HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09171996 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
ioioaz
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1996
Document: PL MINUTES 09171996
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996
4 I. CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Bergstrom at
6 7:03 P.M.
7 II. ROLL CALL.
8 Commissioners present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Delmonico, Franzese,
9 Gondorchin, Horst, Makowske, and Thompson.
10 Commissioners absent: None.
11 - Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant and Michael Mornson,
12 City Manager.
13 III. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
14 Motion by Thompson, seconded by Delmonico, to approve the Planning Commission Agenda for
15 September 17, 1996 as presented.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 18, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
8 MINUTES.
19 Motion by Bergstrom, seconded by Franzese,to approve the August 18, 1996 Planning
20 Commission Meeting minutes with the following changes:
21
22 Page 1, Line 23: After"general,"replace text with"would set precedent potentially leading
23 to the destabilization and invalidation of the Comprehensive Plan
24 objectives and City's Zoning Ordinances, and an unwillingness of the
25 applicant to physically modify the home to meet the requirements of
26 multiple family homes".
27 Page 2.Line 6: Remove "due to"and replace with"in order to avoid".
28 Page 5, Line 5: Remove"Unanimously" and add"Commissioner Gondorchin voted nay".
29 Page 14, Line 32: Add"Mr. Gerster stated he would look into the location of the outside
30 dumpster".
31 Page 15, Line 3: Remove "cuts" and replace with"angle" and after"on" add"and off the".
32 Page 16, Line 11: Remove "too quick" and replace with"an expedited process".
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34 V. DESIGNATE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO SEPTEMBER 24,
35 1996 COUNCIL MEETING.
Chair Bergstrom was appointed as the Planning Commission representative for the Tuesday,
September 24, 1996, City Council meeting.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
• Page 2
1 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
2 A. Realty Development Advisors, Lot 3. Block 1, Silver Lake Center(Apache Plaza) (96-
3 16
4 1. Conditional Use Permit- Video Sales and Rental.
5 2. Sign Variance Request-Video Sales and Rental; Bagel Shop.
6 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:10 P.M.
7 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant reported Lee Stedman of Realty Development
8 Advisors, LLC, has applied for a conditional use permit for a proposed video rental store that is
9 one of two proposed stores to be built as part of the Apache Plaza redevelopment plan for Lot 3.
10 The second store, a bagel shop, is an allowed use in the commercial zoning district.
11 The proposed video rental store is a use that is allowed in a commercial zoning district such as
12 Apache Plaza(Chap. 16, Section 1635.03, (I)). The use will not be detrimental to health, safety,
13 or general welfare of the people living or working in the vicinity. As stated by their conditional
14 use application,the proposed store will not contain X-rated video tapes. The Apache Plaza
15 location is desirable for the proposed use because it is a convenient location for the community.
16 This proposed use will not be detrimental to property values, but instead, it is expected to
17 increase the redevelopment value of the surrounding commercial properties and the area as a
whole.
19 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported Lee Stedman has also requested a sign variance for the building that
20 is housing the video and bagel stores. As the site plan shows, the proposed building is situated
21 such that it has business frontage on the east and south sides. Mr. Stedman is requesting a sign
22 variance for the north side of the building, which has no business right-of-way frontage, to take
23 advantage of the southbound vehicular traffic on Silver Lake Road.
24 The proposal is to have two wall signs, one on the east side of the building that will wrap around
25 to the south side and does not require a variance. The other sign is proposed to be on the east
26 side of the building-and will wrap around to the north side. These wrap around wall signs will
27 not exceed 15% of the area of the wall to which the sign will be applied.
28 Staff is recommending the approval of the conditional use permit being requested by Lee
29 Stedman of Realty Development Advisors, LLC based on the fact that the City Ordinance allows
30 the use as a conditional use in a commercial zoning district.
31 Staff is also recommending the approval of the sign variance request for business right-of-way
32 frontage on the north side of the proposed building to accommodate the need for increased
33 visibility for traffic going southbound on Silver Lake Road and traffic in the retail center.
