HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 11031986 - - --• fir,
`_. Meeting Sheet
- G 101763' r
„ Folderr:PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS-1986• _
Document::PL MINUTES 11031986 ;
1. -- `• �.
• CITY OF ST _ ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 3 , 1986
1 At 7:03 P.M. Chair Franzese opened the public hearing on the request from Arkell
2 Development for amendments to Phase III of the Development Plan of the Kenzie
3 Terrace Redevelopment Project.
4
5 Present for roll call : Hansen, Wagner, Franzese, Werenicz, Madden (Jones
6 arrived at 7:15 P.M. ) .
7
8 Absent: Bowerman.
9
10 Also present: City Manager Childs
11 John Arkell , President of Arkell Development
12 Gary Tushie, Tushie-Montgomery & Associates, Inc.
13 Steven Yurick, Arkell Development Project Manager.
14
15 There were between 75 and 100 people crowded into the Council Chambers and standing
16 in the hall outside and the Manager said he assumed most of them were there to learn
17 more about the newest proposal from the developers to change the use of the project
18 from senior rental the City had approved last December and open the occupancy
• 19 to other persons as well .
20
21 Mr. Childs said there had been very little interest on either the Planning
22 Commission or Council for this change and meetings had been taking place right
23 up to that afternoon with the developers to convey to them that the City had
24 a strong interest in retaining the senior rental they had approved in December
25 of 1985. Following the meeting between the Mayor and the developer that afternoon,
26 the Manager said he had detected Arkell might have had some interest in returning
27 to the senior project and he said he thought the presence of so many people
28 at the hearing might reinforce that interest.
29
30 The request to the Commission that evening was to consider in addition to
31 the type of tenants which the building would be rented to the following changes
32 in design from what had been approved in December when the bonds for the project
33 were sold; what had been presented to the Commission at a special meeting
34 with the developer on October 6th, and the changes the developer had made in
35 response to suggestions from both the Commission and Council after that meeting.
36 PROPOSED CHANGES DETAILED IN MANAGER ' S
37 OCTOBER 31ST MEMORANDUM TO COMMISSION
38
39
40 Structures: 2 buildings where 3 had been proposed in October, 1986.
41
42 Height: 4 stories, same as October 6th, but lower than 5 and 8 stories approved
43 in December, 1985.
• 44
45 Units: 300, up from 288 proposed October 6th but back to number approved in
4 5 December, 1985.
47
-2-
• 1 Parking: 450 spaces instead of 446 proposed October 6th and 380 approved in
2 December, 1985.
3
4 Underground - 180 from 177 in October and 228 in December, 1985,
5 where the proposal included underground commercial parking.
6
7 Commercial : 33,000 square feet approved in December, 1985, deleted from ;this
8 and the October 6th proposal .
9
10 Design: -Pond returned as centerpiece of project.
11 -Sloped roof building as compared to flat roof approved in December, 1985.
12 -Layout of project redesigned with more amenities including additional
13 brick facing where the October proposal had only provided brick on
14 the building centers.
15 -Realignment of buildings and parking lots to correct impression of
16 a "sea of parking".
17
18 Construction
19 Start Up Date: First building started June, 1987 and second June, 1988.
20
21 Mr. Childs had also advised the Commissioners that the proposed values of
22 the project before them that evening would now allow the tax increment district
23 to have adequate cash flow.
24
25 PROPOSED RENTS
26
• 27 $425 for studios
28 $535 for one bedroom
29 $580 for one bedroom with den
30 $675 for two bedroom
31
32 Mr. Arkell said these rents represented 5% raise which would have to be
33 added to each figure for the first building which would not be occupied
34 for two years. He said the rents for the two buildings would be the same
35 no matter who rented them. The redeveloper added that a justification for
36 charging $675 for a two bedroom suite in 1988 was that the taxes on the
37 same unit would be $1 ,600 a year or close to $140 a month.
38
39 ARCHITECT SHOWED SLIDES OF SIMILAR BUILDINGS IN MINNETONKA AND NEAR HOPKINS
40
41 Mr. Tushie drew the audience's attention to what he perceived was a common
42 theme in all these projects - open green spaces around the perimeter of
43 the buildings and parking in the center core area near the building entrances
44 where it is much more functional to have parking.
45
46 RESPONSE OF PEOPLE PRESENT
47
48 Of the slips turned into the secretary, 25 persons had addresses in Minneapolis
49 south of the project site and 14 were from St. Anthony.
