Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 09272011H.R.A. Meeting immediately following regular meeting CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA September 27, 2011 7:00 p.m. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Consideration Discussion and Possible Action on All of the follonih items. I. Approval of the September 27, 2011, City Council Meeting Agenda. (action requested) II. Proclamations and Recognitions. III. Consent Agenda. These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Coundimember or edtiZen so requests, in which event the item will be removed fr-om the ConsentAgenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. A. Approval of September 13, 2011, Council Meeting Minutes. (pp. 1 - 7) B. Licenses and Permits. (p. 8) C. Claims. (pp. 9 —11) D. Resolution 11-055; Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax (pp. 12 — 15) E. Resolution 11-056; Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Ramsey County Tax (pp. 16 —17) F. Resolution 11-057; Authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and City of St. Anthony regarding the Bicycle Parking Program. (pp. 18 — 27) IV. Public Hearing. V. Reports from Commission and Staff. (Brian Heinis, Planning Commissioner, presenting) A. Resolution 11-058; Approving the Proposed Comprehensive Sign Update for the St. Anthony Shopping Center, 2900 Pentagon Drive. (pp. 28 — 55) B. Resolution 11-059; Approval of a Front Yard. Encroachment at 3408 Maplewood Drive. (pp. 56 — 69) C. Resolution 11-060; Approval of a Garage Setback permit and Variance for Oversized Garage at 2610 -30th Avenue NE. (pp. 70 — 85) VI. General Business of Council. VII. Reports from City Manager and Council members. VIII. Community Forum. Individualr may address the City Council about any 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 City Council will not take ofdal action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to stafffor a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. IX. Information and Announcements. X. Adjournment. Our Mission is to be a progressive and Iivable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure. FACouncil Meetings12011%0927201I%agendapg#.doc I CifY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 7 Mayor Faust called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m 9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 10 11 Mayor Faust invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 12 13 ROLL CALL. 14 15 Present: Mayor Faust; Councilmembers Gray, Roth, and Stille. 16 Absent: Councilmember Jenson. 17 Also Present: Interim City Manager Jay Hartman and Finance Director Roger Larson. 18 19 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 20 ITEMS. 21 22 L APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2011, CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA. 23 24 Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Roth, to approve the City 25 Council Meeting Agenda of September 13, 2011. 26 27 Motion carried 4-0. 28 29 I1. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS. 30 31 A. Kiwanis Peanut Day September 23 2011. 32 33 Councilmember Stille recited the proclamation designating Friday, September 23, 2011, as St. 34 Anthony Kiwanis Peanut Day. 35 36 Mr. John Dierbeck, President, Kiwanis Club of St. Anthony, thanked the City Council and the 37 City for its ongoing support and for the contributions from all the volunteers and members that 38 support the Kiwanis community programs in the City. He advised that the Kiwanis have started 39 a new program called "Aktion Club" and introduced Mary Dierbeck, lead adviser for Aktion 40 Club. He also introduced Mr. Tom Miller, Kiwanis Club of St. Anthony fundraising chairman. 41 42 Ms. Mary Dierbeck explained that Aktion Club is a program for adults with disabilities that 43 started in May and meets on the first Tuesday of every month at 6:30 p.m. She stated that 44 Aktion Club held a special charter night on Tuesday, September 6"', and she thanked the Mayor 45 for his public address that evening. 46 47 Mayor Faust expressed the City Council's thanks and appreciation to the Kiwanis members for 48 their dedicated service. 49 2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 2 III. CONSENT AGENDA. A. Consider August 23, 2011, Council meeting minutes B. Consider licenses and permits; C. Consider payment of claims; and D. Consider Resolution 1 1-052: Recoonizino the Arthur 9 Motion by Councilmember Stille, seconded by Councilmember Roth, to approve the Consent 10 Agenda items. 11 12 Motion carried 4-0. 13 14 IV. PUBLIC HEARING. 15 16 None. 17 18 V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF. 19 20 None. 21 22 VI. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL. 23 24 A. Resolution 11-053; Authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to Execute the 25 Agreement between I lennepin County and the City of St. Anthony for Road Maintenance 26 Services. Jay. Hartman, Interim City Manager, presenting_ 27 28 Interim City Manager Hartman presented the proposed five year agreement for road maintenance 29 with Hennepin County commencing January 1, 2012. He advised that the City has enjoyed a 30 good working relationship with the County since 1994 and the agreement provides payment to 31 the City for snow removal, street sweeping, mowing, flushing, and disposal of debris on County 32 State Aid roads within the City. 33 34 Councilmember Stille asked if the proposed agreement adequately reimburses the City for the 35 road maintenance services being provided. 36 37 Interim City Manager Hartman replied that the agreement has been reviewed with the Finance 38 Director and staff is pleased with the amount of payment. 39 40 Motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilmember Gray, to approve Resolution 1I- 41 053; Authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to Execute the Agreement between 42 Hennepin County and the City of St. Anthony for Road Maintenance Services. 43 44 Motion carried 4-0. 45 2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 3 1 B. Resolution 11-054; Proposed 2012 Tax Levy and Budget in Compliance with the Truth in 2 Taxation Act. Roger Larson, Finance Director, presenting, 4 Finance Director Larson presented the proposed 2012 tax levy and budget and stated that eight 5 meetings have been held to date as part of the overall budget process. He advised that Truth in 6 Taxation notices will be mailed to property owners on November 15°i and the final presentation 7 and approval of the 2012 budget and tax levy by the City Council will occur on December 13°i. 8 Ile explained that the proposed 2012 budget of $5,498,650 represents an increase of $20,650 or 9 0.38% over the 2011 budget and the 2012 proposed general operating levy of $3,045,166 10 represents an increase of $99,655 from 2011. He reviewed the proposed 2012 General Fund I 1 revenues and expenditures as well as the 2012 total proposed levies. He advised that the 12 proposed increase in all levies to $5,223,089 represents an overall increase of $239,344 or 13 4.80%, and noted that the City had the same levy for 2009, 2010, and 2011. He also explained 14 what the General Fund levy supports, the City's issuance of debt/levy impact, and grant monies 15 received by the City, and encouraged residents to contact him with any questions. 16 17 Councilmember Stille stated that the three year averaging method used by the City to prepare its 18 budget is intended as a tool to figure out what makes sense for budgeting purposes, and it is 19 important to recognize that the budget always contains some anomalies. He indicated that the 20 proposed capital equipment budget includes some big ticket items as well as some deferred 21 maintenance on other assets and this has been a challenge with the City's levy being kept flat. 22 He noted that the City resists debt and pays cash for things and added that the City staff has done 23 a good job in preparing the budget. 24 25 Mayor Faust stated that the City has been able to increase its bond rating to the highest possible 26 rating based on the City's size and this is because the City does not issue debt along with the 27 City's long range planning efforts. 28 29 Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Roth, to approve Resolution 1I- 30 054; Setting the City of St. Anthony Village Proposed 2012 Tax Levy and General Operating 31 Budget. 32 33 Motion carried 4-0. 34 35 VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. 36 37 Interim City Manager Hartman reported on the following: 38 • A new outdoor warning siren has been installed and was funded through the Minnesota 39 Department of Homeland Security using FEMA grant funds. IIe noted that the old siren 40 was located on the south side of well house #4 and the new siren is 250 feet north of that 41 location to take advantage of the back-up generator at the fire station. He commended 42 Fire Chief Malenick for securing the $19,000 FEMA grant for the siren. 43 • Staff will begin contract negotiations with the Police and Public Works bargaining units 44 and anticipate completing those negotiations the end of October. 45 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 4 1 Mayor Faust expressed the City Council's thanks to Fire Chief Malenick for securing the grant 2 for the siren and for locating it next to the fire station to take advantage of the back-up generator. 4 Councilmember Roth reported on his attendance at the following: 5 • September 611 City Council work session. 6 • September 8"' Cable Commission meeting. He advised that the Cable Commission is 7 currently engaged in a three year renewal of the contract with Comcast. 8 • Participation in Cable Commission Finance Committee monthly meetings to take a closer 9 look at financing in the contract renewal process and to make sure all necessary controls 10 are in place to maintain a solid organization for all ten cities. 11 12 Councilmember Stille reported on his attendance at the following: 13 • August 30°i City Council work session. 14 15 Councilmember Gray —No report. 16 17 Mayor Faust reported on the following: 18 • August 30°i joint meeting with School Board. 19 • August 30°1 MWMO executive committee. 20 • September 011 meeting with Kiwanis regarding their Aktion charter. 21 • September 8°i MWMO executive committee. 22 • September 12°1 Regional Council of Mayors meeting with keynote address by Tina 23 Smith, Chief of Staff for Governor Dayton. 24 • September 13°i MWMO meeting. He stated that another turf maintenance class is 25 scheduled for September 27"i. 26 27 VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM. 28 29 Mayor Faust invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items that 30 are not on the regular agenda. 31 32 Mr. Ken Brown, 3422 Silver Lane NE, appeared before the City Council and requested that the 33 City address a landscaping problem caused by the Silver Lane project. He presented pictures of 34 the area and stated that in the past he and his neighbors have always maintained this area. He 35 explained that following the road construction projects, the area was seeded last fall which was 36 unsuccessful because nothing was done to prepare the soil, then this summer, the City came back 37 and seeded again but the area was only watered once. He indicated that the City is close to sign - 38 off on the project and based on discussions with the Project Engineer last year, the City agreed to 39 deliver sod -quality turf and some sodding was done along the boulevard. He added that he has 40 learned that the area will not be restored to where it was before the Foss Lane project. He 41 requested that the City bring in top soil and seed the area again to eliminate the eyesore. He also 42 asked if the City is going to mow and fertilize this area. He suggested that landscaping on future 43 projects include more than just the Engineer's sign -off and felt that taxpayers should not have to 44 pay twice to get this area looking decent. 45 0 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 5 Ms. Dayna Goebel, 1040 18t" Avenue NE, appeared before the City Council and stated that she and her husband are currently looking to buy a home and are considering moving to St. Anthony. She advised that they have a 30 pound miniature pot belly pig as an indoor pet and stated that they do not want to purchase a home if they cannot get a permit for their pet. 6 Mayor Faust suggested that Ms. Goebel leave her contact information with the Interim City 7 Manager and requested that staff research this issue and follow-up with Ms. Goebel. 8 9 Mr. Thomas Goebel, 1040 18°i Avenue NE, appeared before the City Council and stated that he 10 previously spoke with Councilmember Gray who indicated that they could not get a permit until 11 they were residents of the City. He requested an informal opinion from the City Council 12 regarding their permit request. 13 14 Mayor Faust stated that the Goebel's first step is to talk to staff because the City Council cannot 15 commit to anything without the research from staff. 16 17 Mr. Tom Roepke, 3901 Foss Road, appeared before the City Council and stated that since the 18 last City Council meeting, he has had three inspections of his property for fire, housing, and 19 rental. He indicated that none of his previous requests for information have been met and 20 reiterated his three requests. He advised that the first request is for any permits for work done on 21 his storm sewer connection, the second request is for a memo from City Engineer Hubmer 22 stating the cause of the flooding on his property this summer, and the third request is for a 23 plumbing inspector or civil engineer to validate his storm sewer connection's code compliance. 24 He stated that he has five manila envelopes at his shop addressed to the Mayor and City Council 25 supporting his accusations. He added that he has been working in good faith with the City and 26 still has no answers. 27 28 Interim City Manager Hartman advised that he has not found anything in the commercial file that 29 talks about a new connection to the storm sewer. He stated that Project Manager Messner and 30 City Engineer Hubmer have met with Mr. Roepke a number of times and he is unsure whether 31 Mr. Messner or Mr. Hubmer can state whether the storm sewer connection is code compliant. 32 He agreed to follow-up on the code compliance issue. He stated that staff has also gone through 33 all the blueprints and provided Mr. Roepke with copies of everything on hand as far as the outlet 34 structure. He also agreed to follow-up with Fire Chief Malenick regarding the inspections. 35 36 Mayor Faust assured Mr. Roepke that the City will continue to work with him and will provide 37 the requested information to the extent the information is available. 38 39 Ms. Stephanie Roepke, 3901 Foss Road, appeared before the City Council and stated that she is 40 not sure how many people sustained damages caused by the natural disaster on July 16, 2011, but 41 because of the small value no one is receiving any assistance from FEMA, the County, the State, 42 or other agencies. She indicated that the people at Mirror Lake lost everything and have to pay 43 for the repairs being done. She stated that their business will show a $25,000 loss in inventory 44 and this does not include the extraordinary amount of time to clean up and repair the damages 45 and she questioned how to put a dollar value on time. She indicated that she has customers from 46 all over the metro area and these customers also go to Walmart, Cub, the liquor store, Culver's or 5 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 6 1 Applebee's. She stated that she knows her business is helping to support other businesses in the 2 City and it would be nice to get support from the City. She stated that most people have 3 mortgage or renter's insurance, but most cannot afford flood insurance and most do not expect to 4 need flood insurance. She indicated that engineers should plan for worst case scenarios and it is 5 unacceptable what happened this summer. She referenced the City's business plan and the 6 section concerning reserves which states that the City will establish and maintain a contingency 7 reserve fund available for appropriation by the City Council for unanticipated expenditures. She 8 questioned what the City considers an emergency if the July 16°i flood was not an emergency. 9 She proposed that the City Council make funding available to people affected by this summer's 10 flooding and added that the City's mission is to be a livable community, and if we as a 11 community will not help our neighbors and businesses, we are not a village but just a collection 12 of individuals. 13 14 Mayor Faust stated that he empathized with Ms. Roepke. He explained that the City maintains a 15 30-35% reserve fund partly because the City receives its property tax distributions from the 16 County in June and December and the 30-35% is intended to help the City meet its normal 17 operating budget. He stated he does not know of anything in the statute that allows a city to 18 make a gift to an individual. He added that there are remedies the City is pursuing which only 19 apply to the homeowner's association at Mirror Lake. He indicated that these things do not get 20 resolved overnight and the City is committed to a coordinated effort to solve the problem. He 21 stated that there is a 48" pipe that carries the run-off, but if it goes north into Rice Creek and into 22 New Brighton and then Fridley, there is nowhere for the water to go and the City needs to model 23 something that allows for better storage. 24 25 IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 26 27 Mayor Faust announced that the Mirror Lake condominium association is holding a benefit 28 fundraiser at the Shorewood Bar and Grill on September 18`x' from 2:00-6:00 p.m. He stated that 29 information is posted on the City's website and Wells Fargo Bank will also take donations. He 30 encouraged everybody to support this and if someone wants to leave a donation at City Hall or 31 Community Services, staff will ensure it gets into the proper hands. 