HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06182024CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, June 18, 2024 at 7:00 PM
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
Call To Order
Pledge Of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval Of Agenda
Approval Of Minutes
Approval Of PC Meeting Minutes
PC 05 -21 -2024.PDF
Public Hearing
Conditional Use Permit - 2801 Kenzie Terrace
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
PRESENTATION.PDF
APPLICATION MATERIALS.PDF
2801 KENZIE DYNAMIC SIGN CUP CC RESOLUTION.PDF
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING - BLVD AUTO 2801 KENZIE CUP.PDF
Conditional Use Permit - 2401 Lowry Ave NE
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
2024 05 17_LAND USE PHOTOS.PDF
APPLICATION.PDF
Q -A APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT.PDF
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING - 2401 LOWRY PUD.PDF
Staff Reports
Other Business
Community Forum
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business item not
included on 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. Generally, the Planning
Commission will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may
typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on
an upcoming agenda.
Information And Announcments
Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3313 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
A.
Documents:
VI.
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDATuesday, June 18, 2024 at 7:00 PMMembers of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Call To OrderPledge Of AllegianceRoll CallApproval Of AgendaApproval Of MinutesApproval Of PC Meeting MinutesPC 05 -21 -2024.PDFPublic HearingConditional Use Permit - 2801 Kenzie TerraceSteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFPRESENTATION.PDFAPPLICATION MATERIALS.PDF2801 KENZIE DYNAMIC SIGN CUP CC RESOLUTION.PDFNOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING - BLVD AUTO 2801 KENZIE CUP.PDFConditional Use Permit - 2401 Lowry Ave NESteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDF2024 05 17_LAND USE PHOTOS.PDFAPPLICATION.PDF
Q -A APPLICATION SUPPLEMENT.PDF
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING - 2401 LOWRY PUD.PDF
Staff Reports
Other Business
Community Forum
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business item not
included on 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. Generally, the Planning
Commission will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may
typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on
an upcoming agenda.
Information And Announcments
Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3313 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.II.III.IV.V.A.Documents:VI.A.Documents:B.Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 MAY 21, 2024
4 7:00 p.m.
5
6 CALL TO ORDER.
7
8 Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
9
10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
11
12 Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance.
13
14 ROLL CALL.
15
16 Commissioners Present:Chair Socha, Commissioners Anderson, Hark, Morita, and Rude.
17
18 Absent:Commissioner Erickson and Gaveske
19
20 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman.
21
22
23 I.APPROVAL OF THE MAY 21, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
24 AGENDA.
25
26 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve the May
27 21, 2024 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
28
29 Motion carried 5-0.
30
31 II.APPROVAL OF APRIL 16, 2024, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
32 MINUTES.
33
34 Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to approve the April
35 16, 2024, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented.
36
37 Motion carried 5-0.
38
39 III.PUBLIC HEARING.
40
A.41 Beekeeping Ordinance.
42
43 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
44
45 City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed the proposed Ordinance amendment has been
46 generated by the Parks and Environmental Commission (PEC) to allow beekeeping in St.
47 Anthony. If adopted, beekeeping would be allowed by license as a waiver from what is
48 currently a prohibition on “farm animals”. The license would be subject to a set of regulations
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 2
1 that are designed to ensure that such licensees are thoroughly trained to responsibly keep and
2 maintain bees on their residential property.
3
4 The existing City Code provisions relevant to “farm animals” prohibit them in the City, with
5 the allowance that the City Council may approve specific requests, waiving the usual
6 prohibition. This waiver has been primarily utilized for chickens in the past. There is no
7 specific requirements for the keeping of chickens, however, staff and the Council routinely
8 add requirements to ensure that chicken facilities are installed and managed to minimize
9 neighborhood concerns.
10
11 For bees, the waiver process would still exist, however, extensive requirements for bees are
12 proposed. Beekeeping operations can be difficult for potential beekeepers to successfully and
13 safely implement in residential environments and the requirements in the ordinance are
14 intended to address those issues.
15
16 The PEC reviewed the ordinance contents with Code Staff at their March, 2024 meeting. A
17 copy of the staff report was provided for Planning Commission background. The updated
18 ordinance reflects staff’s updates based on the PEC’s comments and questioning, as well as
19 three additional modifications related to (F) License Term; (G) Allergy issues; and (I)
20 Location.
21
22 Mr. Grittman summarized the proposed changes as follows:
23
24 (F)Staff added to the license section to create an administrative renewal for licenses on an
25 annual basis, unless the City Manager finds that the request requires City Council
26 review.
27
28 (G)License Limitations for Allergies. The ordinance creates a requirement for potential
29 applicants to survey neighboring property owners as to “medically documented”
30 allergies. The original language in the PEC version required documentation for all
31 property owners within “100 feet” of the subject parcel. Administration of this
32 requirement may prove complicated, and as such, the standard is proposed to be
33 limited to “abutting property”.
34
(I)35 (3) – Location – planning staff modified the original draft language that required a
36 200-foot separation between hive placements and any property zoned other than R-1,
37 Single Family. Instead, planning staff proposes that on any property “abutting” non-R-
38 1 property, the hive shall be located as far as practical from the non-R-1 boundary. It is
39 believed that the 200-foot buffer distance would be difficult to manage and would
40 exempt many R-1 parcels from eligibility.
41
42 If acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff asks that the Commission consider
43 recommendation of the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption. This may
44 include recommended modifications to the proposed draft as deemed appropriate to the
45 Commission.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 3
1 Mr. Grittman noted he has not received any comments from residents.
2
3 Commissioner Rude noted birds are listed twice in the ordinance and asked which type of
4 birds would be kept outside as pets. There is some inconsistency in the mentioning of ducks
5 and geese. The definition of undeveloped property “human occupancy” should be changed to
6 “human use” instead. Mr. Grittman stated the term occupancy refers to use. Commissioner
7 Rude asked if a garden would be considered “undeveloped property” or would it be
8 developed. Mr. Grittman stated a garden would be an accessory use to a single family home.
9 Commissioner Rude referred to 91.56 under “D” the course on beekeeping and asked what
10 would be required to prove the owner is “trained”. The training should be acceptable to the
11 City Manager or designee. Commissioner Rude suggested that be added to the wording. The
12 consensus of the Commission agreed.
