HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08012000 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
100719
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2000
Document: PL MINUTES 08012000
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 2
•
1 Commission meeting for August 1, 2000.
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3 V. NEW APPLICATIONS/PUBLIC HEARINGS.
4 1. Public Hearing. Petition for Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (Frontline Church.
5 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m., and requested a report from Staff.
6 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported that Pastor Bill Arrigoni, representing the
7 Frontline Church and Outreach Center, is asking the City to consider adding a Church as a
8 conditional use in a commercial district. Presently, Churches are a permitted conditional use in
9 all Rl, R2, R3, and R4 districts citywide. If this petition were approved, then Churches would
10 also be a permitted conditional use in "C" districts citywide.
11 Mr. Isom continued by stating that the Frontline Church has entered into a purchase agreement
12 for the property located at 2654 Kenzie Terrace in the City of St. Anthony. If the petition would
13 be approved, the Frontline Church would subsequently submit an Application for Conditional
14 Use.
15 Mr. Isom stated that the City has received a completed Petition for Amendment to Zoning
Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Commission either approve or deny the petition. If
40 approved, then Staff would prepare the necessary Ordinance in preparation for the next City
18 Council meeting.
19 Chair Bergstrom introduced Pastor Bill Arrigoni and invited him to address the Commission.
20 Mr. Arrigoni noted that the Church is currently located at a different site,but would like to
21 relocate to St. Anthony and is interested in purchasing the building at 2654 Kenzie Terrace. This
22 process would allow for the Church to grow and to become a part of the community in St.
23 Anthony. Mr. Arrigoni stated that the,Church has much to offer the community and provides
24 ministry to all ages. The heart of the Church, Mr. Arrigoni stated, is to help people and become
25 a positive icon within the community.
26 Mr. Arrigoni said that he has been working with the architect and made sure that the Church
27 could offer the City an easement to allow for a walking path that would coincide with the City's
28 plans for green space. This was incorporated into the plans after the Concept Review with the
29 Planning Commission in June 2000. Mr. Arrigoni noted that the walking path would be four feet
30 wide. Additionally, the parking would be skirted around to the rear of the building to allow for
31 better traffic flow.
32 Chair Bergstrom invited input from the audience, and hearing none, closed the Public Hearing at
33 7:23 p.m. Bergstrom requested comments from the Commissioners.
Bergstrom stated that he has reservations about any noncommercial use in that district. Melsha
�5 stated that this is an issue that does not have anything to do with the Frontline Church,but is
36 more of a public policy issue.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 3
1 Stille noted that it is painful to deny the request, but stated that he would like to clarify that the
2 City has a specific policy and although the Church would be an excellent addition to the
3 community, allowing a noncommercial use would change the City's policy and have an affect on
4 similar future issues.
5 Tillmann echoed Stille's comments and stated that to change the City's policy would not be
6 acceptable.
7 Thomas noted that if the Commission allowed this use,they would be,opening up the policy
8 citywide. In other words,the issue could present future problems if the policy was changed.
9 However, he would-encourage the Church to continue working with Staff, and he would direct
10 Staff to work in conjunction with the Church to find alternative parcels for their relocation to St.
11 Anthony. Thomas noted that, unfortunately, the property located at 2654 Kenzie Terrace would
12 not be the correct site for the Church and felt that the Commission did not have many options.
13 Hatch commented that the Comprehensive Plan wished for the property in that area to be
14 commercial. Plus,the fact that City'would need the tax base that would come from a
15 commercial building in order to keep the community as it is.
16 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Stille,that the Petition for Amendment to the Zoning
46 Ordinance is denied due to the following findings of fact:
18 1. Current permitted uses for that area are commercial and do not include Churches;
19 2. The City has put forth a significant amount of energy into re-energizing the St. Anthony
20 Shopping Center and would like to continue along the same path;
21 3. The City does not allow non-commercial uses in the St. Anthony Shopping Center;
22 4. The Church would not directly support other commercial entities in the District;
23 5. The conversion of taxable property to nontaxable property would remove a high tax-
24 generating income for the City;
25 6. The changed-zoning would have an affect on all commercial properties in the City, which
26 would be undesirable for all commercial uses.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Bergstrom noted that Pastor Arrigoni had a fine organization within the Church and encouraged
29 him to work with Staff in finding an alternative location.
30 He reminded Mr. Arrigoni that this issue would be before the City Council on Tuesday, July 25,
• 2000, and he encouraged him to be present.
32 2. Public Hearing. Application for Conditional Use Permit(Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad)
t
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 4
1 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m., and requested a report from Staff.
2 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that the applicants, Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad,
3 seek to build a Fuel Mart.Car Wash''on their property at 3813 Stinson Boulevard NE. According
4 to City Code,their project requires a permit for conditional use. A concept review was held
5 before the Commission on June 20, 2000. The applicants have taken the Commission's
6 comments into consideration and resubmitted a complete application to Staff.
7 Chair Bergstrom introduced Mr. Chuck Habiger, HKS Associates, consultants for the applicants
8 and invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Habiger noted that the applicants own the
9 property in-question, which is adjacent to the current business. The applicants would like to
10 construct an automated car wash facility to work in conjunction with their gas station located on
11 the adjacent property. Furthermore, the property is currently zoned commercial and all
12 surrounding properties are as well. Mr. Habiger stated that there is currently an abandoned free-
13 standing restaurant on this site, and this would be demolished and the new facility would be
14 constructed in its place.
15 Mr. Habiger noted that the landscaping had been improved after the Concept Review at the
16 Planning Commission meeting in June 2000. He noted in detail the landscaping proposed.
17 Additionally, his clients would like to have a future expansion of the property to house a service
facility (such as oil changes and repair) and such application will be made at the time they
46 propose to go forward with the construction. This is anticipated to take place in approximately
20 one year.
21 Melsha inquired about the hours of operation. Mr. Habiger responded that the facility would be
22 open from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Sunday.