The conditions upon which this variance request is based are unique to this area because Apache
Plaza is being redeveloped into a retail center that has independent retail businesses being
36 planned along Silver Lake Road and are not part of the main retail center. The applicant desires
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 17, 1996
Page 3
1 to take advantage of the potential for increased traffic attracted to the Apache Plaza by utilizing a
2 wrap around wall sign concept to provide increased visibility to potential customers. The
3 applicant will not require more sign surface area than what is allowable by the City's wall sign
4 ordinance.
5 Chair Bergstrom questioned if the road access extension of 39th Avenue on the south side of
6 these buildings was actually a City street. If it was not, a variance may also be required for that
7 signage.
8 City Manager Mornson noted that 39th Avenue does end into Apache Plaza and then becomes a
9 private road.
10 Lee Stedman, Realty Development Advisors, LLC, displayed an illustration of the site plan of
11 the proposal. The building will be 8,500 square feet. The site will include 96 parking stalls, 92
12 stalls are required by City Code. He reported he is currently negotiating with two tenants, a
13 nationally recognized bagel store and a nationally recognized video store, for the space. The site
14 includes a drive-up lane which will be used for quick service. He is currently negotiating with
15 First Bank to provide a cross access to improve the traffic flow on the site. He noted the location
16 of the monument sign which will have a 40 square foot face.
0 Chair Bergstrom asked if this drawing was different than the drawing provided in the
g g g
18 Commissioner's packet.
19 Mr. Stedman noted the business locations had been reversed.
20 Jay Scott, OPUS Corporation, explained part of the Redevelopment Agreement for Apache Plaza
21 was an Restricted Easement Agreement(REA) between First Bank, Opus and Ste. Marie Co.
22 which placed various site line restrictions on the balance of the property which included this lot.
23 These restrictions include building height, size and building envelope. One problem with this
24 development was that the proposed building envelope location was 130 feet from 39th Avenue.
25 This location has been approved by SuperValu but not by Herbergers. Due to this,the building
26 has been shifted 17 feet to the north. This location will meet all the requirements of the REA and
27 the City Codes. The configuration and the elevations will remain the same. If Herbergers does
28 agree to the previous location of the building envelope,the building will be shifted back to the
29 south.
30 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if the building impacted the sight line of CUB Foods Store.
31 Mr. Scott stated CUB Foods Store has approved both plans.
Mr: Stedman illustrated the elevation of the proposal, noting it will include earth tones. He
stated the sign bands will include individually lit letters.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September,17, 1996
Page 4
1 Commissioner Franzese questioned the possibility of installation of a stop sign on 39th Avenue
2 to help with the traffic exiting in and out of the businesses.
3 Mr. Scott stated he felt a stop sign could possibly result in traffic being backed up into the street.
4 He noted the lane to the west of the businesses and the anticipated cross access_ of First Bank will
5 achieve a circular flow of traffic. There will be an exit and entrance into both lots.
6 Mr. Scott stated the project was attempting to attract national quality retailers. He felt this would
7 require a minimum of dual signs on the buildings.
8 Commissioner Makowske commended OPUS and Realty Development for adjusting the parking
9 area to alleviate the parking variance which had initially been considered.
10 Douglas Jones, 2505 Silver Lane N.E., asked if the overhead power line would be removed from
11 the site.
12 Mr. Scott stated the overhead line was being used temporarily for construction of the SuperValu
13 site and would be removed.
Mornson noted there were five ground signs approved as part of the Comprehensive Sign
4P5 Package for Apache Plaza and asked if this monument sign was considered one of the ground
16 signs. He also asked when the old pylon sign would be removed.
17 Mr. Scott stated this monument sign is one of the ground signs included in the Comprehensive
18 Sign Package for Apache Plaza. The removal of the existing pylon sign will be timed with the
19 balance of the redevelopment of Apache Plaza.
20 Momson suggested the Commission include the signage on the south side of the building in the
21 motion this evening and he will obtain the City Attorney's interpretation prior to the next City
22 Council meeting.
23 Commissioner Franzese stated she believed the area of roadway in question was a street and
24 noted many businesses have 39th Avenue as their legal address.
25 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:33 P.M.
26 Commissioner Makowske noted the developments along Silver Lake Road would all have
27 various owners and asked if an effort was being made to ensure that individual wall signs
28 conformed in a general manner.