50
51 Minneapolis Alderman Walt Dziedzic said he was there to speak for his constituents
52 in the "Stinson Triangle" to protest what he considered to be a drastic
• 53 change in concept to rent to just anyone rather than to only seniors the
54 developers had committed to originally. He said he recognized the senior
55 market was very slow but thought the City should stick to its original plan
56 to rent to only seniors because the "market was there".
-3-
1 The Alderman perceived these units would be too accessible to the University of
• 2 Minnesota and warned the Commission that they might experience the same problems
3 Minneapolis has in Southeast Minneapolis, where "overcrowdedness" had resulted
4 in the whole "gamut of municipal problems" for the City such as parking and
5 parties and having to .provide extra police to respond to both.
6
7 Alderman Dziedzic advised the Commissioners to look to see what could happen
8 five to ten years down the road, citing the problem Minneapolis is now experiencing
9 with senior vacancies in the City's 43 highrises which H.U.D. is insisting
10 be kept filled and in spite of his own protests, the City and staff had decided
11 to open -t o other,�,,peopl,e than,.seni ors the-'Al de;rman�.sa`i& "that:mi x =i,s' not:.goi ng
12 real 'well ".
13
14 Alderman Dziedzic apologized for "butting in" but said he had- been there
15 when the first planning had been made for this project and he really appreciated
16 the effort :St. Anthony was making to provide real nice housing for this area.
17 The Alderman's comments were met with applause from the audience.
18
19 RESPONSE FROM THE PUBLIC
20
21 Besides echoing the Alderman's concerns about the possibility that five or
22 six college students would be crowding into one unit to save money, other
23 concerns of Minneapolis speakers were that:
24
25 - drainage from the new construction would flood Lowry Avenue when the
26 rains come in the spring;
•
27 - traffic from the project would further congest Minneapolis streets south of
28 the site;
29
30 - neighbors close to the project would not be notified if the developer changes
31 his mind again because of the project's cost and the project use returns to
32 rental to anyone without their input;
33 - the buildings would eventually be converted to subsidized housing;
34
35 - the vandalism and loitering the neighbors have experienced in the past with
36 the Fun Center would be accelerated with families living in these buildings;
37 - one elevator per building would not be sufficient for senior residents and
38 it might be left up to Minneapolis neighbors to get them out of a builidng in case
39 of fire;
40
41 - St. Anthony might not have water close to the site to fight fires;
42 - the one lane on Lowry might not be enough for emergency vehicles to reach the
43 project.
44
45 QUESTIONS RAISED BY RESIDENTS OF BOTH CITIES
46
47 - why families would ever pay the rents quoted by the developer when they could
4 8 rent or buy a house for the same monthly payments;
49
50 - whether the building construction couldibe phased with senior rental tried
51 first, and if not successful , the second rented to anyone;
•
52 - what market analysis had convinced the developers to build for senior rental
53 initially and then led them to think that wasn't such a good idea at this
54 time;
55
-4-
• 1 - why, with all the new residents in this project, the commercial had not been
2 retained;
3 - what financial obligation the City of St. Anthony would be incurring with
4 this project;
5
6 - whether another elevator per building would be added if the project returned
7 to senior rental alone;
8 - why notices of this hearing had only been sent to property owners within
9 300 feet;
10
11 - why the citizenry hadn't been informed about this project as they are about
12. other City issues in the Newsletter.
13
14 In response to the question about the notice of the hearing, Mr. Childs indicated
15 that notice had been mailed the distance required by state law. However,
16 because the Council realized the issue might be of great community interest,
17 the Bulletin reporter had been requested to write an article on the matter
18 as a way of informing the general public about the changes the developer
19 was requesting from the project the City had approved December, 1985. The
20 article had run on the first page of the Bulletin October 22nd in the same
21 issue as the notice of the hearing had been advertised. The timing for the
22 Newsletter which went out with the water bills had not been right to insert
23 an article.
24
25 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
26
•
27 - the plan had ,42% landscaping, 35% pavement, and the rest tied up in building
28 area so nearly half of the site is open space;
29 - developers are. not eliminating seniors from the project, just concerned
30 there might not be enough seniors to fill up two buildings;
31
32 - families are not expected to rent these units mostly because the rents are too
33 high - more geared to professionals;
34 - the fact that there were so many present that evening proved the intent had been
35 to involve the community in the planning. Any further changes would require
36 another public hearing before both the Commission and Council ;
37
38 - a sedimentary drainage pond was planned for the middle of the site to drain
39 rainfall away from both Lowry and Kenzie Terrace;
40 - after being involved in many subsidized projects, the public can be assured
41 "this -building will, never be subsidized" mostly because it is being financed-
42
under a market rate condition which doesn't meet any of the requirements
44 for subsidization whatsoever. In most cases, that provision is made a part of
4 5 the Developer's Agreement; and the building had never been designed for
4 5 that type of rentals.