23 Mr. Habiger clarified for Bergstrom that a pylon sign would no longer be used for the facility.
24 Additionally, Mr. Habiger addressed the issue of noise, and stated that a lawnmower would be
25 more audible than the noise from the facility.
26 Hanson inquired about the surface of the future expansion. Mr. Habiger stated that initially,the
27 surface would be grass.
28 Thomas noted that the City is going through the Village and choosing decorative lighting and
29 inquired if the applicants would be willing to consider some decorative lighting to soften the
30 appearance of the facility.
31 Mr. Habiger felt that it would be possible to tie in the facility's lighting with a master plan.
32 Bergstrom inquired if Mr. Thomas would be willing to coordinate some of the lighting
33 requirements with the applicant.
34 Hanson suggested that Staff be directed to work with the applicant in tying in the lighting issue
0 with the rest of the City's plan.
36 Stille noted that the applicants have enhanced the landscaping since the prior Concept Review,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 5
•
1 and inquired if the applicants could tie in the style and coloring with the renovation of Apache
2 Plaza.
3 Bergstrom noted that the final plans"for Apache have not been presented at this time; however,
4 Tillmann noted that much of the appearance of the proposed car wash facility seemed to tie in
5 with the Apache Plaza plans as noted to this date.
6 Thomas wondered if the Commission could incorporate into the permit application an upgrade to
7 the existing building. Additionally, he inquired if Mr. Habiger had met with the Silver Lake
8 Homeowners Association and Mr. Habiger responded that he spoke with Mr. Douglas Jones (a
9 member of the Homeowners Association)by telephone. Mr. Jones at that time did not see the
10 need to meet with the neighborhood as a whole.
11 Bergstrom introduced Douglas Jones, 2505 Silver Lane NE, and invited him to address the
12 Commission. Mr. Jones noted that the applicant's facility would be the fifth such facility in the
13 area. His concern is that the City and community should control the facilities that are added to
14 the community. However, Mr. Jone's noted that Roger and Hadi Abou-Mourad are excellent
15 businessmen, and would work well with the community.
16 Additionally, Mr. Jones noted that the Planning Commission and City Council should at some
point consider the need for sidewalks in the area. He believed it would be appropriate to set
ON aside land for a sidewalk use so that signage and curb cuts are allowed for in the area. He
19 continued by stating that there is two-lane traffic on the street close by, and that there are not any
20 sidewalks.
21 Mr. Jones clarified that he would like to see sidewalks on the East Side of Stinson.
22 Jim Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, spoke to the Commission and stated that he would
23 like to see the Planning Commission require certain green space in all future projects.
24 Mr. Jones noted that Mr. Higgins made an excellent point and stated that it might be a good idea
25 to drain the impervious area in the applicant's facility into a grassy area because the storm sewer
26 that runs along that area goes directly into Silver Lake.
27 Chair Bergstrom requested additional input from the audience,and hearing none, closed the
28 public hearing at 7:57 p.m. and requested comments from the Commissioners.
29 Tillmann noted that she was concerned about the hours of operation of the proposed facility.
30 Additionally, she approved of the idea of sidewalks in the area.
3.1 Thomas noted that he agreed with the sidewalk suggestion and that the existing property be
32 upgraded and that some type of decorative lighting be incorporated into the facility. Thomas
3 believed that the attractiveness of the area needed to be improved.
4 Stille noted that because the facility is enclosed, he believed there were certain requirements the
35 facility would need to meet with regard to water issues. Additionally, Stille agreed with
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 6
1 Tillmann that sidewalks need to be implemented. Bergstrom responded that sidewalks have
2 typically been installed during major street reconstruction. Stille noted for the audience's
3 benefit;that the City has applied to the Metropolitan Council for a grant which would assist the
4 City in being more envisionary with regard to the site around Apache Plaza.
5 Hanson expressed concern about the hours of operation of the facility.
6 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Tillmann, that the Planning Commission recommend approval
7 of the Conditional Use Permit for Hadi and Roger Abou-Mourad for the property located at 3813
8 Stinson Boulevard NE for the following reasons and with the following conditions:
9 Reasons
10 1. The proposed use is listed as one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the zoning
11 district in which it is to be located;
12 2. The proposed conditional use mill not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
13 welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property values or
14 improvements in the vicinity;
15 3. The proposed conditional use is necessary or desirable at the above location to provide a
10 service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to
the general welfare of the neighborhood or community.
18 Conditions
19 1. The hours of operation may be from 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.; but subject to change if
20 noise issues arise from either residents or other occupants in the area;
21 2. The applicant must consult with City Staff regarding compatible decorative lighting,
22 once that pattern is established, and then arrive at a proposal that would be approved by
23 the Public Works Director;
24 3. The applicant must consult with the Public Works Director to design appropriate
25 infiltration of the stormwater on the site;
26 4. That the applicant repair or refurbish the front of the existing building in concert with the
27 design presented at the July 18, 2000 Planning Commission meeting;
28 5. That the applicant replace the dumpster enclosure to the existing building as the current
29 structure is in disrepair;
30 6. That the design construction is compatible with the design drawings submitted with the
31 packet dated 6/29/00 as presented in the Commission's agenda package.
'10 Voting on the Motion:Bergstrom, Tillmann, Hanson, Thomas, Melsha, and Stille voted aye.
33 Hatch voted nay.
4
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 7
•
1 The motion carried.
2 Bergstrom noted that this issue would be before the City Council at the July 25, 2000 meeting
3 and he encouraged the applicants to be present at that meeting.
4 VI. POSTPONED APPLICATIONS.
5 None.
6 VII. REPORTS, PRESENTATIONS and/or CONCEPT REVIEWS.
7 1. Concept Review. Murphy's Service Center, 3501 29th Avenue.
