HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 04031984 Meeting Sheet
3
'4
.i
101931
•1
.i
Box: 21
Is
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1984
Document: PL MINUTES 04031984,
r
..f
•i
• tl
1♦ _ -- Ca
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
SPECIAL MEETING
• PLANNING COYRIISSION MINUTES
April 3, 1984
1 The meeting wascalled to order at 7: 33 P.M. by Chair Zawislak.
2
3 Present for roll call: Wagner, Zawislak, Bjorklund, and Hansen.
4
5 Absent: - Jones, Franzese, and Bowerman.
6
7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager; Steve Yurick, Gary Tushie ,
8 and Suzy Gamel. of Arkand Partnership; and James P.
9 Hesketh, Mary "huffy" Gabler, and Susan Viking of
10 Walker-Methodist Residence & Health Services , Inc.
11
12
13
14 Chairman Zawislak indicated he would report the minutes of the meeting
15 to the Council at their April 10th meeting.
16
17 At 7 : 35 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing for approval of a
18 Development Concept Plan and Detailed Plan for Phase II of the Planned
19 Unit Development of the Kenzie Terrace Project for a 45 unit, 202 funded
• 20 elderly rental residence on the present site of the Mimosa Restaurant ,
21 west of the St. Anthony Lanes .
22
23 In his March 30th memorandum, the Manager had indicated the areas of
24 non-compliance with the P.U.D. and the Redevelopers Agreement with
25 Arkell which would have to be addressed before an application could
26 be made to H.U.D. for 202 funding. The proposed three story building
27 would meet the height and parking requirements of the P.U.D. ordinance ,
28 but Mr. Childs said, there would be .only a 17 foot setback provided on
29 the southeast side of the .building, where 25 feet would be required
30 by the P.U.D. Without P.U.D. approval, R-4 zoning would permit only
31 23 units for a building this size and those units would have to be
32 650 square feet, rather than the proposed 540 square feet and 45
33 units. Areas where the proposal would. be in non-compliance with the
34 Redevelopers Agreement would be the provision of wood rather than
35 brick exterior finish and not sprinklering the building, which would
36 not be required for a three story building, according to the Manager .
37 The plans for .the building .which had been negotiated with Arkell ,
38 had to be redesigned to a bareboned structure which H.U.D. would be
39 able to fund and these modifications included the elimination of
40 underground parking, which reduced the number of parking spaces for
41 the building from 45 to 15 stalls . The density for this building would
42 be 35 units per acre .which, Mr. Childs said, would be much less than
43 the 55 in Phase I .
44
45 When Commissioner Bjorklund asked if it would be possible to produce
46 a building with the amenities which had to be eliminated to meet H.U.D.
47 criteria without subsidization, Mr. Childs told him he thought that
r
-2-
1 tax increment financing requires at least 5% of the project be sub-
2 sidized and he speculated the redevelopers would find- it very dif-
3 ficult to complete the redevelopment project they have proposed without
4 202 funding. The Commissioner then asked why, if it is true that, if
5 the Commission should reject this proposal, the whole project would be
6 "down the tube" , a public hearing is necessary at all. The. Manager
7 told him the Council and the Commission had already given preliminary
8 approval to the 202 building and the hearing that evening was to approve
9 the Detailed Plan as required by the P .U.D. ordinance.
10
11 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Bjorklund that Walker-Methodist had been
12 one of six non-profit organizations who had been contacted to sponsor
13 this project and only four, Augustana; the Archdiocese of St. Paul;
14 Health Central; and Walker had indicated any interest. The Archi-
15 diocese was interested, but the local Catholic Church was unwilling to
16 serve as sponsor. Mr. Yurick told the Commissioners Walker was
17 selected because of their enthusiasm to do the project and their will-
18 ingness. to commit to providing the amenities for the building which
19 H.U.D. would never fund, but which- would be necessary to make the 202
20 project compatible with the overall development in St. Anthony.
