HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 06192001 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
106217
Box: 36
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2001
Document: PL MINUTES 06192001
f
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
•2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 June 19, 2001
4 7:00 PM
5 I. CALL TO ORDER.
6 The meeting was called to order by Chair Melsha at 7:02 p.m.
7 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
8 Chair Melsha invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
9 III. ROLL CALL.
10 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha, Vice Chair Stille; Commissioners Hanson, Hatch,
11 Steeves, Thomas, and Tillmann.
12 Commissioner absent: None.
13 Also present: Assistant City Manager Sue Henry.
14IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
05 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Thomas, to approve the meeting agenda.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 V. PUBLIC INPUT.
18 Resident Martin Lunde, of 3425 33'd Avenue Northeast, expressed his desire that the Apache
19 Housing Plan be built with energy efficiency, electrical efficiency, and environmental cleanliness
20 all in mind. Mr. Lunde stated that he is in the engineering business, and is aware that those
21 requests are very easy to meet, if they are done up front in the design process and not as an
22 afterthought.
23 Mr. Lunde indicated that the above suggestions are inexpensive. He requested that the
24 Commission keep the quality of the area and the structures being built there at the absolute top of
25 their list. He stated that the efficiency of a building is oftentimes lost to the appearance, but that
26 one does not have to be sacrificed for the other.
27 Mr. Lunde indicated that choosing the right equipment is the key to successfully achieving an
28 energy-conscious building. He identified a few examples of the type of building of which he was
29 speaking, and asked the Commission for any feedback that they had.
30 Commissioner Thomas stated that he was glad to hear energy efficiency being the focus of Mr.
31 Lunde's list, as it is at the top of his list, as well. He indicated that a windmill at the top of the
2 building would provide an excellent use of energy, and could be created in a way that would be
3 aesthetically appealing. Mr. Lunde stated that things could definitely be taken a step further than
34 his windmill example by simply factoring in daylight and southern exposure glass.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
• Page 2
1 He also indicated that he has spent the better part of the past two years in Asia, and stated that he
2 has seen the majority of their structures operating using energy efficiency, primarily with solar
3 water heating. Mr. Lunde added that, even on a cloudy day, you receive sixty percent of the
4 energy that a sunny day provides. He suggested that, if they build in base level strategies and
5 then have options, they would eliminate over ninety percent of the problems.
6 Vice Chair Stille asked if Mr. Lunde could refer to any buildings in the United States that have
7 been built using the energy efficiency strategy he was requesting. Mr. Lunde referred to a group
8 of buildings in Maine that are almost totally self-sustained.
9 Mr. Lunde thanked the Planning Commission for listening to his requests. The Planning
10 Commission thanked Mr. Lunde for his expertise and input.
11 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
12 6.1 Review/Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2001.
13 Commissioner Tillmann requested that Page 4, line 6, read: "...Committee, but the ordinance
14 states that any truck weighing over nine thousand pounds has to list it's weight on the side of the
15 truck."
Motion by Commissioner Hatch, second by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the May 15, 2001
*17 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, as corrected above.
18 Motion carried 6-1, Chair Melsha abstained.
19 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
20 7.1 Designate a Planning Commissioner to the City Council regular meeting of June 26,
21 2001.
22 Chair Melsha asked Commissioner Thomas if he would attend the next City Council meeting on
23 June 26`h, 2001. Commissioner Thomas agreed to attend.
24
25 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
26 8.1 Lot Combination Request by Tom Palkowski, 2816 Highway 88, to combine two
27 adjacent lots into one.
28 Sue Henry explained that Tom Palkowski, of 2816 Highway 88, owns two pieces of land that are
29 adjacent to one another, and would like to have the two lots combined into one.
30 Chair Melsha asked if the City Attorney had any issues when he reviewed the request. Ms.
31 Henry responded that he did not have any concerns.
32 Mr. Palkowski formally requested the lot combination, and explained that an addition to his
33 home would expand beyond the land that is currently there.
0
34 Commissioner Thomas asked if he had spoken to his neighbors with regard to the addition. He
35 stated that he had spoken with them, and that the change would be insignificant to them.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
•
Page 3
1 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Vice Chair Stille, to approve the lot combination request.
2 Motion carried unanimously.
3 8.2 City ordinance amendment to allow electronic signs, for public informational uses only,
4 in areas zoned recreational open space on city and/or school-owned property.