47 MR. ARKELL'S RESPONSE TO OTHER ISSUES RAISED
48
49 - observed he had heard the public first say "families couldn't afford the
50 rents in these buildings" and then "there would only be families living
51 there", if people other than seniors were allowed to live there;
52
• 53 - said developer just wanted to be certain senior rentals were the best way to
54 go and had reservations about that when only three persons in a group com-
55 prised mainly of seniors had indicated they would be interested in living in
56 these buildings;
-5-
1 - asked not to be forced to put $14,000,000 more into a building which can't
2 be marketed, but indicated he was willing to withdraw his request to rent to
3 anyone in response to their opposition;
4 - perceived "the worst thing that could happen would be to have those in attendance
5 that evening to go home with a negative feeling about the developers and
6 the building" since "you are our market";
8 - considered the questions raised about the occupancies in the Kenzington to be
9 valid because "if the senior market isn't there the building probably won't
10 succeed";
11 - corrected what might have been an incorrect statement about the buildings being
12 subsidized because the bonding for the buildings requires 20% of the project
13 to be rented to low and moderate income persons and if the project were
14 closed to that population, the developer's would lose their bonding. In
15 this case, however, moderate is defined as 80% of the median for the area,
16
17 a criteria under which most seniors would easily fall .
18 RESPONSE TO FEARS ABOUT COLLEGE STUDENT OCCUPANCY IN THESE UNITS
19
20 Both the City Manager and Commissioner Madden reported the City is seriously
21 22 considering changing the Ordinance to prohibit any more than three "non related"
2 3 occupants in a single housing unit. Mr. Childs said the most roommates a unit
could have would be three in that case.
24
25 PROJECT MANAGER YURICK'S COMMENTS ON KENZINGTON AND WALKER PROJECTS
26
• 27 - indicated he had been involved in the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project
28 almost from the beginning and will be connected with the management of
29 this building after it's constructed;
30
31 - reported the original projections for the Kenzington had not anticipated the
32 apparent desire of seniors in this area to remain in their own homes as
33 long as they are able, which, he added, iE true, not only of the Kenzingtorn,
34 but of every project being built in the Twin Cities;
35 - there is basically nothing the developers can do to change that desire before
36 the seniors are ready to leave their homes;
37
38 - Arkell is no longer associated with the Kenzington project and was never
39 involved in the Walker senior project;
40 - Mr. Tushie is still the architect-for the Kenzington;
41
42 - the developer would love to have another 202 project where the renter pays
43 1/3 of their income and the government pays the developer up to $440 per
44 unit but that type of funding has all but dried up;
45 - responded to the statement that it was because the Kenzington owners wanted
46 the condo buyers to give them 60% of the equity they had in their own homes which
47 were all paid for, rather than to let the buyers make monthly payments and
48 keep the intererest on their invested equity, that the Kenzington sales had
49 been so disappointing, by saying 90% of the condos which had been sold had
50 been paid for in cash, in spite of the fact that mortgages were available to
51 them;
• 52
53 - reported the commercial originally planned for Phases II and III had
54 included very little retail but rather anticipated some low level office
55 services and perhaps a restaurant;
-6-
• 1 - pointed out that existing commercial in the same area was having trouble
2 making ends meet.
3
4 Mr. Arkell responded to the question concerning the City's financial stake
5 in the new project by saying the City had only lent its bonding authority
6 to the developer to enable them to seek $23,000,000 in Industrial Redevelbpment
7 bonds which the developer and not the City would be responsible for paying
8 off.
9
10 The developer addressed the Commission members, saying he presumed they shared
11 the reservations the Council and the people present that evening seemed to
12 have about renting the proposed building to anyone else except seniors which
13 had prompted him to withdraw his request regarding occupancy and to return
14 to the senior rental only. Mr. Arkell said he had wanted all along to do
15 a senior project but "if the market isn't there, I hope I 'll be able to come
16 back to the City". Mr. Childs reiterated that any change would again require
17 a public hearing before both the Commission and Council , which would be fully
18 advertised and a notice sent to Alderman Dziedzic's office, as had been done
19 for this hearing.
20
21 Mr. Yurick told Mark Kozlak who had asked about the market analysis the developers
22 had used for the senior project that McComb had done "a very positive market
23 study on the senior project for the bonding in November and December". Mr.
