archambault has brushed 6 off all of the residents concerns as unreasonable or inaccurate or not necessitating further study. 7 As an engineer she would never get away with making a decision like this with lack of actual 8 data pertaining to this specific site. She encouraged the Council to reject this proposal due to the 9 lack of due diligence. 10 11 Mr. Grittman reviewed the applicant submitted photometric plan. He indicated staff made some 12 recommendations related to lowering the height of the parking lot light poles and making sure all 13 lights are downcast and hooded to make sure there is no glare onto adjoining properties. One of 14 the requirements is that staff would need to verify that the photometric is showing zero -foot 15 candles at the residential property lines. 16 17 Mr. John Laduka, 2601 Kenzie Terrace, stated many of the residents have already expressed 18 many of his concerns. He thought there needs to be a professional noise study done and not just 19 word taken from the applicant. 20 21 Mr. John Kufus, 2712 27`h Avenue NE, stated he is one of the property owners that will directly 22 be affected by the above proposal and he wished to strongly disagree with the Planning 23 Commission's decision to approve a CUP to Boulevard Auto Works for construction of a car 24 wash. He explained his property abuts the alley there with one house in between him and 25 Boulevard Auto Works. He assumed his backyard will be directly opposite the exit doors for the 26 car wash, therefore, his concerns are principally noise due to dryer blower motors, vacuum 27 cleaners, idling cars, car radios, traffic congestion along Kenzie Terrace and he would like 28 someone to address the possibility that the alley could be blocked along Kenzie Terrace if there 29 are a number of cars waiting to enter the car wash. He was also concerned about decreased 30 property values. 31 32 Mr. Griuman explained the City Engineer has been in contact with Hennepin County 33 Transportation who is responsible for Kenzie Terrace and they are currently examining traffic on 34 Kenzie Terrace on a larger scale, not just this property, but on a larger scale. It is staffs opinion 35 that the stacking available on this site is far in excess of what would typically be seen or be 36 required for a typical facility of this type and there is not expectation of having traffic backing all 37 the way out onto Kenzie Terrace. There is a lot of onsite driveway to stack the vehicles. 38 39 Mayor Stille indicated the City Engineer has been in discussions with Hennepin County about 40 Kenzie Terrace because the road is over capacity so the City is seeing if the road could be given 41 more room for walkability and more aesthetically pleasing features. 42 43 Mr. Tim Keane stated he is a land use attorney representing both property owners and 44 municipalities throughout the Metro area. He stated he is currently representing multiple 45 residents of the Kenzington Condominiums and the focus of this discussion is on the criteria for 46 granting the Conditional Use Permit and particularly finding three. Principles of land use City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 10 1 planning and zoning customarily are governed by the principle to avoid conflicts of use. Here 2 there is about as intense commercial use as could be imagined. A high velocity car wash with 3 high vehicle traffic counts immediately contiguous to a multi -family residential condominium 4 building and a single-family neighborhood. He stated with all respect to Planner Grittman, it is 5 not the burden of the City to establish the compliance with the finding, it is the burden of the 6 applicant. The statement by Mr. Grittman that it is very difficult to deny a Conditional Use 7 Permit completely flies in the face of Minnesota Land Use Law. The decision of the City 8 Council must be based on the facts in the record and the facts are measured against the required 9 findings in the City Code. There has been ample testimony from residents contiguous to the 10 property regarding adverse noise impacts. There has been testimony regarding air quality 11 impacts and concerns, there are concerns with regard to light pollution and impacts directly on 12 nearby residents. There are multiple statements of adverse impacts on nearby residential 13 property values. A property owner is competent to testify as to impacts to their own property. 14 There are also the opinions of real estate professionals and most notably a real estate professional 15 that has represented hundreds of clients within the Kenzington Condominium community. 16 Given the intensity of the car wash impacts, of vehicle trips, noise and air pollution, and safety 17 concerns, this use is simply incompatible with the existing surrounding neighborhood residential 18 uses. He stated there are many compatible uses that this property can be reasonably put to 19 without imposing the conflicts of land use and can satisfy the requirements of the Conditional 20 Use Permit. He respectfully requests, based on the facts and the record and the City's Code that 21 the Conditional Use Permit must be denied. 