HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 05162000 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
ioona
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2000
Document: PL MINUTES 05162000
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
MAY 16, 2000
414 7:00 p.m.
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
7 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
8 Chair Bergstrom invited the Commission and audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
9 ROLL CALL.
10 Present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas,
11 Melsha, Hatch, and Stille.
12 Commissioners_ absent: None.
13 Also present: Spencer A. Isom, Assistant City Manager.
14 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE
15 FOLLOWING ITEMS:
16 None:
I. PUBLIC INPUT.
Chair Bergstrom invited anyone from the audience to provide general input to the Planning Com-
19 mission.
20 Patty Salser, 2905 Silver Lake Court, stated that she and her husband are current co-presidents of
21 the Silver Lake Residents Association and they participate with the water quality task force as well.
22 She announced that the Task Force felt that it is very important that action is taken with regard to
23 the water quality of Silver Lake, particularly in light of the fact that Silver Lake is a community
24 resource for fishing and swimming. A suggestion had been given that ponding of the water before
25 the stormwater runs into Silver Lake could be a viable option and she wished to pass that suggestion
26 along to the Commission. .
27 Chair Bergstrom reassured Ms. Salser that the Commission shares her concerns.
28 II. MINUTES.
29 Motion by Thomas,second by Hanson,to approve the April 18,2000 Planning Commission meeting
30 minutes with the following modification:
31 Page 2,Line 16, change "Office/high tech"to "commercial mixed use designation."
32 Motion carried unanimously.
• III. COMMUNICATION FROM CITY COUNCIL.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 2
•
1 Commissioner Stille agreed to attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday,May 23,as the Planning
2 Commission Liaison.
3 IV. REQUESTS FOR POSTPONEMENTS OR WITHDRAWALS OF APPLICATIONS.
4 1. Withdrawal of Hillcrest Development's request for zoning_map change and zoning code
5 amendment.
6 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom provided background information on this subject for the
7 Commission by stating that on April 18, 2000, the Commission heard Hillcrest's request for the
8 following (1) an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate an office/High-tech
9 designation; (2) a petition for new zoning district for Apache Plaza property from a C-1 to a C-2-
10 Commercial which would allow a change from strictly retail use to office,commercial,warehouse,
11 and light industrial uses; and (3) an amendment to the zoning ordinance for a change from C-1 to
12 a C-2 district. During the April 18,2000 meeting,the Commission asked Hillcrest to withdraw their
13 request for items two and three.
14 Consequently,Hillcrest Development has submitted a formal request to withdraw its application for
15 zoning map change and zoning code amendment.
Motion by Melsha, second by Tillmann, to accept Hillcrest Development's withdrawal letter, as
written by Anthony J. Gleekel, dated April 25, 2000.
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS.
20 1. Public Hearing. Ordinance 2000-006 relating to zoning and planned unit developments;
21 amending section 1655 of the St. Anthony Code of Ordinances in its entirety.
22 Chair Bergstorm opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
23 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reviewed for the Commission that Ordinance 2000-006, a
24 copy of which is in the Commission's agenda packets,is consistent with the May 4,2000 update of
25 the critical path for the planned unit development/ordinance process and Hillcrest Development's
26 redevelopment of Apache Plaza. The ordinance was drafted by the City's planning consultant
27 ("DSU") and subsequently edited by City Attorney Soth.
28 In this respect,Isom invited planning consultant John Shardlow,DSU,to address the Commission.
29 Mr. Shardlow reviewed that the firm of DSU had been contacted to assist the City with the Apache
30 Plaza redevelopment project. Subsequently, Mr. Shardlow recommended that the City pursue a
31 Planned Unit Development ("PUD"), but in order to do that, the City needed to create a new land
use designation. That designation would be a commercial mixed land use designation,and there is
0 currently an application pending before the Metropolitan Council for a minor amendment to the
34 Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 3
0
1 Mr. Shardlow presented a pyramid illustration which indicated the level of control and discretion
2 that is available to cities in different categories of the illustration.