21
22 The developer then introduced the Walker-Methodist representatives who
23 could give the organization's background .and experience in the area of
24 care for the elderly and handicapped. Mr. Hesketh, Chairman of the
25 Board of Trustees of Walker-Methodist Residence and Health Care
26 Services , Inc. , indicated the St. Anthony project was just what his
• 27 organization is looking for to complete the existing package of care
28 which Walker Methodist provides elsewhere in the Twin Cities . He
29 discussed the number of health care and independent living senior
30 projects the organization .had developed which were - detailed in the
31 brochure .which had been distributed to staff and Commission members .
32
33 Susan Viking, development specialist for Walker, traced the history
34 of Walker-Methodist from the first home for unwed mothers they had
35 sponsored, to the 145 unit senior independent living apartment build-
36 ing at 37th and Bryant for which ground had been broken that day .
37 She reported on the historical connection with the Methodist Church
38 and the Walker family and told the Commissioners that the only con-
39 nection between these and the Walker-Methodist Residences and Health
40 Services , Inc.. , was spiritual , rather than financial support, today.
41 Services are provided on a very ecumenical basis , Ms . Viking said.
42
43 Ms . Gabler, who had served five years as the Director of Development
44 for the Greater Minneapolis Metropolitan Housing Corporation, told the
45 Commissioners she had only been associated with Walker-Methodist for
46 a month. As part of her job with the Minneapolis housing organiza-
47 tion, she had worked with neighborhood groups on housing projects and
48 had served as an advisor to the senior federation who had unsuccessfully
49 sought 202 funding for a similar project on the site where the Kenzing-
50 ton would be constructed. Ms . Gabler answered questions about the
51 types of services the sponsor would be providing for the residents of
52 the proposed building. She said she would be working closely with the
• 53 City Community Services to coordinate their programs with her own
54 and anticipates there would be a' caretaker couple selected from the
55 residents to -oversee the interior maintenance of the building with
-3-
1 snow shoveling, mowing, etc. taken care of, on a regular basis, by
• 2 Walker-Methodist personnel.
3
4 In response to questions .about how much equity her organization would
5 have in the building, the housing specialist indicated .the corporation
6 would pay the land costs , put up the $7, 500 .interim money, and was
7 prepared to commit up to $85,000 to provide the amenities necessary
8 to provide a better exterior finish and a more interesting configuration
9 for the building, than could be expected to be funded by H.U.D. She
10 estimated the building cost would be close to $1, 500;000 and Mr.
11 Yurick commented that the sponsors commitment would be for the life
12 of the building and would not be recoverable.
13
14 Commissioner Bjorklund said he perceives the proposed building, with
15 additional amenities promised by Walker-Methodist would faithfully
16 meet the City ' s standards for housing but he questioned why the
17 organization would be willing to expend this kind of money on a
18 project for which they would have no chance of monetary reimbursement.
19 Mr. Tushie told him he perceives the organization believes they have
20 a real obligation to provide affordable housing for Twin City elderly
21 and handicapped which motivated them to undertake this project with-
22 out hope of recovering all -of their equity in it. Ms . . Gabler explained
23 further that 202 funding involves a lower than market interest loan
24 for the project coupled with a Section 8 subsidation of rental costs
25 about 30% of the residents ' incomes .
26
• 27 The architect discussed the site plans for the project, which had been
28 distributed to the Commission members , reiterating that they were
29 minimally designed to achieve selection by H.U.D. When the Commis-
30 sioners expressed their desire to have a fence or some other barrier
31 between the landscaped areas on the project and the -parking lot for
32 the bowling alley to the west, Mr.. Tushie indicated he doubted whether
33 H.U.D. would ever fund a fence, since they want to provide the minimum
34 amount of housing possible to get the maximum number of units built.
35 He added that anything above and beyond the $85, 000 Walker has
36 earmarked for building exterior and configuration improvements would
37 be a real burden for the non-profit organization to fund.