Mr. Scott stated there is an effort being made in the overall redevelopment to retain architectural
control and maintain consistent color and patterns.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
Page 5
1 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Delmonico, to recommend City Council approval of the
2 Conditional Use Permit for Video Sales and Rental Store and Bagel Shop; Lot 3, Block 4,
3 Apache Plaza based on the fact that the City Ordinance allows the use as a conditional use in a
4 commercial zoning district.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 Chair Bergstrom stated part of the Apache Plaza Comprehensive Sign Package was to allow the
7 addition of a ground sign. He felt the building would have sufficient signage with a wall sign on
8 the east side of the building and the ground sign.
9 Commissioner Franzese stated the City Ordinance allows one commercial identification sign per
10 "right-of-way".
11 Chair Bergstrom stated if this was correct, the only signage which would require a variance
12 would be the signage on the north side.
13 Commissioner Makowske stated the reason the additional monument signs were included in the
14 Comprehensive Signage Plan for Apache Plaza was to attract national type retailers and to
alleviate the necessity of granting variances. He stated he was inclined to vote against the
4P6 additional signage on the north side of the building.
17 Mornson stated the Comprehensive Sign Package did not include any more monument signs than
18 permitted by Ordinance but did allow the monument signs to be larger in height and width.
19 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he was inclined to vote in favor of the variance due to the
20 placement of the structure and the traffic flow and it will be an identification aid since there will
21 be two businesses in this location.
22 Mornson stated he felt the variance was required as the Ordinance stated signage should be on
23 the side of the building facing frontage.
24 Motion by Delmonico, seconded by Thompson, to recommend City Council approval of the sign
25 variance request for business right-of-way frontage on the north side of the proposed building to
26. accommodate the need for increased visibility for traffic going southbound on Silver Lake Road
27 and traffic in the retail center.
28 Commissioner Gondorchin suggested the motion be amended to include:
29 1. The hardship is not created by the owner but is due to traffic patterns and multiple
tenancy.
2. The condition is unique to the structure and redevelopment of the parcel itself.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
0 Page 6
1 3. It is in spirit of redevelopment of the site and is consistent with previous requests and/or
2 plans for redevelopment of the site.
3 Commissioner Franzese suggested an the motion be amended to include:
4 1. The applicant will not require more sign surface area than what is allowable by the City's
5 wall sign ordinance.
6 Commissioners belmonico and Thompson accepted the amendment to the motion.
7 Voting on the motion: Commissioners Delmonico, Franzese, Gondorchin, Horst, Makowske, and
8 Thompson voted aye. Chair Bergstrom voted nay.
.9 Motion carried.
10 Chair Bergstrom noted this issue will be considered at the September 24, 1996 City Council
11 meeting.
12 B. Ste. Marie Company,Lot 5. Block 1. Silver Lake Center(Apache Plaza): Municipal
Liquor Store (96-15).
04 1. Rear Yard Setback Variance Request.
15 2. Sign Variance Request.
16 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
17 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported Ste. Marie Company, as owner of the property at Apache Plaza
18 Shopping Center, has applied for a rear yard variance of 18 feet, 6 inches from the required
19 setback of the west lot line of the Tires Plus site for an addition they are planning to build. The
20 City Ordinance requires that commercial buildings have a rear yard setback of 20 feet. The
21 proposed addition will be situated 1 foot, 6 inches from the west property line of the site. The
22 4,807 square foot proposed addition is being built on to the existing 3,493 square feet of the Tires
23 Plus building and is proposed to be used as a municipal liquor store. The proposed municipal
24 liquor store will have 8,300 square feet.
25 The variance is being requested because the construction of the addition is limited on the site
26 because of an interior driveway that runs parallel to the west property line and Silver Lake Road
27 that runs parallel to the site on the east. Because Silver Lake Road is designated as a county
28 road, the proposed addition is subject to county road setback requirements,thereby limiting
29 expansion to the east.
30 Also, City Ordinance restricts expansion in this direction because the proposed addition must
have a setback of 35 feet or a distance equal to the average of the front yard depths of the two
adjacent properties. The adjacent properties currently would include Taco Bell, Tire Plus and
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
• Page 7
1 First Bank. Pushing the addition toward Silver Lake Road would encroach into the county
2 setback and exceed the average of the front yard depths of the adjacent lots.