3 Mr. Shardlow explained the definition of a PUD, which is also listed in the proposed Ordinance
4 2000-006. In essence, a PUD is a zoning district and development plan which may include single
5 or mixed uses, and one or more lots or parcels, and which is intended to create a more flexible,
6 creative, and efficient approach to the use of land. A PUD site must be three acres in size, and
7 applications for PUD approval will not be considered for sites of less than 3 acres.
Stille inquired about Section 1655.09, Subd. 4., Securijy., which was page five of the proposed
Ordinance 2000-006. Stille stated that the section mentioned that a letter of credit in a form
acceptable to the city shall be required to guarantee performance by the Developer. Stille suggested
an addition to the section which would address an acceptable source to obtain the letter of credit.
8 Mr. Shardlow stated he would mention that issue to City Attorney William Soth.
9 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
10 Chair Bergstrom asked the Commissioners for comments.
0 Thomas is satisfied with the PUD.
12 Hanson asked if the park dedication ordinance would be addressed. Bergstrom responded that he
13 would envision that to be placed in the PUD Agreement. Mr. Shardlow agreed that the park dedica-
14 tion ordinance would be addressed in the PUD agreement. Furthermore,he stated that City Attorney
15 Soth would address the issue in the subdivision regulations.
16 Hatch inquired about the possibility of future requests regarding PUDs.
17 Mr. Shardlow said the ability to vary from rigid setbacks is an excellent option for the City because
18 a property could be custom designed.
19 Stille stated that he had reviewed another city's PUD and was informed that there is a need for
20 finding of fact for the applicant. This finding of fact would be intended to assure the community and
21 the City that the PUD is in the best interest of the community.
22 Mr. Shardlow assured the Commission that any time a zoning decision is made,the findings of fact
23 are adopted. It would be Mr. Shardlow's assumption that, as part of his retainment with the City,
24 that factual information would be included in the findings and then would go to the City Council as
25 a draft set of findings.
Motion by Thomas, second by Tillmann, to adopt Ordinance 2000-006, an Ordinance Relating to
7 Zoning and Planned Unit Developments; Amending Section 1655 of the St. Anthony Code of
28 Ordinances in its Entirety.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 4
•
1 Motion Carried Unanimously.
2 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
3 None.
4 VII. REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS, AND/OR CONCEPT REVIEWS.
5 1. Concept Review. 4004 Fordham Drive Lot Width and Lot Area Variance Request.
6, Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom stated that David and Pauletta Sperry were asking for a
7 variance for their property at 4004 Fordham Drive. The Commission and City Council had previ-
8 ously heard the request(both in May 1999),and both the Council and the Commission approved the
9 request. However, the variance request would expire on May 25, 2000, and Mr. and Mrs. Sperry
10 have not been able to complete the project. Under City Ordinance,the structure must be constructed
11 within one year from the date the variance is granted, or a new Petition for Variance must begin.
12 Chair Bergstrom invited Mr. and Mrs. Sperry to address the Commission. Mr. Sperry stated that
13 they were delayed in beginning construction last summer,and have recently come to an agreement
14 about the structure,and have a plan in hand. Mr. Sperry said the plan is not exactly the same as was
15 approved last year, and the plan still falls within the 35% lot coverage restriction. The reason for
the ordinance is because the lot in question is 60 feet wide and its area is 7,985 square feet and as
such,not considered a buildable residential lot according to City Ordinance. The Ordinance states
18 that a residential lot in the R-1 Zoning District must be a minimum 75 feet wide and an interior lot
19 must be not less than 9,000 square feet. The Sperrys are asking for a lot.width variance of 15 feet
20 and a lot area variance of 1,015 square feet.
21 Mr. Sperry presented a rendering of the proposed structure, showing the rear elevation, front ele-
22 vation, and floor plan. Mr. Sperry said they are ready to continue, but simply need the building
23 permit.
24 Hatch noted that it would appear from the sketch presented that runoff from the roof would run
25 towards the corners of the house. Mr. Sperry noted that the drainage would mostly drain towards
26 the street and he had been careful in the plans of the home to ensure that runoff did not drain into
27 neighboring yards. Even with that in mind,Mr. Sperry noted his plans to consult with neighbors to
28 ensure that drainage would not jeopardize the adjoining properties.