38
39 Commissioner Hansen questioned whether H.U.D. might perceive a build-
40 ing in a. shopping center might not be a safe location for the elderly
41 and the architect told him site location is very important to H.U.D. ,
42 but selection is more related to community activites such as busing,
43 proximity to shopping, banking and health services, etc. , and on that
44 basis, this site was ranked very high for 202 H.U.D. funding. Mr.
45 Childs commented that one of H.U.D. reasons for not funding the senior
46 building on the other side of Kenzie was the perceived difficulty for
47 the residents to cross that busy intersection to the shopping center .
48 A pedestrian crossing funded by CDBG money is proposed to get the
49 seniors to the bank and church, he added.
50
51 Mr. Tushie told Commissioner Zawislak this would be a "stand alone"
52 project and the new liquor warehouse. would remain until the land for
• 53 Phase III of the project is acquired. Mr. Yurick reminded the Chair
54 that the 202 project would be only half of Phase II and the market
55 would determine how quickly the rest of the redevelopment progresses .
' 1 -4-
4
1The developer said, as soon as between 75% and 800 of the Phase I units
• 2are sold, acquisition of the land for Phase II and III would be
3 commenced.
4
5In discussing the details of the 202 building, Mr. Tushie confirmed
6 that there would be no storage space exceptthat provided in the
7individual units.
8
9 Jerry Schiena, 2821 Hilldale Avenue N.E. , proprietor -of the St. Anthony
10 Lanes , just west of the proposed 202 project, was the only center
11 representative present.. He indicated he had concerns about the effect
12 the project might have- on his parking and access to the other shopping
13center which prompted him to oppose the project, as proposed. When
14 Kenzie Terrace was upgraded, . "against the wishes of the business
15 owners along that street" , Mr. Schiena reported, . he had lost from 25
16 to 30 angled parking spaces in frontof his bowling alley and with the
17 construction of the senior building right up to- his property line,
18 he foresaw he might not have adequate parking for the 60 bowlers on
19 each league if he can' t -continue to use some of the subject property
20 for overflow parking and the pie-shaped piece of land below his property
21 for snow storage. He indicated if he is locked out of the rest of the
22 shopping center and -has to store the snow on his own property, he
23 foresees he would be "out of business" . The bowling alley proprietor
24 indicated he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to contact the
25 owner of the odd-shaped parcel, which he perceives "could never be
26 built on, " to purchase that land from them so snow storage and access
• 27 would no longer be -problems . He was told the City owns the street
28 between the former Penny 's market and that parcel so there is no
29 danger that building would be expanded.
30
31 Mr. Yurick indicated he didn' t have a solution to the potential pro-
32 b-lem, but suggested. a measurement be taken to ascertain whether or
33 not Mr. Schiena ' s concerns were valid. Mr." Tushie indicated the
34 project boundary stakes had already been put in place.
35
36 Ms . Gabler told Mr. Schiena construction on the 202 building could
37 be started by September, 1985 , with occupancy a year later in 1986 .
38 The City would know whether the project had been selected by H.U.D.
39 by the end of this September, she added.
40
41 The public hearing was closed at 8 : 44 P.M.
42
43 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he was happy to learn about the
44 amenities which would be underwritten by Walker-Methodist and reported
45 Commissioner Jones had requested written assurance that the 202 pro-
46 ject would be- compatible with the rest of the redevelopment project
47 and that adequate parking would be provided. Commissioner Bjorklund
48 said he would also not want the project developed without the amenities
49 promised by the sponsor.
50
51 Mr. Tushie said tying those improvements into the motion which is sent
52 to H.U.D. might have a negative effect on the selection process and he
• 53 suggested they should rather be addressed in the developer 's agree-
54 ment with Walker-Methodist. The architect said Arkell perceives the
55 same need for the amenities that the Commission does because, anything
-5-
1 less could be detrimental to marketing the rest of the project, and
• 2he believes Walker-Methodist wants a nice building as well, as they
3have an outstanding reputation inthe community to uphold and would
4want this building to be developed as well as other buildings they
5 have sponsored.