3 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported Ste. Marie Company is also requesting a sign variance for the
4 proposed addition. As the site plan shows, this addition is situated such that it has business
5 frontage on the east side, along Silver Lake Road. Ms. Rothschild is requesting a sign variance
6 for the north side of the proposed addition, which has no business right-of-way. It is being
7 proposed that the wall sign be extended to wrap around to the north side of the building, which
8 will take advantage of the southbound vehicular traffic, as well as the traffic on the Apache Plaza
9 site. This proposed wall sign will not exceed 15%of the wall area to which the sign will be
10 applied.
11 Staff is recommending the approval of the rear yard setback variance request as requested by Ms.
12 Rothschild of the Ste. Marie Company. The requested setback is from a lot line which is
13 adjoining an interior driveway intended for use by the customers of the shopping center and is
14 not adjoining another lot. If the request for the variance is granted, it will not alter the essential
15 character of the locality but allow the site to be redeveloped into a reasonable commercial use.
16 The circumstances causing.the hardship that necessitated the need to request this rear yard
setback were created by the location of the site between a county road right-of-way and an
interior driveway through this shopping center and were not created by the'owner. It is possible
19 that as the shopping center is redeveloped, this interior driveway could change or cease to exist.
20 So, while a setback variance is required by City Ordinance,the impact of constructing the
21 proposed addition 1 foot, 6 inches from the property line that is adjacent to an interior driveway
22 is not as great as it would be if constructed adjacent to another building on the site or adjacent to
23 a residential area.
24 Staff is also recommending the approval of the sign variance request for business right-of-way
25 frontage on the north side of the proposed addition to accommodate the need.for increased
26 visibility for traffic going southbound on Silver Lake Road and traffic in the retail center.
27 The conditions upon which this variance request is based are unique to this area because Apache
28 Plaza is being redeveloped into a retail center that has independent retail businesses being
29 planned along Silver Lake Road and are not part of the main retail center. The applicant desires
30 to take advantage of the potential for increased traffic attracted to the Apache Plaza by utilizing a
31 wrap around wall sign concept to provide increased visibility to potential customers driving
32 either on Silver Lake Road or on the driveways through Apache Plaza. The applicant will not
33 require more sign surface area than what is allowable by the City's wall sign ordinance.
34 Commissioner Makowske stated the reason for allowing larger monumental signs on these
parcels was that they are included in the Comprehensive Sign Package for Apache Plaza. Staff is
it now asking the Commission to consider these developments as being separate from Apache
37 Plaza.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
Page 8
1 Ms. Moore-Sykes clarified that these developments are not part of the main building of the retail
2 center.
3 Tom Gerster KKE Architects, presented an illustration of the proposed site plan. The building
4 addition will be located on the north side of the building and Tire Plus will occupy the south
5 side. He illustrated the traffic flow and stated the desire in the long term is to have parking
6 contiguous with a shared access on the adjoining lot when it is developed. There are 54 parking
7 stalls available and 50 are required by City Code. He stated the intent of the proposal is to
8 maximize the potential of this piece of property which is limited in square feet by the county
9 road and setbacks. He explained the elevation and noted the intent to match the existing dark
10 brown brick on all four sides. The existing canopy will not be carried through. The stucco and
11 fascia will be carried through the entire addition. He stated the intent of the additional proposed
12 signage on the north is to draw traffic in from the internal road system.
13 Commissioner Gondorchin asked what measures would be used to discourage two-way traffic in
14 the one-way traffic areas and where the outside dumpster would be placed.
15 Mr. Gerster stated signage would be utilized to discourage two-way traffic in this area. He stated
16 the SAV II trash would be contained within the building. The location of the Tire Plus dumpster
has not been discussed at this time.
18 Commissioner Horst asked if the main entrance would be located on the north side of the
19 building.
20 Mr. Gerster stated the main entrance would be located on the side of the building facing east.
21 Doug Jones, 2505 Silver Lane N.E., asked how many parking spaces were required specifically
22 for the SAV II Liquor Store and their proximity to the entrance. He also noted a promise which
23 was made at the time of the CUB Food Store proposal which stated ponding would be created or
24 the drainage attached to the new ponding when this lot was redeveloped. He requested this be
25 included in the granting of the variance.
