Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07211979 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 106002 Box: 36 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1979 Document: PL MINUTES ='=�c9- a CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 21 , 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 35P Y.m. b Chairman Marks . Present for roll call : Jones , Marks , Rymarchick, Sopcinski and Enrooth. Absent: Bjorklund and Bowerman. Also present: Jim Fornell , City Manager; William Soth, City Attorney; and Ronald Berg, Administrative Assistant. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to approve as submitted the minutes for the July 17, 1979 Board Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr . Sopcinski to approve as submitted the minutes for the Special Meeting of the Board held on July 31 , 1979 . Motion carried unanimously . Mr. Jones will represent the Board at the next Council meeting to be held August 28 . J The site and landscaping plans for the south 230 feet of Lot 12 of the Penrod Addition were shown by Mr. Fornell who said they were submitted by Gordon Hedlund as the Detailed Plan of the Hedlund PUD adopted in July 12, 1977 . Mr. Hedlund was present and tild the Board the building he proposes to build "for speculative purposes" will be 5 , 400 square feet and about ten feet high. He said he understood that with the 864 square feet in the existing "little green house" included in the PUD, this will leave him with only 9 ,736 square feet to be devoted to the other two identical buildings he proposes to complete; the development of that site and the size of the last buil- ding will be adjusted to conform to the requirements of the PUD. Twenty-seven of the 95 parking spaces required for the entire site will be positioned around this building. The developer was unable to identify any of the tenants for the building saying "I have no idea who they will be, but they will be typical office-types" . He told Mr. Jones there will be doors on each side of the building, but no rear doors are anticipated nor will a.-door be provided for each unit. The type of architecture to be used on the buildings in the development were illustrated in the slides of the Woodlane Shopping Center which Mr. Hedlund showed and he said plans which will be drawn by the same architect will include the covered sidewalks and type of exterior shown in the slides . One monument-type sign will identify the development with individual signs on the buildings to identify the tenants . Conformance with the landscaping plans by Albrecht Land- scaping will be provided if the City insists , Mr . Hedlund said, but he feared some of the types of plantings might not be available at the time such plantings are made and he dislikes the chipped or gravel base for the plantings as provided. No buiiding will exceed the 12-foot height established for the site. d -2- Mr. Sopcinski was concerned that easements be established now so • future tenants on the site will be assured of the use of the north- west exit and not forced to use the Silver Lake Road curb cuts of which Mr. Hedlund insisted Ramsey County "has to allow at least six" . Mark Haggerty, of Smith and Juster, 6441 University Avenue , counsel to Mr. Hedlund, agreed that his client would furnish for the record a "declaration of intent" to assure at least an easement over Lot 11 for the benefit of Lot 12 which the Manager and Attorney viewed as adequate for this application. Mr. Soth assured the Board that such a declaration would remain a part of the PUD even if the property should change hands . The Board was then informed of the lawsuit Mr. Hedlund had initiated against the City contesting portions of the PUD Concept Plan. One of the points of the litigation is the "burden to his client" of proving financial feasibility in advance of the Final Plan approval by the Board and Council. Mr . Haggerty contended the time element in seeking such approval might prevent the sale or rental of the property. He added that though this time element was central to his client 's challenging the PUD, Mr. Hedlund did not want "to be tied down to the restricting of his use of any building since his plans might call for using the entire 33 percent permitted for commercial development of the PUD for one building" . Mr. Soth responded by saying "If requiring financial feasibility is a big burden to the developer, he might recommend the City eliminate this requirement, but if Mr. Hedlund proposes to change the uses , that can only be done by amending the PUD through repeating the process by which it was developed including a public hearing. " He also said if Mr. Hedlund is able to finance without leases , he did not see it as essential to the City to have a list of tenants since even that list could be changed and the terms of the PUD gives the City control over the use of the property. Mr. Soth reminded Mr. Haggerty that the Concept Plan had been developed over an extended time with many hearings which involved many residents and when it was finally approved there was no objection voiced by Mr. Hedlund though he had both his planner and attorney present, "And now he wants to change that Concept Plan. " Mr. Jones interjected the information that one of the new residents on the Penrod portion of the PUD site had infomed him he intends to sue the City "if a change in the PUD is granted" . "Those new residents, purchased their homes on the basis of a reliance on the Concept Plan" , the City Attorney said. Mr. Marks then asked for verification of whether Mr. Hedlund was asking for approval of the submission for the Detailed Plan or rather asking for changing the