24 Childs indicated copies of the study were available at City Hall .
25
26 The Manager said the developer had indicated he would be redesigning the
•
27 building for senior rental and would add another elevator to each building
28 to accommodate that- occupancy. In response to questions from the floor,
29 those present were told that:
30
31 - there would only be four living levels in each building;
32 - when the project is advertised, Arkell anticipates the efforts to let the
33 public know about the project would match the high exposure given the Kenzington
34 on both WCCO and in the newspapers throughout the metropolitan area.
35
36 Mr. Arkell concluded his statements by telling those present the question
38 Pat Schroeder had asked him "if you don't think the senior market is here,
why are you proceeding with a senior project" was one the developers would
39
be asking themselves in the coming month. He said the question he had asked
40
earlier that evening had indicated that only three of the seniors present
41
that evening wouldbe interested in moving into these buildings and that
42
4 3 would not be enough to fill 300 units. He offered to let the Commissioners
44 see the market study which had indicated the senior market was just not there.
The redeveloper said if the project proceeds, the construction would be phased
45
4 5 to start 150 units in June 1987 and the next 150 the following spring. He
4 7 said it takes from 12 to 18 months to erect a building so occupancy would
4 8 not be until 1988. Mr. Arkell said his agreement with the City requires
49 him to generate a certain amount of tax monies for the City and although
50 his firm has never built minimum sized units before, they would be looking
5 1 at that now because of the cost of building those units. It would also be
5 2 very expensive for the developer to go from three to four floors and although
• 5 3 underground parking is quite costly, the size of the site mandates how many
54 spaces would have to be provided inside.
55
• -7-
• 1 One of the suggestions that a building be devoted to a senior care center
2 caught the interest of the developer when he learned occupants were paying
3 from $1 ,100 to $1 ,400 for those units although he speculated how a suggestion
4 that that type of rent be charged for these units would have been greeted
5 by the persons present that evening.
6
7 Commissioner Madden responded to the questions about the deletion of the %
8 commercial saying he was pleased with a number of things which had taken
9 place that evening. He said he thought the developer should be complimented
10 for withdrawing his request to open the occupancy to every one and for returning
11 to a senior only rental project which the community seems to prefer and
12 the Commissioner said he was happy there would be no commercial included
13 in the project because he had originally voted• against that aspect because
14 he thought there was a better chance for the commercial in the area to be
15 more readily occupied, filled, and used than it currently seems to be.
16
17 Commissioner Jones assured the members of the public who were present that
18 the P.U.D. for the Redevelopment Project prohibited occupancy in the proposed
19 buildings by anyone else, including college students, other than seniors
20 without another hearing on a change.
21
22 Chair Franzese thanked them all for coming that evening, saying their interest
23 and concerns about the project would aid the City in developing a good project
24 for this site. Mr. Childs explained that since the developer had withdrawn
25 his request to open the occupancy of the buildings to anyone and had instead
26 returned to the use the City had approved last December, it now only remained
•
27 for the Commission to make recommendations on the changes in design the developer
28 was proposing from what was approved at that time.
29
30 The meeting was recessed from 8:35 P.M. to 8:45 P.M. and reconvened for a
31 discussion of those changes with the developers.
32
33 The discussion with the developersincluded the disappointing sales of the
34 Kenzington units; senior preferences for bay windows over balconies; changes
35 which would be necessary to return the buildings to senior rentals. Matters
36 which would be touched on later in the Detailed Plan to be submitted by the
37 developer included the preference not to have long hallways and desire to
38 have specific landscaping plans provided expressed by Commissioner Jones;
39 the request for as much brick as possible by Commissioner Werenicz; and Mr.
40 Childs' request that some parking be provided close to the 202 project.
41
42 Mr. Yurick indicated there would be lockers provided but said he had observed
43 "there is never enough storage in any building" and he suggested it would
44 be far less costly for tenants to use a mini-storage facility like those
45 proposed for the empty space in the old LaBelle building at Apache Plaza.
46
47 There was some discussion of the "hysteria" about college students which
48 had been demonstrated that evening. Mr. Tushie said a lot of the problems
49 originated with the kids living in the fraternities and sororities on campus.
50 Some of the problems experienced in single family homes in the City were
51 pointed out to him.
• 52
53 There was concurrence that if walkways were provided they would be best sited
54 around the pond rather than around the perimeter of the site. Mr. Childs
55 told the developers all the City's CDBG funds would be used for a pedestrian
• 1 signal on Kenzie Terrace. The feasibility of installing a monitoring system
2 for seniors like the 202 project next door was also explored. The concept
3 of having a care center in one of the buildings was touched lightly on before
4 the motion recommending design changes was developed.