8 Chair Bergstrom asked for a report from Staff. -Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom reported
9 that the applicant, Richard C. Graff, is seeking to replace the business sign at his Conoco gas
10 station located at 3501 29th Avenue NE. The gas station is a commercial business located in an
11 L 1 zoning district. The proposed sign exceeds allowable dimensions for L I zoning. However, it
12 is within the allowable dimensions:had his land been zoned C1. The land has been used for a gas
13 station since 1958. Mr. Graff has owned the business since 1973. Therefore, the use is
14 "grandfathered." Staff has discussed this matter with City Attorney William Soth and it was
15 decided that the conditions supporting a variance existed.
16 Bergstrom introduced Mr. Richard Graff and invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Graff
reviewed for the Commission the background of his request, and then reviewed the details of the
41 proposed sign.
19 Mr. Graff felt that the current requirements for signage should not apply because his business
20 was grandfathered in many years ago. Mr. Graff reviewed for the Commission that on Memorial
21 Day Weekend, it was noticed that the price sign was bent and split. The St. Anthony Police were
22 called and it was determined that the corner of the sign had been hit by a truck sometime after
23 closing. Mr. Graff noted that the sign cannot be repaired, and that Conoco has several sign
24 designs to go with the new image program. Mr. Graff was present at the Commission's meeting
25 to request a variance for installation of a new sign. The new sign would be installed in the same
26 location and would not be detrimental to other businesses in the surrounding area.
27 Mr. Graff directed the Commission's attention to photographs in the agenda packets which
28 depicted the current sign.
29 Thomas inquired of Mr. Graff if he had any other options with regard to potential signs that
30 Conoco offers. He mentioned this in light of the fact that Mr. Graff s station is so visible within
31 the community. Mr. Graff responded that a certain type of sign is needed for his business, and
32 noted that the proposed sign is an attractive sign and would be appropriate for his type of
33 business.
34 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Graff for presenting the Concept Review and he suggested that
46 5 Mr. Graff work with Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom in going forward with this request.
2. Presentation. WSB & Associates Will Present a Selection of Decorative Lighting
37 29th Avenue.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 8
•
1 Chair Bergstrom introduced Todd Hubmer, WSB & Associates, and invited him to address the
2 Commission.
3 Mr. Hubmer reviewed for the Commission that the City Council has approved the installation of
4 decorative street lighting on 29th Avenue. The decision for which type of lighting to be installed
5 has been referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. Therefore, Mr. Hubmer stated
6 that a representative from NSP Outdoor Lighting would be making a presentation to the
7 Commission and would discuss alternatives available for the installation of street lighting. In
8 addition, the City has advertised to the public that this issue would be discussed at the Planning
9 Commission meeting in order to obtain public input and comments from those residents that may
10 be affected by the street lighting.
11 Mr. Hubmer stated that it is anticipated that the Planning Commission will recommend a street
12 lighting style to the City Council for consideration at the July 25, 2000 City Council meeting.
13 However, if additional time for consideration is needed, then the issue would be presented at the
14 City Council meeting on August 22, 2000.
15 Mr. Hubmer continued by presenting a sketch of the proposed area for decorative lighting.
16 Additionally, he directed the Commission's attention to letters dated July 10 and 11, 2000 signed
17 by Mr. Hubmer, which reviewed the background of the issue as well as a time frame for
consideration.
19 . Mr. Hubmer introduced John Hygrell,NSP Outdoor.Lighting, and stated that such department is
20 fairly new for NSP (since the last 7 years). Mr. Hygrell reviewed the options that NSP Outdoor
21 Lighting provides to cities in relation to certain light levels and decorative lighting. Colored
22 photographs were presented to the Commission which depicted various types of outdoor
23 decorative lighting.
24 Questions were fielded to Mr. Hygrell from the Commissioners regarding the best option for
25 lighting in connection with the existing lighting and lighting levels needed in the particular area.
26 Mr. Chris Padush, 3227 Edward, spoke to the Commission and wished to note that none of the
27 pictures presented at the meeting depicted any overhead wiring. However, as soon as overhead
28 wiring is instituted, the appearance of the decorative lighting is significantly decreased. Mr.
29 Padush noted that he would suggest that the Commission bury the utilities to improve the
30 appearance of the lighting.
31 James Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, spoke to the Commission regarding the lighting
32 issue. He was concerned that only one person would be choosing the appropriate pedestrian
33 lighting. However, he stated that he was impressed with the aesthetics that NSP Outdoor
34 Lighting had presented at the meeting. Mr. Higgins would like to have citizen input regarding
35 the final outcome of the proposed street lighting.
Mr:Hubmer clarified that the meeting was published to approximately 200 residents asking for
7 public input regarding choosing appropriate street lighting and he had anticipated a larger
38 turnout of residents for the meeting.
t
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 9
1 Mr. Higgins continued by stating that he hoped that the residents could have input to the decision
2 of decorative lighting. Melsha noted that the way for residents to get involved with the decision
3 is to attend the meetings and to speak to the Commission to provide input and opinions.
4 Thomas mentioned that soon there will be a citywide neighborhood get together, and that such
5 night out could be an excellent time to promote discussions regarding the street lighting.
6 Hanson inquired if the Commission had a deadline for a final decision on the design. Mr.
7 Hubmer responded that a final decision would be optimal for presentation to the City Council at
8 the August 22, 2000 meeting.
9 Hatch mentioned a possibility of putting up a display at the VillageFest celebration to provide
10 for public information and input.
11 Tillmann mentioned that the Parks Commission was planning on putting up a display for the
12 current proposed plans of the redevelopment of Central Park. She mentioned the possibility of
13 putting the lighting display close to the Parks Commission's display.
14 Mr. Hubmer suggested a consensus on the type or style of the lighting and to continue from that
15 point. However, he wanted to caution the Commission about providing for too much light in the
residential areas. He has noted concerns from residents regarding lights close to the house and
49 providing for disruption in the residential areas.
18 Mr. Jim McNeely, 2921 33rd Avenue, stated that he was disappointed that the notice that was
19 mailed to the residents invited the residents to attend the meeting at 7:00 p.m., and noted that the
20 lighting issue was placed nearly last on the agenda. Additionally, Mr. McNeely noted that there
21 was not adequate seating for the residents that did attend because of high attendance for another
22 issue at the meeting. He stated that if the Commission wished to encourage attendance for input,
23 that the item be placed closer to the beginning of the meeting as well as provide for appropriate
24 seating.