5 Sue Henry stated that one of the city's goals for 2001 was to establish an electronic reader board
6 in the community. She explained that, in order to accomplish this, an ordinance change is
7 necessary, as electronic signs/reader boards are not currently permitted in the City.
8 Vice Chair Stille stated that the recommendation to change this ordinance did not include
9 restrictions regarding flashing signs, scrolling, etc. and that the sub-committee suggested that the
10 sign only make changes a couple of times a day. Chair Melsha asked them to elaborate.
11 Commissioner Tillmann added that they were suggesting that the sign could change twice in a
12 twenty-four hour period.
13 Ron Hansen, of 3220 Belden Drive, has lived in the City of St. Anthony for thirty-two years, and
14 requested that the ordinance change not be made, largely because he had a lot of questions
15 regarding the change.
0
16 He indicated that his concerns were that, at a time of new development and getting away from
17 extravagant signage, he felt that it does not have a place in the City of St. Anthony. He stated he
18 believes that the City of St. Anthony has a very liberal sign ordinance.
19 Mr. Hansen asked if the city has decided that the city purchase the sign. He stated that, if they
20 have not decided to purchase a sign, then why were they discussing the amendment of the sign
21 ordinance.
22 Vice Chair Stille indicated that they have not formally decided to purchase a new electronic sign,
23 and that they are exploring amending the ordinance for the benefit of better communication
24 within the city. He stated that it is intended that the sign be used for public information, and that
25 it is a good alternative for the city in terms of aesthetics.
26 Chair Melsha stated that there is a caution among the Commissioners about the appearance and
27 the features of the sign, which is why all of the discussed restrictions for the sign exist. He
28 referred to the sign at the Stonehouse, and indicated that it was a sign that they would not like to
29 emulate.
30 Commissioner Hanson indicated that the sign was first mentioned when they were discussing
31 improving the appearance of City Hall. He added that Walgreen's had requested a variance to
32 the sign ordinance back when they were interested in opening a store in the City of St. Anthony,
03 which is what caused them to examine the ordinance. He also stated that, after three years of
34 serving on the Planning Commission, he was frustrated with being a reactionary Commission,
35 which is why they have decided to be proactive after they denied the request from Walgreen's.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
Page 4
1 Mr. Hansen wanted to know why they were discussing amending the sign ordinance.
2 Commissioner Tillmann stated that the issue does not meet the criteria for a variance, because
3 there is not any hardship. Chair Melsha stated that, if they feel it is necessary to have the sign for
4 a public purpose, than amending the sign ordinance makes sense, as opposed to always dealing
5 with variances.
6 Mr. Hansen stated that he had a problem with Chair Melsha's statement, and indicated that a
7 number of other residents would have come forward to dispute the idea of the electronic sign,
8 had they known the position of the Commission on the issue. He cited a number of buildings
9 and houses that have a sign in front of them, and suggested that they hold a hearing to discuss
10 this sign, and indicated that at least twenty-five residents would be present to provide the reasons
11 for which they feel the ordinance should not take place. He read an article from the Minneapolis
12 newspaper that was written by the Dennis Cavanaugh, the Mayor for the City of St. Anthony,
13 which talked about the increasing taxes in the City of St. Anthony.
14 Mr. Hansen asked why they are trying to amend the ordinance when the sign has not been
15 approved, rather than leaving the ordinance as it is, with the need to request a variance.
16 Commissioner Hanson indicated that the Planning Commission wants to have something in the
07 books so that when a retailer, such as Walgreen's, wants to come into the City, sees the City
18 Code and does not waste anyone's time requesting a variance. Mr. Hansen suggested that they
19 amend the ordinance to state that signs, like Walgreen's, are not allowed, except by variance.
20 Commissioner Tillmann stated that discussion is taking place because of the community interest
21 in having such a sign.
22 Mr. Hansen asked the following questions regarding the sign:
23 1. How much will the sign cost?
24 2. Who will maintain the sign?
25 3. What will the sign look like?
26 Mr. Hansen concluded by saying that, before they decide to change the ordinance, they need to
27 inform residents, and allow them to express their unhappiness over the potential ordinance
28 change. He read a statement from a sign ordinance for a nearby city, which made reference to
29 the safety issues with drivers trying to do too much. Mr. Hansen elaborated on the statement by
30 listing several of the buildings and structures that are found around the intersection where they
31 are proposing the sign be placed.