PUD. Mr. Haggerty replied by saying his client felt the PUD should be changed several ways. Although he is challenging in his lawsuit No. 1 of B. Use Restrictions , Mr. Hedlund could live with the restriction of commercial use for the entire PUD of 33 percent if "one type of tenant is allowed under item No. 2 for one building or the commercial could all be in the same building" . He also found waiting for a "B" tenant under E of i -3- VI of the Scheduling Component to be "damaging to his client" and • felt the same issue was involved in F also under VI . The attorney said they had challenged all of A under VIII , but could live with those restrictions if those enumerated under C and D were changed. Mr. Soth then advised the Board which of these restrictions named by Mr. Haggerty he felt, from a legal standpoint, could be waived as long as they did not invovle "change in use", but insisted the requirement that "no more than 50 percent for commercial be allowed for any one building" was one of the points which would require amending the Concept Plan by repeating the whole process by which the PUD was developed. Mr. Rymarchick said there had been much time and effort put into the formulation of the Concept Plan and every detail had been scrutinized carefully before its adoption. Mr. Hedlund agreed this was true of the plan approved by the Board in June , 1977 , but this plan was greatly altered by Council persons Haik and Stauffer at their July meeting and the revised plan was then "railroaded" through by Mayor Miedtke. He insisted he had been restrained by his planner and attorney from objecting to the plan before it was approved. Mr. Fornell agreed that the plan was changed from that approved by the Planning Board, but said that is the prerogative of the Council and Mr. Soth said he was present and saw no "rail- roading" of the PUD which was approved without objection from Mr. Hedlund. The Chairman repeated his question to Mr. Hedlund whether he was in reality asking for a change in the Concept Plan and whether he had made a formal application to do so since these objections were not listed in his application of August 9 for a public hearing on the Detailed Plan. Mr. Soth reiterated the process which would be necessary to amend any portion of the PUD to the extent it involved "a material change in the use" , but said the Board may suggest some changes be made if they aren' t "terribly material or significant" . He said the requirement for listing the tenants and substitution of a Letter of Credit for the Performance Bond "could be waived within the process , but changing the use mix would probably call for a repeat of the process including a public hearing" . He also dis- agreed with Mr . Haggerty that the Board could consider a Detailed Plan except under the approved Concept Plan . He then read provisions of Section 13, Subdivision 6 , Number 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance which "would allow the Planning Board to recommend changes which do not materially alter the use" . The meeting was recessed from 9 : 15 p.m. to 9 : 30 p.m. to allow Mr. Hedlund to confer with his counsel . When the meeting was resumed, it was agreed that accommodations would be explored before an impasse on E and F of VIII might develop. Mr. Jones reminded Mr. Hedlund that a real estate office is a "B" use and an entire building may be utilized for this purpose. Mr. Haggerty said that although he anticipates the majorityof the tenants will be B or service office, he could not make thatg uarantee that night. He added this specific restriction is challenged in Mr. Hedlund' s lawsuit as "arbitrary" and "taking of property without due process" . -4- Mr. Fornell reminded Mr. Hedlund that these restrictions were not added by the Council, but were part of the plan receiving Planning Board approval in June, 1977 . Mr. Jones felt that since Mr. Hedlund will be restricted to a 33 percent total commercial use, some leeway should be allowed regarding the mix of uses and did not agree with Mr. Soth that allowing this deviation would be detrimental to the PUD or should be considered "material" . It was Mr. Soth' s contention that the matter must be referred to the Council to decide whether or not it is critical. A building permit could be issued and Item E enforced only when a C use occupies the building, according to the Manager. Under the guidance of the City Attorney the following recommendations to the Council were formulated: Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend to the Council that the provision of a listing of tenants under F of VI of the Hedlund PUD be waived finding under Section 13, Subdivision 6 , Number 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance , the restriction is "not mater- ial and only informational" . Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr . Enrooth to recommend to the Council that the first sentence of Item C of VIII of the Concept Plan • be waived finding under Section 13, Subdivision 6 , Number 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance, that this restriction is "not material but r a t h e r informational" since the City does not have the right to either approve nor disapprove specific tenants . Motion carried unanimously. When addressing the "burden" Sentence No. 2 of VIII C of the Concept Plan would place on the developer, Mr. Haggerty insisted the time element involved in going to the Board and Council could be very important to Mr. Hedlund when he is marketing a joint venture for the development of the site, but agreed that if the determination were left to staff , the developer "would be able to live with the restriction" . Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enroo,th to recommend to the Council that the requirements of the second Sentence of VIII C of the Concept Plan regarding conclusive proof of financial feasibility, does not have to be complied with for the final approval of the Detailed Plan but rather before a building permit can be issued and the authority for determining whether this requirement is complied with shall be granted to the City Manager. Before a vote was taken, " Mr. Sopcinski questioned whether this action was necessary in view of the move to waive the first sentence , but the Atzorney advised leaving it in and the motion passed unanimously. • -5- Mr. Fornell then advised that the requirements of VIII D had been • waived for the residential development of the PUD. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to recommend to the Council that an unconditional, irrevocable Letter of Credit for $24, 000, for one year after issuance of the building permit, be substituted for the required Performance Bond in VIII D with the Letter of Credit to be released by the City only upon compliance with all the terms of the Detailed Plan. The Board bases this recommendation on the belief the security will be as good or better than under a Performance Bond and found the change "not material to the Concept Plan" under Section 13, Subdivision 6, No. 6f of the City Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hedlund indicated he understood that similar Letters of Credit would be required for the second and third building as well . Mr. Jones had originally tied the release of the Letter of Credit to the completion of the landscaping, driveway, and parking area construction, but eliminated these specifics with the final drafting of the motion. The discussion now centered on the requirements of VI E of the Scheduling Component, with the developer insisting he could not • meet the requirement of having one B tenant take occupancy in each building before any C tenant occupies the same building. When Mr. Soth was adamant in his insistance that modifying this requirement involved a "material change in the Concept Plan which would call for a repeat of the entire development process" , Mr. Haggerty suggested that the matter of whether the change was mater- ial "should be reserved for the Council to decide" , but Mr. Jones told him he was certain the Council would accept the advice of its own counsel just as Mr . Hedlund would defer to Mr. Haggerty ' s opinion and suggested a way of retaining the restriction which might prove satisfactory to all parties . Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to indicate to the Council that it is the feeling of the Planning Board that, should Mr. Hedlund move his office into any portion of any building, this would meet the requirements for B use under E- of VI Scheduling Component. The motion was re-worded upon the objections of Mr. Rymarchick that it "did not represent a consensus of the Board since he personally opposed such tactics by a civic body" . Mr . Sopcinski viewed the action as unnecessary and questioned what would happen if Mr. Hedlund no longer owned the property. Mr. Marks said he saw this concession as necessary to assure Mr. Hedlund he would be allowed to use his office to meet the B require- ments and saw no reason not to vote for the motion since it entailed nothing in respect to land use, nor scheduling, nor would it mater- ially affect the PUD. -6- Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to recommend to the Council that E of VI , Scheduling Component, be construed to permit Mr. Hedlund to be the first B tenant occupant of the building. Voting on the motion : Aye: Marks, Jones, Enrooth Nay : Rymarchick, Sopcinski Motion carried. Mr Hedlund and Mr. Haggerty indicated their concurrence with the terms of the Concept Plan as now negotiated "at least in respect to the first building" . Upon determining the submission for the Detailed Plan was adequate for a Public Hearing , it was suggested Mr. Hedlund should incorporate the site plans with the landscaping plans to show the residents how the first building will be positioned in relation to the rest of the site and there should also be clear indication of how traffic will be circulated through the area and parking provided. He was also urged to provide photographs and specifications of the first building he proposes to build. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend to the Council that the Planning Board hold a Public Hearing during their September 18 meeting for the purpose of getting public reaction to the Detailed Plan of the Hedlund PUD, contingent upon Council 's acceptance of the recommendations made by the Planning Board in respect to the submission requirements for the Plan. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Soth left at 11 : 25 p.m. Board members made several suggestions regarding the Comprehensive Plan being developed by Minneapolis to be passed on by City Staff. This included suggestions regarding the proliferation of commercial and encr,uragemcnt of a hike path alcng Stinson Boulevard. Mr. Rymarchick left at 11: 35 p.m. The next work session on the City ' s Comprehensive Plan is scheduled for 7 : 30 p.m. , September 4 . Action was deffered to a future meeting when the agenda is shorter on the proposed parking requirements for sit-down restaurants and revisions of the City Sign Ordinance. The seminars on perking, environmental law, and of the State Planning Agency were noted. g Y Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to adjourn the meeting at 11: 50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Helen Crowe, Board Secretary