Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL AGENDA 04182001 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII IIID VIII IIII IIII iomiz Box: 19 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2000 Document: PL AGENDA 04182001 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES APRIL 18, 2000 4 5 CALL TO ORDER. 6 The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m. 7 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 8 Chair Bergstrom invited the Commission and audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 9 ROLL CALL. 10 Present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas, and 11 Stille. 12 Commissioners absent: Vice Chair Melsha, Commissioner Hatch 13 Also present: Spencer A. Isom, Assistant City Manager. • 14 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE 15 FOLLOWING ITEMS: 16 None. I. PUBLIC INPUT. Chair Bergstrom invited anyone from the. audience to provide general input to the Planning .9 Commission. Hearing no response, Bergstrom moved forward with the agenda. 20 II. MINUTES. 21 Motion by Stille,second by Hanson,to approve the March 21,2000 Planning Commission meeting 22 minutes as presented. 23 Motion carried unanimously. 24 III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL. 25 1. April 18, 2000 5:30-7:00 p.m. City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting Agenda 26 with City's Strategic Planning Report. No action required. 27 IV. REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWALS OF APPLICATIONS. . 28 None. 29 V. NEW APPLICATIONS. 30 1. PUBLIC HEARING. A Petition for rezoning amendment to zoning ordinance regarding the 31 property known as Apache Plaza. a. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. Request for a comprehensive plan 46 amendment to accommodate an Office/High-tech designation; 4 b. ZONING MAP CHANGE. Petition for changing the zoning of the Apache Plaza 35 from C-1 to a C-2 District; Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 2 1 C. CODE AMENDMENT. Request to amend the City(zoning)code for a change from 2 C-1 Commercial to a C-2 Commercial which would allow a change from.strictly retail uses 3 to office, commercial; warehouse, and light industrial uses. 4 Chair Bergstrom opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 p.m. and requested a report from Staff. 5 Assistant City Manager Isom reported that the members of the Planning Commission,City Council, 6 Staff,and John Shardlow,of Dahlgren,Shardlow,Uban("DSU")took a bus tour hosted by Hillcrest 7 Development. The tour visited a few of Hillcrest's recent commercial and light industrial 8 developments. 9 Hillcrest Development has requested the following (1) an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 10 to accommodate an Office/High-tech designation; (2) a petition for new zoning district for the 11 Apache Property from a C-1 Commercial to a C-2 commercial. This would allow a change from 12 strictly retail use to office,commercial,warehouse and light industrial uses;and(3)an amendment 13 to the zoning ordinance for a change from C-1 to a C-2 district. 14 Subsequent to the tour, the Planning Commission, Staff and the consultant from DSU held a 15 . worksession to discuss the route that would be in the City's best interest. It was determined that the tbest avenue would.be to:(1)amend the City's Comprehensive Plan to accommodate an Office/high- 17 tech designation; (2)change the City Code to allow for Planned Unit Development(PUD); and(3) 18 ask Hillcrest to proceed with the development of Apache Plaza under the newly created PUD 19 process. 20 Chair Bergstrom introduced and welcomed Anthony Gleekel, attorney for Hillcrest Development, 21 and Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development. 22 Mr. Gleekel began by explaining that initially an application had been made to redesignate the area 23 for zoning. The application proposed new zoning for a C-2 district,which application was drafted 24 prior to the City's planner being retained. This application included the opportunity for office, 25 warehouse,and light industrial. However,during discussions with DSU(planner),it was determined .26 that a better approach was needed and he was present to address that issue. It was his intention to 27 simultaneously process the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,Petition for new zoning district, and 28 amendment to zoning ordinance under the new approach recommended by the City's planner. 29 Mr. Gleekel felt that the concept would be acceptable to his client (Hillcrest Development) and 30 would continue to provide the opportunity needed and the flexibility required in order to successfully 31 redevelop Apache Plaza. . 32 Mr. Gleekel continued by stating that a letter would be forthcoming announcing the agreed-upon • withdrawal, and a guide plan would be drafted. 34 Bergstrom expressed his belief that a PUD would meet Hillcrest Development's needs as well as the 35 City's and essentially benefit all parties. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 3 1 Bergstrom thanked Mr. Gleekel for his information and presentation. 2 In connection with the Comprehensive PlanAmendment,Isom stated that the amendment would be 3 submitted and the action would be that the Planning Commission could make a motion to proceed 4 with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 5 To offer additional information, Chair Bergstrom introduced'Phil Carlson, Dahlgren, Shardlow, . 6 Uban (DSU), who was present for John Shardlow. 7 Mr. Carlson stated that he is a senior planner at DSU and was present to provide additional in- 8 formation regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment, zoning changes, and Planned Unit 9 Developments (PUDs) in John Shardlow's absence. 10 Mr. Carlson presented a zoning map which depicted specific boundaries and zoning requirements 11 and proposals. Mr. Carlson reviewed the map in detail with the Commission and answered ques- 12 tions. Additionally, Mr. Carlson directed the Commission's attention to a document entitled 13 "Proposed Comprehensive Plan Text Change"wherein the proposed changes were highlighted and 14 reviewed. In part, this document stated that a proposal had been brought to the City to convert the former mall(Apache Plaza)to a high-tech office space. In response to changing market conditions, �. the Cityintends to guide the:mall under a new land use plan category, Commercial Mixed Use,in 7 order to facilitate redevelopment. 18 Stille inquired about the stages for change and approval of the Comprehensive Plan. 19 Bergstrom and Mr. Carlson together explained the process of approval of the Comprehensive Plan, 20 which included a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council, and a good- 21 faith approval by the City Council contingent upon approval by the Metropolitan Council. 22 Ken Soley,2817 Silver Lake,inquired how the PUD arrangement would affect the zoning of the area 23 depicted on the map. Mr.Carlson explained that mixed uses would be allowed in the area,and there 24 were many possibilities which fall into that mixed use. He reassured Mr.Soley that the allowed uses 25 and potential for his property would not change by the PUD arrangement for Apache Plaza. 26 Doug Jones, 2505 Silver Lane, stated that he is a member of the Silver Lake Homeowners Asso- 27 ciation. He mentioned that the Association had held a meeting with Scott Tankenoff and plans 28 regarding the Apache Plaza redevelopment had been discussed. 29 Mr. Jones stated that he was personally concerned that the redevelopment of Apache Plaza did not 30 contain any specific plans for stormwater drainage. Said drainage flows directly into Silver Lake 31 and Mr. Jones felt that the redevelopment efforts of Apache Plaza were an excellent opportunity to • correct and alleviate the existing drainage problems that the residents of Silver Lake have '3 experienced in the past. Mr. Jones stated that he would like to have feedback from the Planning 34 Commission about a-time during the redevelopment phase when this issue could be addressed. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes + April 18, 2000 • Page 4 1 Bergstrom responded that the Planning Commission has not been presented with specific,detailed 2 plans for Apache Plaza, but the plans are in the process. 3 Bergstrom'added that he did not believe the City was in a position.at this time to direct Hillcrest 4 regarding stormwater drainage from Apache. It has been the City's experience in the past with 5 respect to developments that the City does not retain a stormwater ordinance,and those issues have 6 been referred to Rice Creek. He would anticipate that would be the process with stormwater and . 7 Apache Plaza as well. Additionally, in the absence of specific design plans, the issue cannot be 8 addressed at this time. However,once the Commission arrives at a certain stage in the PUD process, 9 that would be an appropriate time to discuss stormwater. 10 Mr. Jones stated that a problem that the Silver Lake Homeowners Association has experienced of 11 which the Commission might not be aware, is that the requirements that were made of the earlier 12 development by OPUS have not been met and those issues have not been addressed. Mr. Jones 13 continued by stating that water has been bypassing the ponds that were created and, consequently, 14 frustration has been experienced and Mr.Jones urged the Commission to carefully review the issues 15 at hand. Bergstrom offered that Rice Creek has the resources to battle these problems and to effectively. alleviate these types of complaints.- 18 In this respect, Bergstrom asked that Mr. Jones coordinate with Assistant City Manager Isom to 19 provide Isom with any letters and documentation necessary in order to work effectively with Rice 20 Creek on this matter. 21 Jake, 3800 Apache Lane, stated that he is anxious for the redevelopment of Apache Plaza to occur. 