22 23 Mr. Casey Scott, 2501 Paul Avenue, St. Anthony, explained he has known Tom Archambault 24 and his family for many years, and they have been great neighbors. This particular decision to 25 put a car wash so close to the neighbors on 27`x' seems to be very much in contrary to past 26 decisions that he and the prior owner have made. He found it kind of strange that the owner 27 talked about running the operation from 8am to 5pm and then the City expanded that from lam 28 to I Opm., especially when this is right near so many houses and residential areas. He thought the 29 hours of operation should be explored, especially on the weekend. Right now, Mr. 30 Archambault's business does not operate on the weekend so he wondered if there was a need to 31 have this business operate on a weekend. The big difference he sees between the other car 32 washes mentioned during this meeting and this car wash is that this one is extremely close in 33 proximity to the residential neighbors. He appreciated that City staff recommended there be a 34 number of changes to try to mitigate some of this impact, but he also noticed that there has been 35 nothing done to measure the current noise, air pollution, current water runoff, etc. so that there 36 can be some comparisons to other car washes in the neighborhood that were mentioned to see 37 what the difference would be. He thought there are some of those steps that Mr. Keane 38 mentioned and others that should be taken before a decision is made. He would recommend that 39 at a minimum the decision should be tabled until further study is done to be able to understand 40 the impact on the residents in the community. 41 42 Mr. Scott asked how big the trees will be because if small trees are planted those trees will not be 43 able to mitigate for several years. If large trees are planted there is a risk of them dying in a few 44 years and whose responsibility will it be to replant the trees. He thought there were some 45 specific details that needed to be worked out about all of these mitigation steps to make sure that City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 1 I if the City decided to pass this that there really be the mitigations in place that are being stipulated at this time, from inception through however long the car wash exists. 4 Ms. Nancy Burns, 2708 Murray, stated she used to live adjacent to the alley. She stated that 5 while it is not understood to people who have not lived it, to move into a property where there is 6 not light pollution, which is the way it was when she lived in the neighborhood, the Kenzington 7 did not have the back parking lot and there was not a back light or surface run off because it was 8 grass. Midway into their homeownership that back parking lot and light was installed, and they 9 asked several times for the light to be mitigated and to be brought down. That is an example of 10 mistrust, while it does not impact this property. She explained they did move out of that 11 neighborhood and the light shining on the properties is a big detriment to the value of the 12 property. 13 14 Mr. Will Halstead, 2708 Murray, stated there are two things that come to mind, one is noise 15 pollution which is a big concern because 75db is comparable to a vacuum cleaner and he 16 wondered how people would like to hear the constant sound of a vacuum cleaner while trying to 17 enjoy their backyard. Another thing is that Councilmember Randle asked if there had been an 18 Environmental Impact Study done on the property and one concern of his is that he knows harsh 19 chemicals are used in car wash applications, so he wondered if there have been any studies about 20 runoff from those car chemicals. He knew there were containment practices in place for car 21 washes but in the winter, there is always an icy path from all of the run-off from cars that goes 22 into the watershed. 23 24 Mr. Grittman reviewed when an environmental impact study is needed and when a study is 25 required. 26 27 Mr. Paul McHugh, 2608 Kenzie Terrace, Kenzington Condominiums, stated he was concerned 28 with idling vehicles and the pollution impact it will cause to the neighborhood. He stated it was 29 not addressed by the City Planner that idling cars are a documented source of air pollution and 30 harm to human health. He read what the EPA stated about idling vehicles. He explained this is a 31 real issue of pollution. He thought this is worth paying full attention to. 32 33 Mr. Dave Colling, 2708 27`h Avenue, voiced his opposition to the project and echoed what his 34 neighbors have stated. 