25 Mr. Hubmer clarified that all the residents on MSA state-aid roads were invited to the meeting to
26 provide input, and he noted his appreciation of the input the Commission has received from the
27 residents in attendance. His hope was that the lighting chosen for 29th Avenue would be
28 incorporated into the plan for the rest of the City. Mr. Hubmer stated that this was the beginning
29 phase of considering options for the City and noted that this was an open format to express input.
30 Mr. Hubmer noted that it would appear an extra meeting would be in order to address this issue.
31 Some residents from the audience noted that lower-level lighting was the preferred choice.
32 One resident inquired about the deadline of August 22, 2000 and how the Commission was
3 planning on obtaining input that the lighting chosen would be the lighting of choice for the entire
community. Bergstrom responded that a possible mailing would be in order announcing a public
5 meeting about street lighting.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• July 18, 2000
Page 10
1 The issue of burying the utility lines was discussed, and Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom
2 noted that he was not aware of any provision in the City's Code that mentioned any requirements
3 of burying the cables. He would look into the issue and determine if there was such a mention in
4 the City Code.,
5 Bergstrom reviewed that the consensus appears that there needs to be more meetings or
6 additional information. Mr. Hubmer noted that a public information hearing should be held, a
7 notice would be sent to residents, and that a representative from WSB,NSP Outdoor Lighting,
8 and some representatives from the Commission would be present. A display board would be
9 available to present the possible options for lighting.
10 Bergstrom asked Staff to submit an article to the Bulletin newspaper announcing the meeting.
11 The next date would be approximately July 19, 2000 for the Bulletin.
12
13 Tillmann noted that the format for the public information meeting needed to be planned
14 appropriately. Thomas offered to work with Staff on coordinating the meeting, as well as with
15 WSB & Associates.
16 Mr. Hubmer suggested the public information hearing be held on Wednesday, August 9. Then,
the results of that meeting will be discussed at the August 15, 2000 Planning Commission
meeting and then referred to the City Council at the August 22, 2000 meeting. The consensus
19 was to have the public information hearing on Wednesday, August 9, 2000 at 7:00 p.m.
20 Thomas mentioned that he believed it would be a good idea to review the City's codes and
21 consider changing the Code to require underground burying of cables. Bergstrom agreed that it
22 was an excellent suggestion.
23 VIII. CONTINUED BUSINESS.
24 1. 2000 Local Water Resources Management Plan Grant Application.
25 Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that there was information provided in the
26 Commission's agenda packets regarding this subject. Mr. Todd Hubmer, WSB, noted that the
27 City did not apply for funds from the Met Council 2000 Local Water Resource Management
28 Grant money. The focus of these funds was for the drafting of ordinances,wetland functions and
29 value assessments, and lake assessment projects.
30 The City might wish to apply for a grant for erosion and sedimentation control associated with
31 construction sites, and the grant would be available again in 2001. Currently, it had been
32 determined that the grant was not necessary for 2000.
33 2. Report from a Representative of the City's Consulting Engineer(WSB) Re arding
34 Stormwater Issues for 37th Avenue Area/ Street Reconstruction Program Update.
Assistant City Manager Spencer Isom noted that there had been some discussion from residents
46 surrounding Mr. Sperry's prior application for a variance to construct a new home. A citizen had
Y
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• July 18, 2000
Page 11
1 inquired about the plan for all stormwater runoff, and in this respect, Isom invited Todd Hubmer,
2 WSB & Associates,to address the Commission.
3 Mr. Hubmer directed the Commission's attention to a letter and attachment dated July 10, 2000
4 which addressed the issue of street reconstruction and provided an update to the program.
5 Bergstrom confirmed that the City has been on record as supplying 100-year flood protection to
6 the residents.
7 Bergstrom requested that Commissioner Hatch be the representative to the City Council meeting
8 on July 25, 2000.
9 Bergstrom also reviewed that a special meeting would be held on August 1, 2000.
10 IX. COMMISSION INPUT.
11 1. Commissioners Comments.
12 Stille inquired about the Livable Communities Grant. In that respect, Assistant City Manager
13 Isom distributed some follow-up information.regarding the grant. Isom requested that a
volunteer attend an upcoming meeting with City's Consultant, John Shardlow, regarding this
41 issue. The meeting is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, July 20, 2000. Thomas
16 volunteered to attend the meeting.
17 Hatch thanked Isom for following through on the issue of stormwater runoff.
18 Melsha noted that there was a provision on the enforcement of sign ordinances and he stated that
19 it might be a good idea to consider such in the future.
20 Tillmann noted that one of the residents had been told that,with regard to the street
21 reconstruction,that they would be able to get in and out of their driveways and that has not been
22 possible. She felt it was important that the promises be kept to the residents.
23 Tillmann noted the prior mention regarding green space requirements. She understood that
24 Minneapolis has instituted some green space requirements'and she suggested possibly
25 considering the same for St. Anthony.
26 Tillmann mentioned that it would be an excellent idea to have a book of conditional use permits.
27 Such book--as indexed --would assist with issuing new permits, and enforcing current ones. .
28 Bergstrom inquired if the Planning Commission had been invited to be in the parade. Assistant
29 City Manager Isom noted that he had not been involved in the planning of the VillageFest.
City Council member Dick Horst(from the audience) mentioned that the City Council is
i
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 18, 2000
Page 12
1 expecting to participate in the parade and he would encourage the Planning Commission to
2 participate. Tillmann volunteered to coordinate the effort for the Planning Commission as Chair
3 Bergstrom would be out of town for that week.
4 Bergstrom noted that he was not comfortable with.the process of the street lighting decisions,
5 such as holding a public hearing at the Commission's regular meeting to obtain input.