13
14 Commissioner Anderson asked about the same section and the allowance for nuisance
15 complaints. She asked if this would just be a call to City Hall. Mr. Grittman stated they could
16 ask the City to enforce the Code or go to court with a Tort claim. A defense they are
17 complying with City Code is not a defense if a nuisance is questioned. Mr. Grittman will look
18 into the source for this particular language. Commissioner Rude stated a lawsuit might be
19 more restrictive than we need to be. If the City brings action for nuisance that may be an
20 administrative proceeding.
21
22 Chair Socha referred to the license term. When thinking of two lots on a property that would
23 affect distances. She feels the wording “property” is sufficient. Commissioner Morita stated if
24 the wording of switching “lot” to “property” he would be in support of that. Mr. Grittman
25 stated “lot” would be more precise. Chair Socha asked why Staff does not support the license
26 term ending on 5/31 of each year. Mr. Grittman stated the administrative staff believes the
27 process currently used for chickens which is to issue the approval (license) at the time and not
28 require the beekeeper to come back every year for a renewal but use their property in
29 accordance with the terms of their approval. This would reduce the burden for administrative
30 staff and the license holder. The City always has the authority to review. Mr. Grittman stated
31 he believes since the chicken process has been successful, the City Manager hopes the
32 beekeeping process will be the same. Chair Socha suggested a 5-10 year license term be
33 implemented. The license does not transfer with the property. The consensus was to not have
34 annual renewal process for the licenses per staff’s recommendation.
35
36 Commissioner Anderson commented on the allergy portion and if a house next door is sold
37 and new people move in who could have an allergy. There needs to be a notification process.
38 It was suggested that if someone near a beehive can show they have an allergy then the license
39 could be revoked. Commissioner Hark stated if circumstances changed it would need to be
40 reviewed. Mr. Grittman stated this is not really a zoning ordinance. We are not allowed to
41 require someone to get the approval of their neighbors to get a zoning permit. This is a land
42 use issue. He has some concern about this clause all together. This may be beyond the City’s
43 authority. Commissioner Rude asked what happens if the neighbor refuses to sign. Nuisance
44 could include someone on an adjacent property reports they have an allergy. Nuisance
45 includes where someone has a documented allergy and should be included in the definition of
46 what a nuisance is. Notice would need to be provided. Chair Socha asked if the beekeeper
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 4
1 would need to provide notice or the City would provide the notice. Mr. Grittman stated the
2 City would send out the notice of the application for a license to the neighboring properties.
3 The realtor selling the house should be aware and should notify the potential buyers.
4
5 Commissioner Rude stated the City should encourage bees but needs to monitor for health and
6 safety of others. He wouldn’t want his property not to be able to be sold because the neighbor
7 has bees.
8
9 Commissioner Rude asked what the rear building line is. Mr. Grittman stated behind the rear
10 building line of the yard. Does 30 feet from any neighboring building include a storage shed
11 and Mr. Grittman stated it does as far as it is written.
12
13 Chair Socha asked about the limit of number of colonies and whether the term nucleus should
14 be used. No modifications are needed.
15
16 Commissioner Rude stated #2 and #8 appear identical. Mr. Grittman stated he failed to delete
17 that and will do so.
18
19 Commissioner Rude referred to #10 and the height being at least 6 ft high. He suggested
20 modifying the language and it seems the exit and entry level for bees entering the hives is
21 really the concern. Chair Socha asked that this issue be considered and some of the questions
22 be answered.
23
24 Commissioner Rude stated he is also unclear on “E”. If it is 6 feet there is no flyway needed.
25 He asked if that is referring to the hive itself. Mr. Grittman stated that if there was an
26 enclosure around the hive of at least 6 feet then the extended flyway barrier would not be
27 needed. Mr. Grittman will ask more specific questions to the PEC.
28
29 Chair Socha referred to the section (K1) on inspections. It doesn’t include how often the
30 inspection needs to be done. Mr. Grittman stated he presumes the City would not want a
31 limitation on the number of inspections.
32
33 Commissioner Rude referred to the scheduling of the hearing after notice of intent to revoke.
34 Notice should be required to the neighbors of the property. Mr. Grittman stated it would be
35 fair to provide notice. It is not a public hearing however interested parties are invited to
36 attend. Notice would not be a problem to send neighbors the notice that the hearing would be
37 held. Commissioner Rude withdrew his suggestion. Chair Socha stated she feels some of the
38 neighbors may have comments and suggested it be flagged for City Council discussion.
39
40 Commissioner Rude referred to #4 at the bottom of the page add “if required” to the statement
41 of moving to another location.
42
43 Chair Socha asked if the Commission is in favor or against the overall ordinance.
44 Commissioner Hark stated it is routine for a City to have such an ordinance. Commissioner
45 Anderson stated there are benefits to having bees and she is glad the PEC brought this up.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 5
1 Commissioner Rude stated he would be in favor. Commissioner Morita and Chair Socha
2 agreed.
3
4 There were no members of the public present to comment at the meeting.
5
6 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
7
8 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to recommend the City
9 Council approve the modifications to the Beekeeping Ordinance as provided.
10
11 Motion carried 5-0.
12
B.13 Cannabis – Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
14
15 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m.
16
17 Mr. Grittman reviewed the State of Minnesota has passed legislation during the 2023
18 legislative session legalizing various aspects of cannabis use, sales, agriculture, and
19 manufacturing. This legislation follows 2022 legalization of certain low-potency hemp-based
20 THC products. The City of St. Anthony subsequently adopted regulations for hemp-THC
21 products.
22
23 In August of 2023, the City adopted a moratorium on cannabis-related businesses (as
24 authorized by the legislation), in anticipation of the State’s establishment of agency and rule-
25 making activities. The State has created the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) to carry
26 out the requirements of the legislation, with an originally-anticipated start date of January,
27 2025. While that date may shift some, the City is seeking to update its zoning regulations to
28 comply with the local land use impacts of the legislation. Included with this memo is a draft
29 ordinance establishing basic zoning regulations in this regard, based on additional research
30 and the Commission’s discussion at its April, 2024 meeting.
31
32 One aspect of the City’s regulation to note is personal cannabis use, which was legalized by
33 the 2023 legislation, and took effect in August of last year. As a part of that process, the City
34 separately established a prohibition on smoking in public places, which is applicable to any
35 smoking or product. That aspect of the City’s regulation is not further addressed by the
36 materials for this review.