26 Mr. Gerster stated 24 parking stalls are required for the SAV II Liquor Store and 27 are provided.
27 He noted there is a service,entrance in the rear of the building and employees would be able to
28 park in this area and enter from the rear of the building.
29 Bruce Miller, Westwood Engineering, stated he had worked on the.Master Storm Water
30 Treatment Plan for the entire redevelopment project and also the Environmental Assessment
31 Worksheet. At the time these documents were created it was not clear what configuration the
32 SAV II Liquor Store would have. As part of the Master Storm Water Plan, two storm water
ponds were installed north of 39th Avenue and a.stub was put across for future redevelopment on
Lot 4. At this juncture, there are two issues. Because the natural surface drainage is trapped
35 against the facility, the only option is to pipe that water somewhere. The desire is to pipe the
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
Page 9
1 water back to the in-place storm sewer that serves the south end of Apache Plaza development in
2 connection to the trunk in Silver Lake Road. He stated he met with Kate Drewey of the Rice
3 Creek Watershed District last week and the criteria they would require would be to install a grit
4 chamber for this drainage. This would be a 6 foot by 6 foot box with internal buffers to screen
5 the sediment and would require periodic cleaning. This is not as effective for nutrient but would
6 be better than the typical manhole. This has been discussed with the project proposers and they
7 are willing to proceed with this option. The other issue is the natural drainage to the northeast
8 corner. A catch basin will be installed and when Lot 4 develops,the drainage will be routed
9 through Lot 4 and connected to the new system south of 39th Avenue. In the interim it will be
10 connected to the catch basin on Silver Lake Road. Rice Creek Watershed District has found this
11 acceptable.
12 Mr. Miller explained that all the drainage on the site will be treated, once the area is fully
13 developed. 80% of the drainage of the water from this site will go through the two pond
14 systems. This has been reviewed with OPUS and they are in agreement and will permit this.
15 Momson asked if the grit chamber would be permanent. Mr. Miller stated he believed it would
16 be but there was a possibility that when the body of the Center is removed, depending on the
17 development scheme of Lot 7, the drainage may be routed to a future pond in that area.
Mr. Jones confirmed that 80% of the site includingboth roofs all of the parcel that is on the east
19 side of the property and all the property on the north side, will eventually drain into the two
20 ponds which have been constructed on the south side of 39th.
21 Mr. Miller stated this was correct.
22 Mr. Jones stated this he felt this showed good faith. He asked if it would be possible to drain the
23 water from the grid chamber back behind Taco Bell into the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way.
24 Mr. Miller stated he was aware that there was drainage to that area but it is unpermitted.
25 Mr. Jones stated he felt Westwood Professional Services had answered all questions completely
26 and honestly, and was doing a marvelous job on the development to date. He stated he was
27 pleased to see the development go forward and was only concerned with the potential damage to
28 Silver Lake. He stated he was willing to accept Westwood's word as long as it was part of the
29 public hearing. He stated he would like a stipulation included in the granting of the variance that
30 all the drainage of this site would be handled as stated tonight.
31 Chair Bergstrom stated he was happy to hear that the relationship was going well.. He noted the
32 Planning Commission does not have to authority to approve ponding and NURP standards. They
have been deferring this to Rice Creek Watershed District and will continue to do so.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
Page 10
1 Mr. Jones stated he felt the City could make the drainage requirements a condition of the
2 variance. He noted this parcel of 2.5 acres is below the Rice Creek Watershed standards for
3 requirement of ponding. He was concerned that if Mr. Miller was not associated with the project
4 in the future,the plans may be changed.
5 Mr. Bill Zawislak, 2500-34th Avenue, stated he was in favor of the proposal. He stated he felt
6 this situation was unique in that the proposal is trying to take a tire store and make it into a liquor
7 store while retaining the same color scheme that has existed for many years. That is why extra
8 signage is required and why it is necessary for it to be placed in a specific area. This is a chance
9 for a fresh start and if it is done right the Liquor Store could be restored to what-it was in the
10 past. A hardship would be created if the City does not approve this project.
11 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 8:25 P.M.
12 Commissioner Franzese noted that the current off-sale liquor location only has 4 to 5 parking
13 stalls in front of the store.