6 Hatch inquired if the Commission had decided to discuss types of restrictions for
7 telecommunications towers or declaring a moratorium. Bergstrom stated he remembered that
8 Isom would research the issue. Isom responded that he is currently researching the issue'and
9 would report back to the Commission as soon as the research was completed.
10 Horst announced that the City Council appreciates all of the excellent work that the Planning
11 Commission had accomplished.
12 X. ADJOURNMENT.
13 Motion by Hanson, second by Stille, to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
17 Sue Selseth
18 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
3 AUGUST 1, 2000
4 7:00 PM
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm.
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, Melsha, Hatch,
11 and Stille.
12 Absent: None.
13 Also present: Spencer A. Isom, Assistant City Manager.
14 APPROVE AUGUST 1, 2000 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
15 Motion by Bergstrom, seconded by Melsha to approve the August 1, 2000 Special Planning
6 Commission meeting agenda with the following changes:
7 Add: PUBLIC INPUT
18 Chair Bergstrom asked if there was any public input before opening the Public Hearing. There
19 was none.
20 Under IX. COMMISSION INPUT, the date of the next Council meeting is August 22, 2000.
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING
23 ITEM:
24 I. Public Hearings.
25 A. Hillcrest Development's preliminary and final development plan for the Apache
26 Plaza area that includes a rezoning from "C" district to a Planned Unit
27 Development (PUD).
28 Chair Bergstrom briefly explained the background of the request and that there had
29 been many meetings with the developers, City staff, attorneys and consultants for both
30 the developer and City regarding this issue. He said that reviewing the entire packet
31 was not required. At the Planning Commission's June 20 meeting the rezoning and
development plan were reviewed and Commissioners recommended approval to the
City Council. The City Council, at their June 27 regular meeting referred the project
f
Page 2
1 back to the Commission requesting more definition and commitment from the
2 developers.
3 Assistant City Manager Isom explained that Exhibit A had been excluded from the
4 preliminary and final plans but had been distributed to Commissioners and the public
5 for tonight's meeting. He indicated that John Shardlow, DSU, consultant for Hillcrest
6 Development and William Soth, City Attorney would speak.
7 Mr. Shardlow presented the narrative in Exhibit A. He assured that there has been no
8 misrepresentation by Mr. Tankenoff of Hillcrest Development, but Exhibit A was
9 merely a narrative of the lists that had been previously submitted for the project, giving
10 more definition of their plans;
11 The narrative (Exhibit A) begins by stating that the uses and activities conducted on the
12 subject property (to be called Silver Lake Centre) shall be the high tech office campus
13 setting including the baseline projects identified in the PUD narrative and that
14 flexibility is integral to the project. As Mr. Shardlow read Exhibit A, he suggested a
15 typo change under "Permitted Uses", the entire paragraph should be stricken under that
16 item and placed at the end of the narrative, with the exception of the last sentence
IR which should be kept under permitted uses and reads: "Only storage as allowed
pursuant to the existing Zoning Ordinance in a commercial district will be allowed.".
19 Mr. Shardlow continued with permitted uses as follows:
20 (i) administrative and executive offices for personnel engaged in general
21 administrative, supervisory, purchasing, accounting and other functions related
22 to general office, high technology office, printing and medical businesses;
23 (ii) research, training, synthesis, and analysis facilities and testing laboratories;
24 (iii) restaurants; and
25 (iv) retail and banking facilities intended to support primarily the tenants and
26 customers within this development.
27 In addition, Mr. Shardlow explained the last paragraph under "Permitted Uses" should
28 be deleted and placed at the end of the narrative.
29 Because lease up is not expected"'immediately, Exhibit A listed "Accessory Uses" for
30 the use
warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, fabrication, light manufacturing,
31 assembly, processing and similar uses that are incident, or support to the permitted uses
listed above.
• Page 3
1 "Fallback Uses" was renamed "Interim Uses" in Exhibit A. These include
2 warehousing, wholesaling, distribution, fabrication, light manufacturing, assembly,
3 processing and similar uses that are not incident or accessory to the permitted uses
4 described above and that they shall be allowed as interim uses for ten years after the
5 date of adoption of the ordinance. Exhibit A also adds under "Interim Uses" is the
6 following: "If any of these uses remain after this period, and the Applicant has
7 completed all of its obligations regarding all landscaping, exterior improvements,
8 drainage improvements and signage as required under the "Minimum Plan" as set out
9 in the PUD narrative, these uses shall become permitted uses within the Silver Lake
10 Centre development.".
11 Shardlow referred to Exhibit O but indicated Exhibits I, J, and K are more indicative of
12 Hillcrest's intentions for the building.
13 Shardlow continued to read Exhibit A with the following: "None of these businesses or
14 activities will cause exterior image or character of the Centre to be downgraded, or
15 have any adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. The Centre will include all
16 necessary loading areas and mechanical equipment as regulated by the PUD.". In
17 conclusion, Exhibit A states that the existing Herbergers store may stay for a period of
18 8 years.
14
�9 When asked about differences in the "Preferred Plan" and the "Interim Plan" as it
20 relates to Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Mr. Shardlow responded that Hillcrest was
21 presented an incentive to reach a value for the project, and the higher the value of the
22 property, the higher TIF they_will receive. If they reach the "Preferred Plan" they will
23 receive all of the TIF. He reminded the Commissioners and audience that Hillcrest will
24 spend $6 million of their own money toward the concept plan, but of course, cannot
25 guaranty a definitive set of improvements.
26 Commissioner Tillmann asked Mr. Shardlow if existing businesses can remain and if
27 they will be under the new or old uses. Shardlow stated that the process would be
28 reviewed and that Hillcrest needs other uses than permitted uses, as outlined in Exhibit
29 A and the PUD in the event leasing does not reach its anticipated high.
30 Commissioner Thomas wondered if Hillcrest could use TIF if they use the Interim
31 Uses. Shardlow indicated TIF is driven by the value created by marketing the
32 property. Thomas then asked if Exhibit A meant that no Interim Uses would be used
33 for 10 years. Shardlow responded that if Hillcrest is not successful in leasing all of the
34 properties, then that is when the Interim Uses would begin.