35 36 Mr. Dave Hess, 408 Kenzington Condos, explained he lives directly behind this proposed 37 project. He is concerned about his health and the health of others in his building. He also 38 indicated there will be a significant decrease in home values if the car wash were to be built. He 39 explained as a resident and a realtor that the City Council does not approve this Conditional Use 40 Permit because it is the wrong use in the wrong location. 41 42 Ms. Jeanette Fleming asked if there is going to be a door on the entrance to the tunnel that moves 43 up and down as well as the exit. She also wondered if there will be a prewash person at the 44 entrance spraying the cars before entering the tunnel. 45 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 12 Mr. Archambault indicted he did not know the exact details of the business because he was still trying to get a Conditional Use Permit for the business. What he hoped to do is to get cars in the door with the car down as people approach with an auto attendant where people will pay to get in and once they get in the door will open. The goal will not have a prep station, but he did hope to have an attendant there to help people get on the conveyor system. He wanted to give the best customer experience. He noted he does want to conserve energy so if there were a stream of cars in line, he would prefer not to have the door open and close after every vehicle. 9 Mayor Stille thanked everyone for their testimony. He closed community comment for Council 10 deliberation. 11 12 Mayor Stille indicated this is not an easy topic because it affects a lot of people. The Council 13 was asked if they would want to live next to a car wash which he indicated he would not, but he 14 would not want to live next to a commercial property either that has a permitted use that a car 15 wash could be there. He thought people get a chance to get accustomed to that. On the other 16 hand, there is a business owner that bought the business in 2015 with the expectation of 17 expansion, knowing that it was a permitted use to have a car wash there. His concern is that the 18 City may end up in litigation if the Council denies this and if the City ends up in litigation, his 19 even bigger consideration is the City may lose all of its bargaining power that the City has with 20 this particular business owner with a CUP. Having said that, if this moves forward, he did not 21 care for the transaction or situation as it exists right now and needs more teeth to the conditions 22 with more conditions. He thought some were too loose and he was prepared to talk about that 23 and manufacture those conditions at the meeting. 24 25 Mayor Stille stated one of the things he thought was how could a use like this fit into a 26 neighborhood with such close proximity to residential. He struggled with that. He did research 27 this and found a car wash in Wayzata that demonstrated a car wash can coexist with a residential 28 neighborhood. There were luxury condominiums twenty-five feet from the car wash to the west. 29 To the north of that there were townhomes with a fence forty-eight feet from the beginning of the 30 facility with patios right beyond the fence. He talked to the owner of the car wash and the owner 31 has not had a complaint in a long time. It led him to believe that this could co -exist. He wanted 32 to do this right and he would be willing to table this in order to get it done right. 33 34 Councilmember Randle explained he did not go through all of the emails but did go through as 35 many as he could. He also reached out to other individuals to see if there is any legal way to 36 deny this and quite honestly the City does not have any legal standing to deny this. He stated 37 litigation is a real concern for the City. He did not see how the City can actually deny this, but 38 he was open to thoughts on how the City can help mitigate the concerns of the neighbors. 39 40 Councilmember Jenson felt there needs to be further study from an environmental standpoint 41 dealing with noise and fumes. As it stands right now, he cannot vote to approve this. 42 43 Councilmember Walker stated in reference to Wayzata, in terms of demographics are the 44 residents similar to what exists in St. Anthony. Would it follow also that the residents there fit in 45 the same profile as the residents here in terms of age, health issues, etc. Mayor Stille explained 46 he only talked to the owner of the business. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 13 Councilmember Webster believed this project needs more study and continued to be concerned about how this project could be detrimental to health, safety and general welfare of the residents living directly around the proposed car wash. She thought this definitely needs further study. 