6
7Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen
8 to recommend the Council give P.U.D. approval to the request from
9 Arkell Development and Walker-PZethodist Residence , Inc. for the 45
10 unit, 202 elderly rental project proposed on the site plans submitted
11 as the Detailed Plan by Arkell finding that the proposal meets the
12 general requirements of the P.U.D. and pertinent zoning requirements,
13 and concluding that the minor problems with the provision of a 17
14 foot setback, where 25 feet are required in the City Zoning Ordinance,
15 are insignificant when compared to the proposal' s overall conformance
16 to the plan for the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project.
17
18 The Planning Commission further finds there was adequate input from the
19 developer regarding the physical aspects of the building itself; the
20 management of the building after construction; and the financial
21 mechanisms to be utilized; and that citizen concerns and responsible
22 criticism of the project were competently addressed during the public
23 hearing.
24
25 Before a vote was taken, Commissioner Wagner indicated he- was concerned
26 that the demarcation between the bowling alley parking and landscaped
• 27 portion of the subject project should be satisfactorily addressed in
28 the developers agreement. The maker of the motion indicated he would
29 be abstaining from voting to avoid even an appearance of conflict of
30 interest because several years ago he had been retained to -do an
31 appraisal of the Walker 37th and Bryant project. .
32
33 Voting on the motion:
34
35 Aye: Hansen, Wagner, and Zawislak.
36
37 Abstention: Bjorklund.
38
39 Motion carried.
40
41 Motion by Commissioner Wagner. and seconded by- Commissioner Bjorklund
42 to indicate to- the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment Authority
43 that the Commission could accept the proposed plan for the 202 project,
44 with modification of the type of siding and,.outside appearance to
45 the extent the finished project would fit into- the rest of the re-
46 development project and with consideration given to provision of some
47 sort of barrier on the property line to separate the bowling alley and
48 subject properties to prevent the encroachment of parking onto the
49 senior apartment building grounds, recommending that the barrier for
50 the most part should be opaque so that traffic and lights would not
51 interfere with the senior residents parking.
52
• 53 Motion carried unanimously.
54
55
-6-
1 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he had been glad to see the motion
2 had specified no particular type of exterior finish since that way,
3 the developer would have the flexibility of matching the building to
4 the Kenzington or of using a better type of material which might come
5 along before the building is constructed. Mr. Childs assured him that
6 as Executive Director for the H.R.A. he would be augmenting. the
7 Commission' s formal statements with what he perceives were their
8 underlying concerns . He then indicated the Commission recommendations
9 would be reported to the Council and H.R.A. during their meetings
10 April 10th.
11
12 The meeting was recessed at 9 : 00 P.M. and reconvened at 9 : 02 P.M.
13 to consider new plans for the expansion of the Good Luck Cafe , located
14 on the corner of 27th Avenue and Coolidge Street N.E. The Commission
15 had recommended Council denial of the first proposal to expand the
16 restaurant indicating they perceived the plans were inadequate as
17 presented and the applicant had been unable to satisfactorily address
18 the concerns expressed by a number of adjoining neighbors about dif-
19 ferent aspects of the proposal . -When their recommendation was pre-
20 sented to the Council July 26 , 1983, that body complied with the
21 applicant' s request that he be allowed to rework the plans for future
22 Commission consideration.
23
24 Mr. Childs indicated that because of the time which had elapsed, he
25 had again notified all property owners within 350 feet of the subject
26 property that- a new proposal had been submitted and would be acted
• 27 on by the Commission that evening.