35 Commissioner Melsha wondered who came up with the 10 years and Shardlow
indicated he did. He again emphasized that Hillcrest is obligated to do the
improvements to the property, as stated in the PUD.
• - Page 4
1 Commissioner Hatch expressed his concern regarding noise and the exterior of the
2 building. Hatch wondered how the City will enforce these issues. Shardlow referred to
3 Exhibit A which spells out that this project will have hi tech uses and that the uses
4 inside will not downgrade the aesthetics.
5 Commissioner Hanson asked if Exhibit A replaces Shardlow's previous list and
6 Shardlow indicated he wanted to do a narrative rather than the list because he felt the
7 narrative better clarified Hillcrest's expectations and goals for the property.
8 Commissioner Stille inquired about occupancy and what would be the actual marketing
9 time. Shardlow said they are marketing from this point forward.
10 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Shardlow and asked City Attorney Soth to speak.
11 Mr. Soth noted that a Development Commission which is comprised of City
12 Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners cannot review the project as it is
13 completed. Staff can only make sure the project complies with the conditions agreed
14 upon.
15 Mr. Soth further clarified the TIF incentive for Hillcrest. If Hillcrest only does the
minimal improvements, they will see little or no TIF. If the Preferred Plan is reached,
Hillcrest will receive TIF accordingly. He stated that if Hillcrest does not perform,
18 they do not receive any TIF.
19 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Soth and asked Anthony Gleekel, a Hillcrest consultant,
20 to speak.
21 Mr. Gleekel indicated he is the primary author of the July 25 Development Plan.
22 Gleekel spoke of Hillcrest's need for flexibility and use of the Interim Uses. He said the
23 new plan is the same as the first plan except the new plan clarifies the landscaping,
24 drainage, signage, traffic and parking issues.
25 Mr. Gleekel responded to an inquiry about baseline comparisons by saying that the
26 Council and others toured other Hillcrest projects similar to Apache and that Hillcrest's
27 projects are highly thought of. He stated a baseline comparison of the internal plan
28 depends on the tenants and that the preferred plan is usually defined by tenants.
29 Mr. Gleekel referred to Exhibit O as the minimum plan and Exhibits I-K show more
30 building detail. He said there is more detail in this plan than in the first. He indicated
31 the signage somewhat depends on Herbergers and the lighting has not been revised.
32 They are still unsure of what part Herbergers will play in the project. For example, if
Herbergers stays as an Interim Use, they may need additional retail. He concluded by
• ' Page 5
1 saying that Exhibit A defines where they want to be and that the PUD will incorporate
2 everything.
3 Chair Berg questioned the ten year timetable. Gleekel stated that Hillcrest needs that
4 flexibility and were comfortable with it, but typical leases are usually for 7 years.
5 Commissioner Tillmann asked Mr. Gleekel to address traffic issues. Gleekel explained
6 if retail is eliminated and the preferred hi tech use is successful, improvements would
7 need to be made to the infrastructure. He indicated this issue had been studied and it
8 was determined that even if these proposed uses would generate traffic, it would be less
9 than if the.property was entirely.retail. Tillmann said her main area of concern is the
10 amount of traffic that would be passing by Wilshire Elementary School. Bergman
11 interjected that the report clearly indicates there should not be a substantial increase in
12 traffic on any of the thoroughfares.
13 Commissioner Thomas indicated the City is applying for a Planning Grant from the
14 Metropolitan Council through their Livable Communities Program. However, the City
15 will not know of its status until December, 2000. He wanted to know if Hillcrest is
16 willing to wait for development of the New Market site. Gleekel said Hillcrest is aware
17 that they need to return to the Council for that site.
qCommissioner Stille referred to Exhibit Q, the lighting and parking plan. Gleekel said
19 the lighting standards have not yet been developed by Hillcrest but assured that lighting
20 will be consistent with the City's plans.
21 Chair Bergstrom listed the three issues which will require Hillcrest to return to the
22 City:
23 1) Signage plan (Mr. Isom indicated the City has a building inspector for this issue
24 and issue #2 below as well).
25 2) Lighting plan.
26 3. Redevelopment of the New Market site.
27 Bergstrom noted that the City is in the process of studying lighting issues on MSA
28 streets within the City and that the Plan should tie in aesthetically with those lighting
29 plans.
30 Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development, stated the community space (about 7,000
31 square feet) concept is still in the Plan, but it is unclear how it would best represent the
32 community, i.e., restaurant, meeting rooms, etc. They, therefore, decided to wait to
33 specify any uses for the community space.
•
' • Page 6
1 Chair Bergstrom asked Mr. Gleekel about the signage. Mr. Gleekel responded that
2 certain clients have different expectations on signs and that Hillcrest wants minimum
3 signage. Gleekel also assured Thomas that the Preferred Plan was made available to
4 the public.
5 Mr. Tankenoff reasserted that Hillcrest not does want to mislead or disappoint the
6 public. He wants the public to know the worst case scenario as well as the Preferred
7 Plan and be up front about all aspects of the project. He feels that Hillcrest and
8 everyone concerned must be clear on what happens if the plan does not work. He feels
9 that Apache is in its present state because this was not done in the past.
10 Chair Bergstrom thanked Mr. Gleekel and Mr. Takenoff. Bergstrom then asked for
11 public input and that it be limited to 5. minutes for each person.
12 Allen Otte, 3508 Skycroft, indicated he has read the plan and toured Hillcrest's other
13 facilities. He feels Hillcrest has done a good job with its other properties. However,
14 as a trained engineer, he indicated the project needs a firmer plan. He compared this
15 project to the one Hillcrest did on Stinson and he would not like to see something done
16 like that project. He said the Preferred Plan is fine, but the Interim Plan is unclear. He
17 predicted this project would fold in 6 months if issues are not made more definite. He
felt the Planning Commission should table the Plan and until the City knows the status
q9P of the Met Council's grant.