32 33 Councilmember Stille stated that one of the City's environmental stewardship goals relates to a 34 single garbage hauler and wanted residents to know that this topic is still on the Council's radar. 35 He referenced a 200 -page study dated June 2009 prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control 36 Agency as well as another study being done by a local research board regarding the impact of 37 haulers on pavement performance, which will be completed in June 2012. 38 39 X. ADJOURNMENT. 40 41 Mayor Faust adjourned the meeting at 8:09 p.m. 42 43 Respectfully submitted, 44 Barbara Hughes 45 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 46 2 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 13, 2011 Page 7 ArrEST: 4 City Clerk Mayor 7 Saint Anthony Village DATE: September 27, 2011 Approved: TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: License Clerk ITEM: License and Permits for Approval: General Contractors License: Holm & Olson of MN, St Paul, MN ing & Cooling Two, Maple Grove, MN ren Heating & A/C, Apple Valley, MN Snelling Company, St Paul, MN Applicant: Martenson Properties Location: 3645 Chelmsford Rd Sara Jeska 2504 Pahl Ave US BANK ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE CHECK REGISTER VENDOR PAYEE CHECK # DATE AMOUNT 20 AA BATTERY CO 15890 9/28/2011 21.38 8471 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 15891 9/28/2011 143.01 8621 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL 15892 9/28/2011 265.00 8450 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES, 15893 9/28/2011 124.00 4687 ASPEN WASTE SYSTEMS INC 15894 9/28/2011 78.64 320 BEISSWENGER'S 15895 9/28/2011 13.21 4293 BELLBOY CORP. 15896 9/28/2011 9,332.96 9778 BERNICK'S 15897 9/28/2011 1,124.01 4662 BOURGET IMPORTS 15898 9/28/2011 163.00 7168 BOYER TRUCKS, INC. 15899 9/28/2011 44.96 7253 BRAKE & EQUIPMENT WAREHO 15900 9/28/2011 106.85 4231 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES 15901 9/28/2011 28,487.30 9100 CAT & FIDDLE BEVERAGE 15902 9/28/2011 94.00 2380 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 15903 9/28/2011 908.27 9907 CENTURYLINK 15904 9/28/2011 691.41 4080 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTI 15905 9/28/2011 2,048.69 .0357 CHRISTENSON/C & M 15906 9/28/2011 20.58 660 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 15907 9/28/2011 270.11 9056 CITY OF ROSEVILLE 15908 9/28/2011 5,277.57 8275 CITY OF ST. PAUL 15909 9/28/2011 1,834.07 8814 CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE 15910 9/28/2011 69.47 4095 COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPA 15911 9/28/2011 180.50 4107 COMPTON'S COMMERCIAL CLN 15912 9/28/2011 3,823.99 815 COTRONEO/DOMINIC 15913 9/28/2011 50.00 9820 CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE 15914 9/28/2011 584.49 8557 DAILEY DATA & ASSOCIATES 15915 9/28/2011 62.50 4110 DICKSON ELECTRIC 15916 9/28/2011 1,931.00 4135 ELECTRO WATCHMAN INC 15917 9/28/2011 221.23 9395 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO 15918 9/28/2011 36.66 9236 FSH COMMUNICATIONS 15919 9/28/2011 64.13 1030 G & K SERVICES INC 15920 9/28/2011 822.77 .0359 GALLUS/LINDA 15921 9/28/2011 5.10 7335 GCR 15922 9/28/2011 389.03 .0356 GILLET/MORRISON 15923 9/28/2011 8.43 4172 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC. 15924 9/28/2011 98.25 9169 HARBOR FREIGHTTOOLS 15925 9/28/2011 7.99 1420 HAWKINS, INC 15926 9/28/2011 5,637.37 8944 HENN CNTY INFO TECH DEPT 15927 9/28/2011 3,010.91 9808 HEUN ENTERPRISES, INC 15928 9/28/2011 184.50 4207 HOHENSTEIN'S, INC 15929 9/28/2011 6,680.05 8252 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVIC 15930 9/28/2011 187.09 8658 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH, 1 15931 9/28/2011 85.50 9857 JERSEY MIKE'S SUBS 15932 9/28/2011 133.97 4125 JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING 15933 9/28/2011 49,219.01 4220 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR 15934 9/28/2011 16,353.78 9 US BANK ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE CHECK REGISTER VENDOR PAYEE CHECK # DATE AMOUNT 9917 KIELB/KATIE 15935 9/28/2011 30.86 9351 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 15936 9/28/2011 5.95 9851 LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLO 15937 9/28/2011 7,551.56 2040 LILLIE SUBURBAN NEWSPAPE 15938 9/28/2011 96.25 8254 LICIT% BERKLEY ADMINIST 15939 9/28/2011 2,775.00 9114 M. AMUNDSON LLP 15940 9/28/2011 2,039.98 9823 MAILFINANCE 15941 9/28/2011 80.16 2160 MARSHALL CONCRETE PROD 15942 9/28/2011 135.57 2230 MENARDS LUMBER 15943 9/28/2011 12.77 2240 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 15944 9/28/2011 43,541.89 8467 MIDWAY FORD 15945 9/28/2011 29.14 2280 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 15946 9/28/2011 219.63 8850 MINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY 15947 9/28/2011 280.00 8545 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIP 15948 9/28/2011 1,326.79 9195 MISTER CAR WASH 15949 9/28/2011 177.07 8905 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUS 15950 9/28/2011 20.00 4299 MPLS. OXYGEN CO. 15951 9/28/2011 13.58 7370 MYERS TIRE -MINNEAPOLIS 15952 9/28/2011 122.09 8519 NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION C 15953 9/28/2011 338,409.81 8767 NSRMAA 15954 9/28/2011 100.00 45 OFFICE DEPOT 15955 9/28/2011 260.30 9894 OLVALDE FARM AND BREWING 15956 9/28/2011 168.00 4354 PAUSTIS & SONS 15957 9/28/2011 2,093.31 9563 PETTY CASH - U.S. BANK 15958 9/28/2011 189.52 4360 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS 15959 9/28/2011 9,675.78 4372 PLUNKETT'S 15960 9/28/2011 917.84 4785 PODS 15961 9/28/2011 226.25 9180 PROFESSIONAL TURF & RENO 15962 9/28/2011 6,023.49 4385 QUALITY WINE CO 15963 9/28/2011 18,386.07 .0362 SCHELL/1AMI 15964 9/28/2011 6.60 9127 SIMPLEXGRINNELL 15965 9/28/2011 463.84 9843 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS 15966 9/28/2011 1,312.34 .0358 STAHEL/RUTH 15967 9/28/2011 12.46 4780 SURLY BREWING CO 15968 9/28/2011 3,484.00 3260 T A SCHIFSKY & SONS 15969 9/28/2011 567.54 5273 TESSMAN SEED INC. 15970 9/28/2011 2,206.88 7337 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRE 15971 9/28/2011 283.75 7330 TRI STATE BOBCAT, INC. 15972 9/28/2011 634.38 9590 U.S. BANK (PURCHASING 15973 9/28/2011 299.78 8561 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST 15974 9/28/2011 53.20 .0361 US BANK 15975 9/28/2011 19.45 3700 VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER 15976 9/28/2011 9.78 4451 VINOCOPIA 15977 9/28/2011 1,196.40 9702 W.D. LARSON COMPANIES LT 15978 9/28/2011 47.69 8316 WINE COMPANY/THE 15979 9/28/2011 265.20 8310 WINE MERCHANTS INC 15980 9/28/2011 1,949.23 10 US BANK VENDOR PAYEE 8919 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE 4175 WIRTZ BEVERAGE - (GRIGGS 9734 WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA 8273 WSB & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2680 XCELENERGY ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE CHECK REGISTER CHECK # DATE AMOUNT 15981 9/28/2011 430.71 15982 9/28/2011 9,757.36 15983 9/28/2011 21,482.87 15984 9/28/2011 38,070.45 15985 9/28/2011 13,871.27 TOTAL 672,230.58 11 12 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 20, 2011 TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jay Hartman, Interim City Manager Roger Larson, Finance Director ITEM: SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER CHARGES. For Council consideration, attached are resolutions certifying property delinquent water/sewer charges for Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. The owners of record of the properties were served proper notice of the delinquency and failed to contact the City regarding the outstanding charges. City Ordinance 33.107 states that if an owner of a property fails to pay delinquent bills, the City may levy the amount plus interest as a special assessment against the property. This Section applies to all charges which may be assessed under Minnesota Statues 429.101 and 444.075. The amount of the assessment will be certified to the County Auditor's to be paid with the collection of the 2012 real estate taxes. Recommendation: Council approves resolution #11-055 (Hennepin County) and resolution #11-056 (Ramsey County) certifying delinquent water/sewer charges to the collectible 2012 property tax rolls. 13 0 0 0 0 o z o D 0 o 0 0 0 0 0= o M Z O J W00 Ul m (n A Cn o N M Cn - O m m O O (J 6 O O_ O Z N N O O O O O O O Cl)G) M M G) z z A D -<O { D G) > m O A O m c)� = 0 z0 D> m CO o � co O z m m > Z U) a G) c m _ 'G D N o � p r m n q G) D O 1 D D m < 1 O r Wo, (o O 0= m G m co i z m cwr, w H D z m o w T� U O 0> = m Z m z< O D> W rn m (/) F m x m o W rn 2 A o Z O -i mo W rn w (n z< OO m '-m < m Naj (u rn (/) F m m c N D m f� m m X 00) (p r w (a (a o 0 0 o Z 0 N 0 N o N m m 1p m W W W N N N N D JL -11 W W W W W O A O 6 N N N N m m w o o N O O A J W N W N O (b N F+ Ul W N (Wn O m N OOi Ln (P (WO A CO O W Z Vl 00 .A W Ct (o (o A W A w A J (b w A W J CITY OF ST ANTHONY RESOLUTION No. 11-055 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, records for the City of St. Anthony identify certain delinquent utility accounts and property clean-up charges as of September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, the owners of record of the properties served by each delinquent account have been notified of the delinquency according to the legal requirements of the ordinance 33.107; and WHEREAS, the delinquent charges may be assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.101 and 444.075 that authorize certification of such delinquent charges to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given to the owners of record as required by law, the City has met the requirements for the assessment of these delinquent public utility charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1) The special assessment of delinquent property clean-up costs is hereby adopted and certified as bevy No. 18024 for the following properties and amounts: Owner of Record Amount Property Identification # a. S. Langseth $846.37 07-029-23-21-0008 2816 Silver Lake Road (Water/Sewer Bill) St. Anthony, MN 55418 b. Ron Weseman $ 14.43 06-029-23-22-0132 3633 Stinson Boulevard NE (Water/Sewer Bill) St. Anthony, MN 55418 c. Abdessamad Mortabit $189.91 06-029-23-21-0132 3611 Harding Street NE (Water/Sewer Bill) St. Anthony, MN 55418 d. Carol Eichhorn $255.94 06-029-23-21-0047 3628 Silver Lake Road (Water/Sewer Bill) St. Anthony, MN 55418 2) The special assessments as adopted shall be payable with collectible ad valorem taxes in 2012, with interest thereon at eight (8) percent per annum, and shall bear interest from the entire period of November 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012. 0 (Continued) 3) The City Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended to the proper tax lists to the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes Adopted this 27th day of September, 2011 ATTEST: City Clerk Review for Administration: Mayor Interim City Manager 15 16 CITY OF ST ANTHONY RESOLUTION No. 11-056 A RESOLUTION CERTII YING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE RAMSEY COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, utility records for the City of St. Anthony identify certain delinquent charges and utility accounts as of September 15, 2011; and WHEREAS, the owners of record of the properties served by each delinquent account have been notified of the delinquency according to the legal requirements of the ordinance 33.107; and WHEREAS, the delinquent charges may be assessed under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.101 and 444.075 that authorize certification of such delinquent charges to the County tax rolls for collection; and WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given to the owners of record as required by law, the City has met the requirements for the assessment of these delinquent public utility charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1) The special assessment of delinquent public utility accounts is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 812011927 for the following properties and amounts: Owner of Record a. GMAC Mortgage 4073 Foss Road St. Anthony, MN 55421 b. Debra Kay 3531 — 37°i Avenue NE St. Anthony, MN 55421 c. Steven Glynn 3919 Roosevelt Street NE St. Anthony, MN 55421 Amount Property (Identification # $ 66.38 31-30-23-41-0130 (Water/Sewer Bill) $ 10.07 31-30-23-44-0111 (Water/Sewer Bill) $135.44 31-30-23-33-0190 (Water/Sewer Bill) 2) The special assessments as adopted shall be payable with collectible ad valorem taxes in 2011, with interest thereon at eight (8) percent per annum, and shall bear interest from the entire period of November 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012. (Continued) 3) The City Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended to the proper tax lists to the county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over the same manner as other municipal taxes Adopted this 27th day of Member, 2011 ATTEST: City Clerk Review for Administration: Mayor Interim City Manager 17 IC ni61ahonVg Report Date: Meeting Date: R FQk FST FOTO 00kNOI L 00NSID FR- 770N September 27, 2011 September 27, 2011 Agenda Section: III. F. ITEM DESCRIPTION: Resolution 11-057; Authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Anthony regarding Bicycle Parking Project. INTERIM MANAGER'S REVIEW: The City of St. Anthony was contacted by City of Minneapolis to participate in the Bike Walk Twin Cities Parking Program for 2011. This is a program that would allow St. Anthony to install 18 bike racks throughout the city. These bike racks would be funded through a NTP federal grant. In the cooperative agreement, it indicates the City of Minneapolis will act as the financial agent for the NTP federal grant. Our mission is to be a progressive and livable community and the bicycle parking program falls within our mission. --7� Jay Hartman Interim City Manager Attachments: • Letter of Intention to participate in the Bike Walk Twin Cities Bike Parking Program dated 19 April 2011 • BWTC Bike Parking Program Process Overview dated February 2011 • Proposed Allocation of Bike Walk Twin Cities Bike Parking Program Allocations for 2011 • Sample of Bike Parking Request Form • Cooperative Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and City of St. Anthony Regarding Bicycle Parking Project • Resolution 11-057; Authorizing the Mayor and Interim City Manager to Execute a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Anthony regarding Bicycle Parking Project. F:1Councii Meetings12011109272011\staff bke walk twin cities.doc- 1 - �ain tho�ny illa a t,% 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 Office: (612) 782-3301 • Fax: (612) 782-3302 - www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us 19 April 2011 Steve Clark Transit for Livable Communities Bike Walk Twin Cities 626 Selby Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 stevec ,tleminnesota.org The purpose of this letter is to inform Bike Walk Twin Cities that the City of Saint Anthony intends to participate in the Bike Walk Twin Cities Bike Parking Program for 2011. We have been made aware of the details of the program and intend to submit an application. We are in the process of completing the Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis and will submit that to Bike Walk Twin Cities as soon as possible. The City is in the process of determining the number of racks to be requested, and the locations that these racks will be installed. However, the City anticipates requesting approximately 18 racks at a cost of $150 each for a total requested amount of $2,700. This is equal to the amount of money allocated to the City of St. Anthony based on the program guidelines. The City understands that a vendor has not yet been chosen for the bike racks, so prices are subject to change. The City also understands that there is a possibility of receiving additional grant money beyond the $2,700 initially allocated to the City depending on requests made by other eligible communities. The City is still in process of determining if any additional requests will be made beyond the $2,700 original allocation. Thank You, 4 Jay Hartman Director of Public Works City of Saint Anthony 612-782-3314 jay.hai-tman@ci.saint-antliony.inn.us Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is safe and secure. 19 ti y A � a m H a K h 'p O C S H b 5 y fT a 6 a 7 P 0 O w Y N a CDCD v ,a w q m 3 °a q M � Pr o 2 a IE a w 43 Tl v C 18 3 o C P R Q W 6 n 9 D c D B § d r A y o a a 3 e Q a o v e a m s O £ 1p � e � °c a o t nI o5. v K P a o 'm ti a C a a m y @ r 3 o < E _ A 3 A _F � e � a � r s 3' 01 I 4 G � O 20 o U W x ;a v G) - n co -i 0 0 Q -- Q a m O CCD cr = a. = O d 5. C C< 3 v► m cu c 0 z 5' m a cr c o— o �, a m C ED � z m� - ED _ o R. m CD c4' ED0 m � r~ 0 ou o' W fig Com? -9 ffi E!9 N E!3 <0 64 <n CO 64 EA b9 Efl fzO 69 fV N f31 CSi N A W A N W 1� N ffi 4.7 A�-4 } O M CO -9 00 00 N ti N Cri Co m W O C7 O o 0 o CD CD 0 o O Q CD 0 0 0 w O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p o a o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0© 0 o 6 CD o C5, o Q A o O Co 0 o 0 CD CD O o� O 4 4 oo �•• '� W .� ao Ut oo w 9 0 A y CA Q Li, (14 �D LQ Qo ILA" N Ul W Q i3 O CT W O� A y 4 R 21 22 SAMPLE Bike Parking request form; locations, jurisdiction and rack types are for EXAMPLE ONLY Style C — Swerve rack 1.9" 34" 29,5" ~ `12: 32" Area =16.7 square feet 75" Transit for Livable Communities SAMPLE Bike Parking Request Form Page 6 . 23 May 10, 2011 COOPERATIVE, AGREEMENT BE I'WEEN THF. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND CITYWOUNTY OF St. Anthony REGARDING BICYCLE PARKING PROJECT THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of this day of , 2011 by and between the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, a Minnesota [tonic rule charter city ("Minneapolis"), and the CI"I'Y/COUN'fY OI-' St_. Anthony . a Minnesota city/comity ("City/County") WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the CITY/COUNTY 01-st. Anthony desires to locate and construct new bicycle parking; facilities pursuant to State Project 141-091-02.8 ("Project`) Within its boundaries and has been determined to be eligible for Federal Nott -Motorized "Transportation Pilot Project funds (hereby known as tl}e "NTP"); and WHEREAS, the CITY/COUNTY OF st . Anthonvrecogtiires and is relying oil the Cfl'Y OF MINNEAPOLIS to act as the financial agent for the receipt of NTP federal grant funds for this Pro}ect to streamline the reporting requirements oil behalf of the CITYICOUNTY OF St. Anthony___. WHEREAS, (lie CITY/COUNTY OF St. Anthony is aware of and understands MnD01' Agreement No. 97553, the Project Memorandum originally dated August lf, 2010 and that City of Minneapolis is also eligible participant for this Project and shall follow its provisions; WHEREAS, the CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS has agreed to act as (lie financial agent to receive approximately $75,000 in N`TP federal grant funds (MnlJOT Agreement No. 97553) to procure and furnish bike parking; facilities on bchail`ofcities and counties that are eligible to receive NTP grant funds; and WHEREAS, the CITY/COiJNTY OF st . Anthony miderstands that the NTP federal grant funds will be used to the procure and lurnish the bicycle parking facilities but will not be used for the Installation, operation or maintenance of said facilities, WHEREAS, the CITY/COUNTY OFst. __Anthony shall install and assume ownership, operation and maintenance of the bike parking facilities at its own cost according to the federal N"1'1' grant provisions and this Agrecment; NOW 'THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and mutual obligations of the City of Minneapolis and the CTTY/COUNT'Y of each of them represents, covenants and agrees with the other as follows. T . Minneapolis Obligations. Minneapolis through its Director of Public Works or his/her designee shall carry out its fiscal agent and Agreement reapons'tbiIiLies for the Project. Page 10*4 24 Minneapolis will advertise for bids to contract with a vendor to furnish (purchase and delivery) of specified bicycle parking facilities for each participating City/County. Minneapolis will be responsible for maintaining financial records consistent with federal grail( requirements to keep track of all federal expenses related to these funds. Minneapolis shall reimburse the approved vendor iii a timely mariner for any and all eligible federal costs, and submit documentation for reimbursement to MnDOT when prUject documentation is completed. 2. City/County Eligibility. Each City/County agrees to perform the following at their own cost prior to becoming eligible: a. Submit candidate locations for possible placement of bike parking facilities to Transit for Livable Communities (TI.Q. b. Provide the proper Minnesota Deparinient of Transportalion Right of Way Certificate No. I -A for installation locations, or obtain necessary easements to use private property to locate and grant public access to the respective bike parking facilities. c. Provide any environmental information on all proposed locations for a possible bike parking facility required by the Cultural Resources Unit of the Minnesota Deparimcnt of Transportation to assure compliance with al I applicable State and Federal environmental requirements. d. Agree to provide suitable locations and install the bike parking facilities including but not limited to, the construction of a bike parking, foundation. e. Agree to operate and maintain the bike parking facility for its useful life which for purposes of this Agreement is five (5) years. The end (late shall be December 31 fallowing the fifth year anniversary of the installation. Given a 2011 installation, the end date of the useful life shall be December 31, 2016; for a 2012 installation the end date is December 31, 2017; etc. Said operation and maintenance includes. but is not limited to, repair or replacement of the bicycle parking facilities due to graffiti or damage by ethers. City/County Obligations. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement and in conformance with the NTP federal grant and appropriate provisions of MnDC)T' Agreement 97553. each participating City/County atter approval of eligibility agrees to perforni the following activities at their own cost: a. Submit a site plan for each site(s) providing detailed information identified by the NTP Bike Barking Request template provided by TI.C. b. Obtain written approval of the bike parking facilities site plan(s) by TLC and MnDOT Office of Cultural Resources and State Aid prior to Minneapolis furnishing the bike parking facilities. Page vF4 25 c. Request bike parking facilities to be furnished through tine bid process administered by Minneapolis. The costs to furnish the bike parking facilities will be funded by a Federal grant awarded to Minneapolis. Minneapolis will furnish the bike parking facilities to each City/County upon the following conditions. i. Use its own local resources (staff and hands) to identify, prepare and install one or more sites for the placement of bike parking facilities within its boundaries. The federal MTP grant funds will not be used to reimburse the local resources. ii. Install all bike parking facilities no later than 30 days from receipt of bike parking facilities delivered from the vendor. iii. Provide to TLC and Minneapolis proper documentation of the installation of bike parking facilities in accordance with the approved site plan(s). Each CitylCounty will submit to TLC proper written and photo documentation after the bike parking facility has been purchased, delivered and installed. The installation and its financial documentation must be retained at each participating City/County for a length of tinge to allow for proper audit and close out of the Project. 4. Rcnnoval of Bike Parking; Facilities by City/County. If a City/County elects to move or remove a bike parking facility prior to the end of its useful life, the hollowing procedures shall be followed. A City/County May elect to move or remove the bike parking facility by declaring a greater public purpose for the property or for reasons related to protecting the public health, safety and welfare. This removal will not be granted based on lack of proper operation and maintenance duties required by each City/County. If the Move or removal is for temporary purposes related to adjacent construction or development purposes, defined as a period of time of less than one year, and the facility will be reinstalled at the same location, then no further action is needed. If the Move or removal of the bike parking facility will be for a period of time greater than one year, then thirty (30) days prior to its removal, the City/County must notify Minneapolis of its intent to remove the bike parking; facility. if the bike parking; facility will be moved to another location, then a relocation request and site plan shall be submitted to Minneapolis. Minneapolis will coordinate with TLC, if the NTP program still exists. Minneapolis shall either approve a new location within the City/County for the bike parking facility or request that the bike parking facility be returned to Minneapolis for installation elsewhere in the Twin Cities eligible NTP area. Minneapolis will respond to tine removal notification within the thirty (30) day notification period and notify the participating CitylCounty in writing of its decision. Each City/County will be responsible for the removal and delivery cost of the bike parking facility to Minneapolis, but will not be responsible for repayment of any NTP federal grant due to the Piigc 3 ol'.1 removal of the hike parking facility. Each City/County will relinquish all ownership and other rights for the removed bicycle facility related to this Agreement and this Ilicycle Parking Project. The above removal provisions will no longer be in effect after the five (5) year useful life as described in Section 2c. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands as of the day and year first above written. CITY/COUNTY OF St . Anthony By.. Its Mayor fly:Its City Manager Reviewed and approved By: City Attorney - -- -- For• the Cite of (V hmeapolis Approved: By: Public Works Department Approved as to I orni Ily: --- - Assistant City Attorney Countersigited: _ Finance Officer or Designee Page 4 or"i CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE RESOLUTION 11-057 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY REGARDING BICYCLE PARKING PROJECT BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mayor and Interim City Manager are authorized to sign a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Minneapolis and the City of St. Anthony regarding bicycle parking project. Adopted this 27th day of September, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk Review for Administration: Mayor Interim City Manager 27 01 J STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and City Council Jay Hartman, Interim City Manager From: Kim Moore -Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: September 27, 2011 Subject: Comprehensive Sign Plan Update Review — St. Anthony Village Shopping Center, 2900 Pentagon Drive Background. Greg Kozulla of Kozulla & Associates is an architect working with the group of owners of the St. Anthony Shopping Center. The owners are proposing to update the look of the Center and Mr. Kozulla is consulting with the owners in this project. He presented information to the Planning Commission in a public hearing on September 20, 2011. There was no one in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Kozulla showed a proposed color rendering of what the Shopping Center might look like, which included new signs for the tenants, should they request them. He also stated the reasons that the proposed updated Sign Design was increasing the allowable square footage per lineal foot of right-of-way frontage. The St. Anthony Village Shopping Center received approval by the City Council in 1.989 for its Sign Plan and updated it and received approval in 2003. Mr. Kozulla is before the City Council with a request to approve the proposed update to the information on the technical aspects of the Shopping Center's current comprehensive sign plan. The owners are plannalg to renovate the facade of the stores in the Center and will give the individual tenants the opportunity to install new signs, but as stated in the 2011 Comprehensive Sign Plan, the tenants will not be required to install new signs. The tenants can reinstall their current signs, which are proposed to be grandfathered in until the tenant wants to install a new sign. The Updated Sign Plan for the Shopping Center includes the following changes: • Allow storefronts to have 3 SF of sign area per lineal foot of frontage with the total signage not to exceed 15% of the total wall area. • Storefronts that exceed 60 feet in length can have a maximum of sign area of 300 SF of sign area but shall not exceed 15% of the total wall frontage. • Multiple rows of signage text shall be permitted and will be calculated individually but the total SF sign area shall not exceed 3 times the total lineal tenant frontage or 15% of the total area of the wall. • Signage logos will be included when calculating the maximum sign area. • All new tenant wall signage will be single wall mounted facing the public street. Raceway color will match the color of the building background on which the raceway is mounted. Profiles, letter size, font, color, etc., will require property owner approval in prior to submission to the City. • Color of channels and channel letter inserts and letter font shall be determined by tenant with selection open to all colors and fonts available by signage fabricators. • Channel letter size will range from 24" minimum letter size to 48" maximum letter size. • Owner shall have the option to operate lit signs, including pylon sign and future ground sign, such that there is no hourly operation restriction and will be able to operate on a 24/7 basis. C:\Docuntents and Settings\barb.sueiulocal SettingsUemporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\F4MUOQR9\09702011 Sign Plan st anthony shopping center stf rpt.doc09702011 Sign Plan st anthony shopping center stf rpt • Additional wall signs will be allowed to each tenants but the maximum additional wall signage 29 will be restricted to a maximum of 1.25 SF per lineal foot of wall frontage but not to exceed 15% of the total wall area. Mr. Kozulla also addresses other issues in his letter as the result of questions asked of him by the Planning Commissioners during the concept review regarding the planned renovation for the Shopping Center. I -le received many questions regarding the parking of the Shopping Center because of the Center's plan to do a mill and overlay. As he states in his letter, the Shopping Center has 86,564 gross square feet of floor area. The City Code requires that a commercial property have one (1) parking space per 300 SF of gross floor area, which gives the Center 294 parking spaces. The Code's requirement would be 288 for the Shopping Center. Mr. Kozulla states, however, due to the existing landscaped islands, the size of the spaces have ranged from 8.5' to 10' wide and 18' long. The City Code requires parking spaces to be at minimum 9' by 19'. Another issue that was important to the Planning Commission was site drainage. Mr. Kozulla stated that he has discussed with staff the City's requirements regarding storm water management. Given that the project for the parking lot involves a mill and overlay rather than a total reconstruction of the parking lot, it was determined that an underground storm water management system or specific site retention pond is not required at this time. Attachments. Letter regarding Facade and Site Improvements Project, • Proposed Comprehensive Sign Plan Update • §155.26; Shopping Centers and the Like; Plan Required • Original Comprehensive Sign Plan, 1989 and Update of Sign Plan, 20033 • Resolution 11-058; Approving the Proposed Comprehensive Sign Update for the St. Anthony Shopping Center, 2900 Pentagon Drive CADocuments and Settings\barb.suciu\t,ocal Settings\'rernporary Internet Filcs\Content.0uttook\F4MUOQR9\09702011 Sign Plan st antlrony shopping center stf rpt.doc0970201I Sign Plan st anthony shopping center stf rpt vim September 8, 2011 Ms. Kim Moore -Sykes Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony St. Anthony City Hall 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Re: Fapade and Site Improvement Project St. Anthony Shopping Center St. Anthony, MN Dear Ms. Moore -Sykes, W KOZULLA & ASSOCIATES, INC. 7851 METRO PARKWAY, SUITE '121 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 USA TEL 952-345-0258 FAX 952-854-9403 I am writing to you with respect to various Zoning Code and City process items we briefly discussed which may assist the City in upcoming reviews and approvals. Easements— Although there are easements associated with this property with either the City or the County, this project is not requesting any new easement or proposing amendment to any existing easement. Variances — This project is not requesting any variances. Parkin — It is the intent to mill and overlay and restripe the existing parking lot. Concrete curb & gutter landscape islands and parking lot lighting will remain in their current locations. The current Zoning Code requires parking spaces equating to 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. This property contains three buildings. The north building (46,052 s.f), the west building (39,388 s.f) and the Dairy Queen (1,124 st), totaling 86,564 gross square feet. A factor of 300 s.f. suggests 288 parking spaces required. The existing parking lot has a total of 294 spaces, thus meeting current quantity requirements. It is the intent of the proposed parking layout to replicate that of the existing striping layout; however accessible ramp locations and accessible space locations will differ from the existing layout. Space widths vary from 8.78' to 10' depending on the location. Existing striping is 18' long. Because the landscaped islands dimensionally lock the parking lot striping layout, the 18' space length must be maintained. If we find the 18' length can be increased, the design will accommodate. Setbacks — In some cases, this property has zero lot setbacks. It is my understanding that since this project is not a redevelopment project setback restrictions will be grandfathered. Comprehensive Sign Plan — This project submitted a Comprehensive Sign Plan to the City. This Sign Pian was briefly discussed at the August 16 Planning Commission, however not to detail. The City is currently reviewing the proposed property Sign Plan and scheduled to be on the September 20 Planning Commission agenda. Site Drainaee — Communications were held with the City and WSB & Associates with respect to storm water management. Given it is the intent to do a mill & overlay rather than a replacement, it was determined an underground storm water management system or specific site retention location not be required. Planning Commission and City Council — Given the project is not requesting any rezoning, variances, easements, etc., it is the opinion of this office the project is more of an administrative City process, however, this project's representatives are willing to work with City staff, Planning Commission and City Council as necessary. 