6 Mayor Stille stated one of the things the Planning Commission recommended are hours from 7 lam to l Opm and frankly he did not think there was a reason to have those hours. He understood 8 the owner expressed he only planned on being open 8am to 5pm but the business could be sold, 9 and the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so the next owner could have the business 10 open from 7am to l Opm. He thought if this proves to be a really good operation and there is no 11 noise impact Mr. Archambault could always come back to the City for extended hours of 12 operation approval. He suggested hours of 8am to 6pm. He thought there should be a condition 13 that strives to have the doors open and shut behind when cars enter upon commencement and the 14 same thing with completion. He thought the project should meet or exceed Minnesota Noise 15 Standards, which has to be done anyway. He thought there could be some signage encouraging 16 refraining from idling while waiting in the cue. There should also be a limit of capacity such as 17 one hundred cars a day and if the air quality index exceeds 100, some things that could easily be 18 put into place to help mitigate some of these things. He was also opened to continuing this as 19 well. 20 21 Councilmember Walker indicated this is a tough item and his issue is conservation. His main 22 concern is with condition three which was the same concern of many residents. He was not 23 convinced this project is rock solid and that the third condition can be met at this time. 24 25 Mayor Stille explained if the Council tables this he wants to give some direction to staff for 26 clarity. He thought if the Council denies this proposal the City will still get the car wash sooner 27 or later. 28 29 Councilmember Webster thought about possible direction to give to staff, as a community, the 30 mission is to be a progressive and welcoming village that is walkable, safe, and sustainable. She 31 thought at the very least and environmental study would be a good place to start. Mayor Stille 32 asked what kind of environmental study she would suggest. Councilmember Webster thought 33 concerns raised by the residents such as water runoff, chemicals that would be used, air 34 pollution, noise pollution and light pollution. She thought this would-be helpful information for 35 the Council in order to see a bigger picture and she thought it would be one step for the City to 36 do its due diligence looking at the standard with regard to the health, safety and general welfare 37 of the residents working or residing near the proposed project. 38 39 Mayor Stille asked Mr. Grittman what kind of study that would be. Mr. Grittman explained the 40 City Engineer could look at the water runoff and work with the applicants' team to make those 41 estimates. He presumed they could get a noise study of the proposed conditions, some kind of an 42 acoustical contour study. He was not sure how they would measure the impact of potential car 43 stereos and would probably need to rely on signage or other tools to attempt to suppress that. 44 Regarding the fumes, he would need to rely on the City Engineer to see if they have staff that 45 would be able to provide some kind of analysis of the air quality issues related to a facility like 46 this. r 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 14 Mayor Stille thought the Council was ok with tabling this item for 120 days or until March 17, 2021 and if the City does not act on this by March 17th then the proposed Conditional Use Permit is automatically approved. Mr. Grittman indicated that it would be approved as submitted, without the added conditions. Mayor Stille asked if there is time to do these studies. Mr. Grittman indicated he did not have an answer for that. Mr. Yunker indicated this would have to come before the Council at the March 91h meeting. Mayor Stille was not sure if there needed to be a motion on this but could designate this as being tabled and he thought there were at least three Councilmembers who agreed for tabling. Consensus of the Council was to table this item to the March 9, 2021 City Council meeting with instructions of visiting with the applicant and assembling reports. Mr. Archambault asked the reason why this item is being tabled and what did he need to do. He thought there needed to be a motion to either vote yes or no or tell him what to do. Mayor Stille indicated the Council did not need to vote at this time. He explained to Mr. Archambault that staff will be in contact with him about various studies that needed to be done. Mr. Grittman noted one other item that is at issue, generally is the property value discussion. Mr. Archambault explained he would go along with the studies, but he would not agree to looking at property values. Mayor Stille agreed because he felt that people living next to commercial property will have to anticipate some of that. VI. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL. A. Snow and Ice Control Presentation. Public Works Superintendent Gumke had to leave the meeting, so Mayor Stille tabled the presentation until the February 9, 2021 City Council meeting. Mr. Gumke appeared back in the meeting to give his presentation to the City Council. Mayor Stille indicated with regard to sidewalks, the City Ordinance requires the community to shovel the sidewalks, but Public Works does the basic stuff. He did encourage the community to participate on shoveling the sidewalks if they live along them for walkability. Mayor Stille thanked Mr. Gumke for his presentation. B. Resolution 21-018, a Resolution Approving the Hiring of Charlie Yunker as the Cit Manager for the City of St. Anthony. Mayor Stille reviewed the resolution with the Council. He noted the City has been looking for a City Manager since Mr. Casey left in September and the City went through a process and selected four finalists to interview and on January 19th the Council interviewed those four people and deliberated. He was pleased to introduce Mr. Charlie Yunker who is an eight-year employee of St. Anthony. He reviewed Mr. Yunkers education and work history and expressed Mr. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 15 1 Yunkers dedication to the City. He thought Mr. Yunker will bring a different twist and newness 2 to the position and stated he looked forward to working with him for a long time. Mayor Stille 3 congratulated Mr. Yunker on his promotion. 4 5 Mr. Yunker expressed his thanks and kind words to the Council. He stated he has always been 6 proud to be an employee of St. Anthony. He thanked his family and introduced his wife Aubrey 7 Yunker. 9 Councilmember Randle congratulated Mr. Yunker on his promotion. He explained over the last 10 three years he has gotten to know him and indicated staff respects him and he thought Mr. 11 Yunker will do very well in this role. 12 13 Councilmember Jenson agreed with everything that has been said and welcomed Mr. Yunker to 14 the full-time job of City Manager. He felt Mr. Yunker understood the staff and has many 15 insights on what is going on in the City which is very helpful. 16 17 Councilmember Webster congratulated Mr. Yunker on this position and looked forward with 18 working with him in his new role. 19 20 Councilmember Walker stated Mr. Yunker was competing against some tough applicants and it 21 was a tough decision. He congratulated him on being the chosen person for the job. He 22 concurred with the rest of the Council and wished him well in his new position. 23 24 Mr. Yunker thanked the Council for all of the kind words. 25 26 Motion by Councilmember Webster, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve Resolution 27 21-018; a Resolution Approving the Hiring of Charlie Yunker as the City Manager for the City 28 of St. Anthony. 29 30 Motion carried 5-0. 31 32 VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 33 34 Councilmember Webster stated two weeks ago, the Council and staff participated in goal setting. 35 A chance to spend Wednesday, Thursday and Friday morning together to look at the data and 36 look at some of the trends in the community in order to set some goals for 2021 and keep they 37 are on what is ahead of them in the next three to five years. The Council also conducted City 38 Manager interviews last week and on January 27`h is the Family Services Collaborative Meeting. 39 In addition to that there were two community engagement circles that were held in January. 40 These circles are funded and sponsored by the Family Service Collaborative. The two events 41 held in January; the theme was What Makes A Community A Community. 42 43 Councilmember Walker stated he attended the goal setting as well as the interview process. 44 45 Councilmember Randle stated he attended both the goal setting workshop and the interview 46 process as well as Sunday, January 17th was the Sister City meeting. They are doing a book 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes January 26, 2021 Page 16 exchange where the countries exchange books. He showed the new logo for the Sister Cities logo. Mayor Stille indicated he liked the new logo and thought the two flags melded well together. Councilmember Jenson stated he attended the goal setting meeting and the interviews. On January 15`" he attended the Ramsey County Local League of Governments Executive Board which was a planning session for the 2021 meeting sessions for the Board of Directors. Mayor Stille thanked the City Council for the goals setting workshop. VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM. Mayor Stille invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items that are not on the regular agenda. Hearing none, Mayor Stille moved forward with the agenda. IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. None. X. ADJOURNMENT. Mayor Stille adjourned the meeting at 10:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sue Osbeck TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST: `- Cit dlerk