37
38 The cannabis topic is complex and has many facets that impact local government. For the
39 purposes of this review, these materials limited to impacts on land use regulation and zoning.
40 For most of this, the requirements will be addressing business regulation – business type, May
41 21, 2024 Page 2 location, and related concerns. Municipal sales, law enforcement, and other
42 administrative or General Code aspects of the law are left to separate consideration by City
43 Council.
44
45 Land Use Aspects of Cannabis Legalization - The legislation creates several categories of
46 licensing for Cannabis business activity. The State OCM will assume all requirements for
47
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 6
1 licensing of cannabis businesses, including retailers, manufacturers, transporters, and
2 warehousing. The law includes all types of cannabis product, including hemp-THC products
3 and medical cannabis.
4
5 The law provides that the City may not prohibit the business uses for cannabis products due
6 merely because of the nature of the product. Therefore, where the City allows manufacturing,
7 a business that manufactures a cannabis product licensed by the State must be accommodated.
8 There can be no additional limits for these businesses, such as number of licensees, proximity
9 to other uses, etc.
10
11 Included in the types of licensed businesses are retailers, however, retailing can be limited by
12 the City under specific circumstances. There are six categories of retail business that are
13 called out for these limitations: Cannabis “Mezzo-businesses”, Cannabis “Micro-businesses”,
14 Cannabis Retailers, Medical Cannabis Retailers, Medical Cannabis Combination Business,
15 and Low-Potency Edible Hemp Retailer.
16
17 Cannabis “Mezzo-“ and “Micro-“ businesses are essentially processor facilities that may, if
18 licensed and appropriate under local zoning, qualify for a retail sales license as a component
19 of their industrial enterprise. The difference relates to licensed processing space – up to 5,000
20 square feet for “Micro-business”, and from 5,001 to 15,000 square feet for “Mezzo-business”.
21 Cannabis retailers, by contrast, are specifically retail-oriented, in which no industrial activity
22 (manufacturing, processing, etc.,) occurs. Medical cannabis retailing or combination
23 businesses are those that may retail consumer products, but are also licensed to dispense
24 medical cannabis treatments. Low potency Hemp retailers are those that are currently eligible
25 to sell such products under the prior 2022 legislation. In St. Anthony, those potential locations
26 are limited to only those also with a current tobacco sales license.
27
28 Local Limitations - The legislation permits the City to limit cannabis sales, with specific
29 limitations on that authority. Essentially, those limitations are as follows:
30
31 a. The State OCM will assume authority for licensing all cannabis and hemp-related
32 businesses.
33 b. As a part of the State’s licensing process, the OCM will contact the local government
34 to know if the City will “register” the business location, which is an information
35 process, not a licensing authority. Zoning compliance will be an aspect of local
36 “registration”.
37 c. A City may not enact any ordinance that has the effect of prohibiting cannabis
38 businesses.
39 d. A City must provide for an allowance of at least one cannabis-retail facility, whether
40 that is a “Micro-“ or “Mezzo-“ business, a cannabis retailer. This allowance increases
41 by one additional business for each 12,500 residents. May 21, 2024 Page 3
42 e. St. Anthony’s current population of under 10,000 requires the allowance of at least one
43 licensed retailer. The City may by ordinance limit the number of licensees to its
44 minimum registration of one retail location, although the City is not required to do so.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 7
1 f. The law permits the City to limit the location of cannabis businesses by routine
2 zoning, and also by a separation distance from certain listed land uses. This allowance
3 appears to relate to any cannabis business, not just retailers.
4 g. The law permits the City to enact a minimum distance of 500 feet separation from any
5 daycare, residential treatment center, or an “attraction within a public park that is
6 regularly used by minors, including a playground or athletic field”. There are three
7 commercial daycare operations in the City that are within 500 feet of Commercial or
8 Industrial zoned properties – these are highlighted on an attached map. All of these
9 would create exclusion zones prohibiting cannabis businesses around them if the City
10 adopts the separation distance.
11 h. The law permits the City to enact a minimum distance of 1,000 feet separation from
12 any school. There are three school sites in the City – Wilshire Park Elementary, St.
13 Anthony Middle and High Schools, and St. Charles Boromeo School. None of these
14 schools are within 1,000 of any Commercial or Industrial zoned land.
15 i. Based on a preliminary analysis, the distances from the City’s parklands are all more
16 than 500 feet to any commercial or industrial zoned land (Emerald, Silverwood, or
17 Central Parks), or are already in excluded areas due to daycare locations (Silver Point
18 and Trillium Parks).
19 j. Salo Park – if included – could have a separation distance would exclude most of the
20 Silver Lake Village shopping center area (including Cub Foods and the City’s
21 municipal liquor store). However, Salo is identified in the City’s system planning as a
22 stormwater facility, not technically a park. Moreover, few of the activities are designed
23 to specifically attract minors. As such, no separation distance would apply.
24 k. Regardless of the allowance to require separation, the law requires that the City may
25 not enact a separation distance that has the practical effect of prohibiting the location
26 of a cannabis business in the City. It appears from this preliminary analysis that
27 1. Enactment of a separation distance for schools would not impact any
28 Commercial or Industrial property;
29 2. Enactment of a 500 foot separation for daycare locations would impact some
30 Commercial and Industrial properties in the south portion of the City, but retain
31 eligibility for such use in some other portions of those districts.
32 3. Enactment of a 500 foot separation for parks where minors commonly use the
33 facility would not impact the City’s primary park system properties.
34
35 In summary, the primary zoning separation requirements would apply to the daycare facilities
36 in the south portion of the community as follows:
37
38 · 3055 Old Hwy 8 (Ikram Child Care): Any exclusion distance for the daycare
39 facilities at 3055 Old Hwy 8 would result in a prohibition of retail sales for other
40 potential commercial/industrial uses on that site. Depending on the separation distance
41 chosen, the industrial property south of Highway 88 could be impacted – the closest
42 distance to those areas appears to be approximately 270 feet.
43
44 · 2812 Anthony Lane South (Jack and Jill Preschool and Childcare): This daycare
45 parcel is located in an industrial park area. Exclusion of cannabis businesses of any
46 distance will impact some potential retail locations, primarily as a part of a “micro-“ or
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 8
1 “mezzo-“ business which does some form of industrial processing and proposes to also
2 sell retail products as an aspect of the business. The number of parcels impacted will
3 depend on the separation distance chosen.