22 However, he was concerned that since specific details about the redevelopment had not been 23 provided to the Commission as of this date, he felt the proposed changes in the zoning could be 24 premature. In addition,he inquired about the proposed uses of the land and felt that the scope and. 25 definition of the PUD was too broad. 26 Bergstrom responded that a PUD is a signed agreement between a property owner and the City;and 27 the City would.have a significant amount of control over the potential uses of the property. 28 Additionally, Bergstrom stated that any redevelopment would be done within the context of the 29 surrounding area so that issues are not created regarding conflicting land use. The main reason,he 30 stated,that the City is considering the revised land designation has to do with the.range of uses that 31 Hillcrest Development is contemplating for the redevelopment of Apache Plaza. 32 Mr.Carlson(DSU)wished to clarify that under the current zoning requirements,there is less control by the City over which businesses choose to utilize the zoning uses. Under a PUD, he stated, the rules change and the City would be able to utilize more control over the property. 35 Jim Waters,Quest Real Estate,wished to state that he represented the owners of the Apache Medical 36. Building, and expressed the support of the owners-of the building toward the redevelopment of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 5 1 Apache Plaza. In addition,he stated,his clients would like to work with City Staff about the impact 2 of the redevelopment as the process goes forward. 3 After calling for,additional input from the audience and hearing none, Chair'Bergstrom closed the 4 public hearing at 7:55 p.m. 5 Chair Bergstrom asked for Commissioner comments. 6 Hanson offered that he would view the PUD as providing the City additional control over the 7 property. Additionally, he believed the PUD would provide leverage for the City to work toward 8 the improvement of water quality and to deal with those issues, as opposed to simply rezoning the 9 property. 10 Motion by Stille, second by Thomas, to approve the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as 11 proposed in the document prepared by. Dahlgren, Shardlow, Uban (entitled "Proposed Compre- 12 hensive Plan Text Change"). 13 Motion carried unanimously. • Chair Bergstrom.directed City Staff to.work with the consultant(DSU) to submit this proposed 5 amendment to the City Council at the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 25,2000, for review 16 and/or approval. 17 2. PUBLIC HEARING. A request for approval'of a conditional use permit to allow con- 18 struction of a wireless antenna on the Apache Medical Building, 4001 Stinson Boulevard. 19 Chair Bergstrom opened the public-hearing at 7:57 p.m. and requested a report from Staff. 20 Assistant City Manager Isom stated that Nextel Communications is requesting a conditional use 21 permit to allow construction of a wireless antenna site for their telecommunications network. Jim 22 Nelson of Buell Consulting, Inc. is in attendance at the meeting as a representative of Nextel 23 Communications. 24 Nextel Communications has reached an agreement with the owners of Apache Medical Building for 25 the placement of three sets of panel antennas. Additionally, City Ordinance 1160.02 requires a 26 conditional use permit for telecommunications antennas. 27 Bergstrom added that Mr. Nelson had previously presented a concept review to the Planning 28 Commission at the regular meeting in March 2000. • Chair Bergstrom introduced and welcomed Mr.Jim Nelson,Buell Consulting and representative for 30 Nextel Communication and invited him to address the Commission. 31 Mr. Nelson presented a photographic rendering of the proposed installation on the roof of the 32 Apache Medical Building. The depiction indicated a mechanical room and the antenna installation, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 6 l as well as an equipment building. Mr.Nelson presented several photographs of the side,front,and 2 back views of the building with the proposed additions to the roof. 3 Additionally,'Mr.Nelson stated that the maximum allowable height above the building is 18 feet per 4 City Ordinance. However, he stated that the antennas are expected to cap at 16 feet. Also, Mr. 5 Nelson stated that an engineer has reviewed the design and specifications and a letter has been 6 drafted and signed to the effect that the building is capable of supporting the proposed installation. . 7 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Nelson for his input and presentation. 8 Upon calling for additional input from the audience and hearing none, Chair Bergstrom closed the 9 public hearing at 8:08 p.m. 10 Bergstrom asked for comments from the Commissioners. 