28
29 In addition to the copy of the notice, the Manager had included in
30 the agenda packet a copy of the February 14th letter written on
31 behalf of the applicant to the neighbors telling them about his new
32 expansion plans and inviting them to a presentation of those plans
33 in the cafe February 19th, to which Mr. Kwong had attached a rendering
34 of site plans . Copies of a February 20th letter from one neighbor at
35 2805 Pahl Avenue, opposing the expansion and another from a resident
36 on St. Anthony Boulevard, several blocks away, which favored the
37 proposal, had also been included, and Mr. Childs indicated he had
38 received three telephone calls against the request.
39
40 The letter of opposition was from Dr. Preston Williams who lives in
41 the close vicinity of the cafe who reiterated his earlier objections
42 to the expansion of the cafe which he believes would "encroach by
43 proximity, cooking odors , refuse production, and increased traffic on
44 the adjacent residential property and the tranquility and stability
45 thereof" . Dr. Williams indicated he viewed the addition of sale of
46 wine and beer on the premises as a potential for introduction of a
47 disruptive element and said he perceived the erection of the proposed
48 sign on the roof of the remodeled building would provide "visual
49 pollution the neighborhood doesn' t need" . The physician recommended
50 that rather than rezoning the portion of the property which is now
51 residential, the City consider changing the commercial zoning to
52 residential "regardless .of the consequences" . Many of the same objec-
• 53 tions were expressed by Donald Drusch, 2804 Pahl Avenue, and Isabelle
54 Blackfeldner, 2808 Pahl, who live close to the cafe, who were present
55 for the discussion.
-7-
1 Mr. Drusch said he could .commend the restaurant owner for his efforts
2 to expand his business and. for removing some of the bushes on his
3property which had interfered with visibility from the alley . However,
4 he said he anticipates , with the return of the warm weather, it would
5 quickly become evident that the handling of the cafe' s garbage was
6 still inadequate , especially since, "every time the cans are serviced
7 they seem to end up closer to the adjoining neighbors" .
8
9 .Mr. Drusch said he had noted that neither the plantings or fence,
10 recommended at the last hearing, to screen the cafe activities from
11 the residential neighborhood, had been depicted in the new drawings
12 and the resident indicated he would strongly oppose -the rezoning of
13 any more property near Pahl for commercial use because he perceives
14 the residents would lose the only cushion they had between their homes
15 and what is an ever-expanding commercial development -in that area.
16 He asked that the City reject the rezoning request.
17
18 Mrs . Blackfeldner reported the trucks, which service the cafe, often
19 block the alley and said she is unable to remain outdoors when fish.
20 is being prepared in the restaurant. Neither she nor Mr. Drusch had
21 attended the February 19th meeting at the cafe and neither had -an
22 explanation for the absence of other neighbors from the meeting that
23 evening, although, Mr. Drusch said conversations he had with two of
24 them, had led him to believe that, in spite of the notice sent by the
25 Manager, they were confused as to just exactly when the request would
26 be acted upon.
• 27
28 The Manager had, 'in his March 30th memorandum to the Commission,
29 indicated that because the request to rezone the residential portion
30 to commercial to permit the expansion would not be in keeping with
31 the Comprehensive Plan, which recognized the conflict of land use in
32 that area and recommended mid-density residential , the staff had
33 recommended the rezoning be denied which would, in effect, prevent
34 expansion.
35
36 There was no proponent present, although. the Manager reported telling
37 Mr. Kwong about the meeting.
38
39 The consensus of the Commissioners was .that the opposition they had
40 demonstrated July 19th to the first proposal would still be valid
41 since none of the concerns raised during that meeting appeared to have
42 been addressed in a satisfactory manner with the new proposal..
43
44 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen
45 to recommend Council denial of the request from Iain Lun Kwong for a
46 conditional use permit, the necessary .parking space variance, and the
47 rezoning of Lot 2 , Block 6, Murray Heights Addition (.2700 Coolidge
48 Street N.E. ) which would permit the expansion of the Good Luck Cafe
49 from a 765 square foot structure to a 2 ,440 square foot sit-down rest-
50 aurant, as proposed, finding that the conditions which typically must
51 be satisfied for a conditional use permit, a variance to the Zoning
52 Ordinance, or for rezoning the property, had not been met in the
. 53 Proposal, and for the following additional reasons :
54
55
-8-
1 1. The City Comprehensive Plan indicated there is a conflict of land
2 use in this particular area of the City and recommended future land
3 use should not be commercial.