5
6 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
7
8 Motion by Madden, seconded by Hansen to recommend the Council accept the
9 modified site plans and Concept Development Plan presented by Arkell Developers
10 during the Special Planning Commission hearing November 3, 1986, for the
11 phased development of Phases II and III of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment
12 project to include:
13
14 1 . the return to senior rental rather than market rate rental proposed
15 October 3, 1986;
16
17 2. two buildings of four stories each;
18
19 3. 300 rather than 288 units proposed October 3, 1986;
20
21 4. sloped roof rather than flat roof approved December, 1985;
22
23 5. deletion of 33,000 square feet of commercial approved December, 1985;
24
25 6. return of pond as the centerpiece of property.
26
• 27 The Planning Commission recommends approval of the changes on the conditions
28 the developers:
29
30 a. provide a total of 300 parking spaces (ratio 1 to 1 ) •with at least 50%
31 underground;
32
33 b. designate other areas on the site where parking could be expanded,
34 if the need arises;
35
36 c. provide two elevators per building as a service for senior occupants;
37
38 d. construct sloping roofs rather than the flat roofs approved in December,
39 1985;
40
41 e. provide the additional brick facing on the buildings shown on the ele-
42 vation drawings for the project dated November 3, 1986.
43
44 In recommending the Council accept these changes, the Planning Commission
45 anticipates that the detailed plans for landscaping, lighting, signage, and
46 possibly walkways, storage, and emergency call system would be addressed in
47 the Detailed Concept and Final Plans required to be provided later in the
48 process under the P.U.D.
49
50; Motion carried unanimously.
51-
• 521 DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
53 TO NOVEMBER 10. , 1986 COUNCIL MEETING
54
55 Commissioner Jones indicated that, since he did not intend to seek reappoint-
ment to the Commission in 1987, he would like to report the minutes of this
i
• 1 meeting to the Council . Commissioner Madden who had also indicated an :
2 interest in giving that report, acceded to his report.
3
4 ADJOURNMENT
5
6 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Jones to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM:
7
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16
17 Helen Crowe, Secretary
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
47
48
49
50
51
• 52
53
54
55
Spoke During November 3 , 1986 Commission Hearing
St . Anthony Residents
Stanley._Mi.rocha, - 2604 - 29th Avenue N. E. i
rat --Archambault , 2715 Pahl Avenue: N.. E.
Greg.-Van Alstine,- 2600 . - 27th •Avenue N.E. -
Elsie- Evans , 2500.. St,:::Anthony Boulevard
- p__ - 2524.._---27th Avenue N. E. -
-
Josephine Basara , ___ - • . - . _ ._ , �.�
Minneapolis Residents
Walt Dziedzic,. Minneapolis Alderman
- Yvonne Meyer, -2352 -Coolidge. Street -N.E. -
Gary Muske, 2321 Stinson Boulevard
Ida S. Hautala , 2331 Roosevel-t Street N. E . -
Barb 'Kalb, said Brighton Boulevard
_ Mrs . Erlene Sivanich 2342_ Wilson Street ,N. E. ,
Virginia• Borsa? , 2223 Wilson Street N. E .
Jim Hudoba , 2310 Wilson Street N. E. - -r
Signed Slips But Did Not Speak
St . Anthony Residents
Russell Karkula, 2828 Highway 88
Joe and LaVon Brinkman, 2529 St . Anthony Boulevard
'Vern and Marjorie Scott , 2520 Pahl Street N. E .
Ray and Rose Perzel , 2521 - 27th Avenue N. E .
Bill Karkula , 2901 -33rd Avenue N. E. ,
Chris Addington, 2612 St .Anthony Boulevard
James C. Parish, 2812 Silver Lake Road
Minneapolis Residents
Anne Addington, 2234 Stinson Boulevard
Mr . and Mrs . Elmer Westin, 2201 . Wilson Street N. E.
John and Ella Coleman , 2222 Wilson Street N. E.
Virginia Younk, 2306 Wfilson Street N. E .
Debra J . Jasicki , 2343 Wilson Street N. E .
Mrs . Lidwina S. Buckwald , 2307 Roosevelt Street N. E .
Mr . and Mrs . G. A. Balstad , 2314 Roosevelt Street N . E .
Mary Garey, 2323 Roosevelt Street N. E.
Dave Bosgratom, 2324 Roosevelt Street 'N . E.
Vern Wennerstrom, 2327 Roosevelt Street N . E .
• Henry and Lorraine Budnick, 2335 Roosevelt Street N . E .
Mrs . Norman Gallus , 2339 Roosevelt Street N. E .
William C . Barker, 2334 Taft Street N. E.
E. S . Hebycr,s ►�:' 2338 loft Street N
c