29 Bergstrom mentioned that it appeared that the plan was consistent with the plans presented last year.
30 However, he stated it would be critical to indicate the side yard setbacks for the next Planning
31 Commission Meeting.
32 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. and Mrs. Sperry for their presentation and input.
2. Concept Review. AT&T Wireless to request Conditional Use Permit for 75 foot monopole
4 tower at 2801 37th Avenue NE.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 5
•
1 Assistant City Manager Isom reviewed for the Commission that AT&T Wireless Services (AWS)
2 was interested in filing an application for a Conditional Use permit to allow for a new 75-foot cellu-
3 lar monopole to be placed on an industrial zoned property at 2801 37th Avenue NE. Permission has
4 been obtained by the owner of the property,and the AWS monopole would be the second such pole
5 on the property. The first pole is owned by US West Wireless Services (USWW).
6 Isom introduced Julie Townsend, Contractor, AT&T Wireless Services, and invited her to address
7 the Commission. Ms. Townsend stated that AWS is proposing to place a similar structure on the
8 property such as US West has installed. AWS is not able to use the existing USWW structure to co-
g locate because AWS needs at least 75 feet for antenna placement. Along with a new monopole,
10 AWS would be constructing an equipment shelter to house the radio cabinets. The shelter is planned
11 to be 12' by 28' and 10' tall and constructed of a material that is acceptable to the City.
12 Bergstrom asked why the two poles couldn't be combined. Ms. Townsend stated that many of the
13 carriers co-locate often; however, negotiations between USWW and AWS had fallen through and
14 the companies were not able to agree on the issue of co-locating poles.
15 Ms. Townsend presented a site map and pointed out several potential locations for the pole.
• Bergstorm offered that if the antenna could be tucked behind a building for an aesthetics purpose,
that would be the optimal choice. Ms. Townsend inquired of Assistant City Manager Isom if there
was an accessory structure setback. Isom stated that he would research the setback requirements and
16 return an answer to her at a later time.
17 Hatch inquired about the possibility of putting the equipment underground. Ms. Townsend re-
18 sponded that such an option had been reviewed by engineers and other professionals,and it had been
19 determined that the equipment could not be placed underground. This is due in part to the harsh
20 Minnesota climate.
21 Thomas mentioned that the issue of antenna placement had been discussed at another Planning
22 Commission meeting, and it was explained at that time that St. Anthony is a desirable place for
23 antennas and towers. Thomas stated his belief that there should be more cooperation between the
24 companies to minimize the number of towers and antennas going up within the community.
25 Ms. Townsend stated that AT&T would be willing to coordinate with another carried in the future,
26 but a taller monopole would have to be installed to accommodate more than one carrier.
Tillmann inquired if there was a conditional use permit for the existing pole and what type of con-
ditions have been enacted into the permit. Isom stated that there is a conditional use permit; how-
ever,the specifics of the permit were unknown. Tillmann wondered if there was a way to nudge US
27 West into reconsidering negotiations with AT&T regarding placement of a monopole.
• Bergstrom summarized the issue for Ms.Townsend by stating that the Commission would prefer that
the base and accessory building be on the north side and if variances and setbacks were required,
28 then Ms. Townsend would need to meet with Assistant City Manager Isom.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 6
•
1 Hatch requested photographs of the proposed structure from different angles and the various lo-
2 cations discussed from the site map presented earlier to be presented at the next Planning
3 Commission meeting.
4 Thomas requested a photograph of the existing pole. Ms. Townsend agreed to both requests.
5 Bergstrom thanked Ms. Townsend for her presentation.
6 3. APPLICATION CONFERENCE AND SKETCH PLAN. Staff, Planning Consultant,and
7 Commission to hear Hillcrest Developments"Application Conference" and"Sketch Plan"
8 for the redevelopment of the Apache Plaza.