4
5 · 2955 Pentagon Drive (Step by Step Montessori): This facility is located in the St.
6 Anthony Shopping Center, zoned Commercial. Much of the shopping center area
7 would be prohibited from retail sales, again depending on the size of the separation
8 distance adopted.
9
10 As noted, the statute permits (but does not require) the City to create exclusion
11 distances from schools, parks, and childcare facilities to any cannabis facility that
12 includes retail sales. For St. Anthony, the proximity of schools and parks to any
13 potential Commercial or Industrial site is not applicable, given the geography and land
14 use pattern. The primary issue would be the location of childcare facilities in the south
15 portion of the city. There are three such facilities that would, if a separation distance is
16 adopted, create an exclusion area for surrounding property.
17
18 At its April meeting, the Planning Commission discussed whether the exclusion area
19 was relevant to daycare, based on an assumption that unlike schools and parks, there is
20 less likely to be unsupervised child presence using daycare facilities. The zoning
21 action for the City would be an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that eliminates
22 the current total prohibition of cannabis businesses, and replacement with language
23 related to separation where applicable.
24
25 Although no impacts are foreseen for Schools and Parks as noted, staff would
26 recommend adoption of the full State-allowed exclusion area for those uses (1,000 feet
27 for schools, and 500 feet for parks). There continue to be discussions at the State level
28 (both legislatively and agency-driven) that will continue to refine aspects of the law.
29 As such, these protections would be consistent with the allowances, and address any
30 unforeseen circumstances until additional guidance is provided. Guidance is likely to
31 come from a variety of sources, including both the League of Minnesota Cities and the
32 Office of Cannabis Management (in the form of a model ordinance).
33
34 For childcare facilities, there is likely to be some pressure to adopt a limited separation
35 zone from retail cannabis outlets. As noted, the full 500 feet would significantly limit
36 retail outlets in the south area of the City. A distance of 250 feet would have a lesser
37 impact, but still affect some potential sales locations. In the alternative, the City could
38 create a limitation that prohibits retail sales on premises that abut a parcel with
39 childcare, rather than default to the distance allowance. This would be effectively the
40 same as a “1-foot” buffer. The attached draft ordinance incorporates alternative
41 language for Planning Commission review and discussion. The OCM has not
42 answered the question if licensed in-home daycares will need the buffer.
43
44 The Planning Commission is requested to further discuss the separation distance
45 aspects of the potential regulations, and raise other issues as they may impact a final
46 ordinance adoption. With these comments, and if the proposed Ordinance amendments
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 9
1 reflect those discussions, forwarding the zoning amendment to the City Council would
2 be in order.
3
4 If the Planning Commission is in agreement, staff recommends approval of a draft
5 zoning regulation that creates the separation distances for schools (1,000 feet), parks
6 (500 feet – specifically for Central Park, Emerald Park, Silver Point Park, Trillium
7 Park, and Water Tower Park), and either a specific distance or an “abutting property”
8 separation for childcare facilities.
9
10 The draft Ordinance Amendment, State Law – Local Control and a Map of Separation
11 Distance Impacts, was included in the meeting packet.
12
13 Commissioner Morita asked what the main concern was about having a retail operation next
14 to a school or daycare center and would the liquor store not be able to send any cannabis-
15 related beverages. Mr. Grittman stated THC beverages are treated differently in the law. This
16 would not prohibit THC-infused beverages but would affect if the City decided to have a
17 municipal cannabis retail facility. Commissioner Morita likes the verbiage for the buffer
18 distances in the draft language.
19
20 Commissioner Rude agrees with the public parks and schools buffer. He provided some
21 alternate language for the retail distance of being 60 feet which is the average width of a lot in
22 St. Anthony. Commissioner Morita agreed. Chair Socha was thinking 50-100 ft.
23 Commissioner Hark agreed however she leans more toward 100 ft. Commissioner Anderson
24 stated she would like 100 ft. also. Mr. Grittman read the wording citing 100 ft. The consensus
25 of the Commission was 100 ft.
26
27 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
28
29 Motion by Commissioner Hark, seconded by Commissioner Rude, to recommend the City
30 Council approve the draft zoning regulation that creates the separation distances for schools
31 (1,000 feet), parks (500 feet – specifically for Central Park, Emerald Park, Silver Point Park,
32 Trillium Park, and Water Tower Park), and either a specific distance or an “abutting property”
33 separation for childcare facilities as modified.
34
35 Motion carried 5-0.
36
37 IV.STAFF REPORTS.
38
39 Mr. Grittman stated the Planning Commission had reviewed the Culver’s request for a
40 Conditional Use Permit. The City Council approved the request after some discussion.
41
42 V.OTHER BUSINESS - NONE.
43
44 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM - NONE.
45
46 No one appeared to address the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 21, 2024
Page 10
1
2 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS - NONE.
3
4 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
5
6 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Hark, to adjourn the meeting at
7 8:30 p.m.
8
9 Motion carried 5-0.
10
11
12 Respectfully submitted,
13 Debbie Wolfe
14 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date:Planning Commission Regular Meeting for June 18, 2024
GC File No:140-01 – 24.04
Request:Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an electronic (digital display) sign
for Boulevard Autoworks at 2801 Kenzie Terrace
BACKGROUND AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is proposing to replace an existing freestanding sign with a ground/monument sign with
an electronic message displays located at 2801 Kenzie Terrace. The ground sign would be located along
the area of the parcel adjacent to Kenzie Terrace in the location of the current sign. Because a portion
of the sign will include an electronic digital display, the sign requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant
to Section 155.29 of the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Based on a review of the proposed sign and the applicable regulations, Planning Staff recommends
approval of the CUP request, with conditions related to compliance with code requirements applicable
to dynamic display signs.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:James Hamilton
Owner:Teak Properties o/b/o Boulevard Autoworks
Location:2801 Kenzie Terrace
Existing Land Use /
Zoning:Commercial Auto Service / Zoned: C, Commercial
Surrounding Land North: Single Family Residential / Zoned: R-1
Use / Zoning:East: Single Family Residential / Zoned: R-1
South: Commercial Retail / Zoned: C
West: Single Family Residential / Zoned: R-1
Deadline for Agency Complete Application Date: 05-08-2024
Action:60 Days: 07- 07-2024
Letter Sent:Pending
120 Days:09-05-2024
June 18, 2024
Page 2
ANALYSIS
1.Background
The applicant proposes to upgrade their current ground sign at the subject property along Kenzie
Terrace:
The new sign would be located in same location as the existing freestanding sign near the
intersection of Kenzie Terrace and Pahl Avenue. The sign location meets the required setback
distance of 15 feet from the curb line of the adjoining streets, approximately 20 feet from Pahl
June 18, 2024
Page 3
Avenue and approximately 18 feet from Kenzie Terrace. The plans indicate the overall height of the
sign to be 8 feet the maximum height for such signs. The Dynamic Display will be just under 5
square feet, which is significantly less than 35% of the total allowable size for such signs. The total
sign display area, including both the digital and non-digital surface, is approximately 47 square feet.