32 Chair Melsha asked if Mr. Hansen was against the idea of a sign, or the idea of an electronic
33 sign. Mr. Hanson stated that he did not think that the City of St. Anthony needed any more signs
•34 at all.
35 Mr. Hansen reiterated his belief that, once the ordinance is changed and there exist no more
36 public hearings regarding it, there will be several unhappy residents.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
0 Page 5
1 Mr. Hansen indicated that there are other ways to communicate with the community, and that the
2 money used on the sign could be better spent. He expressed his opinion that signs are one of the
3 most archaic types of communication out there. He asked for the Commission to identify any
4 other cities that have signs like the one they are proposing be built. Commissioner Hanson
5 referred to a sign in Mounds View, Vice Chair Stille referred to the four-sided sign in Eden
6 Prairie.
7 Commissioner Thomas stated that his issues and concerns were very valid but, ultimately, the
8 decision on the ordinance would be determined by the City Council, and he suggested that Mr.
9 Hansen organize the proper people on the Council and state his argument.
10 Mr. Hansen concluded by saying that the Planning Commission finds out if the City sign is really
11 going to change, before they decide to change the ordinance. He added that, if it does pass, there
12 is no additional public hearing for residents to express their concerns, and he believes there are
13 several residents who have negative feelings toward the proposed City sign. He urged the
14 Planning Commission to reconsider the changing of the ordinance before they are certain
15 whether, or not, they will have the new City sign.
16 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. He addressed the Commission and stated
107 that there are details surrounding the sign of which he was uncertain, such as the number of times
18 that the message on the sign would change. Vice Chair Stille stated that they have discussed in
19 detail the amount of flashing, the number of times the sign would change per day (two), and that
20 the messages would be appropriate.
21 Chair Melsha asked if they needed to discuss the aesthetic issues such as brightness, or types of
22 electronic devices that could be used. Commissioner Hanson suggested that the sign be turned
23 off after hours.
24 Ms. Henry stated that she thought that the draft needed to be fine-tuned to define electronic sign,
25 and contain more specifics about the content of the information intended for display on the sign.
26 Commissioner Hanson stated that he did not approve recommending something of which he
27 would not being able to see the final draft and language.
28 Commissioner Steeves stated that the comments made this evening made him realize that the
29 ordinance needs to change first, and that the specifics be decided subsequently, rather than the
30 other way around. He stated that the ordinance needs to dictate, and the conditions would be set
31 by the City Council and the Planning Commission. He suggested that they remain broad with
32 their ordinance.
33 Vice Chair Stille agreed with Commissioner Steeves' comments to change the ordinance. Chair
34 Melsha indicated that the decision to change the ordinance was consistent with the City's
05 philosophy to fix the policy. Ms. Henry indicated that this evening is for the public input, not
36 the actual language of the ordinance. She added that this evening is not where they draft the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
Page 6
1 actual language, and as long as the Commission is comfortable with the direction, they can move
2 forward.
3 Commissioner Thomas asked if it was possible to have the City look into the safety implications
4 of the sign, as part of a conditional use so that they could have some of that information before a
5 final decision on the sign was made. Commissioner Steeves stated that would be part of the
6 conditional use application that would accompany a sign proposal.
7 Commissioner Steeves added that he was really opposed to the Planning Commission having a
8 specific project inform the ordinance change, rather than thinking of the ordinance change
9 independent of any project because it is policy decision as opposed to a project decision.
10 Chair Melsha asked Ms. Henry if it were acceptable to motion that they adopt an actual
11 ordinance change. Ms. Henry indicated that it was okay to do so now, or to extend the public
12 hearing to the next meeting.
13 Commissioner Tillmann indicated that there is still the opportunity for residents to offer their
14 opinions at any of the following three readings by the City Council.
& Chair Melsha asked if anyone would entertain a motion. Commissioner Hanson asked if the
16 conditions needed to be discussed tonight, since the Planning Commission would not have the
17 opportunity to view the ordinance change before it went to the City Council. Commissioner
18 Tillmann stated that the conditions would be very specific for where they decide to place the
19 sign. Chair Melsha stated that a lot of the things that they have mentioned up to this point would
20 be incorporated as conditions.
21 Commissioner Steeves indicated that the discussion tonight and the minutes from the meeting
22 will give ample guidance to the staff on potential conditions to be listed, and on the thoughts of
23 the Commission regarding the ordinance so that the staff, in consultation with the City Attorney,
24 will be able to draft language that will be fully acceptable.