31 Letter to Ms. Moore -Sykes September 8, 2011 Page 2 Plan Review and Building Permit -- It is the intention to submit the construction documents to the City for Plan Review upon completion of the design documents. Concurrent to the plan review timeframe, the project will be competitively bidding to multiple general contractors. The successful contractor shall apply and pay for the permit. If there are any items of concern which I failed to address above, please let me know and I will address them for you. Respectfully, Kozulla & Associates, loc. i J. Kozulla President 32 Comprehensive Sign Plan St. Anthony Shopping Center St. Anthony, MN August 2, 2011 St Anthony Shopping Center LLC ("Owner') proposes to conform to the City of St. Anthony's Sign Ordinance ("Ordinance") as amended within this document. Please let this document be considered St. Anthony Shopping Center's Comprehensive Sign Plan Tenant Signage The Comprehensive Sign Plan will provide for the following: 1. Allow signage on storefronts up to 60' in length to have 3 square feet per lineal foot of tenant frontage, however, the total signage area shall not exceed 15% of the total wall area frontage. 2. Allow signage on storefronts which exceed 60' in length to have 3 square feet per lineal foot of tenant frontage up to a maximum of 300 square feet, however, the total signage area shall not exceed 15% of the total wall area frontage. 3. Multiple rows of signage text shall be permitted and shall be calculated independently from the row above or below, but total lineal footage shall not exceed a factor of 3; i.e.: the square foot area of row 1 plus row 2 plus subsequent rows (if desired) shall not exceed 3 times that total tenant frontage or exceed 15% of the total wall area frontage. 4. Signage logos shall be included when calculating maximum signage area. 5. All new tenant wall signage will be single wall mounted aluminum channel letters with plastic inserts facing the public street. All new tenant signage will be backlit on painted raceways. Raceway color will match the color of the building background of which the raceway is mounted. The aluminum raceway profile, channel profile, letter size, font, color, etc., will require property owner approval prior to submission to the City. 6. All existing tenant signs regardless of size, font, color, raceway, etc., shall be grandfathered as acceptable should the existing signage be removed and reinstalled for any reason. 7. Color of channels, color of channel letter inserts and letter font shall be determined by tenant with selection open to all colors and fonts available by signage fabricators. 8. Maximum channel letter size will be 48" and minimum channel letter size will be 24". 9. Owner shall have the option to operate lit signs (including existing pylon or future ground signs) such that there is no hourly operation restriction and be able to operate on a 24/7 basis if desired. 10. Allow additional wall signs to each of the tenants, but, wall signage area allowed will be maintained at a maximum of 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of wall width yet not exceed 15% of the total wall area. Ground Signage (Site Signage) At the time of this Comprehensive Sign Plan execution, the Owner is not planning for new ground signs and chooses to keep the existing pylon/monument sign intact and make non- structural improvements to the sign. If the Owner would like to install Grounds Signs in the future it will coordinate with City staff. As part of the Comprehensive Sign Plan, the owner shall not be obligated to remove and/or replace the existing site signage or, if the owner determines existing site signage be removed, that it not be obligated to install new site signage, Given this property has two main vehicular entrances, the owner shall have the option to provide a future ground sign at the Kenzie Terrace entrance in addition to the Service Drive entrance. 34 Signs 130A .155.26 SHOPPING CENTERS AND THE LIKE; PLAN REQUIRED. Shopping centers/strip inall/professional building comprehensive sign plan. (A) A comprehensive sign plan must be provided for the whole of a shopping center, strip mall, or professional building development. (I3) This plan includes the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all signs, and must be submitted for preliminary plan approval. 2011 S-3 35 Signs 131 SSS, 2� (C) When a comprehensive sign plan is submitted, exceptions to the regulations of this chapter may be permitted if the sign areas and densities for the plan as a whole are in conformity with the intent of this chapter and if such exception results in an improved relationship between the various parts of the sign plan as determined by the City Council. (D) Comprehensive sign plans will be reviewed by the City Planning Commission which will forward a recommendation to the City Council on the appropriateness of the proposed sign plan. (Ord. 08-002, passed 4-22-2008) Penalty, see . 10.99 .1.55.27 GROUND SIGNS. (A) Ground signs are permitted in all districts but only to the extent permitted in this section and in the District Schedules set forth in . 155.29. (B) Permit application. A permit shall be applied for in accordance with . 155.25. (C) Height. A sign must not exceed 8 feet in height, including pedestal and any berming. (D) Surface Area: (1) Signs having 1 copy surface may have up to 34 square feet of surface area. (2) Signs having 2 or more copy surfaces may have up to 68 square feet for all surfaces. (3) Buildings with 2 or more businesses/tenants shall be allowed an additional 12 square feet for 2 or more copy surfaces, for a total of 80 square feet. (E) Landscaping. Ground signs must be landscaped. Landscaping may consist of shrubs, plants, rocks, or other decorative materials located around the pedestal. (F) Design and location: (1) Signs must maximize the use of natural materials in construction and should conform to the material design of the principal structure. (2) Signs must be located at least 15 feet from the curb line of any public street and cannot be placed within any street right-of-way or government easement. (3) The pedestal width of a ground sign must be at least equal to the sign width. (4) The principal structure of a parcel of land will be allowed one ground sign, regardless of the number of tenants in the structure. (Ord. 08-002, passed 4-22-2008) Penalty, see .10.99 SIGN CRITERIA FOR ST. ANTHONY SHOPPING CENTER GENERAL -The Sign Criteria as set forth herein, shall govern all outdoor signage to be used or displayed by the Tenants of "ST. Anthony Shopping Center". This will insure quality signing throughout the Center, while maintaining pleasing architectural standards and fairness to all tenants. Consideration will be given to allowing maximum flexibility of sign designs, individuality and creativity within the limits described below: Sign Criteria/Specifications-All Tenant signs must be designed, fabricated and installed to comply with the following criteria and specifications: 1. All Tenant signs must be individually illuminated neon channel letters with plastic translucent faces. Painted faces are not acceptable.. 2. Signs shall be limited to the wording necessary to describe the business trade name and/or logo, or logo type. Type styles will not be restricted, providing that they are legible, or within the size and limitations described below and meet the Lessor's approval. 3. Tenants will be allowed one (1) sign per storefront elevation. Elevations exceeding 60 Linear feet my have a second sign, also subject to Lessor's approval. 4. Unless unusual circumstances warrant special permission from the Lessor, the signs shall be limited to a single line, the total width of which shall not exceed 80% of the Tenant's store front width. The minimum letter height shall be 16". The minimum stroke width shall be 3 3/8". a. Letter Channels (Returns) -A1.1 letter returns shall be formed from aluminum in minimum thickness of .040 inches. Depth of channels shall be 6". All interior surfaces must have a splash coat of white for reflective purposes. Outside color will be Dupont 4296d-99 Cream. b. Letter Backs -Letter backs are to be made of aluminum of the same or greater thickness as that of the letter channels. Armorply, plymetal, foam, styrene, or any other inflammable material shall not be used under any circumstances. C. Letter Faces -All letter faces are to be pigmented Plexiglas, or equal acrylic sheets with a minimum thickness of .125 inches. d. Face Retainer -All letter faces must be attached to the letter channels using trimcap material, (1 inch) trim color gold. 36 37 6. Installation a. There are 3 or more rows of SGR-8961 extruded aluminum channels embedded in the background, 13" inches center to center running the full length of the sign area. b. The letters are to be attached to those channels using STD No. 33.10 snap -in clips furnished by the sign contractor. (Except for the letter I, all letters shall have a minimum of three clips, although more clips may be required, depending upon the size of the letter.) C. No letter attachment holes through the SGR-8961 channels and no welding to those= channels will be permitted. 7. Electrical Requirements a. Letters shall be internally illuminated with neon tubing, 15MM, or 13MM using 30 MA transformers for neon illuminated letters and 60 MA transformers for for Argon illuminated letters. b. The required transformers shall be mounted on the back side of. the fascia directly behind the letters and housed in a sheet metal box 7" X 7" X 18". The secondary wiring (GTO-15) running from the transformer to a letter will be contained in 1/2' Liquid tight flex conduit. That conduit shall be mechanically fastened to both the transformer box and the back to the letter track, by the use of: Appleton 1/2" Connectors, JIST-50 or Equal. No holes shall. be drilled in the SGR-8961 channel for any purpose except for running secondary wiring from the letter to the transformer. Those holes shall be 7/8 inches in diameter in order that, at a later date, they may be plugged with a standard snapi.n blank for 1/2 inch knock outs, Appleton ffS50 or equal. C. All wiring pertaining to the transformers, the SGR-8961 channels, and the letters shall be done in accordance with the latest edition Underwriters Laboratories Inc. Standards for Electric Signs and bear the required U.L. Labels. The use of P -K, or similar, neon electrode receptacles will not be permitted. d. No penetrations for attachments in the finished fascia surface will be permitted under any circumstances. 8. Approval Tenant shall submit two (2) drawings to the Lessor for written approval, prior to the fabrications of any sign. Lessor must also approve Tenant's Sign Contractor as having previously met the criteria for performing acceptable job standards over a period of not less than three years to assure compliance with our specifications. Any construction accomplished by the Tenant or Sign Contractor, without having the Lessor's written approval and not in compliance with these specifications will be done at the tenant's own risk. Tenants are free to select any Sign Contractor they choose, subject to Lessor's approval. Lessor suggests that Tenants select Sign Contractors willing to give acceptable warranties on their work. A. All. returns on letter's willbe painted with Cream Dupont 4296-D99. B. Trim cap will be 1" gold C. The acrylic face color of all letters shallbe one of the following: a. Red Rohm & Naas Plexiglas 241.5 b. Blue 2114 C. Orange 2119 d. Green 2030 D. Special clips STD No. 33.1.0 will be used to mount the letters. snap -in channel. covers STD. No. 33.20 will be used to meet Che Underwriters Laboratories requirements. Both of these items are manufactured by Signgraphics. ALL lil—TENSION CABELS SNAPPED INTO TOP GROOVE (TO ASSURE. TIGHT FRICTION FITTING, WRAP SPOTS APPROX. B" C. C. WITH ELF_C, TAPE) ALUM. LffTTr—R TRACK SGR- 8961 -- zTIIGH�TUFLEA CONDUIT z�Q CONNF_CTOR APPLETON ST -50 OR EQUAL " i,--- m -...-- INSTALL SNAP -IN . CLIP 6Y PLACING IT IN LOWER GROOVE AND THEN PULLING _ FORWARD AS SHOWN _¢-20x1., RD. HD. illl{li — RIBBED NGCtt M.S. �I' LONG SNAP—IN CLIP STD, NO.33,10 ALUM, FASCIA SNAP - IN CLIP DETAIL cP WASIIERS WIRING SNAP—IN COVER 5TD. NO. 33.20 USE -D -- BETWt_EN LETTEHR' AS NffDED TO COVER ALL HI—TENSION CALL F-5 COVER DETAIL .SIGN CRITERIA APPENDIX A ST ANTHONY SHOPPING -CENTER sfgngr phics DETAILS FOR LETTER TRACKS S6R-5961 ® PESIGNF_D FOR U.L. APPROVED WIRINQ 10011 MILLER RD, • P. O. BOX 38668 DALLAS, TEXAS 75238 - 5 CA L F PATE PWG, NO. 214/349-3131 - FULL SIZE �'-15-89 �N61366 NOLLV/n3-13 H919 J/4 v 40 E1- 3S7:1 ex -I-IV/,/\ 1171}19 :-"o sjwv-t }7on-j_d L�JOni 9bta NO S11>_'1 'l ),N In 'A.d07 1NHN31 3nia 99.4 "1V.L3W 'S 41 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2003 Page 3 1 Jerry Kellgren,-Building-Manager; reviewed the proposal with the Commission stating that the 2 proposed sign conforms to all of the City ordinance requirements except for the 15 -foot setback 3 from the property line. He explained that in order to avoid affecting traffic flow in and out of the 4 parking lot they would like to place the sign as close as possible to the east edge of the lot. He 5 stated that no further signage is planned adding that the former drive -up teller has been removed. 6 He clarified the lighting noting that they anticipate lighting to be from dusk to midnight. He 7 reviewed the proposed landscaping with the Commission noting that it would remain basically 8 unchanged except for the addition of small shrubs around the base of the sign. 10 Commissioner Hanson asked if any consideration has been given to moving the garbage 11 dumpster. Mr. Kellgren stated that they considered other locations for the dumpster and 12 explained that because there is no truck access to the back of the building the dumpster has to 13 remain in the currently proposed location. 14 15 Commissioner Tillman referenced the shrubs around the basin and asked if there would be a 16 border or step up from the asphalt. Mr. Kellgren clarified that it would step up from the asphalt 17 and that edging would be included around the base. 18 19 Chair Melsha asked if they would have the landscaping plan available by spring. Mr. Kellgren 20 stated that the landscaping plan would be ready for review by Spring 2004. 21 22 Vice Chair Stille asked Ms. Hall if a deposit would be required. Ms. Hall stated that a deposit is 23 an option adding that a building permit is required before anything can begin. She reviewed the 24 permit process with the Commission. 25 26 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. 27 28 Commissioner Tillman asked if issuance of the permit could be made contingent upon presenting 29 a landscaping plan for final review. Chair Melsha agreed and asked how it would be addressed. 30 Ms. Hall stated that the applicant would be required to present the landscaping plan at the time 31 they apply for the permit. She assured the Commission that the City has not had very many 32 problems with this kind of application. 33 34 Motion by Commissioner Tillman, second by Commissioner Stromgren, to recommend approval 35 of the 3 -foot variance request of the Northgate sign due to the triangular shape of the lot; that it 36 does not alter the character of the area and that a landscaping plan is submitted for review and 37 completed in Spring 2004. 38 39 Motion carried unanimously. 40 41 rChair St. Anthonv Shopping Center, LLC, 2900 Pentagon Drive Amend Comprehensive Sign 42Plan. 43 44 Melsha opened the Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m. 45 42 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2003 Page 4 1 Susan Hall stated that on August 19, 2003 the Planning Commission held the initial public 2 hearing for the St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC Comprehensive Sign Plan amendment 3 request and that on August 26, 2003 the City Council referred the issue back to the Planning 4 Commission for further evaluation. She explained that the Council felt that it did not match the 5 intention and that they would like a more consistent look to the original sign plan. 7 Jim Crockrow, Co -Owner -St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, stated that the owners of the 8 businesses, Subway and Bumper to Bumper, and Dan Lee were available for questions. He 9 stated that they understand City Council's request to review and modify the original request, 10 noting that the Planning Commission recommended approval at the August 2003 meeting. He 11 asked the Planning Commission for their assistance in determining what should be sent back to 12 Council. He stated that they could continue to table the amendment request to work further on 13 the design criteria and suggested that the two tenants.in question, Subway and Bumper to 14 Bumper, could request a variance for their sign designs. He explained that both tenants are 15 known nationwide and that the signs are very important to their recognition. He reviewed the 16 signage with the Commission stating that they would like to give their national tenants the 17 consistency that is known nationwide. He stated that as owners, they would like to modify the 18 sign criteria so that they would be able to attract and bring in more national tenants. He stated 19 that this would provide better services to the residents. 20 21 Mr. Crockrow explained that the shopping center sign criteria is old and should be updated. The 22 Commission agreed that the sign criteria should be revised for both current and future tenants. 23 Everyone agreed that they want to attract national tenants noting that they do not object to the 24 national sign criteria. The Commission agreed that they would like to be able to consider 25 something newer and more modern to the times. 