9 Assistant City Manager Isom reviewed for the Commission that the application conference is con-
10 sistent with the May 15, 2000 update of the critical-path for planned unit development ordi-
11 nance/process and Hillcrest Development's redevelopment of the Apache Plaza. Proposed Ordi-
12 nance.2000-006 outlines the procedures for processing a Planned Unit Development. The appli-
13 cation conference and sketch plan are the first steps of said procedure. Isom noted for the Com-
14 mission that pertinent sections of the proposed ordinance are included in the agenda packets.
Mr. Shardlow (DSU) addressed the Commission and stated that he was in attendance to represent
it the Staff. Additionally, Hillcrest Development's application would be the first application to be
17 reviewed under the new PUD ordinance, and so it needed to be reviewed carefully. Furthermore,
18. Mr. Shardlow stated that this is the City's opportunity to ask questions of the developer,particularly
19 the need to define the range of uses that would be appropriated within the building and the intensity
20 of the landscaping.
21 Bergstrom thanked Mr. Shardlow for his input and attendance.
22 Anthony Gleekel, attorney for Hillcrest Development, addressed the Commission. Mr. Gleekel
23 stated that he had attended a meeting recently with Chair Bergstrom,Assistant City Attorney Isom,
24 and John Shardlow(DSU),and the application was reviewed during that meeting. Mr.Gleekel noted
25 that the application, application fee, cover letter, exhibits, and narrative that have been presented
26 represent the results of discussions held over the past several months.
27 Mr. Gleekel continued by stating that further information would be submitted, including a rudi-
28 mentary landscaping plan and other issues, such as parking islands, and the beautification of the
29 exterior building. Additionally,Hillcrest has met with a consultant regarding the watershed district
30 issue and different options are being reviewed and considered. With regard to lighting, Hillcrest
31 continues to work with Staff and designers in order to meet City Code and provide prospective
32 tenants with safe and effective lighting.
Mr. Gleekel wished to be clear in stating that Hillcrest Development is not interested in placing any
4 housing or retail on the site.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 7
•
1 Isom noted that there is a clock associated with the application process and that some additional
2 information would be needed from Hillcrest Development in order to complete the process. In the
3 meantime, a public hearing on this issue is scheduled for the June 20, 2000 Planning Commission
4 meeting and the information must be submitted prior to that time.
5 Mr. Gleekel responded that the plans are in the process and that Tuesday, May 30, 2000 would be
6 the latest date he would perceive the plans being submitted.
7 Mr. Scott Tankenoff, managing partner of Hillcrest Development, noted that the New Market site
8 is not considered ancillary at this point and believed it was needed to support the Apache Plaza site
9 at this time.
10 Bergstrom mentioned the watershed issues. Mr. Tankenoff stated that Hillcrest Development is
1 l taking the watershed issue seriously and that many comments have been made about the water
12 quality of Silver Lake. Mr. Tankenoff stated that he has talked with many residents as well as City
13 Staff,and that Hillcrest Development is planning on including a meaningful amount of time relating
14 to stormwater quality for the site.
15 Hanson noted that some of the impervious surfaces around Apache Plaza might be alleviated once
the landscaping planned for the site is accomplished. This could assist in alleviating some of the
stormwater quality issue.
18 Bergstrom noted that the Commission would like to view drawings on how traffic is proposed to be
19 circulated around the site. He believed that the City would like to manage some traffic control so
20 jams would not occur going across the bridge.
21 Bergstrom inquired if a signage package had been developed. Mr.Gleekel responded that a signage
22 package was being developed,but the ultimate plans would depend upon the type of clients obtained.
23 Bergstrom suggested that a form of a comprehensive signage package be presented for consideration
24 and review to the Planning Commission when Hillcrest arrives at that planning stage.
25 Hanson inquired about the lack of potential food suppliers in the area to support the tenants of the
26 building. Mr. Tankenoff responded that there are three options currently available and others are
27 being considered.
28 Bergstrom asked Mr. Tankenoff to discuss in the preliminary plan the idea that Hillcrest Devel-
29 opment might be approached by wireless companies wishing to place antennas on top of the
30 building. Mr. Tankenoff responded that issue would be addressed in the plan.