25 Commissioner Hanson stated that he did not want the Council to be doing their work for them by
26 creating the language of the ordinance, and recommended that they table the issue, and review
27 possible conditional uses to discuss at the next meeting. Chair Melsha indicated that he did not
28 see any specific conditional uses being included in the ordinance. He added that there could be
29 certain criteria that could be factored into the ordinance instead.
30 Commissioner Hanson stated that, since they are creating the ordinance right now, they did not
31 have to be vague. Vice Chair Stille thought that the redirection of the Commission gives them
32 more control for when the application does come in.
03 Commissioner Tillmann stated that, in the past, the Planning Commission has not been a part of
34 determining the actual language. Vice Chair Still agreed with Commissioner Tillmann.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
• Page 7
1 Commissioner Thomas stated that he was comfortable sending this on to the Council if the
2 Planning Commission specified some of the things they were looking for from the Council. He
3 mentioned the need to address safety issues, and to determine the restrictions and cost of the
4 proposed sign. He added that he found many of Mr. Hansen's comments to be very relevant.
5 Commissioner Hanson indicated that the Council had the power to waive two of the three
6 proposed readings.
7 Commissioner Hatch observed that the Commission seemed to be sort of divided on whether to
8 make the ordinance specific, or vague. He suggested that they ask the Council what they would
9 rather see from the Commission.
10 Chair Melsha did not think that the Commission was very divided. He stated that either there
11 would be conditions that need to be met, or there would be conditions that would be considered.
12 He did not believe that anyone on the Commission was saying that they should make the
13 ordinance so specific that they would be identifying kind of sign, etc.
14 Commissioner Tillmann added that operating that specifically would take away a lot of their
015 power.
16 Commissioner Hanson stated that he would like to see an updated draft before they make a
17 recommendation to the City Council.
18 Vice Chair Stille stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Hanson to postpone until
19 the end of next month. Ms. Henry indicated that the Council could decide otherwise.
20 Commissioner Thomas stated that perhaps they should come to more consensuses this evening.
21 Vice Chair Stille suggested that they go back to Commissioner Steeves' way of thinking, and use
22 vague language in order to cater each sign to fit the characteristics of the location. Chair Melsha
23 stated that he did not have any problem with adopting a recommendation that says that they want
24 the ordinance to be changed, with the conditional uses in the memo, as well as safety and
25 aesthetic issues to be considered.
26 Motion by Vice Chair Stille, second by Commissioner Tillmann, to recommend an ordinance
27 amendment to allow for electronic signs, as a conditional use, for public informational uses only,
28 in areas zoned recreational space on city and/or school-owned property. Considerations should
29 be given to safety and aesthetics.
30 Motion carried 4-2. Commissioners Hanson and Hatch opposed.
IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
9.1 Next steps in the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Master Planning Process.
33 Craig Rapp, with Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban (DSU), came forward to update the Commission
34 with where they are in the process of the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Project. He stated
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 19, 2001
Page 8
1 that he was a principal of the firm, and was filling in for John Shardlow, who had a prior
2 commitment tonight.
3 He stated that he was there to provide a recap of the big picture of the process of redeveloping
4 the Northwest Quadrant. He reviewed his background, indicating his high level of expertise with
5 regard to the project. He also expressed how much his firm has enjoyed working on this project
6 with the staff in the City of St. Anthony. He indicated that it was important to remember that it
7 is a step-by-step incremental process, and that they need to keep an eye on the future and to build
8 on the momentum that has been created.
9 Mr. Rapp stated it was crucial in a redevelopment process that the City to have a vision, as well
10 as an understanding of the reasons behind the redevelopment project that they are about to
11 embark on. He added that it would be very important for the developers that will be coming
12 forward and providing their capital, to have an understanding of the level of partnership that they
13 will be entering into with them, so that they know that they have the chance to impart their
14 expertise into the project.
15 Mr. Rapp indicated that there are several reasons as to why a city decides to reinvest in itself. He
_16" stated that the Apache Plaza area is a significant piece of property in the City of St. Anthony, and
noted that it appears to be an appropriate time for the City to respond to the changes that have
18 taken place in the retail market that have left Apache Plaza behind. He stated the need to
19 determine whether the City is prepared to make the necessary changes.
20 Mr. Rapp indicated that the steering committee has determined some concepts and ideas that will
21 be presented tonight by Jeff Basil. He added that it is important that they all understand what the
22 priorities have been for the project.