Ground signs requirements for uses in the C zoning district are subject to the following
requirements:
Maximum Height: 8 feet - Proposed height of 6.5 feet
Setback: 15 feet from street curb – Proposed setbacks of 18 and 20 feet
Sign Area: 150 square feet – Proposed size of 48 square feet
Dynamic Displays are further subject to these additional requirements:
Percentage of allowable sign area for district: 35% - Proposed size is 5 sf – 11% of sign size
Minimum duration of continuous image: 8 Seconds
Transitions: Image changes must be instantaneous, without special effects or gradual
transitions
Messages: Must be complete with each image, not continuing in context or intent to the next
images
Color: Must be monochromatic against a solid black background
The physical dimensions of the proposed sign are within all requirements of the relevant zoning
restrictions. The operational aspects (transition, duration, messaging, and color) are ongoing regulatory
requirements of the sign. The images included with the application indicate consistency with the color
requirements. The base of the sign will be established as having decorative masonry block, consistent
with the requirements for such signs.
The primary review issue with this sign is that the change from a pole-mounted sign to a monument sign
will raise potential concern over visibility of traffic exiting Pahl Avenue onto Kenzie Terrace. However,
the setback from the Kenzie Terrace curb line will allow traffic to queue behind the curb with a view of
oncoming traffic from the west. The driver location for a passenger vehicle sitting at the Pahl Avenue
stop sign would be approximately 5 feet ahead of the edge of the sign, so full views in both directions
will be accommodated.
The sign may be allowed under the CUP, if the applicant verifies that the sign will avoid any further
encroachment toward Kenzie Terrace, and is otherwise constructed consistent with the dimensions in
the application drawings.
2.Applicable Code Sections.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.253 establishes the process and findings
required for consideration of Conditional Use Permits.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §152.29 Dynamic Displays regulates the
construction and use of electronic dynamic display signs by Conditional Use Permit, and sets the
various performance standards applicable to such signs.
June 18, 2024
Page 4
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit for an electronic dynamic display
sign at 2801 Kenzie Terrace with the following conditions:
1.Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29.
As such, planning staff recommends the following motion:
1.Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit application for a dynamic
display sign, pursuant to findings related to compliance with the applicable city regulations,
conditioned on the ongoing operational practices meeting the requirements of the sign
ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
2.Motion to recommend denial of the CUP. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the
Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial on the record.
3.Request Additional Information and Table Action. A motion to table should be accompanied by
the specific information requested of staff or the developer necessary to make a
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:PowerPoint Presentation
Exhibit B:Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C:Draft City Council Resolution
6/13/2024
1
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 18, 2024
2801 Kenzie Terrace
Boulevard Auto: Dynamic Display Sign Conditional Use Permit
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP - SITE LOCATION
6/13/2024
2
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –AERIAL PHOTO
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP – SIGN ILLUSTRATION
6/13/2024
3
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP – PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Motion to recommend approval of the request for CUP at 2801 Kenzie
Terrace, with the following conditions:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit application for a
dynamic display sign, pursuant to findings related to compliance with the applicable
city regulations, conditioned on the ongoing operational practices meeting the
requirements of the sign ordinance.
Print
Before you begin this process, please consider a pre-application conference (by phone, email, or in person) with City community
development staff. We are ready to assist in helping you understand the complexities of the review process, and the standards on which
a potential application will be considered. We can also advise you on the materials that will help ensure you have a complete and clear
application.
City of St. Anthony City Hall 612-782-3301
Thanks for your interest in improving your property and reinvesting in the St. Anthony Village community.
Fee and Escrow Terms
By initialing below, the applicant agrees to pay the application fee and deposit an escrow fee to cover the city’s consultants’ costs
associated with reviewing the associated request. If the city’s consultants’ costs exceed the initial escrow deposited by the applicant, an
additional escrow fee will be collected from the applicatnt to cover the additional costs.
Initial here to accept fee and escrow
terms above*
jh
Address of Property Involved*
2801 Kenzie ter.
Property ID Number*
0702923240030
Legal Description
Addition:Murray Heights 3rd Addn, lot 001, block 001
Applicant Information
Applicant Name*
James Hamilton, Hamilton llc
Applicant Email Address
jim@hamiltonsign.com
Land Use Application - Submission #7322
Date Submitted: 5/8/2024
5/8/24, 10:58 AM savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7322
https://www.savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7322 1/3
Applicant Address
PO Box 148 Rosemount MN 55068
Applicant Phone Number*
6512478224
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above)
Tom Archambault
Owner Email Address
tom@blvdautoworks.com
Owner Address
2801 Kenzie Ter. St Anthony MN 55418
Owner Phone Number
612-618-7637
Appeal ($500 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
Conditional Use Permit ($1,000 fee+ $750 escrow if residential; $2,500 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
Preliminary Plat ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Final Plat ($500 fee + $7500 escrow)
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($500 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($1,500 fee + $2500 escrow plus $50 escrow per residential unit )
Rezoning ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Site Plan ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Variance ($1,000 fee + $750 escrow if residential; $2,500 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Type of Request (Check all that apply)
Description of the Request (or a separate detailed narrative explaining the project)
Remove the twin pole pylon sign. add a monument sign with a digital gas price sign.