4
5 2. Existing businesses in the same neighborhood are overutilizing
6 on-street parking.
7
8 3. The Metropolitan Transit Commission also .overutilizes the available
9 street parking in the immediate vicinity of the cafe.
10
11 4 . Adequate snow storage was not addressed in the proposal . .
12
13 5 . The proposal did not provide for future screening of the restaurant
14 from the residential neighborhood or address the adequacy of the
15 existing screening.
16
17 6 . The perceptionz was that it was possible that the property values
18 of homes to the west, northwest, and north side of the subject
19 property might be adversely affected by the proposal .
20
21 7. There was an indication that the expansion might result in a
22 dangerous increase in traffic down the adjoining alley .
23
24 8 . A satisfactory method of storing garbage had not been proposed.
25
26 9 . Adequate site plans, including landscaping plans, had still not
• 27 been presented for the proposed expansion.
28
2910 . Many of the parking spaces provided on the site are too close to
30 adjacent homes and a parking space -variance would be required for
31 the proposed building.
32
3311. Significant written and oral testimony from the neighbors both
34 times the proposal had been made, indicate there is a poor history
35 of building and land maintenance , as well as weed and odor con-
36 trol, with the existing business and there was strong opposition
37 demonstrated to making the proposed zoning change or granting the
38 necessary variances .
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 Chair. Zawislak noted the shopping center sign is being used to advertize
43 merchants in the center and suggested the City use this method of
44 getting some recognition for the new liquor warehouse.
45
46 The Commission had tabled finalizing the allocation of Year X Community
47 Development Block Grant funds so the Manager could research several
48 suggestions members had made . Mr. Childs had responded to each sug-
49 gestion in his March 30thmemorandum indicating county staff had per-
50 ceived that none. of them would appear to meet funding requirement of
51 serving only low and moderate income residents .
52
• 53 Commissioner Jones had requested the Manager find out what sidewalks
54 along Stinson and 37th Avenue N.E. would cost and Mr. Childs said he
55 had been told there would be 942 feet of sidewalk at $10 a running
-9-
1 foot in the stretch- on Stinson from the Pizza Hut to the Apache
2 Medical Center.
3
4 In his memorandum,.. the Manager had reported that Walker-Methodist had
5 requested the City use some of these. funds to aid them in providing
6 the amenities for the 202 project which would probably not be funded
7 by H.U.D. and the Council at their last meeting had indicated at
8 strong interest in doing just that.
9
10 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated his conversation with Commissioner
11 Jones had led him to- believe the absent Commissioner would still prefer
12 some of the funds be dedicated to sidewalks which would provide greater
13 pedestrian safety for persons who are walking to the Apache Medical
14 Center.
15
16 Motion by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund
17 to allocate the City ' s share of Year X CDBG funds as follows :
18
19 $24 , 600 to ,Walker-Methodist for 202 project amenities
20 5 , 000 for sidewalks from proximity of. 39th to Apache
21 Medical Center
22 5,219 for Community Services for senior programs
23
24 $34 , 819
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
• 27
28 Commissioner Bjorklund inquired about the distribution of the Market-
29 ing Committee survey and the Capital Improvement Program and Mr.
30 Childs said he anticipates that as soon as the 202 application has
31 been submitted, the staff could start working on the latter.
32
33 There was a brief discussion of the increase in air traffic over
34 St. Anthony and the upcoming American Planning Association National
35 Convention at the Regency Hotel, May 5-9 was noted.
36
37 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner
38 to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 00 P.M.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42
43 Respectfully submitted,
44
45 Helen Crowe, Secretary
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
• 53
54
55