23 Mr. Rapp stated that the property was very well located for a lot of different things, but that there
24 was a major impediment, called the Midwest Asphalt Plant. Determining how to deal with
25 Midwest Asphalt Plant is the largest, and first step that needs to be addressed in the project.
26 Mr. Rapp stated that DSU was winding down their involvement, but that they would be
27 providing the Planning Commission with a packet of information next month. He indicated that
28 the packet would include the broad concepts that they want them to look at, the priorities and
29 phasing of the development, a design framework, and a developers selection process outline.
30 Mr. Rapp cautioned the Commission to think about a design framework with general guidelines,
31 rather than with specific and detailed design standards. He added that it is an easier way to get
32 their concept and vision communicated to the potential developers, while allowing the
33 developers to help fashion their needs within the desired framework.
04 Chair Melsha asked if what Mr. Rapp was describing was similar to the Heart of the City in
35 Burnsville. Mr. Rapp replied that the Heart of the City was a little too refined for the potential
36 developers, which is why he was encouraging them to keep their guidelines fairly general.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 19, 2001
Page 9
1 Mr. Rapp reminded the Commission that they are one-third of the way along the continuum in
2 the final resolution process, but that it is too soon to exclude a lot of choices and ideas that come
3 to the table.
4 Jeff Basil, of DSU, came forward to review the Northwest Quadrant and the intended goals of the
5 process, focusing primarily on the Apache Plaza area. He stated that the Salvation Army Camp
6 will likely be purchased by Hennepin Regional Parks and be maintained as a public open-space
7 facility.
8 Mr. Basil touched on the water quality in Silver Lake. He stated it was improving, but still is not
9 necessarily good for swimming at this point. He identified one of the goals of the redevelopment
10 process is to minimize the negative impacts of Apache Plaza on the lake.
11 Mr. Basil continued his review by identifying the existing structures on the Northwest Quadrant.
12 He referred to the lack of accessibility to the mall from the road, and stated that they have been
13 deciding which things are changeable, and which would be left alone.
14 Mr. Basil stated that there are some basic things that need to be done to the cite in order to make
5 it an attractive redevelopment area. One of the major changes he indicated was that a major
Wroadway was needed to provide access to the internal part of the project. He also stated that they
17 need to establish tight connections to the new park facility, given the limitations such as the
18 railroad tracks. He stated it was a large order, but absolutely key.
19 Mr. Basil indicated that a major market study revealed:
20 1. Housing demand is very high, strong and multi-layered.
21 2. Considerable office demand.
22 3. Retail demand equal to the amount of retail that exists on the cite today,
23 with the exception of the mall.
24 Mr. Basil stated that they have established two primary concepts: Corporate Campus/Residential
25 Concept, and Refined Development Concept.
26 The Corporate Campus is comprised of the following:
27 -500,000 square feet (built in two phases of 250,000 square feet each)
28 -2,000 parking spaces (5 level parking ramp, parking under buildings on the
29 surface)
30 The Residential Development is comprised of the following:
31 -150 units—Townhouses (30 foot wide units, two story)
32 -100 units—Senior High Rise
33 -156 units—3-4 story multiple dwellings
44 -Total: 406 units
35 The Refined Development Concept consists of the following:
36 -12 units—Villas (60 foot wide lots)
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 19, 2001
Page 10
1 -68 units—Townhouses (30 foot wide units, two story)
2 -100 units—Senior High Rise
3 -330 units—4 story multiple dwellings
4 -340 units —3 story multiple dwellings
5 -Total: 850 units
6 75,000 square feet of mixed commercial
7 100,000 square feet of office
8 Mr. Basil stated that the two alternatives that he presented are, in a general sense, the type of
9 thing that they are going to end up with if they proceed with the redevelopment of the mall.
10 Mr. Basil indicated that a lot of what had been presented was driven by was what the community
11 has requested, as well as external factors, what the market has to offer, and what is feasible.
12 Commissioner Hanson asked if they had an idea how much quicker the total bill-out could be if
13 they had a Corporate Campus versus if it was all housing. Mr. Basil indicated that the housing
14 option could happen relatively quickly because of the variation in the types housing. He added
15 that the Corporate Campus would happen in one of two chunks at a time.
Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates, stated that he was there to discuss how the concept and
17 framework would get them to the end of the Redevelopment of the Northwest Quadrant.