11 Thomas offered that his main consideration was aesthetics and he would like clarification as to how 12 that issue would be managed. Mr.Nelson offered that the panels,as well as the mounting materials,would be painted in a manner in which to resemble the building and to coordinate with the aesthetics of the building. 15 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Hanson, that the Conditional Use Permit for antenna placement 16 at 4001 Stinson Boulevard is recommended by the Planning Commission for the following reasons: 17 (1) The proposed conditional use permit is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the . 18 zoning district in which it is to be located; 19 (2) The proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health,safety,or general welfare 20 of persons resident or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or im- 21 provements in the vicinity; 22 . (3) The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to provide a 23 service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the 24 general welfare of the neighborhood or community; and 25 (4) The installation equipment shall be painted in a color that coordinates with the building; and 26 (5) The operation and maintenance of this equipment shall not be deleterious.to other existing 27 electronic communications in the City. • Motion carried unanimously. 29 Bergstrom reminded Mr.Nelson that the issue of a conditional use permit for Nextel Communi- 30 cations will be presented to the City Council at the April 25, 2000 meeting. Additionally,he Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 7 1 stated that a representative from the Planning Commission would be present to review this issue 2 with the City Council at the meeting scheduled for April 25, 2000. .3 In this respect, Chair Bergstrom requested that Commissioner Hanson attend the City Council 4 meeting on April 25, 2000 as the Planning Commission Liaison. 5 In returning to the issue of a PUD in connection with the redevelopment of Apache Plaza, Chair . 6 Bergstrom invited Mr. Carlson (DSU) to speak further about the potential zoning changes and 7 explanation of a PUD. 8 Mr. Carlson stated that in developing a PUD as a zoning district,three key words are incorporated 9 into the plan:(1)flexibility; (2)mixed use;and(3)one or more parcels. Additionally,he stated that 10 the City would have greater discretion in connection with the PUD than it would have with a simple . 11 zoning change. 12 In this regard,Mr. Carlson directed the Commission's attention to a handout comprising of Section 13 1655 regarding Planned Unit Developments. In essence, a Planned Unit Development(PUD) is a 14 zoning district which may include single or mixed uses, one or more lots or parcels, intended to create a more flexible, creative, and efficient approach to the use of land and subject to the procedures, standards, and regulations: 17 Mr. Carlson continued by reviewing Section 1655 in detail with the Commission and offering ex- 18 planation and insights into the specifics of the Section. 19 Additionally, Mr. Carlson would recommend to City Staff that an agreement be drafted in a form 20 similar to one that has been presented to the Commission. In other words,an agreement that depicts 21 rezoning to a set of drawings specific to a certain project. He proceeded to review certain terms and 22 conditions that he would recommend be incorporated into the agreement. 23 Bergstrom mentioned that the City has incorporated a park dedication ordinance for residential 24 zoning districts. To the extent that a residential section would be allowed within the contemplated 25 PUD,he inquired if the 10%park dedication ordinance would be in effect.. Mr..Carlson responded 26 that it would depend upon the specific wording for the PUD,but would be worthwhile to investigate 27 the possibility further. 28 Mr.Carlson stated that he would coordinate with City Manager Michael Mornson and Assistant City 29 Manager Spencer Isom to arrive at a satisfactory park dedication figure. 30 Additionally,Mornson offered that the City would need to define a certain area for the-Metropolitan 1 Council to review. '2 Mornson suggested that the Planning Commission incorporate a minimum lot size as a consideration 33 for the PUD, as well as potential language regarding park dedication requirements. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes + April 18, 2000 • Page 8 1 Regarding a development review committee,Morrison requested that Mr.Carlson inform him of the 2 members of the committee. Mr.Carlson suggested members of the Planning Commission,plus City 3 Staff, but would.confirm that suggestion with Morrison upon further inquiry. . 4 Hanson confirmed that a developers agreement would be entered into if the City Council approved 5 the PUD. 6 Thomas confirmed that the PUD would allow for Hillcrest to begin the redevelopment of the Apache 7 Plaza, but would continue to allow the City to obtain public input on how the rest of the property 8 would be developed. 