26 27 Mr. Crockrow stated that presently it is very difficult to determine where a specific tenant is 28 located in the center because all of the signs look the same. The Commission agreed that the 29 sign criteria should be revised adding that it would be an improvement for both the tenants and 30 the City. 31 32 Chair Melsha stated that he would prefer an approach with non -variance criteria. He noted that 33 one of the Council members suggested a more stylized sign with individualized lettering and/or a 34 smaller logo sign. He noted that the Council has stated that the signage be more consistent with 35 the shopping center. 36 37 Owner of Bumper to Bumper provided the Commission with air example of the current sign that 38 is used nationwide. He explained that the logo is very important. He reviewed the size and 39 coloring with the Commission and emphasized that they need to include the two logos on the 40 sign. Chair Melsha stated that they could have a logo as long as it is a consistent. 41 42 Mr. Crockrow clarified that what the Planning Commission recommended for approval was sent 43 to the City Council for review. Chair Melsha confirmed that it was. 44 NN 10 11 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 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Stromgren asked for clarification of the size of the logo. Owner — Bumper to Bumper clarified that each logo is 3x24 and reviewed the proposed signage with the Commission. Commissioner Hanson asked for clarification of the total length of the frontage. Owner -Bumper to Bumper clarified that the frontage is 40 -feet. Chair Melsha suggested that they formulate the amendment with their feedback in mind come back for a review with the Commission. Commissioner Hanson suggested that they consider yellow letters and reconsider the logo. He stated that they should only allow one logo and that they should only go 60% of the frontage, which would be 24 -feet. Commissioner Stromgren asked if the current language prohibits sign boxes. Mr. Crockrow stated that the original language does not allow for anything other than lettering. He stated that they are willing to the limit the lettering and reviewed with the Commission. Commissioner Tillman asked if this type of issue is common in other shopping centers. Mr. Crockrow stated that he is not aware of other centers that have such restrictive language, He stated that the center is a bit dated as far as signage and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that he has reviewed signage at other centers noting that many allow backlit letters in a variety of colors that also include logos. He explained that what they want is for each sign to visible and stand out to that it becomes more recognizable. Commissioner Tillman stated that she drove past the Quarry and noticed that each store had their own sign, noting that it looks fine. She clarified that the important issue is that the signs tie together yet allow recognition. She suggested that they try to find another way to determine a unified look that is not based on the lettering. Mr. Crockrow agreed stating that they are separated enough so that the different colors and logos would be much more compatible. Chair Melsha stated that' he would prefer not to negotiate significant amendments at this time and suggested that they come back with an amended, restated sign plan for further review. He asked if this would be reasonable for the tenants. Mr. Crockrow explained that Subway wants to get started adding that Subway is scheduled to meet with the City Council next week. He stated that they should add a few words to the draft to clarify the signage noting that everything they have is in the agreement. He explained that they need assistance from the Commission in clarifying what they could take to Council next week. Commissioner Tillman expressed concerns stating that she does not think it would pass as it is stated right now. Vice Chair Stille agreed stating that this is where the discussion should take place regarding modification to the signage plan. A. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Crockrow clarified his understanding that the Planning Commission would prefer that the sign language be revised and presented to the Planning Commission for further review at next month's meeting and then present to City Council. Chair Melsha confirmed that this would be their preference. 6 Vice Chair Stille asked if Subway could use a temporary sign until everything has been 7 approved. Wally Fumanda, Subway, explained that his Development Agent has stated that they 8 are having issues with the sign noting that he does not know, in depth, what has transpired. He 9 stated that he would discuss this further with his Development Agent adding that he would like a 10 swift resolution to this issue because the opening is planned for October 1, 2003. 11 12 Chair Melsha asked if there is anything they could do, on a short-term basis, until a decision is 13 made. Mr. Furnanda stated that he would go forward with whatever is recommended. 14 15 Commissioner Hanson asked if the Subway Corporation would prevent them from opening 16 without the proper signage. Mr. Fumanda confirmed that this could be a possibility and 17 reviewed his concerns with the Commission. 18 19 Vice Chair Stille clarified that the only issue with the Subway sign is the color. Mr. Crockrow 20 confirmed that color is the issue. 21 22 Chair Melsha suggested including an amendment to add yellow and revise to include 23 dimensions. 24 25 Mr. Crockrow suggested including a revision that the logos would be no larger than 3x6 feet 26 adding that everything else is covered. 27 28 Commissioner Hoska suggested that no more than two logo signs be allowed. Mr. Crockrow 29 explained that Bumper to Bumper is unique adding that he cannot imagine any other tenant 30 requiring two logos. 31 32 Commissioner Hanson stated that there is another national tenant that is considering a location in 33 the center and that this issue will come before them again. He stated that he sees two issues, 34 adding yellow versus red and the size of the sign. He asked what portion of the 60% would be 35 allowed for a logo sign. 36 37 Chair Melsha stated one 3x6 logo sign is reasonable adding that two logo signs are too much. 38 He stated that a public hearing is not the place to negotiate these issues. Commissioner Tillman 39 agreed stating that the dimensions and percentages should be worked out. 40 41 Owner -Bumper to Bumper stated that they are ok with waiting until next month on the signage. 42 43 Mr. Crockrow asked the Commission if they could accommodate Subway due to their meeting 44 with City Council next week. He suggested that they work on the rest of the signage criteria for 45 review next month. He explained that the Subway sign is uniform nationwide and 46 acknowledged the need to conform to city ordinance. He acknowledged that the City of St. 45 10 11 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 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2003 Page 7 Anthony is a community that does not want national signage and that they want to respect that concern. Chair Melsha suggested that they work with Staff to formulate the criteria. Chair Melsha closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 p.m. Chair Melsha clarified that they are recommending an amendment to the sign plan that would allow the color yellow. Ms. Hall clarified the lettering is more stylized. Motion by Commissioner Hanson, second by Chair Melsha, to recommend adding the color yellow to the current sign plan with St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC and make note that all other criteria will follow and that the amendment maintains the spirit and intent for the Comprehensive Sign Plan for St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, 2900 Pentagon Drive. 8.3 Motion carried unanimously. Preliminary Development Plan and Preliminary Plat for Entire Project Area and Approve the Final Development Plan and Final Plat for the Retail Portion, Chair Melsha opened the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. Susan Hall stated Apache Redevelopment, LLC, has submitted their Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to the City. She explained that the Apache Redevelopment, LLC development team consists of Pratt Ordway Properties, Robert Muir Company, Dominium, Inc. and Hunt Associates. She stated that the City's Planning Consultant, DSU, has reviewed the PUD application and found the application to be complete. She stated that John Shardlow of DSU is present to review the PUD application with the Commission. Mr. Shardlow provided a summary presentation of the planning report to the Commission. He provided them with a basic orientation noting that the entire development team is present for questions. He stated that it is important that everyone acknowledges that it would be rezoned to a PUD that consists of two main steps, the preliminary development plan approval and the final development plan approval. He clarified that the application under discussion is for both the preliminary development approval for the entire development and the final development plan approval for the retail portion. He stated that a binding contract is recorded with the County and explained that they are custom designing the zoning to fit this property. He stated that when the plan is approved it would then be incorporated, by reference, into the agreement. He further stated that the conditionls of approval would become binding going forward. He explained that a PUD gives the City more discretion and the ability to require more information regarding the design framework. He reviewed the general property description with Commission noting that there are existing land uses that have not been included. He noted that the project consists of land uses that include urban flats and additional freestanding retail buildings. He stated that the first phase includes the Apache Plaza Mall, St. Anthony Village Liquor, Tires Plus, Apache City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 47 September 23, 2003 j Page 4 hardship requirement was met due to the triangular shape of the of. Staff also recommended 2 approval of the variance request, as the applicant had prese vsd a ground sign that was 3 aesthetically pkasjng and met City ordinance require s. Staff suggested the following 4 condition: Prior to builing permit approval, the icant would submit a landscaping plan for 5 the ground sign. 7 Councilmember Sparks asked if signa or the office front had been discussed. Commissioner 8 Stille responded he understood non as planned. It was noted the only sign planned was the 9 one from the street. 10 11 Commissioner Stille sta it was hard to determine the locatibn ;of the sign by the provided 12 sketch. He explain e sign would be approximately two feet from..the curb. 13 `,...� 14 Motion by uncilmember Thuesen to adopt Resolution 03-080 approving a v ance for 15 Northgate Condominium Owner's Association at 2500 Highway 88 with stated coli ition. 16 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 19 2. Resolution 03-073, re: St Anthony Shopping Center, for 2900 Pentagon Drive: 20 amend Comprehensive Sign_Plan. 21 Planning Commissioner Stille noted the St. Anthony Shopping Center recently signed leases 22 with two tenants that have regional and national scope: Bumper to Bumper and Subway. He explained, according to the petitioner, the current Comprehensive Sign Plan did not provide sufficient flexibility of sign design to accommodate regional and national tenants that had logo 25 signage for all their locations. 26 27 Commissioner Stille stated the St. Anthony Planning Commission considered a request by the 28 owners of the St. Anthony Shopping Center for an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan 29 at a public hearing held on August 19, 2003, 30 31 Commissioner Stille indicated the petitioner's amendment request was to add the following to 32 the Plan: 33 1. The signage is in substantial conformance with tenant's internal sign criteria and 34 specifications. 35 2. The total width of the sign shall not exceed 80 percent of the tenant's storefront width. 36 3. The sign height shall be a minimum of 16 inches and maximum of 40 inches. 37 4. Sign color or colors are those found on typical retail signage in the Minneapolis/St. Paul 38 area. 39 5. Tenant submits two drawings for lessor's written approval prior to fabrication of the 40 signs. 41 6. Lessor approves tenant's sign contractor. 42 43 Commissioner Stille stated the St. Anthony Planning Commission recommended Council 44 approval of the following addition to the Plan at a public hearing held on September 16, 2003: Lettering may be yellow in color. 47 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes September 23, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Stille indicated the Planning Commission did not feel a public hearing was a 2 good place to work out the details. He explained the deviation was considered due to sympathy 3 toward the new Subway tenant; therefore, the outcome was the Commission recommended 4 approval of adding yellow as a permitted color to the Plan. He added the Commission would 5 look at the Bumper -to -Bumper issues at a later date. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 4� 25 26 27 28 29 VI. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Motion by Councilmember Sparks to adopt Resolution 03-073 approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Sign Plan for the St. Anthony Stopping Center. Discussion: Councilmember Horst asked if the only item added was the color. Commissioner Stille responded that was correct. Councilmember Horst asked if item 1 listed in the resolution meant the petitioner was planning future signs to be in the same style as previous signs. Commissioner Stille responded it was his understanding that the Subway sign was going to conform to the Plan in every way except the color. Councilmember Horst asked if the Subway logo would be internally lit separate letters. Commissioner Stille responded that was his understanding. Councilmember Horst indicated he did not have a problem with the request if only the color was being changed. Councilmember Sparks asked if the existing language was used and the only change was allowing yellow. Mr. Stille responded he believed that was correct. ►I\ 7i7_: m 0 Motion carried unanimously. Planning Commissioner Stille noted the Planning Com ton held a public hearing September 16, 2003, to discuss the Village at St. Anthm ony, projec e indicated the impact of the project was discussed, along with such issues as parking- fordable housing, traffic flow, lighting, landscaping, drainage, signage, price points projeet,name. He stated the end result was to approve the preliminary development pl and preliminaryy plat for the entire project and the final plan and final plat for the retai ortion of the project. He added the Planning Commission also recommended approval of solution 03-01 regarding modificaation to redevelopment plan and tax increment f—cm lan for Northwest Quadrant redevelopment. He noted the Commission findings re the proposed development of parcels within conformed to the • y's comprehensive plan. Stille introduced John Shardlow of DSU. TIF district M Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 5 Chair "sha agreed noting that the resident's comments have been duly noted. he is com able with the plan as presented. i stated that Mr. Gibbs dis eed with the proposed landscaping stating that he would'prefer fencing. He expressed cone s regarding safety of the neighborhood adding that e was also concerned about additional p estrian traffic. Mr. Gavic agreed adding that is concerned about the additional pedestria traffic through their yards. Commissioner Stromgre asked Mr. Gavic and Mr. Gibbs ere the traffic would come from. Mr. Gavic stated that they e concerned about additio al/edestrian traffic coming from the streets and surrounding area. Chair Melsha noted the Residents quest for fen ng adding that he felt that the landscaping was the better choice for the area. He no d the linof vision stating that the taller trees would provide a level of privacy. The Reside is a owledged the line of vision adding that there is also an added concern with respect to a p al increase in pedestrian traffic through their yards. The Residents expressed concer s r arding the safety in the area in addition to privacy issues. Chair Tillman noted that the Ian scaping plan cal for deciduous trees, which would eventually be very large trees, as tall as uilding. She asked i they were asking for a fence only or a fence with the landscaping. he expressed concerns t t there would not be enough room for both. The Residents ask e if it would be possible to hav both. Chair Melsha suggested having the developer review t plans to determine what could be eluded as a barrier and leave the final decision to the veloper's discretion. He stated that he comfortable with the proposal as it is. Vice Chair Stille tated that in the long run, landscaping would be ore appealing. He noted that the conse us of the residents is that they would prefer fencing. Ms. Sulliv n asked who would be responsible for maintaining the fencin nd the landscaping. Chair M sha stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer. Mot n by Chair Melsha, second by Vice Chair Stille, to recommend approval o the PUD as pr ented, as amended with the additional 38 parking stalls, conditional on the ap oval and r viewal of plans by the City Attorney, Condition of the Replat and with the conditi that the andscape plan, as proposed, can be amended at the discretion of the applicant in lieu o the south end of the property to provide a fence. IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 9.1 Susan Hall stated as requested at the September 16"' Planning Commission meeting, the St. Anthony Shopping Center has presented sign criteria to address logo signage for their DR 2 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2i 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 e- 4, 50 