31 Bergstrom inquired about the community space concept for Apache Plaza. Mr. Tankenoff en-
couraged the City to form a task force to consider variations of options. Mr. Tankenoff offered that
3 the community space concept would not be driving the redevelopment project; however,he would
34 be interested in obtaining visions from the City about the ,concept in order to continue with
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 8
•
1 preliminary concepts. Bergstrom encouraged Mr. Tankenoff to work with the City and consultant
2 John Shardlow about the scope of the project.
3 In response to questions regarding a backup plan for the redevelopment,Mr. Shardlow clarified that
4 the proposal from Hillcrest is to redevelop the property, and there will be an understanding within
5 the PUD to that extent. However,there also needs to be an understanding about a separate backup
6 plan. Mr. Shardlow stressed that it is important to anticipate the process and have a potential
7 alternative plan.
8 Hanson inquired if underground parking would be considered. Mr.Tankenoff responded that a plan
9 would be submitted about access to the basement of the site; however, he stated that currently the
10 majority of the basement does not have a floor, no sprinkler system, and would not easily be
11 subdivided.
12 Hanson inquired about the relationships with the current retailers of the site. Mr. Tankenoff re-
13 sponded that discussions have been ongoing with the retailers, particularly Herbergers, and that
14 Herbergers is considering alternatives to suit what is best for its own business plan. There are a
15 small amount of other tenants within the site that are on a month-to-month leasing basis, and it
16 would be likely that those tenants would need to vacate the property once construction has begun.
is Bergstrom summarized by stating that the City would be receiving pertinent information by the end
of May 2000, and the Planning Commission would be having a worksession on June 6, 2000.
Bergstrom reiterated his request to have information provided to the Commission prior to the June
17 6, 2000 worksession in order to allow the Commissioners time to review the information.
18 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Gleekel and Mr. Tankenoff for their input and presentations.
19 4. REPORTS. Livable Communities Fund Application/Status Report.
20 Chair Bergstrom invited Mr. Shardlow (DSU) to approach the Commission. Mr. Shardlow sug-
21 gested that a subcommittee of the Planning Commission meet with himself and a representative of
22 the developer(Hillcrest)and arrive at a particular planning process. This is due to the fact that there
23 is not enough time to do things in the typical matter of process and there might be a possibility to
24 request some funding. It would be Mr. Shardlow's hope that if the community was successful in
25 obtaining the funding, it would be more likely in the future for additional funding.
26 It was agreed that a meeting would be held on Monday,May 22,2000 at 3:00 p.m.and any members
27 of the Planning Commission were encouraged to attend as part of a subcommittee,along with John
28 Shardlow and representatives of Hillcrest Development.
29 Chair Bergstrom called a five-minute recess at 9:25 p.m.
• Chair Bergstrom called the meeting to order at 9:30 p.m.
31 VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 9
•
1 Assistant City Manager Isom reviewed for the Commission that he had been requested at the last
2 meeting to obtain copies from Doug Jones (2505 Silver Lane NE) of various correspondence re-
3 garding the stormwater drainage issue. Isom noted for the Commission the package of information
4 and correspondence in the agenda packets that has been obtained regarding the stormwater issue.
5 In addition, Isom noted that he had spoken with Ms. Kate Drewry, District Administrator, Rice
6 Creek Watershed District, since her last letter of April 25, 2000.
7 As an aside, Isom stated that the District is operated by a Board of Managers and that regular
8 meetings are held.
9 Isom stated that one of the conditions for the Apache project is that the project be in compliance with
10 the Rice Creek Watershed District. In this regard,Isom would discuss this issue with City Attorney
11 Soth.
12 Hanson asked Isom if he envisioned that the City should be working more directly with the Rice
13 Creek Watershed District as opposed to individual businesses. Isom noted that in correspondence
14 from Mr.Jones,he had suggested that a letter from the City directed to Rice Creek might spark some _
15 action. From a Staffs standpoint, Isom felt that would be helpful. In other words, if the City has
16 a position and submitted that standpoint to the Rice Creek Watershed District,possibly some action
could happen.
18 Bergstrom inquired if that letter was in the process of being developed. Isom said not at this point;
19 however,he would take the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting today as a direction to
20 move forward.
21 Bergstrom commended Isom on the excellent summary and collection of historical materials and
22 background information on this issue.