18 The framework elements that would be approved by the City would be used to solicit proposals
19 from developers. He indicated that they may have several different concepts to explore
20 simultaneously, which provides the City with better options.
21 Mr. Prosser stated that the development proposals that they receive are not plans. Rather, they
22 encourage developers to define a cite-line, as opposed to an elevation and line detail.
23 Mr. Prosser stated that the Planners will use the general cite plan to evaluate and provide the city
24 feedback regarding the impact that the various proposals would have on the city with reference to
25 the framework elements that have been identified by the City.
26 Mr. Prosser stated they would provide the City with an evaluation that considers the financial
27 feasibility. He stated that they would look at the cost to acquire the land (including demolition
28 and relocation), as well as any public improvements required to accomplish that particular type
29 of development.
30 Mr. Prosser indicated that they want to select a developer that appears to capture a concept that is
31 feasible, as well as one that is most responsive to the framework elements that the City has
•32 identified.
33 Mr. Prosser indicated that the City of St. Anthony would likely be looking at multiple developers
34 to develop the selective pieces. He added that they want to see this billed out as quickly as they
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• June 19, 2001
Page 11
1 can to not only meet the needs of the City, but to meet the needs of the developers, as well. He
2 stated that any developer that would take on this project would be taking a significant leap of
3 faith that other project elements are going to occur.
4 Mr. Prosser indicated that the next phase was the Developer Marketing and Solicitation. Mr.
5 Prosser identified several qualifications that they will be examining in the developers. Among
6 these qualifications were their ability to secure financing and equity, their ability to work with
7 the community, and their ability to partner with others.
8 Mr. Prosser stated that the next phase would be the Developer Selection Phase. He indicated that
9 they would review the information and report it back to the City Staff, making no
10 recommendation to them.
11 Mr. Prosser indicated that the following phase was the Developing Agreement Phase. During
12 that phase, the developer agrees to an actual timetable, and will begin to more formally go to the
13 public and do further refinement than when the Planning Commission goes to the City Council
14 for final approvals.
15 Mr. Prosser indicated that the work the Commission was doing was very important because the
framework helps provide a clear concept of what the developers should be preparing in terms of
17 proposals.
18 Mr. Prosser also stated that the most important thing that they can deliver to developers is time.
19 He added that developers are more interested in working with cities that have taken the time to
20 create a pretty clear vision of what they want the final product to look like.
21 Mr. Prosser indicated that there might be some legislative changes that could impact what they
22 are doing, but that they were not concerned yet.
23 Chair Melsha asked what Mr. Prosser's sense was on how developers view the city. Mr. Prosser
24 responded that developers like the idea that the City of St. Anthony has been straightforward
25 regarding the process. He added that developers also like the idea that the City has talked to the
26 developers early on in the process.
27 Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Prosser if it were possible to fit multiple developers into a
28 Master Plan. Mr. Prosser indicated that it is a little more work to have multiple developers, other
29 than as a main developer with others playing a significantly smaller role, so as not to create a
30 clash. Otherwise, he added that it could be done as a development team.
31 Commissioner Tillmann stated that around the perimeter today there are businesses with
402 individual owners, and asked how it will work that they agree to relocate, or do the necessary
3 things to help in the Redevelopment of the Northwest Quadrant. Mr. Prosser stated that the issue
34 mentioned by Commissioner Tillmann is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the redevelopment
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
Page 12
1 process. He stated that he does not want to downplay how disruptive and difficult redevelopment
2 is on the existing businesses.
3 Mr. Prosser continued by listing a couple of options in handling those situations, being upfront
4 about what was happening was the most important. He identified Sue Henry as one of the
5 greater communicators that he works with. He added that she demands the materials necessary
6 to communicate with the City and the businesses within.
7 Commissioner Hanson asked if the City would be in a better position to present the Corporate
8 Campus entity to the developers, or to tell the developers that they were looking for a Corporate
9 Campus Concept and have them come up with a way to fill the location. Mr. Prosser stated that
10 they would end up doing both. He stated that they would want to communicate as clearly as they
11 can the best option possible. He stated that it is unusual to have a major corporate client that
12 would not have one or more developers that they have worked with in the past.
13 Commissioner Thomas asked about the city putting in the main street, and the parking that would
14 have to be created for that. Mr. Prosser stated that the city would have two advantages for the
15 City to get involved with building and/or leasing: tax-exempt financing to assist, and the cost of
6 operation. He indicated that tax-exempt financing would not be an option right now because it
will likely be private-purpose.