14 Commissioner Horst expressed his concern that if the variance was granted for what was good
15 for the City, it should be good for all business who face the same problem. He did not want to
see an inequitable situation created between the City and other businesses. He stated he did not
feel the drainage issue had anything to do with the variance request.
18 Commissioner Gondorchin stated his concern with the parking on the north side of the building.
19 He also did not feel approval of the variance should be contingent on ponding requirements.
20 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Franzese, to recommend City Council approval of the sign
21 variance request for business right-of-way frontage on the north side of the proposed addition as
22 it meets the variance criteria as follows:
23 1. The hardship is not created by the owner but is due to traffic patterns and multiple
24 tenancy
25 2. This condition is unique to the structure and redevelopment of the parcel itself.
26 3. It is in spirit of redevelopment of the site and is consistent with previous requests and/or
27 plans for redevelopment of the site.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 Commissioner Makowske stated he found it difficult to justify the hardship for the rear yard
31 setback variance.
Motion by Franzese, seconded by Delmonico,to recommend City Council approval of the rear
it yard setback variance of 18 feet, 6 inches from the required setback of the west lot line of the
34 Tires Plus site as it meets the variance criteria as follows:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
• Page 11
1 1. It will not alter the essential character of the locality but will allow the site to be
2 redeveloped into a reasonable commercial use.
3 2. The hardship was not created by the owner but by the location of the site between
4 a county road right-of-way and an interior driveway through this shopping center.
5 3. The proposal is adding onto an incompatible use, a Tire Company.
6 4. No one appeared to speak against the proposal.
7 Commissioner Franzese commended the developer and engineer for working out an amicable
8 agreement for the water problem that was previously identified and encouraged Staff to continue
9 to work toward the goals that had previously been established.
10 Voting on the motion: Commissioners Bergstrom, Delmonico, Franzese, Gondorchin, and Thompson
11 voted aye. Commissioners Horst and Makowske voted nay.
12 Motion carried.
13
14 Chair Bergstrom noted this issue will be addressed at the September 24, 1996 City Council
15 meeting.
Chair Bergstrom recessed the meeting at 8:35 P.M. and reconvened at 8:42 P.M. There was
*7 Commission consensus to defer Items VII.A. and B. to follow Items VII.C. and VIII.A.
18 VII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
19 C. Bona, Unocal Expansion.
20 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported Mr. Bona has decided to scale back his plans for expansion of his
21 service station due to construction costs and the lateness of the construction season. He would
22 like the Planning Commission to consider new plans that would allow him a modest expansion
23. and to incorporate the old meat market building into the building plans for repair bays.
24 Mr. Roger Bona, St. Anthony Unocal 2812-27th Avenue N.E., stated he regrettably had to go to
25 Plan B when he realized the previously approved plan would cost$1/4 million over his budget.
26 He has entered into an agreement with Belair Contracting of New Brighton. The proposed
27 building will be compatible with Kensington and First Bank. It will be of a rustic character
28 constructed of dark brick and will be functional for himself and the community.
29 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained the proposal will include a second floor. The current building and
30 the proposed addition have a rear yard setback of 10 feet. Since this is a major reconstruction
31 and will add an additional 18 feet to the building, it will require a setback variance of 10 feet.
32 This variance could be considered a rear yard, side yard, or setback in a residential area.
Chair Bergstrom asked if the required number of parking stalls would be provided.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 17, 1996
Page 12
1 Mr. Bona stated they would. He noted he had approached all of his neighbors and had received
2 no negative comments to the proposal. He stated the proposal will allow the door through which
3 the cars enter to be positioned such that the noise will be aimed at his own property rather than
4 the neighboring properties.
5 Chair Bergstrom asked if Mr. Bona was still intending to install the plantings on the north side of
6 the lot.
7 Mr. Bona stated he did intend to do the plantings. He noted the neighbor who had previously
8 requested the plantings had been involved in the decision of types of planting and the process is
9 going well. He hopes to plant in the fall of this year.
10 Chair Bergstrom noted this proposal would require a variance and suggested Mr. Bona continue
11 to work with Staff to determine the details.