9 Mr. Carlson responded that the PUD could be phrased as strict or as lenient as the City deemed 10 appropriate. 11 Mr. Jones stated his belief the importance of viewing the entire parcel as a PUD. 12 Bergstrom asked DSU and City Staff to work together to arrive at a reasonable minimum standard. 'Hanson expressed his impression that the purpose of the PUD would be to allow Hillcrest to develop inside a box,'so to speak,but that the City would have input regarding the development of the outlots . 15 in the future. He expressed his belief that such language should be incorporated into the PUD or 16 developers agreement. 17 Bergstrom responded that since Hillcrest is unsure about the particular development of the outlots 18 for the future, it would be an excellent idea to incorporate language to cover all aspects, 19 Morrison agreed that the City should consider all of the property that Hillcrest owns when devel- 20 oping the PUD. Additionally,Morrison stated that if Hillcrest were at some point to relinquish the 21 property back to US Bank, the potential for subdivision of the property.would be an issue. 22 Mr.Gleekel addressed the Commission and explained the process that Hillcrest Development would 23 be starting and the issues that would be addressed in the application. 24 Mr. Tankenoff addressed the Commission and stated that his goal as coordinator of the process is 25 to determine and consider the concerns that the residents around Silver Lake have, as well as work 26 with Rice Creek about stormwater runoff. 27 Mr. Tankenoff reconfirmed that an introductory meeting had been held with the Silver Lake 28 Homeowners Association and he anticipated continued meetings. He wondered if there were other 29 neighborhoods or associations that had concerns and,if so,he would be prepared to meet with them as well. 31 Bergstrom acknowledged that Mr. Tankenoff has done an excellent job of due diligence and in- 32 forming the residents,City Council,Planning Commission and the community of the progress with 33 the redevelopment of Apache Plaza. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 9 1 Bergstrom thanked both Mr.Tankenoff and Mr.Gleekel for their attendance at the meeting as input 2 to the Commission. 3 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATION. 4 None. 5 VII. REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS,AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS. 6 None 7 VIII. ..CONTINUED BUSINESS. 8 None. 9 IX. COMMISSION INPUT. 10 Tillmann expressed,support for the PUD process. Additionally,she stated that she felt the meeting 11 with the City Council held at 5:30 p.m. that day was beneficial and she would encourage more 12 meetings to promote excellent communication. 13 Hanson felt that the PUD would be a positive enhancement for.the City and would provide more control for the City in the.future. Additionally,.he felt it was important to resolve the stormwater runoff.issue; and he would request additional public input and more town meetings._ 16 Also,he would request that City Staff check into the businesses that are not'complying with runoff 17 issues, are not up to Code, and how Code enforcement could be accomplished. 18 Thomas followed up on the stormwater issue by stating that the City would need to review this issue 19 because it was recently apparent that the water runs into the streets. 20 Additionally, he is pleased that the City is pursuing a PUD and suggested an outreach program to 21 provide additional education to the public about PUDs. He would also like for the City to obtain 22 additional public input regarding the redevelopment of Apache Plaza. 23 Stille did not have any comments. 24 Bergstrom noted that the structure of the Commission's agenda packets was different and he 25 commended Isom on the excellent organization. He asked Assistant City Manager Isom to inquire 26 about the reason behind the late delivery of the packets. 27 Bergstrom noted that the Mayor had presented a three-ring binder to Commission which housed a 28 variety of information useful to the Commissioners. Bergstrom directed Assistant City Manager 49 Isom to arrange for copying of the notebook and distribution to the-Commissioners. 10 Hanson stated that, in reviewing the broadcast of the City Council meeting held on April 11,2000, 31 he noted the interesting fact that certain residents within the City were opposed to sidewalks. 32 Furthermore,he inquired about the possibility of placing a copy of the Comprehensive Plan on the 33 City's website. 4 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 18, 2000 • Page 10 1 Bergstrom acknowledged that City Manager Michael Mornson is in the process of obtaining bids 2 for that process to begin. 3 X:: ADJOURNMENT. 4 Motion by Hanson, second by Bergstrom, to adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m. 5 Motion carried unanimously. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 Sue Selseth 8 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.