18 Mr. Rapp indicated that it was rare that something like that would happen where the city would
19 directly finance a parking facility.
20 Mr. Rapp stated that in the Corporate Campus example that was shown tonight, the parking
21 provides the opportunity to get more density on the rest of the development which, ultimately,
22 helps numbers.
23 Mr. Prosser added that building a ramp is a tax-increment eligible expense. He added that, in
24 many cases, it is a good way to increase the density.
25 Commissioner Hanson asked who he sees as the potential buyer of the Apache Plaza Mall, and
26 will it end up being the City? Mr. Prosser stated that he hoped that the City would not end up
27 buying the Plaza, and demolishing the existing structure. He added that, typically, the developer
28 undertakes that effort.
29 Commissioner Thomas indicated that energy-efficiency could be something to evaluate with
30 regard to the framework of the Redevelopment of the Northwest Quadrant. Mr. Prosser indicated
31 it would be appropriate to include in the framework, and the amount of weight that is placed on
32 energy-efficiency in the final stages is determined by the City Staff, as is true with all of the
�3 other components in the framework.
34 Commissioner Hanson asked if the City has looked into whether, or not, they can support another
35 two thousand new residents. Mr. Prosser stated that they could determine that as they go along,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
Page 13
1 but that the people themselves are not the big impact. He identified shopping centers and the
2 other areas of compact development as having the greatest impact on the City.
3 Chair Melsha asked where they go from here. Mr. Rapp stated that they will provide the
4 Commission with a packet filled with various details, answering questions that were mentioned
5 tonight.
6 The Planning Commission thanked all three gentlemen for their information.
7 V. COMMITTEE REPORTS.
8 10.1 Update from Antenna Ordinance Subcommittee- Chair Melsha.
9 Chair Melsha stated that he proposed a re-draft of the proposed Antenna Ordinance. He
10 indicated that they would have a draft of the Ordinance at the next meeting for the entire
11 Commission to evaluate.
12 10.2 Update from Housing Code Subcommittee.
13 Commissioner Hanson stated that they met last Thursday afternoon. He indicated that they read
14 through several documents that they received, regarding point-of-sale. They determined that
15 perhaps they hire an Enforcement Officer.
0
16 Commissioner Hanson stated that they looked at how they can put some teeth to the issue. He
17 suggested that it be known to all homeowners that before they can list their house, they must
18 obtain a copy of the inspection and pay a filing fee. Commissioner Hanson suggested that a
19 ninety-day time limit be placed on the homeowner to meet the criteria of the inspection. He
20 added that, if no appeal is filed by the homeowner, and there is no resolution of the code
21 violation, the owner of the property would be charged with a misdemeanor.
22 Commissioner Thomas added that they liked the language in the New Hope ordinance. He
23 indicated that, under the purpose of the ordinance, they would add that it was to improve the
24 housing stock and that they would direct homeowners and buyers to the appropriate source for
25 securing low-interest loans. Commissioner Thomas added that they would connect the
26 homeowner to a source to help them make the improvements.
27 Chair Melsha thought that, once a home is purchased, the homeowner needed to file a homestead
28 with the City. No one on the Commission was certain.
29 Ms. Henry added that she had made copies of the New Hope, City of Minneapolis, and the City
30 of St. Anthony point-of-sales for the rest of the Commission so that they could provide the
31 Housing Code Subcommittee with educated suggestions.
46 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Commissioner Tillmann stated that she hopes that they continue to get public input regarding the
34 electronic sign.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
June 19, 2001
0 Page 14
1 Commissioner Hanson stated that Hanson's Gifts opened in the Shopping Mall.
2
3 Commissioner Hanson also indicated that he received a tour of the Crossroads Fitness Center by
4 Mr. Tedlund, and indicated it is a very high-class Fitness Center. He added that they were
5 aiming for a July 1, 2001 opening date.
6
7 Commissioner Hanson asked what was decided by the City Council on the Stonehouse.
8 Commissioner Thomas indicated that they decided that they want to have a plan in place, should
9 it need to be shut down.
10
11 Vice Chair Stille stated that he was proud of the Commission in relation to the sign discussion
12 that took place earlier in the evening, and that they did not take the easy way out.
13
14 XII. ADJOURNMENT.
15 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
16
17
18 Respectfully submitted,
4 Courtney Seesz
21 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
0