12
13 VIII. CONSULTANT REVIEW.
14 A. BRW. Inc. - Bill Weber.
15 Mr. Bill Weber, BRW, Inc., stated he had completed the Comprehensive Plan for the City of St.
16 Anthony in 1,979. He stated he had a lot of related experience with many first ring suburbs
including Columbia Heights, Hopkins and Eau Claire, Wisconsin. He is currently working on
*8 the Comprehensive Plan Update for Brooklyn Center, a City which is very similar to the City of
19 St. Anthony.
20 Mr. Weber stated his main objectives would be to create a practical handbook; understand and
21 address the key issues; address the needs of the Commission, City Council and Staff, be specific,
22 direct, clear and realistic; and meet the Metropolitan Council requirements. He stated the Update
23 would involve a continuum through the plan, written objectives and policies that pertain directly
24 to the issues, and working with the Commission to brainstorm and identify the Commission'`s
25 needs. He felt the main challenges of the Update would include stabilization of neighborhoods,
26 repositioning of the Shopping Center, accommodation of an aging and younger population,and
27 maintaining a"village" charm. The manners in which the emerging issues would be considered
28 would include "brainstorming"with officials and citizens,providing BRW, Inc.'s insights, and
29 thinking in a long-term basis. The manners used to communicate with citizens would include the
30 City newsletter,public workshops, chapter drafts, and displays. In summary, he felt BRW, Inc.
31 would be qualified for the position due to their experienced team, traffic and engineering advice
32 is available within the company, encore performance, and enthusiasm for the work.
33 Commissioner Franzese asked Mr. Weber how he intended to identify the issues which were
34 important to the City of St. Anthony.
Mr. Weber stated he would work with the Planning Commission and citizens using the nominal
group technique. This is a structured exercise to obtain ideas by brainstorming. There is no
37 criticism or judging. He will also bring forth issues based on his experience.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
• Page 13
1 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if BRW, Inc. employed surveys to draw out residents and how
2 much they cost.
3 Mr. Weber stated he did believe surveys were effective and stated the total cost including
4 writing, tabulating, and writing the results would be approximately $4,000 to $5,000.
5 Commissioner Horst asked if Mr. Weber was looking at this as an update or a total redo of the
6 Comprehensive Plan.
7 Mr. Weber stated this will be a redo in the sense that all the'maps are new, the text will be
8 different,the goals, objectives and policies will have to be examined, and there is the housing,
9 water and storm sewer element as required by the Metropolitan Council. He stated he realized
10 the City was on a budget of$30,000 and he felt his firm could complete the project within that
11 budget. He stated he would require more help from City Staff and would use his time more
12 judicially.
13 Commissioner Franzese asked what BRW, Inc. would use to estimate demographics. She stated
14 the population had changed a lot since the last census report.
Mr. Weber stated he would use the census data but would also elicit the help of the School
*6 District who may have more updated information.
17 Chair Bergstrom asked what Mr. Weber felt could be the biggest challenge that the Commission
18 was unaware of.
19 Mr. Weber stated he felt the City may encounter resistance to change. He noted he did not
20 foresee a lot of major problems or surprises.
2.1 Commissioner Franzese asked who would be involved in the projected five workshops.
22 Mr. Weber stated these workshops could include the Planning Commission and citizens. He
23 suggested these meetings be published well in advance and made to be interesting and fun. He
24 noted he anticipated completion of the Update within 7 to 9 months.
25 Chair Bergstrom asked what type of base map would be provided.
26 Mr. Weber stated all map work is done on the computer. The City will be provided with an
27 electronic form of the map which they can use.
28 The Commission thanked Mr. Weber for his time. Mr. Weber stated he felt he had a lot of good
related experience and looked forward to working with the City of St. Anthony again.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 17, 1996
Page 14
1 VII. CONCEPT REVIEW CONTINUED.
2 A. Hark. 2914 - 36th Avenue N.E.
3 There was no one present to represent this proposal.
4 Staff presented proposal to the Planning Commission.
5
6 B. -Beach, Townhomes -Verkins Addition.
7 There was no one present to represent this proposal.
8
9 Commissioner Gondorchin stated his initial reaction was that the variances in-this proposal
10 appeared to be a convenience to the owners of the property. He stated he would prefer to see
11 single family homes in this area.