20 Pegy Thorvig, 3112 Townview, indicated he has been a City Planner for 32 years and
21 has worked on other Hillcrest properties and that they are very good. He does not want
22 Exhibit O at all, but Exhibits I, J, and K are fine. He wants the Plan to be much more
23 detailed.
24 Raymond Haik, 2901 Silver Lake Terrace, stated he has been an attorney for many
25 years and is very concerned and apprehensive about the TIF for this project. He
26 mentioned the $300,000 up front cash payment the City will be required to make; the 9-
27 1/2% TIF note which runs for 18 years. His other concerns related to the Plan which
28 he feels is unclear and the timetable from start to end. He stressed this is not a public
29 improvement and feels the City is in a rush. He added that the TIF should contain a
30 cap. He reiterated that the City,has no certainty of what it is getting. He feels the City
31 is getting nothing for this project. He quoted a document by the City Finance Director
32 which said it will be tight getting.the $300,000 up front cash and this project should be
33 deferred. Mr. Haik emphasized that flexibility is uncertainty in this case. Mr. Haik put
34 forth many questions about the funding for this project and that the Planning
35 Commission should inform the Council about the risk. He indicated this issue is US
36 Bank's problem and that it ought to be tabled.
•
• Page 7
1 Doug Jones, 2505 Silver Lane, voiced his concerns about storm water runoff. He
2 stated he could see no dollar amount in either plan conerning this issue. He opined that
3 Silver Lake looks extremely murky due to run off from places like Apache. He feels the
4 City should help with this problem and that one way would be to condemn certain
5 properties for ponding, etc.
6 Gerald Evans, 2916 Silver Lake Court, is in full agreement with Mr. Haik that the
7 Planning Commission should take a strong look at spending this kind of money.
8 Jim McNulty, 2921-33rd Avenue NE, also concurs with Raymond Haik and is worried
9 that with the present staff, the City will have problems in the future.
10 Jim Higgins, 2712 St. Anthony Boulevard, has been waiting 16 plus years for
11 something to happen at Apache. He had many questions about uses, tax base, and
12 neighbors. He, too, is conerned with TIF and does not want taxes to increase if the
13 project fails. Mr. Higgins said the Plan should be "cast in stone" beforehand and wants
14 the Planning Commission to table the project. The Planning Commission, he added, has
15 never been given the flexibility to plan.
16 Chair Bergstrom asked if the Hillcrest representatives would respond to the comments.
Scott Tankenoff responded to Mr..Otte's concerns by stating that comparing the Stinson
18 project with the Apache project is not an appropriate comparison. He explained that
19 they have done several post-war buildings and Hillcrest has been in business for many
20 years. He added that building components are only as good as the people who put them
21 in - Hillcrest buildings last. Mr. Tankenoff offered that Hillcrest's consultants are
22 available to discuss the Apache project with residents.
23 Referring to the Met Council Livable Communities grant application, Mr. Takenoff
24 stated that that program is not tied in with Apache directly and therefore, Hillcrest has
25 not been waiting for more information on the grant.
26 Chair Bergstrom asked Mr. Soth to respond to the audience comments concerning TIF
27 for this project. Bergstrom pointed out that that issue was not in the Planning
28 Commission's realm, but the Council's, and that the Planning Commission is only
29 considering the preliminary and final plans and rezoning request at this meeting.
30 Mr. Soth explained that Jerry Gilligan of Dorsey & Whitney, is handling the TIF for
31 this project, so he (Mr. Soth) is not familiar with the specifics. He noted that everybody
32 needs to know that the City is not just handing $4 million in TIF money to the
33 developer. He also commented that statutory requirements state that the Planning
Commission is to consider the Plan and rezoning for this type of project.
• Page 8
1 Mr. Soth said the Plan is definitive and that the developer is committed to the minimum
2 plan but there is no guaranty on the Preferred Plan. Soth responded to Commissioner
3 Hatch's question on the worst case financial scenario, with a question of his own - if
4 this project does not go forward, what does that mean for the future of the Apache
5 area? Mr. Soth said he was involved with Minneapolis' Block E redevelopment and that
6 project had many of the same issues. As it was with that project, part of the answer is
7 "Is there another project around the comer?".
8 Commissioner Melsha asked about the Preliminary/Final Plan and the PUD. Mr. Soth
9 told him that the Preliminary/Final Plan is what the developer is going to do with the
10 property and thePUDputs it in contract form.
11 Mr. Haik interjected that Apache presently pays $150,000 a year in taxes and stated
12 that the City can do everything with US Bank that it can do with Hillcrest.
13 Commissioner Thomas asked that should Hillcrest begin to use Interim Uses, if that is
14 the time when the developer loses TIF. Mr. Shardlow responded that Interim Uses are
15 not their objective, but the Uses in the Preferred Plan are what they are aiming for. He
16 stated that interim uses are temporary use of the property and it comes down to a
17 judgement call by the City. Hillcrest is committing and defining.
q8 Commissioner Hanson asked if:the proposed Plan is more restrictive than the current
19 Plan in use. Mr. Shardlow explained that the proposed Plan is more restrictive to retail
.20 and less so to light industrial.
21 An in depth discussion about TIF ensued. Mr. Haik and Commissioner Hanson
22 commented on TIF. Mr. Robert Strachota, Shenehon Company, is the TIF consultant
23 for the developer, explained that the value of the property needs to increase to $10
24 million for the Interim Plan and $20 million for the Preferred Plan; currently the
25 property is valued at $5 million. That value is frozen. The worst case scenario would
26 be that the City would receive the same tax money for the next 3 years as it is now
27 receiving. The $20 million value must be reached before the developer can receive all
28 the TIF money. The $300,000 is the City's reimbursement (contribution) to the
29 developer for the $1 million the developer is spending for storm water improvements.