5/8/24, 10:58 AM savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7322
https://www.savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7322 2/3
Attachments
CUP Permit Rendiring.pdf
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and fully
understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If additional fees are
required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require additional payment from one or
more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city
payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants
are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the
proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I
understand that approval from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
I agree.
Electronic Signature Agreement
By checking the "I agree" box below, you agree and acknowledge that 1) your application will not be signed in the
sense of a traditional paper document, 2) by signing in this alternate manner, you authorize your electronic signature
to be valid and binding upon you to the same force and effect as a handwritten signature, and 3) you may still be
required to provide a traditional signature at a later date.
Electronic Signature*
james hamilton
Payment
Upon submission of this application, please mail or drop off payment for fee and escrow to City Hall 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.
Anthony, MN 55418.
5/8/24, 10:58 AM savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7322
https://www.savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7322 3/3
PO Box 148
Rosemount MN 55068
651-247-8224
sales@hamiltonsign.com
James Hamilton
Job Site:
BLVD Autoworks
801 Kenzie Trail
St Anthony MN 55418
Jobber: Molo Oil
Gas Price digit
N
S
Sign Location
AMOCO Reimage
21’
PO Box 148
Rosemount MN 55068
651-247-8224
sales@hamiltonsign.com
James Hamilton
Job Site:
BLVD Autoworks
801 Kenzie Trail
St Anthony MN 55418
Jobber: Molo Oil
AMOCO Reimage
PO Box 148
Rosemount MN 55068
651-247-8224
sales@hamiltonsign.com
James Hamilton
Job Site:
BLVD Autoworks
801 Kenzie Trail
St Anthony MN 55418
Jobber: Molo Oil
AMOCO Reimage
12” x 120” x 1” Steel Plate
12” x 120” x 1” Steel Plate Top View
120”
7 3/16”
5 ½”2 3/4”
2 3/4”
4’ 2 9/16”4’ 2 9/16”
Grade
13” above grade
13”
77”
8 ‘ x 8” poles
PO Box 148
Rosemount MN 55068
651-247-8224
sales@hamiltonsign.com
James Hamilton
Job Site:
BLVD Autoworks
801 Kenzie Trail
St Anthony MN 55418
Jobber: Molo Oil
Unauthorized use o
f this rendering shall
hold the responsible
party liable for up to
150,000 in statutory
damages plus attorney
fees.
Colors may vary slightly.
AMOCO Reimage
12
18
12
1814
8
14
864.5
EXISTING
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 24-0xx
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN ELECTRONIC DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGN AT 2801 KENZIE TERRACE
IN THE “C”, COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from James Hamilton on behalf
of Teak Properties and Boulevard Auto for a ground sign with an electronic dynamic display at
2801 Kenzie Terrace; and
WHEREAS, the property is located in the “C”, Commercial Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is currently developed with automobile service facilities and an
existing freestanding pole sign; and
WHEREAS, such electronic digital display signs are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the
Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ground sign will replace the existing freestanding pole sign on the
property in the same location; and
WHEREAS, the proposed sign is consistent with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance with
regard to size, setback and other standards, pursuant to City approval; and
WHEREAS, the sign is proposed to be constructed to be consistent with the materials standards
required by the Sign Ordinance related to such signs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 18, 2024 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as listed below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution
for approval:
1.The property is located in an area of commercial land use on a collector roadway.
2.The proposed sign is reasonably consistent with the character of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
3.The dimensional requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance can be met by the proposed
application.
4.The proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the property, and represent a
more consistent condition over the existing pole sign display.
5.The operational aspects of the City’s Sign Ordinance can be met on an ongoing basis by
the owner/operator of the sign.
6.The proposed sign, constructed and operated within the requirements of the Code, will
not adversely impact surrounding property or public areas.
NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the
City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff
report and approves Conditional Use Permit for a dynamic display sign as shown on the plans
submitted on or before May 8, 2024 as supplemented, at 2801 Kenzie Terrace, with the
following conditions:
1.Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the
requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 8 seconds duration, and other
related requirements.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ___ day of _________, 2024.
____________________________________
Wendy Webster, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
Jennifer Doyle, City Clerk
Review for Administration: ____________________________________
Charlie Yunker, City Manager
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
June 18, 2024, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418
Notice is hereby given that the City of Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing to solicit public response to a proposed Conditional Use Permit for a monument sign with a
digital sign component at 2801 Kenzie Terrace. The proposed sign will replace the existing freestanding
sign in the same location.
The City Council is expected to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the proposed
Conditional Use Permit at their regular meeting on July 9, 2024, pending Commission action.
The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available
prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com.
Ways to Comment:
In Person
The public is welcome to attend in person at the City of Saint Anthony Community Center, 3301 Silver
Lake Road, in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
Written
Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony
Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the public hearing.
Comments can also be conveyed via email, to planner@savmn.com until the date of the public hearing.
Questions?
Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 612-409-6503.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City
Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting date at City Hall.
Steve Grittman
City Planner
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date:Planning Commission Meeting – June 18, 2024
GC Project No.140.01 – 24.05
Request:Request for an amendment to a Planned Unit Development in a PUD,
Planned Unit Development District
Property Address:2401 Lowry Avenue NE
Property PID:07-029-23-23-0002
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicants are seeking an amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development to
modify the land use and site plan approvals that were granted under the original PUD project.
The site is the former Bremer Bank facility at the NE corner of Kenzie Terrace and Stinson
Parkway, with an address of 2401 Lowry. The parcel is just under 2 acres in size.
The proposed change would alter the approved PUD ordinance by replacing the expected 76-
unit multiple-family residential use with a proposed office use and after-school program for
school-aged children. The site plan approvals would be altered to retain the existing building
and site improvements, which largely consist of paved parking lot serving the original bank
facility.
Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the PUD District as a baseline. In
summary, the Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed residential and commercial uses in the area.
The proposed application would reintroduce commercial uses, along with a quasi-institutional
use for the subject property. This varies from the most recently approved zoning for the site,
which anticipated multi-family residential development. Because the consideration of this
change is highly policy-driven, staff has not offered a recommendation on the proposal, but
instead has provided alternative findings to support the direction of the City’s Planning
Commission and City Council, pending consideration of the application.