23 IX. COMMISSION INPUT.
24 1. Action Item. Commission to review proposed amendment to zoning ordinance requiring a
25 minimum of three (3) acres for a Planned Unit Development Ordinance 2000-00).
26
27 Assistant City Manager Isom noted that the nature of this issue is if an applicant comes to the City
28 for rezoning,it would give the Commission and the Council the option to require a PUD designation
29 if the property in question exceeds three acres. This Ordinance was drafted at the recommendation
'30 of City Attorney William Soth.
31 Motion by Thomas, second by Stille, to approve Ordinance 2000-00, an Ordinance Relating to
32 Rezoning; Permitting the City to Designate Property Being Rezoned as a Planned Unit Develop-
33 ment; Amending Sections 1665.03 of the City Code of Ordinances to Add a New Subd. 5.
Motion carried unanimously.
35 2. Commissioner Comments.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 10
1 Hanson commented that he is concerned about the water quality of Silver Lake,but also mentioned
2 that the City cannot be put in a position to punish Hillcrest Development for wrongs that have
3 occurred in the past. There are other routes to correct those problems. Additionally,he is pleased
4 with Mr.Tankenoff s comments that Hillcrest plans on exceeding the standards imposed by the Rice
5 Creek Watershed District.
6 As a business owner, Hanson understands Hillcrest's position regarding the New Market Site and
7 suggests that the Commission not back Hillcrest into a corner.
8 Thomas commented that he would suggest that the Planning Commission begin looking at programs
9 and policies to assist with renovating older homes. He would be able to provide some information
10 that he could share with the Commission and Staff. One suggestion would be to tie in the policies
I l with the point of sale ordinance that has been discussed, as well as tie in with some rehabilitation
12 programs that are available through the State. Thomas will gather information and make this
13 available to Staff to place as an agenda item on an upcoming Planning Commission meeting.
14
15 Additionally, Thomas believes the City has an excellent opportunity that fits the guidelines of the
16 Metropolitan Council Livable Cities and believes there is room and flexibility to accommodate
17 housing, redevelopment, and retail.
• Melsha commented that he would like to see a copy of a form PUD agreement. He requested that
Assistant City Manager Isom work with the City Attorney to obtain a form for the Commission's
18 review.
19 Melsha related that the prior Assistant City Manager,Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes,had mentioned certain
20 conditions on placement of antenna towers for wireless companies. He suggested the possibility of
21 placing a condition of sorts that would require different carriers to cooperate with each other so the
22 City could reduce the number of towers and antennas in the neighborhoods.
23 Bergstrom noted the flyer inserted into the Agenda packets that mentions the May 20, 2000 Town
24 Meeting. He also noted the mention of booths. He directed Assistant City Manager Isom to find
25 out the intent of the booths and more details as to whether the Planning Commission would be
26 required to have a booth.
27 Bergstrom received a letter from the VillageFest committee stating that the Planning Commission
28 is invited to participate in the parade. The parade will be held on Saturday,August 5,2000,and the
29 details will be discussed at later Planning Commission meetings. He requested that the Com-
30 missioners place the date on their calendars.
31 Thomas noted an excellent website for the Commissioners to view,called www.plannersweb.com.
Bergstrom noted that every year Hennepin County presents an annual report which provides a listing
3 of all the homes that have sold and the statistics of such sale. He planned on giving the report to
34 Assistant City Manager Isom and the Commissioners were welcome to contact Isom for a copy.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 16, 2000
Page 11
•
1 Hatch inquired about the progress of the green space at St. Anthony Shopping Center. Bergstrom
2 responded that he believed the project was with the Public Works Department and the Parks
3 Commission.
4 Stille commented that he believed the City was on the right track regarding the Rice Creek
5 Watershed District issue. But he believed that the enforcement issue would rest on the Watershed
6 District. Additionally, Stille noted that the City of Richfield has some successful programs re-
1 garding watershed.
8 X. ADJOURNMENT.
9 Motion by Bergstrom, second by.Melsha,.to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11 Respectfully submitted,
12 Sue Selseth
3 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•