12 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the developer has indicated that people do not want single family homes
13 adjacent to a freeway. Staff has also asked Mr. Beach to decrease the number of townhomes in
14 the development and he stated this is not possible because of the cost of the land.
15 There was Commission consensus to ask the developer to reconfigure the plan and return in
16 October for a Concept Review.
07 IX. ACTION ITEMS.
18 A. TIF Amendment Recommendation.
19 Momson reported the City of St. Anthony has accumulated excess funds in some TIF Districts
20 including Kensington and Chandler Nursing Homes. These funds can be used to fund other
21 development projects. An amendment is being proposed to allow the spending of the excess
22 funds on other projects. The amendment will not extend the life of the Tax Increment Districts
23 but will.allow the funds to get a new project started. State statutes require that the Planning
24. Commission render an opinion on the amendment.
25 Commissioner Gondorchin suggested that some of the excess funds be set aside for streetscaping
26 and updating and extension of sidewalks.
27 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Makowske, that the Planning Commission has reviewed the
28 amendment to the City of St. Anthony Redevelopment Plan and has made the recommendations
29 contained in the minutes of the meeting.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 B. Ordinance Amendment Recommendation.
33 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated this was a recommendation for a proposed amendment to the ordinance
�4 relating to certain setbacks in shopping centers which was prepared by the City Attorney.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 17, 1996
Page 15
1 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if a number had to be assigned to the number of establishments
2 that defined a shopping center. He also noted he felt the square footage was an important factor.
3 Chair Bergstrom stated he felt the intent of the Ordinance Amendment was good.
4 Commissioner Horst expressed his concern that there be equitable situations for all types of
5 businesses.
6 Momson noted this would be included as a public hearing at the October Planning Commission
7 meeting:
8
9 C. Recommendation of Consultant for Comprehensive Plan Update.
10 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he preferred either BRW, Inc. or DSU as a consultant for the
11 Comprehensive Plan Update.
12 Commissioner Horst stated he was concerned that DSU had given the impression that their
13 Update may not receive Metropolitan Council approval. He stated he was impressed with the
14 presentation given by BRW, Inc.
Commissioner Makowske stated he liked the fact that BRW, Inc. had worked with the City of St.
*6 Anthony in the past and that Mr. Weber indicated the company and himself have grown since
17 that time. He stated his two choices for consultant would be DSU and BRW, Inc.
18 Chair Bergstrom stated he would prefer BRW, Inc. or DSU. He felt that BRW, Inc. may be more
. 19 restrictive on the number of meetings included in the proposal.
20 Commissioner Delmonico stated he felt Mr. Weber appeared to be honest and more adaptable to
. 21 what the City wanted to do. DSU seemed more focused on what they wanted to do.
22 Commissioner Horst stated he would rather see the meetings involving a select committee and
23 not always being held in a public hearing format.
24 Chair Bergstrom stated he felt a committee should be created which included 3 or 4 members of
25 the Planning Commission, 2 members of the City Council, City Manager and Management
26 Assistant, School Boardmembers,representatives from the industrial businesses, retail
27 businesses, and churches in the area, a Realtor, members of service groups and a couple of at-
28 large delegates.
29 Commissioner Gondorchin suggested the committee contain some people from other
30 communities.
01 Morrison suggested a reference check be conducted on the two companies. He also suggested the
32 City Council could interview the two candidates, if the Planning Commission so desired.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 17, 1996
Page 16
1 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he still felt uncertain and would like to do a side by side
2 comparison.
3 Upon vote, Commissioners Delmonico, Franzese, Gondorchin, Horst, and Thompson preferred
4 BRW, Inc. as consultant for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Bergstrom and
5 Makowske preferred DSU. There was Commission consensus to chose BRW, Inc. as consultant
6 for the Comprehensive Plan Update.
7 There was Commission consensus to hold a joint work session to solicit ideas from the Planning
8 Commission.and.City Council before holding the jointlick off meeting with BRW, Inc.
9
10 X. MISCELLANEOUS.
11 A. Comments.
12 1. Commissioners -None.
13 2. Staff-None.
14 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
15 Motion by Horst, seconded by Delmonico, to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 P.M.
'06 Motion carried unanimously.
17 Respectfully submitted,
18 Lorri Kopischke
19 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
•