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 21, 2003 Page 6 comprehensive sign plan. She explained this is unfinished business from the September 16`h Public Hearing in the applicant's efforts to update their comprehensive sign plan. She noted the Shopping Center has been attending the Planning Commission and City Council meetings since August to address the need and implementation of logo signs. She noted the St. Anthony Shopping Center recently signed leases with two tenants that have regional and national scope, Bumper to Bumper and Subway. She explained that the current comprehensive sign plan does not provide sufficient flexibility of sign design to accommodate regional and national tenants that have logo signage for all locations. She reviewed stating that at the last Planning Commission meeting it was recommended to the City Council that yellow lettering be added into the comprehensive sign plan for approval to allow Subway to put up their sign adding that it was decided that the remaining issues surrounding the logos would be addressed at a future meeting once the applicant presented the City with proposed language. She reviewed the proposed language for the logo signage with the Commission. She noted several other issues that should be addressed stating that the Subway logo sign also includes white lettering and suggested that this color should be included into the sign criteria. She noted the temporary banner above the Bumper to Bumper appears to take up more than it's share of the wall and asked that this be reviewed. She noted that the El Ray Bakery has had a temporary sign for quite some time and that they have not pulled a sign permit yet. She asked what their plans are for permanent signage. She explained that the question for the Planning Commission is whether the proposed language for logo signage addresses the issues raised over the last couple of months. She suggested that the Planning Commission ensure that the parameters are in place to ensure consistency. Commissioner Tillman asked if specified height and percentage of space used in front was clarified in the proposal. Commissioner Stromgren noted the City Council objections had to do with the size. Ms. Hall suggested clarifying the size of the signage with Bumper to Bumper. Jim Crockeril Co -Owner -St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC stated that he touched base with eleven of the fifteen tenants to determine whether there were any issues with the proposed language. He stated that no one had any issues. He reviewed, noting that 50% or less would be backlit signs adding that they are quite attractive. Chair Melsha asked if they expected any other large tenants besides Bumper to Bumper or Subway that could have logo issues. Mr. Crockeril clarified that typically the tenants are local merchants who do not have logos to display adding that he does not expect any other large tenants. Vice Chair Stille asked Mr. Crockeril if he brought any examples for the Commission to review. Mr. Crockeril stated that the examples had been provided in a previous package and that he did not have anything that has changed. Mr. Crockeril reviewed the comments from City Council regarding the backlighting in addition to Council concerns that the sign is inconsistent with the rest of the tenant. He explained that 50 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 51 October 21, 2003 Page 7 1 due to Council concerns Bumper to Bumper has agreed, as a compromise, to the channel -style 2 lettering with their logo located on each side and reviewed the changes with the Commission. 4 Commissioner Stromgren suggested including language that clarifies that no single or double 5 logo sign could be larger than 25%. Mr. Crockeril stated that this would be consistent with 6 Bumper to Bumper's expectation and reviewed with the Commission. 3 Commissioner Tillman stated that there is nothing in the language that includes the color white and suggested including it within the language changes. Chair Melsha stated that the addressed 10 the colors at the last meeting and reviewed the discussion with the Commission. 11 12 Chair Tillman noted that the approved colors were red and blue stating that they agreed to 13 include yellow. She suggested adding white for clarification. Mr. Crockeril stated that he would 14 be satisfied with the five colors, red, blue, orange, green and yellow. Chair Melsha agreed that 15 they should include white on the list of acceptable colors. 16 17 Vice Chair Stille asked Mr. Crockeril how important it is for Bumper to Bumper to have 18 repetition of the logo on each side of the sign. Mr. Crockeril explained that it is very important 19 to have the logo at each side, as it is consistent with the design they use nationwide. 20 21 Chair Melsha suggested incorporating into the language that a sign could not have more than two logos at 25% each in size and that it is not to exceed 20 square feet. 2., 24 Mr. Crockeril assured the Commission that they do not expect any other large tenants. 25 26 Commissioner Steeves stated that he is very comfortable with Chair Melsha and Commissioner 27 Stromgren's suggestion of 25% for each logo with the 20 square foot restriction. 28 29 Vice Chair Stille explained that they are trying to establish continuity within the community. He 30 referenced the El Way Bakery sign and asked when they plan to be in compliance. Mr. 31 Crockeril assured the Commission stating that he would follow up with the Bakery adding that 32 they would be in compliance very soon. 33 34 Commissioner Stromgren asked if there is a time limit for temporary signs in the ordinance. Mr. 35 Crockeril explained that it is outlined in the lease and that it is up to them to enforce compliance. 36 Ms. Hall clarified that they have a 30 -day time limit for temporary signs. She reviewed the sign 37 criteria with the Commission and suggested monitoring the timeframe for Bumper to Bumper. 38 39 Motion by Commissioner Stromgren, second by Commissioner Hoska to recommend 40 approval of the amendment of the St Anthony Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan, 41 dated October 2, 2003 with the following changes: 1. That the proposed language be 42 amended to read up to two logo signs per tenant be allowed. 2. That each logo sign cannot 43 exceed 25% of the surface face area and that each logo sign cannot exceed 20 square feet in 4 " certain space area. 3. Add language that any temporary signage must also comply with the 4_ maximum area sign criteria. 4. To amend to allow white lettering, consistent in color with 46 I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 52 2 October 21, 2003 3 Page 8 5 the Subway sign. 5. The amendment of approval is to be subject to all tenants being in 6 compliance with the sign plan and all other applicable City ordinances regarding signage. 7 8 Motion carried unanimously 9 10 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 11 12 10.1 Adult Day Care in Industrial Zoning District 13 14 Susan Hall stated that Michael Wagner, owner of the professional building located at 2 4 15 Anthony. Lane North, has approached City Staff regarding an adult day care center to e located 16 in his building. She explained that the building is located in a light industrial zoning district and 17 that Mr. Wagner is requesting an amendment to the ordinance to allow the adult }dycare in a 18 light industrial'location. She explained that a potential client who has an interest in the building 19 has approached Mr. Wagner. She explained that currently, adult day care is � p`ermitted in the 20 Commercial zoning district as a permitted conditional use. She stated that 1�1r. Wagner and his 21 client have asked Staff if this request could be expedited. She reviewed With the Commission 22 the process Mr. Wagner would take with the Commission/City CounciLfo advance his request. 23 24 Michael Wagner, Owner, 2924 Anthony Lane North explained tha�the building is located in a 25 light industrial area, specifically the old Pratt -Whitney building. /Iqe stated that the building was built in 1982 and includes handicapped access points. He expizined that the proposed use for the 21 building would be very compatible adding that it would not affect current property values as it 28 provides a service to the community. He asked the Com 'ssion to consider and approve his 29 request for the amendment. 30 31 Commissioner Stromgren asked for clarification on e location of the building. Mr. Wagner 32 clarified that the building is located at County Ro d C and Anthony Lane. He noted the location 33 on the City map for the Commission. 34 35 Chair Melsha explained that they have allo d adult day care in the commercial zoning district 36 because they also allow child daycare. He urther explained that his concern, if they approve the 37 zoning change, is that it would affect ev industrial zoned property. He acknowledged that the 38 service could be compatible for this pa icular location adding that it may not be conducive in 39 another area. 40 41 Mr. Wagner explained that his cl' in looks for specific types of buildings for.this type of service 42 and reviewed their criteria with re Commission. He further explained that the. State would also 43 be involved in the review pro ss and clarified State restrictions for the Commission. 44 45 Melsha asked Ms. Hall w t the next step in the process would be. Ms. Hall explai ed that they 46 would schedule a Publi Tearing with the Planning Commission for an amendment the 47 ordinance. She stated at if the Planning Commission is in agreement with the pro sal Mr. a ^ Wagner is then requ sting a Public Hearing to be scheduled in November with the intent to apply 4. for a Conditional se Permit. 50 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes 53 October 28, 2003 Page 4 Motion by Councilmember Sparks, seconded b unclmember Faust, to adopt Ordinance 2 #2003-015, an Ordinance Amending Chapt 6 oft City Code, being the Zoning and Land 3 Use Chapter of the City of St. Anthony as rt relates to Au n Woods H. A Motion carried unanimously. 2. 9 Planning Commissioner Steeves stated at the September 16`h Planning Commission meeting, 10 the St. Anthony Shopping Center has presented sign criteria to address logo signage for their 11 comprehensive sign plan. This was unfinished business from the September 16`h Public 12 Hearing in the applicant's efforts to update their comprehensive sign plan. The St. Anthony 13 Shopping Center recently signed leases with two tenants that have regional and national 14 scope, Bumper to Bumper and Subway. The current comprehensive sign plan does not 15 provide sufficient flexibility of sign design to accommodate regional and national tenants 16 that have logo signage for all locations. Commissioner Steeves noted that at the last 17 Planning Commission meeting, it was recommended to the City Council that yellow 18 lettering be added into the comprehensive sign plan for approval to allow Subway to put up 19 their sign adding that it was decided that the remaining issues surrounding the logos would 20 be addressed at a future meeting once the applicant presented the City with proposed 21 language. 22 ? Commissioner Steeves stated the Planning Commission recommends approval of the 24 amendment of the St Anthony Center Sign Criteria dated October 2, 2003 with the following 25 changes: 26 27 1. That the proposed language be amended to read up to two logo signs per tenant be 28 allowed. 29 2. That each logo sign cannot exceed 25% of the surface face area and that each logo sign 30 cannot exceed 20 square feet in certain space area. 31 3. Add language that any temporary signage must also comply with the maximum area sign 32 criteria. 33 4. To amend to allow white lettering, consistent in color with the Subway sign. 34 35 5. The amendment of approval is to be subject to all tenants being in compliance with the 36 sign plan and all other applicable ordinances regarding signage. 37 38 Commissioner Steeves stated the idea was that most tenants do not require two logo face signs, 39 but if they do they would be limited by the amount of square footage they are allowed and by the 40 size of each sign. He stated the goal was to accomplish an amendment that would also allow the 41 national tenant to move forward but without creating a shift in the signage that is allowed at the 42 shopping center. 43 44 Motion by Councilmember Faust, seconded by Councilmember Thuesen, to adopt Resolution d' 03-094, re: St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, 2900 Pentagon Drive; amendment to 4. Comprehensive Sign Plan with stated conditions. 47 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 28, 2003 Page 5 Discussion: Councilmember Horst indicated no examples were provided of the proposed signage and he asked if any were available. Commissioner Steeves reviewed a proposed signage plan for Bumper to Bumper Auto Parts with the Council. Councilmember Horst indicated he did not understand the need for the second company logo on the sign. Jim Crockerii Co -Owner St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLP, stated the representative present at the last meeting indicated this was very important to the tenant occupying this space and would need to be reviewed at a corporate level. Councilmember Horst noted he was not happy with the proposal and stated if it was a deal buster, he would wrestle with the proposed sign style and proposed amendment change. Councilmember Faust asked if this solution would tailor to future tenants. Commissioner Steeves stated the Resolution was crafted to allow this tenant to comply but would not allow future tenants to create more than two company logo signs or 25% of the size of the total sign. Councilmember Sparks indicated she was concerned about this tenant and if the window signage would continue once the overhead sign was in place. City Manager Morrison indicated temporary window signs have been placed at this site until the overhead signs were approved. Councilmember Faust indicated this Resolution would clean up the site tremendously by removing the window signs and by creating a uniform overhead sign. Mayor Hodson indicated he was comfortable with the Resolution as stated and thanked the Commission for their comprehensive work on the Sign Plan. Councilmember Sparks indicated she was not comfortable with the two company logo signs. Councilmember Horst noted this would be a different sign from what all other members in the center have. He indicated he did not care for the design but would go with the Planning Commissions recommendation. Councilmember Faust asked what the vacancy rate was at this time. Mr. Crockeril indicated he was about 95% full at this time. Ayes — 3. Nays — 2(Ilorst and Sparks). Motion carried. Commissioner Steeves reviewed info tion on a proposed ad daycare in a light industrial area in the City. Commissioner Steeves rep ed the propertowner of a light industrial property has been approached for the purchase of Xwas an adult daycare. He noted this was not a permitted use in light industrial andning or an amendment to the light industrial use within the City. He indicatty of concerns at a State and local level at this time.Commissioner Steevesformation was being gathered at this time from the property owner and pqqjzfftial daycare person` I3e asked for Council to provide the Commission with input ata ure time. 54 55 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 11-058 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN UPDATE FOR THE ST. ANTHONY SHOPPING CENTER, 2.900 PENTAGON DRIVE WHEREAS, Mr. Greg Kozulla, Kozulla & Associates, representing the owners of the St. Anthony Shopping Center presented a proposed Comprehensive Sign Update to the Planning Commission at a public hearing on September 20, 2011; and WHEREAS, Mr. Kozulla reported that the St. Anthony Shopping Center is also being planned for renovation and updating the Comprehensive Sign Plan is part of the renovation plans; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance, §155.26, requires that a comprehensive sign plan must be provided for the whole shopping center, which was originally approved in 1989 which subsequent updates approved in 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Sign Update at a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on September 20, 2011 meeting. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of St. Anthony hereby approves the proposed 2011 Comprehensive Sign Update, as presented by Greg Kozulla, Kozulla & Associates. Adopted this 27th day of September, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk Review for Administration: Mayor Interim City Manager CADocuments and Settings\barb.sueiuTocal Settings\Tempomy Internet Files\Content.Outiook\I�4MUOQR9\09272011 Shopping Center Comp Sign Plan Update.doc STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and City Council Interim City Manager Jay Hamman From: Kim Moore -Sykes, Assistant: City Manager Date: September 27, 2011 Subject: 3408 Maplewood Drive – Variance to Front Yard Setback for Porch and Stoop Requested Action: Date Application Received: Property Address: Zoning District: 60 -Day Expires: Waiver Letter Required: Future Action: Council Consideration and Action August 18, 2011 3408 Maplewood Drive R-1 October 17, 2011 Yes Date Sent: — No Background: Carri Sandwick of Albertsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd., met with Staff to discuss the possibility of obtaining an encroachment variance for her clients, the owners of 3408 Maplewood Drive, who would like to add a front porch to their home. Ms. Sandwick and the property owners, Barbara and Culley Johnson, attended a public hearing on their request with the Planning Commission on September 20, 2011. Ms. Sandwick reported that an addition of a front porch to their home is part of a renovation project that they are planning for the front of their home. Their garage extends beyond the front of the house by approximately 10 feet. The home owners are proposing to fill in that space from the side of the garage to the end of the house with a 9' 11.5" x 30' (approx. 