June 18th 2024
Page 2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant:Stan Ross o/b/o Tibyan Community Center
Owner:Kenzie Multifamily LLC
Location:2401 Lowry Avenue NE
Existing Land Uses:Site in Question: Vacant Office Building
Property to North:Senior Multi-Family Residential
Property to East:Manufactured Home Park
Property to West:Low Density Residential (Minneapolis-Stinson Pkwy)
Property to South:Mixed Commercial (Kenzie Terrace)
Zoning:PUD, Planned Unit Development
Deadline for Agency Application Complete Date: May 18, 2023
Action:60 Days: July 20, 2024
Letter Sent:Pending
120 Days:September 18, 2024
Background and Analysis
As noted, the applicant seeks to amend the approved PUD on the site. The property is zoned
PUD, Planned Unit Development, and the applicant is proposing to use the property for office
and after-school program purposes.
June 18th 2024
Page 3
Site Zoning History and Proposed Use
For many years, the property was the site of the Bremer Bank facility, including both retail
banking and office activities related to the financial institutional use. The property includes the
two-story building, perimeter landscaping, parking and circulation pavement, and a drive-
through banking facility on the north side of the building. Access is from both Kenzie Terrace
on the south (via a full-access intersection) and a right-out, right-out access to Stinson Parkway
on the west.
In 2018, the City adopted an updated Comprehensive Plan while Bremer Bank occupied the
site. The Comprehensive Plan included a number of policy statements indicating that
commercial areas of the City may be eligible for multi-family residential, or mixed commercial-
residential redevelopment, depending on location and appropriateness in the specific
neighborhood. In both the Land Use and Housing chapters of the Plan, mixed-use residential
projects were encouraged in efforts to promote affordable housing options in the community,
consistent with both City policy and Metropolitan Council requirements for affordable housing
development.
In 2019, Bremer Bank approached the City with a residential developer to explore downsizing of
the bank facility, and consideration of moving the bank location to a City-owned site east of the
current location on the south side of Kenzie Terrace. The City had been holding the site for
June 18th 2024
Page 4
development for several years, with some expectation that it may be redeveloped as a
potential affordable housing site.
To facilitate the retention of the Bremer Bank presence, and to further the housing goals
identified in the Comprehensive Plan, the City eventually approved a rezoning to PUD of the
current property in question as a part of a PUD development agreement. The agreement
permitted development of a new Bremer Bank location on the former City property,
redevelopment of the “old” Bremer site to multi-family housing, and conveyance of a small
parcel of land between Kenzie Terrace and Lowry Avenue from Bremer to the City for future
public uses or other purposes.
The “new” Bremer Bank was to be constructed first to facilitate the bank’s move requirements.
Subsequently, it was expected under the terms of the PUD that demolition of the previous bank
building would occur, and the developer/owner would proceed with the multi-family housing.
During this period, market conditions changed in such a way that the proposed housing project
was no longer feasible for the developer. They have been seeking buyers for property since
that time.
Site Development Details.
The current applicants propose to repurpose the existing building for after-school programming
for school-aged children who would be driven to, and picked up from, the property by parents.
The building would be remodeled only to accommodate those uses, including an indoor multi-
purpose area. Offices would also be a component of the building use, and the upper-most floor
would be unused for the current time. The applicants propose no changes to the exterior of
the building or to the site.
The proposed operation details include daily delivery of students to and from the site by
automobile. Up to 100 students are expected to participate in the programs offered on the
property, with between 10 and 20 staff members. The applicants expect to provide
programming and/or staff presence generally between 9:00am and 7:00pm.
Because the use is not a childcare or school facility, the applicants indicate that they are not
required to have any outside licensing. The applicants have stated that they anticipate no
outdoor programming as a part of the site usage.
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
The issue for the Planning Commission (and ultimately the City Council) is whether the PUD
zoning and the Development Agreement governing the land use on the site should be amended
to incorporate a use that was not contemplated by the original PUD approval. The
Comprehensive Plan land use guidance can be read to accommodate the use as a quasi-
commercial/institutional mixed use. The lack of a residential component would suggest that the
City would be looking to promote or accommodate other affordable housing opportunities in
other areas.
June 18th 2024
Page 5
To recommend approval of the amendment, the Planning Commission should consider findings
such as the following, and others generated by the discussion and public hearing:
1.The land use plan chapter of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for
Commercial uses.
2.The 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes a variety of mixed use opportunities on
Commercial property.
3.The proposed use is a reasonable adaptive re-use of an existing vacant building and
property.
4.The proposed use is reasonably compatible with surrounding land uses including
residential properties to the north and east.
5.The site is located on major roadways supporting traffic volumes generated by the
property.
6.The applicant’s proposal provides an important service to the community at large, and
justifies the departure from the original PUD goals.
To recommend denial, the Planning Commission should consider these and other findings:
1.The PUD approved for the site incorporated City property that anticipates a residential
component for development on the subject property.
2.Opportunities for housing, and particularly affordable housing, are a key component of
the City’s compliance with Metropolitan Council housing goals, and for the City’s
compliance with those goals.
3.The proposed use retains the existing building and site conditions, the improvement
and/or replacement of which was an aspect of the City’s approval of the original PUD.
4.An aspect of the development plan for the approved PUD included consideration of site
improvements that facilitate the City’s “gateway” objectives for the Kenzie Terrace
entrance to the community.
5.The redevelopment plan approved as a part of the PUD anticipated a reduction in
impervious surface on the site, which is an aspect of the City’s goals for managing
stormwater in this area of the community, and which the proposed amendment does
not achieve.
6.Market conditions that disrupted the original PUD completion are constantly changing,
and may reasonably be expected to change again in ways that help make the residential
use more feasible.
Neither set of findings are intended to be complete, but instead, are intended to facilitate the
Commission’s review and discussion of the policy implications of the amendment.
June 18th 2024
Page 6
Summary and Planning Commission Action. In summary, staff believes that there are
compelling reasons to recommend either approval or denial of the proposed amendment. The
Commission should consider the components of the application – both land use and
development plans – and recommend the policy that is most consistent with the City’s land use
goals.