30 Mr. Jones indicated Mr. Haik has said the City is giving 50% of the money for this
31 project. Jones wanted to know if this percentage is common. Mr. Tankenoff responded
32 that Hillcrest is making a substantial investment and again offered his consultants to
33 residents with questions about the project.
34 Commissioner Hanson wanted his assumption clarified that in this TIF district, as the
value of the property increases, the City-would get an increase in tax revenues and a
percentage of that would go back to the developer.
• Page 9
1 Mr. Strachota explained that the City's financial consultant, Springsted, Inc. designed
2 the TIF district to provide an incentive to the developer when the highest Plan is
3 achieved. He also assured Mr. Hanson that there is no bond. In response to Hanson's
4 query, Mr. Strachota said that once the developer hits $4 million, the City will receive
5 the overages.
6 Mr. Haik handed out to the Commissioners a copy of the St. Anthony HRA Limited
7 Revenue Taxable Tax Increment Note for their perusal and said he wanted it to,be
8 included in the record.
9 Chair Bergstrom gave a 10 minute recess of the meeting at 9:20 PM.
10 The meeting reconvened at 9:30 PM.
11 Chair Bergstrom reminded the Commissioners that they are to be considering rezoning
12 and the Preliminary and Final Plans and cannot make recommendations relating to TIF,
13 whereupon he closed the public hearing at 9:30 PM.
14 When Hatch inquired about the timetable of the Plan, Bergstrom said those issues will
15 be clarified in the PUD agreement. He noted that the Council referred to the Planning
Commission uses and facility aesthetics.
17 Commissioner Stille commented that the site has sat in poor condition for a very long
18 time and he supports rezoning the property. He feels there are some issues that he
19 would like to see changed, but is comfortable with the Plan at this point. Bergstrom
20 commented that the City has an option to go forward or back to square one.
21 Commissioner Melsha agreed with Commissioner Stille.
22 Commissioner Thomas felt a better job could have been done concerning public input
23 and noted that all of the residents in the audience were against the project. He explained
24 that he feels the City should wait for the Met Council plan grant to study the northwest
25 quadrant of the City. He feels the City can accommodate Hillcrest. He is not
26 comfortable with the minimum standards but agrees that Hillcrest has economic
27 incentive to higher standards.
28 Commissioner Tillmann commented that flexibility is not a guaranty and that the City
29 must balance what we want with the realities of business. She feels this is a realistic
30 procedure.
31 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Stille, to recommend approval to the City Council of
the Preliminary and Final Plans that include a rezoning from a Commercial to a
• Page 10
1 Planned Unit Development zoning district for the Apache Plaza property based on the
2 following:
3
4 • the July 27, 2000 Preliminary and Final Plans
5 • the August 1, 2000 Exhibit A, as modified by John Shardlow
6 • recognizing deferred approvals for the Comprehensive Sign Plan;
7 the Lighting Plan, which must be consistent with City plans; and the
8 redevelopment of the'New Market site.
9 Further, the Planning Commission finds that:
10
11 • the proposed Plan is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan;
12 • Apache Plaza is an underdeveloped commercial property and has been in this
13 condition for several years during which time the City has seen no significant
14 interest in redevelopment from developers;
15 • Apache Plaza property represents the most significant underdeveloped asset in
16 the City's non-residential tax base;
• recent adjacent development has failed to rekindle the commercial
redevelopment of the Apache Plaza property;
19 • the project developer, Hillcrest Development, has demonstrated a successful
20 history of similar redevelopment in nearby areas;
21 • there are no detrimental impacts to nearby properties;
22 • the proposed project will be of significance to the City through its planned
23 improvements to the building exterior, interior, landscaping, storm water quality
24 treatment, and through general revitalization of a long underused property; and
25 • the proposed project represents. reasonable and viable high and low use of the
26 property and that City abandonment of the proposed plan at this time would
27 send a negative message to other potential developers.
28 A few additional questions and comments were made:
29
30 Hanson asked if we change zoning now, will that zoning be forever. Bergstrom
31 answered yes, unless the proposed project failed. At that point, the zoning would
32 return to what it is now. Hanson also wondered if residential for that site is ruled out.
Bergstrom responded it is ruled out for the Apache building itself. Stille said he is still
40. hopeful that the mixed uses would include residential.
r
• Page 11
1 Hanson inquired if the Hillcrest project failed, would a new developer be required to go
2 through the same process. Shardlow said the zoning probably would not happen
3 because it would not take place without a developer's agreement.
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5 Chair Bergstrom thanked each,.speaker and those present. He reminded everyone
6 present that this matter will be discussed at the Council's August 8 Work Session and
7 will be on the Council's August 22, 2000 regular meeting agenda.
8 IX. COMMISSION INPUT.
9 Melsha will attend the August 8, 2000 Council Work Session. Bergstrom will attend the
10 August 22, 2000 Regular Council meeting.
11 Tillmann reminded the Commissioners about VillageFest and the August 5 parade.
12 Bergstrom asked for volunteers to staff the NSP booth for that event from
13 approximately noon to 3 or 4 pm.
14 Bergstrom requested Isom get further information relating to decorative lighting and
15 its costs from NSP.
*6 Thomas said he is planning to attend a meeting next Thursday regarding the Livable
17 Communities grant application. He added that Commissioner Tillmann and he would
18 attend the public form on decorative lighting to be held on Wednesday, August 9.
19 Thomas indicated the Upper Midwest Planners Association has scheduled a training
20 conference in Duluth in September where overcoming community opposition on
21 affordable housing will be a topic of discussion. He stated he has information if anyone
22 is interested.
23 Chair Bergstrom noted that this meeting was being videotaped. He said the time might
24 be right to push for Planning Commission meetings to be televised. He asked if there is
25 a cost and Isom responded there is a cost for someone to do the videotaping.
26 Bergstrom thanked the Commission, staff, and consultants for all the work during the
27. last few months on the Hillcrest project.
28 X. ADJOURNMENT.
29 Motion by Tillmann, second by Melsha to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 pm.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 Respectfully,
Connie Kroeplin, City Clerk