300SF) enclosed screen porch. The owners are proposing to add a front stoop and steps to the proposed front porch. This structure will extend seven feet, nine and a half inches (79.5") into the front yard setback, which for this property is determined to be 33.4' (the average of 30.2' and 36.6', adjacent front yard depths of neighboring properties, §152.039 DIMENSIONAL REGULATIONS, (E)). The zoning code allows encroachments for steps, stoops and porches that extend no more than 5 feet into the front yard setback (§152.177 ENCROACHMENTS IN YARDS, (D)). As presented on the site plans, a proposed stoop with steps encroaches approximately 2' 9.5" feet into the front yard setback. The property owners are requesting a 2' 9.5" variance to the 5' encroachment limit as stated in City Ordinance §152.177. 092720113408 Maplewood Drive Encroachment Variance council staff report 56 57 Analysis: The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties (City Code §152.245(C)). Mr. and Mrs. Johnson have stated in their written statement that their plight is completely due to the fact that the footprint of the house was not designed by them nor altered to its current configuration by them. The house was constructed in 1960, prior to the codification of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the house was purchased by the current owners in 2007. The Johnsons are interested in improving their property by updating the curb appeal of the front of their home by adding a front porch. The front porch would also support the City's goal of being a livable community as it would 'invite and enhance neighborly relationships and a "Village feel". Mr. and Mrs. Johnson state that they understand the intention of the City's Ordinance that allows a 5' encroachment is meant to provide for a reasonably sized front porch, stoop and steps but in their situation, without the variance, it would only allow 2'2" for a stoops with steps. The owners feel that having only 2' 2" available for a landing and steeps creates both a practical difficulty in providing access and egress to their porch and a safety issue of not having a full landing to their front porch, thereby severely limiting the use of their proposed improvement. In order to accomplish only a 5' encroachment of the stoop and steps into the front yard would mean that the property owners would have to reduce the size of the proposed front porch from nearly 10' to less than T, which they feel significantly limits their intent of having a useable living space in the front of their home. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson feel that the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. They stated that adding a front porch to the front of their home would definitely not detract from the neighborhood, but rather would contribute to the overall openness and friendliness of the community. Economic considerations are not the only basis for the practical difficulties as previously described. The variance would surely allow them to add value to their home but also to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff received no comments regarding this project. Attachments: • Application and Written Statement • Site Map with Building Elevations • Photographs of Site • Architectural Drawings of Front Porch • Resolution 11-059; Approval for a Variance to front: yard setback for steps and stoop for 3408 Maplewood Drive NLi 092720113408 Maplewood Drive Encroachment Variance council staff report 3301 Silver Lake Road • St. Anthony, MN 55418 • (p) 612.782.3301 ' (f) 612.782.3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.mri.us VARIANCE APPLICATION PEE: $60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts A. GENERAL DATA APPLICANT'S NAME: The above-named individual, firm, or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following information for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls as found in the City of St. Anthony's Zoning Code. Contact Person Last First '3.020pk4 Day Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. SubjectPropertyAddress: _340 pip-= mapr� i2 p 2. — Specify the nature of the project for which a variance is sought: "('b AL44W QP1IJGR / FA2E FRdrrt it .it .n 1n1&11 ,p...q .w... ....wrap C....own..I ww a. Min .moi Lb—IIALA 1 ¢✓L c+ff i&H Cn 3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance: PW SPE IknMt*SP ,NH'7t-OfMVF 4. Explain in a written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for the applicant, preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Please address each of these items in your written statement. (City Code §152.245(C)) 5. Check all additional supporting documents which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: (✓Site Plan* ❑ Topographic Map &"Other (specify) TLNtJS. ELEA441&4S 4 Q ftrVS.. * Required Can attach additional pages to fully explain proposal and need for variance. I HEREBY CERTIFY WITH MY SIGNATURE THAT ALL DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ry Signa e pplicant Date EXPIRATION Within one (1) year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially started the construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration requested as part of the approval, said variance shall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted. A letter to extend the approval of a variance shall be submitted to the Assistant City Manager not les than thirty (30) days before the expiration of said approval. Such letter shall state the fact for the request, showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance, and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one (1) year. (Rev. July 2011) F:\2011 website\Variance Amendment Application July 2011.doc Christine L. Alleensson AIA / Todd P. Hansen AIA W Albertson Hansen Ave.South Suit ltd. Variance , Minn Lpolis, . South Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Application tel 612 823 0233 / tax 612 823 4950 Date: August 18, 2011 Project: Johnson Porch Subject: Description of Variance Request Dear Ms.'s and Sirs, Albertsson Hansen Architecture f.td has been engaged to apply for this variance on behalf of Barbara and Cully Johnson, Owners of the properly at 3408 Maplewood Drive, St. Anthony Village and we respectfully submit this request for your consideration. Description of Request: To allow an Increase from 5'0" to 7-9 1 /2" for permitted encroachments In front yard setback. Description of Project: the Owners would like to enhance the curb appeal of their home by adding a screened porch on the north (or street side) of their home. Their goal is also to engage the use of their front yard and to foster community connections, as front porches can. The existing house is a colonial with a concrete stoop and steps to grade. There is no cover over the stoop to provide a sheltered entry for visitors to the house. There is also no place to gather in the front yard. From Variance Application: 1. & 2. See Variance Application 3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance: As stated above the goal of the project is to provide a gathering spot for the Owners of the house and to engage the neighborhood. The setback for this house is determined by the average depth of the front yards of the two adjacent properties. The front yard setback is therefore 33.4' (the average of 30.2' and 36.6'). the zoning code allows encroachments for "Steps, stoops, and porches which extend into the front yard not more than 5'-0"." The proposed design continues a line set by the existing garage which encroaches on the current front yard setback by 2'-10". The porch is an extension of this line with a wood stoop and stairs to grade extending from the front line of the porch 5'-0". The proposed variance is in the spirit of the Ordinance by requesting that the Owners be allowed to extend stoops and stairs out from the front plane of their house 5'-0". Allrnsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd. 2800 Lyndole Avenue South Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Page I of 2 M 4. Explain in a written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would a. Cause practical difficulties for the applicant: We understand the intention of the Ordinance to allow homeowners to provide a reasonably sized front stoop & landing outside the front surface of their house, defined as a 5'-0" encroachment into the front yard setback. In this instance, due to the front yard setback being established 2'-10" behind the front surface of the house at the garage, the Owner only has 2'-2" in front of the front surface of the house, rather than the 5'-0" as described in the Ordinance. Having only 2'-2" available for a landing and steps beyond the front plane of the house represents a practical difficulty in that the Owners would like the safety of a full landing outside their screened door. The depth of the porch, when building to the front plane of the house provides for a reasonable depth porch (9'-1" on interior.) Placing a screened porch, stairs and stoop within the permitted encroachment would result in a next to unusable width of 7-0" for the porch thus severely limiting the use of this space. b. Prevent the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner: The proposed design results in a reasonable use of the property. The proposed design addresses these issues by providing a sheltered entry way, a place to gather in the front yard. The proposed design is to extend the screen porch across the front facade of the building from the northeast comer of the garage to the east side of the house. The depth of the screened porch is determined by the depth of the garage. This creates a rectangular plan for the house, and highlights the importance of the front door. Pulling the porch to be even with the garage will help to create a welcoming facade for the neighbors and an engaging, active, area for the family to gather. This addition to the house also changes the hierarchy by not having the garage be the most forward projecting feature of the house. A stoop and stairs to grade are included in the scope of the project. The stoop and stairs will be wood, Instead of concrete, to provide an impervious surloce. c. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner: The footprint of the house has not been altered by the Owners of the house, and therefore they have not created the circumstances relating to the request for this variance. It is likely that the house was in place before the Ordinance was adopted, which would account for the garage encroaching on the front yard setback. d. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: If granted, the project will not alter the essential character of the locality, but will positively contribute to the neighborhood. e. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties: Economic considerations are not the basis of the practical difficulties described above. the granting of this variance will add to the value of the home and the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for considering this application for variance. Sincerely, Corri Sandwick Albcrlsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd. 2800 Lyndale Avenue South Suite 220 Minneapolis, MN 55408 Page 2 of 2 m Ib g— 3"�"16126230233 son RemodelingMaplewood Drive, 9 9 thony Village, MN 55418ndnI, Avenue S 11, Suite 220 M'inneaFalis, MN 55408 • Io, 612 823 4950 61 N C S rn r O I 3 G O O D O D b s Johnson Remodeling > 3408 Maplewood Drive, St. Anthony Village, MN 55418 r Oi 28001yndole Menne Sarah, Svile 220 Mlnnea{rolls, MN 5540B = 1e1612 823 0233 fax 612 823 4950 62 a z Iz 63 Johnson Remodeling W 3408 Maplewood Drive, Si. Anthony Village, MN 55418 i x �' iBS lNie n.�na'v S.z1}ONw.w'JAa, nav SSW' HLi]0])0)lI U��i1 B'[J n154 ..xxtlo��mun<c.n 63 aha qyo "H6 Johnson Remodeling u. 3408 Maplewood Drive, St Anthony Village MN 554 w - � RBW yr.1.!/..ruk ka ]M ffanv/Ar MV SSJOB NDIZ 0]J OtJ] b��fi tl'el .OIO • n.w do J.wve w.m 65 M \a [! a y � g S@§\ ra HUM !! :, �—�----- - [ (J*) \ ra Johnson Remodeling B+y uDrive, «i Village, =se !! :, �—�----- - M 42.. Y`c _ is s le � M s le � rim r sf l 4 S: M 67 t - x is 4i Z's`- rrc r - e" M CITY OF ST. ANTHONY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 11-059 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR STEPS AND STOOP FOR 3408 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE NE WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for September 20, 2011 and commenced at 7:25 PM to consider the property owners' request for a 2'10"variance to the front yard setback for the construction of stoop and steps; and WHEREAS, the applicants presented a site plan showing the proposed addition of a front porch and stoops with steps; and WHEREAS, the applicants will require a variance of 2'9.5" variance to the City's front yard setback; and WHEREAS, the City Ordinance does allow a 5' eneroaclnnent into the front yard for stoops, steps, and porches, but the construction of a front porch with stoops and stairs does not allow for a reasonably sized porch with steps and a stoop within the allowed 5' encroachment. WHEREAS, the applicants provided a written statement as required by MN statutes describing their reasons why they have a unique situation with their property, that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties in reasonably using their property, that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance, that the circumstances causing the practical difficulties were not created by the owners, that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood, that the economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties; and WHEREAS, staff received no opposition to the applicants' proposed front porch with a stoop and steps; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the 2'9.5" variance to the front yard setback; and BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does hereby agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does hereby approve the 2'95' variance to the front yard setback for 3408 Maplewood NE. Adopted this 270, day of September, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for administration: Mayor Interim City Manager .1 70 S'T'AFF REPORT To: Mayor and City Council Interim City Manager Jay Hartman From: Kim Moore -Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: September 27, 2011 Subject: Garage Setback Variance Request — 2610 - 3001 Avenue NE Requested Action: Date Application Received Property Address: Zoning District: 60 -Day Expires: Waiver Letter Required: Future Action: Council Action on Garage Setback Permit August 24, 2011 2610 — 30`" Avenue NE R-1 October 24, 2011. N A Date Sent: No Background. The property owners, Glenn and Traci Bergum, applied for a Garage Setback Permit to replace an existing 455 SF garage. They propose to build a 768 SF double car garage five feet off the rear property line and five feet off the west property line, which is 240 SF larger than the maximum garage size of 528 SF as stipulated in the City Ordinance. The proposed garage is planned to be significantly larger than the 528 SF allowed by the Code for a private garages in the rear yard (152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (F). The Bergums reported at their public hearing that they really need a garage larger than is allowed by the Garage Setback Permit because their house is small and need the extra room that a larger garage can provide in storage and space for Mrs,. Bergum s hobbies. Staff reported that constructing a garage this large increases lot coverage by impervious surface to 37.5% while the City's lot coverage limitation is 35% for a 9,000 SF interior residential lot (152.039 DIMENTIONAL REGULATIONS, (H)). The Bergum's lot is 70' by 134' or 9,380 SF. Based on the site plan Staff received as part of the application submittal, a garage of 528 SF gives them 34.9% lot coverage. Mr. Mark Van Patter indicated that his calculations show the current lot coverage is 37.8 % and is at 41 % with the proposed garage. Mr. Bergum cited other properties in the neighborhood that have larger garages and maintains that their proposed garage would not be out of character for the neighborhood. The Planning Commission advised that by removing excess impervious surfaces, such as a sidewalk and a portion of the driveway and using more pervious pavers instead of cement, they may get their project within 35% lot coverage limitation. They advised that the Bergums need to reduce the number of variances they need for their project. Mr. Van FAStaff Reports12011%0927201 l 2610 30th garage permit Council stf rpt.doc09272011 2610 30th garage permit Council stf rpt.doc advised that the Bergums need to reduce the number of variances they need for their project. Mr. Van 71 Patter indicated that reducing the amount of impervious surfaces was doable and that he would provide Staff with the revised site plans for the City Council's consideration. Staff has received one comment against the Bergum's proposed garage. 'They oppose the project because they feel that the garage is too large and does not fit the essential characteristic of the neighborhood. Attachments. • Property Owner's Application • Revised Site Plans for Existing and Proposed • Elevations of the Proposed Garage and Existing Garage • Property Owner's Written Statement • Letter of Opposition from Property Owners behind Subject Property • Photos Resolution 11-060 C9Documents and Settings\barb.suciu\Local SeltingsUcinporuy Internet Files\Content.Outlook\l'4MUOQR9\09272011 2610 30th garage permit Council stf rpt,doc09272011 2610 30th garage permit Council stf rpt 3301 Silver Lake Road • St. Anthony, MN 55418 • (p) 612.782.3301 (f) 612.782.3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.nui.us A. GENERAL DATA APPLICANT'S NAME: VARIANCE APPLICATION FEE: $60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts LG.G 72 The above-named individual, firm, or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following information for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls as found in the City of St. Anthony's Zoning Code. fin;.; -If, VA-f'i PA-rl-ay- ✓ #A'k 6fe2-36:?