Depending on its review, Planning Commission may recommend approval or denial of the
proposed amendment, and should consider findings supporting its recommendation. The
suggested findings above may serve as the basis for the Commission’s decision, and may be
supplemented or amended based on the discussion during and after the public hearing. Staff
will prepare a draft resolution for the City Council based on the Commission’s action.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:Location map
Exhibit B:Application and Supporting Material
Design2 Build, Inc. Tibyan Center
Exterior Photos
Looking Northeast
Looking North
Design2 Build, Inc. Tibyan Center
Looking Northwest
Looking West
Design2 Build, Inc. Tibyan Center
Looking Southwest
Looking South
Design2 Build, Inc. Tibyan Center
Looking East
Print
Before you begin this process, please consider a pre-application conference (by phone, email, or in person) with City community
development staff. We are ready to assist in helping you understand the complexities of the review process, and the standards on which
a potential application will be considered. We can also advise you on the materials that will help ensure you have a complete and clear
application.
City of St. Anthony City Hall 612-782-3301
Thanks for your interest in improving your property and reinvesting in the St. Anthony Village community.
Fee and Escrow Terms
By initialing below, the applicant agrees to pay the application fee and deposit an escrow fee to cover the city’s consultants’ costs
associated with reviewing the associated request. If the city’s consultants’ costs exceed the initial escrow deposited by the applicant, an
additional escrow fee will be collected from the applicatnt to cover the additional costs.
Initial here to accept fee and escrow
terms above*
SJR
Address of Property Involved*
2401 Lowry Ave N E
Property ID Number*
0702923230002
Legal Description
That Part Of The E 295 Ft Of W 395 Ft Of S 365 Ft Of NW 1/4 Lying N Of State Hwy No 63
Applicant Information
Applicant Name*
Stan Ross
Applicant Email Address
design2buildmn@live.com
Land Use Application - Submission #7501
Date Submitted: 5/20/2024
5/21/24, 12:25 PM savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7501
https://www.savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7501 1/3
Applicant Address
4892 Twins Court
Applicant Phone Number*
6123964556
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above)
Interstate Development
Owner Email Address
Owner Address
4892 Twins Court
Owner Phone Number
6123964556
Appeal ($500 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
Conditional Use Permit ($1,000 fee+ $750 escrow if residential; $2,500 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
Preliminary Plat ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Final Plat ($500 fee + $7500 escrow)
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($500 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($1,500 fee + $2500 escrow plus $50 escrow per residential unit )
Rezoning ($750 fee + $1,500 escrow)
Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Site Plan ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Variance ($1,000 fee + $750 escrow if residential; $2,500 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Type of Request (Check all that apply)
Description of the Request (or a separate detailed narrative explaining the project)
Tibyan Community Center will operate the building with Office and an After School Care Program. The After School Program
will have classrooms and a multi-purpose room used for events and program services. There are three floors, however at this
time only the First and Second Floors will be use.
5/21/24, 12:25 PM savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7501
https://www.savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7501 2/3
Attachments
2024 05 17.pdf
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and fully
understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If additional fees are
required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require additional payment from one or
more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may include (but are not limited to) direct city
payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals, and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants
are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the
proposed project. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I
understand that approval from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
I agree.
Electronic Signature Agreement
By checking the "I agree" box below, you agree and acknowledge that 1) your application will not be signed in the
sense of a traditional paper document, 2) by signing in this alternate manner, you authorize your electronic signature
to be valid and binding upon you to the same force and effect as a handwritten signature, and 3) you may still be
required to provide a traditional signature at a later date.
Electronic Signature*
Stan J. Ross
Payment
Upon submission of this application, please mail or drop off payment for fee and escrow to City Hall 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.
Anthony, MN 55418.
5/21/24, 12:25 PM savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7501
https://www.savmn.com/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/7501 3/3
Supplemental Q&A for 2401 Lowry PUD Amendment submitted by Stan Ross, 5/22/24
1. The approximate square footage of the various uses, including offices, classrooms, multi-
purpose space, and vacant space. Offices: 8,000 sf, Classrooms 5,500 sf, Multi-Purpose Space
6,000 sf, Vacant 9,000 sf
2. The number of employees who will be on-site during peak times (assuming these are
daytimes during week? or weekends? evenings?). Will office employees staff the after-school
program, or will that entail additional staff? 10-20 employees during peak times, some of these
would be in the classroom offices
3. The approximate number of students who will be on-site during peak times, and
approximate hours of operation. Approximately 100 students during peak times
4. The frequency and scope of "events" , such as building and attendance capacity, hours,
etc. No classes Tuesday and limited on Thursday, otherwise all other days from 9AM - 7PM
5. How students will arrive at the facility (e.g. driven by parents, etc. or buses?) - and how they
will be picked up? Parents drop-off and pick-up
6. If there is a common drop-off and/or pick-up time for parents arriving in cars, how will the
cars queue or park on the property to avoid interfering with traffic on the adjoining
street(s)? Parents park and enter building
7. Will there be outdoor use of the facility for the after-school program, and if so, where on the
property will that occur? A simple site plan would be helpful in this regard. No outdoor use
currently planned.
8. Is there any state or county licensing required for the after-school programming that you will
be required to carry, and if so, what is the status of that licensing? No license is required for the
after school program.
9. Will you be making any changes to the site or building to accommodate the proposed use(s),
including parking lot, green/open space, architectural exteriors, or interior remodeling? Very
limited alterations: a few interior non-load bearing walls removed to enlarged existing areas for
classrooms and open areas for the Multi-Purpose Space. Also, toilets enlarged and
miscellaneous sinks added.
10. Will you be proposing any exterior signage as a part of the occupancy for these
uses? Check the sign ordinance (Section 155 of the City Code) for details on allowable
signage. Small signage for business name, planned signage will follow city sign code.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
June 18, 2024, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418
Notice is hereby given that the City of Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing to solicit public response to a proposed amendment to a Planned Unit Development District at
2401 Lowry Avenue NE. The proposed amendment would alter the land uses in the PUD District for this
site from multi-family residential to office and after-school programming, as well as amend the
approved site plan to retain the existing building and site improvements.
The City Council is expected to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation of the proposed
PUD amendment at their regular meeting on July 9, 2024, pending Commission action.
The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available
prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com.
Ways to Comment:
In Person
The public is welcome to attend in person at the City of Saint Anthony Community Center, 3301 Silver
Lake Road, in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
Written
Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony
Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the public hearing.
Comments can also be conveyed via email, to planner@savmn.com until the date of the public hearing.
Questions?
Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 612-409-6503.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City
Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting date at City Hall.
Steve Grittman
City Planner