-7629 Contact Person Last Name First Day Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION Ave - 2, Subject Property Address: Ave— �O�t� 2. Specify the nature of the project for, which a variance is sought: /t��14G� Aek:ovG �eosL*^ C ego o as 6fn�tG �a cs11r t 1 c_ 3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance: 4. Explain in a written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for the applicant, preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Please address each of these items in your written statement. (City Code §152.245(C)) 5. Check all additional supporting documents which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: ❑ Site Plan* ❑ Topographic Map "Required ❑ Other (specify) Can attach additional pages to fully explain proposal and need forvariance. I HEREBY CERTIFY WITH MY SIGNATURE THAT ALL DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. Signature of Applicant Date EXPIRATION Within one (1) year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially started the construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration requested as part of the approval, said variance shall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted. A letter to extend the approval of a variance shall be submitted to the Assistant City Manager not les than thirty (30) days before the expiration of said approval. Such letter shall state the fact for the request, showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance, and it shall state the additional time being requested to began the proposed construction. The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one (1) year. (Rev. July 2011) R\2011 website\Variance Amendment Application July 2011.doc w � w z .� p o crurPl E r 5 E o 0 O S ��•q $PR'd� �� � Nl�ll 3333 ul IN ']AV HIH v� 73 \/ƒ\\\/f � / / _ - m# IN ']AV HtO\ CD 74 CD 75 All R 1011 CD 75 August 24, 2011 Subject: Construction of Garage at 2610 30" Ave NE Owners: Glenn and Traci Bergum Contractor: Mark Van Patter— MVP Construction Project Description: IN This project entails the demolition of a 1949 vintage 2 -stall garage whose dimensions are roughly 20' X 22'. The garage is leaning because no wall sheathing was used beneath the siding on the original structure giving it less rigidity than a modern construction. Age and other unknown factors have produced a distinct lean to the westerly direction. The owners wish to replace the garage with a new 2 -stall garage with an upper "bonus room" which will be used for scrapbooking and other creative and wholesome crafts. It is not clear that any variances are needed since the proposed structure (24' X 32') falls within the square footage allowances for a garage in an R-1 District. With the given dimensions the square footage totals 768 square feet. On pg. 50 of the St. Anthony Village code it is stated that an accessory building (garage) cannot be larger than the principal structure or be more than 1000 square feet. This criteria is met. The current garage (approx. 455 sq. ft) sits within the setback zone at the rear of the property as it is approximately two feet from the rear property line. The new garage will be moved out of the setback zone (five feet from rear and side property lines) and will therefore be in compliance with city code. In section 152.176 (B) the minimum setback for an accessory building is defined to be three feet from any property line. In section 152.176 (F) it is stated that a garage that covers no more than 528 sq. ft. may be located within the side and/or rear setbacks if a permit is issued. This appears to be a square footage limitation for garages within the setback zone and does not apply to the subject project as the new structure will be moved out of the setback zones. The homeowner's interpretation is that variances are not required either for setback or square footage. Despite the opinion of the owner that the proposed project meets the above city codes, it is my understanding that a variance was requested for either setback or square footage. Therefore, to support any application for variances the following evidence is provided, per section 152.245 (C) (2) of the city code. Strict enforcement of the city code causes practical difficulties because; (a) the property will simply include a 2 -stall garage to replace the current 2 -stall garage with the addition of a bonus room above the garage. The height of the new garage will be less than the height of the house and will therefore comply with city code. (b) The plight of the homeowner is entirely due to the fact that the original garage was located within the rear setback. The new plans however rectify this by providing five feet of buffer to the rear and side property lines. (c) If any variance is granted, the new structure will not alter the essential character of the locality, and in fact will enhance the neighborhood by removal of the old structure. (d) There are no economic considerations that factored into the proposed structure which resulted in any of the practical difficulties addressed here. Respectfully, ILi't �6144�7 Glenn R. Bergum, PE September 12, 2011 Ms. Kim Moore Sykes, Assistant City Manager Planning Commission Members City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 RE: Variance Request -- 2610 — 3011i Avenue NF. Dear Ms. Sykes and Planning Commissioners: We are unable to attend the September 20, 2011, Planning Commission, and request our comments be submitted for review regarding the Garage Setback permit and Variance request for the Oversized Garage project at 2610 — 3011i Avenue NE. We are located directly behind the property at 2610 -- 30111 Avenue, and the proposed oversized garage structure will impact our property, and ask the Planning Commission to consider our comments when considering the variance. It appears unusual a variance request would be considered in the absence of a detailed building plan, and does not allow resident opportunity to review plan and design specifics to determine potential impacts to neighboring properties. In addition, a site plan survey performed by a professional surveyor licensed by the State of Minnesota should be required before issuance of a building permit to determine correct lot lines. The existing garage is now located 2.5 feet from our fence lure and resides inside the five foot rear yard setback area (see attached photos). We request further clarification of City Code Section 152.176 (P) Garage Setback Permit in regards to the maximum allowable size of the garage and what is the rear yard setback requirement. City Code Section 152.039 (1-1) requires a maximum allowed lot coverage of 35%. This variance request changes the lot coverage and raises the issue of how will the additional impervious surface coverage exacerbate recent and historical drainage issues to adjacent properties. In addition, the plan submitted noted the use of pervious surface pavers. Does the use of pervious surface pavers apply to the calculation of the total lot coverage? If not, has it been proven that pervious surface pavers do not contribute to additional drainage? An oversized garage structure's design and materials play a role. City Code Section 152.176 (E) requires structures "must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the design and general appearance of the principle structure". Without a design plan it is questionable whether the plan achieves this requirement. With such a large structure, it seem appropriate to require the mass of the building be broken -up with enhanced siding and windows on all sides, and require landscaping and maintaining of landscaping behind the structure facing our property. This proposed oversized structure is uncharacteristic and oversized in comparison to neighboring structures where adjacent residential lots measure only 59-60 feet wide. Allowing oversized/large structures on smaller lots change the characteristics and charm of St. Anthony neighborhoods. We appreciate your consideration of our comments, and ask the Commission to respect and maintain the rear yard setback, maintain 35% maximum lot coverage, address the drainage concerns, require a detailed building plan and professional survey performed by a surveyor licensed by the State of Minnesota to determine accurate lots lines before building permit issuance, and require enhanced garage design and landscape features to lessen the impact of the oversized structure as it relates to our property. Thank you for your consideration, Jeff and Jan Rosemeyer 2609 West Armour Terrace St. Anthony, MN 55418 612-789-3278 77 I W. ` ! \� /»\ / y ' \.\: ~ d �..Sd -�._;� «© ' «f. � } \\� � /\� � . � % /�\�»��~�rbl� 2 % .��:ƒ»: _ a�t »:\� � � ƒ \/� - I W. i r T.1 4 S ULI Sip it. NO IN CITY OF ST. ANTHONY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 11-060 RESOLUTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO THE 528 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR A GARAGE SETBACK PERMT FOR 2610 - 30TH AVENUE NE WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for September 20, 2011 and commenced at 7:08 PM to consider the property owners' request for a Garage Setback Permit; and WHEREAS, the applicants presented a plan build a seven hundred sixty-eight (768) square foot garage in the rear setback of their property at 261.0 - 30th Avenue NE; and are requesting a two hundred forty (240) foot variance to the 528 SF maximum for garages in the rear or side setbacks as described Subd.152.176 (F); and WHEREAS, the applicants also require a variance of 2.8% to the City's lot coverage ordinance limit of 35% for residential lots of 9,000 SF or more; and WHEREAS, the applicants provided a written statement as required by MN statutes describing their reasons why they have a unique situation with their property, that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties in reasonably using their property, that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance, that the circumstances causing the practical difficulties were not created by the owners, that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood, that the economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties; and WHEREAS, staff received a letter from a neighbor opposing the applicants' proposed garage plan as too large and not characteristic of the locality; and WFIEREAS, the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed two hundred forty (240) foot variance to the 528 SF maximum garage size as specified in the Garage Setback Permit on the condition that the applicants reduce the amount of lot coverage to 35%; and WHEREAS, staff received a revised site plan showing the reduction of the lot coverage amount from 37.8% to the required 35%. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does hereby agree with the Planning Commissions recommendation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does hereby approve the two hundred forty (240) foot variance to the 528 SF maximum garage size as specified in the Garage Setback Permit for 2610 - 30th Avenue NE. Adopted this 27th day of September, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for administration: Mayor Interim City Manager ME CITY OF ST. ANTHONY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 11-060 RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR A GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT AND VARIANCE TO THE 528 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR A GARAGE SETBACK PERMT FOR 2610 - 30111 AVENUE NE WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission for September 20, 2011 and commenced at 7:08 PM to consider the property owners' request for a Garage Setback Permit; and WHEREAS, the applicants presented a plan build a seven hundred sixty-eight (768) square foot garage in the rear setback of their property at 2610 - 30th Avenue NE; and are requesting a two hundred forty (240) foot variance to the 528 SF maximum for garages in the rear or side setbacks as described Subd. 1.52.176 (F); and WHEREAS, the applicants also require a variance of 2.8% to the City's lot coverage ordinance Inuit of 35% for residential lots of 9,000 SF or more; and WHEREAS, the applicants provided a written statement as required by MN statutes describing their reasons why they have a unique situation with their property, that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties in reasonably using their property, that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance, that the circumstances causing the practical difficulties were not created by the owners, that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential characteristics of the neighborhood, that the economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties; and WHEREAS, staff received a letter from a neighbor opposing the applicants' proposed garage plan as too large and not characteristic of the locality; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissioners voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed two hundred forty (240) foot variance to the 528 SF maximum garage size as specified in the Garage Setback Permit on the condition that the applicants reduce the amount of lot coverage to 35%; and WHEREAS, staff received a revised site plan showing the reduction of the lot coverage amount from 37.8% to the required 35%. BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does not hereby agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony does hereby deny the two hundred forty (240) foot variance to the 528 SF maximum garage size as specified in the Garage Setback Permit for 2610 - 30th Avenue NE. Adopted this 27th day of September, 2011. ATTEST: City Clerk Reviewed for administration: Mayor Interim City Manager IN FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS SelVemGer 27, 2011 Meeting Meeting Staff Items/Issues Date Type present Third Quarter Goals Update City Council October 11 Regular City Engineer Update - July 16 Flood City Engineer Approve Election Judges for the Municipal General Election Interim City Manager Planning Items from October 18 City Council October 25 Regular Adopt GASB rm. Standards - Consent Agenda Interim City Manager PC Representative Presentation from Ramsey County Attorney John Choi City Council November 8 Regular Approve Plans &Specifications, and Order Advertisement for Interim City Manager 8 pm Bids for the 2012 Street & Utility Improvement project City Engineer November 22 Regular Planning Items from November I5 City Council Interim City Manager December 13 Regular Adopting the 2012 Tax Levy and Budget City Council City Manager I Appointments to arks & planning Commission Finance Director 2012 1Iousel:eepin� Issues Designation of Mayor Pro Tem Financial Transactions regarding City Financial Accounts Official Depository for City Funds City Council January 10 Regular Legal Newspaper City Manager Mayor -Outside organizations Council members - Outside organizations Rules of Conduct for City Council meetings Elected Official Travel Policy January 24 Regular Planning Items fi-om January 17 City Council City Manager HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE September 27, 2011 Call to Order. Roll Call. I. Approval of September 27, 2011, H.R.A. Agenda. II. Consent Agenda. These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. A. Approve August 23, 2011, H.R.A. Minutes. (pp. 1 — 2) B. Claims. (p. 3) III. Public Hearings. IV. General Policy of Business of the H.R.A. V. Staff Reports. VI. H.R.A. Commissioner Comments. VII. Information and Announcements. VIII. Adjournment. RkCouncil Meetings12011\0927201 RHRA agenda.doc 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 HRA REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 3 AUGUST 23, 2011 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 Chair Faust called the meeting to order at 7:56 p.m. 7 8 ROLL CALL. 9 Commissioners present: Chair Faust; Commissioners Gray, Jenson, and Roth. 10 Commissioners absent: Commissioner Stille. 11 Also Present: Interim Executive Director Jay Hartman. 12 13 14 I. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 23, 2011 HRA MEETING AGENDA. 15 16 Motion by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Jenson, to approve the August 23, 17 2011 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda as presented. 18 19 Motion carried 4-0. 20 21 1I. CONSENT AGENDA. 22 23 Motion by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Jenson, to approve the Consent 24 Agenda, which consisted of: 25 26 A. H.R.A. Meeting Minutes of July, 26, 2011; and 27 B. Claims. 28 29 Motion carried 4-0. 30 31 III. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 32 33 None. 34 35 IV. GENERAL POLICY OF BUSINESS OF THE H.R.A. 36 37 None. 38 39 V. STAFF REPORTS 40 41 None. 42 43 VI. H.R.A. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS 44 45 None. 46 47 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 48 49 None. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Meeting Minutes August 23, 2011 Page 2 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Faust adjourned the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Hughes TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTFS'T: City Clerk Chair Pa �S w w 3 W O9 z m 0 0 0 x N 000 OM www a �� O www W w O Y � n F1 x � Mn G w n Oro u]wtxi] m �R'ro 3 IN wx w or nr Nn Y y M w n m H n 'G F n A N W F,. N rt N n iK NNN ,T, Utw Ut M www n www x coo N N N www y u� iP 0 V] ,K1H C 0 F'UIN JZ j O O N OOO NQ O O w � z cow vow L' C Y n F+ W 3