HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07172001 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII (IIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
106219
Box: 36
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2001
Document: PL MINUTES 07172001
.1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 July 17, 2001
4 7:00 p.m.
5 I. CALL TO ORDER.
6 The meeting was called to order by Chair Melsha at 7:00 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 Present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille; Commissioners Hanson, Steeves, and
11 Tillmann.
12 Absent: Commissioners Thomas and Hatch.
0 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Henry.
14 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
15 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 V. PUBLIC INPUT.
18 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda.
19 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
20 6.1 Review/Approval of the Planning Commission Minutes of June 19, 2001.
21 The Commissioners requested the following corrections:
22 Paget, line 18 to read: Motion carried 6-0. Chair Melsha abstained.
23 Page 3, line 10 to read: "Chair Melsha asked him to..."
24 Page 5, line 6 to read: ...Eden Prairie and an electronic sign at a school in Circle Pines."
25 Page 6, line 8 to read: "...project form the ordinance..."
26 Page 6, line 9 to read: "it is a policy ..."
27 Page 6, line 34 to read: "Stille."
28 Page 7, line 18 to read: "...was not in agreement..."
29 Page 7, line 30 to read: "Motion carried 5-2. Commissioners Hanson ..."
0-3
0 Page 8, line 20 correct"Jeff Basil" to read Geoff Batzel throughout the minutes.
1 Page 9, line 14 to read: "...to the site..."
32 Page 10, line 12 to read: "...the total build-out..."
33 Page 10, line 22 to read: "...define a site-line..."
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
• Page 2
1 Page 10, line 23 to read: "...the general site..."
2 Page 11, line 1 to read: "...can not only meet..."
3 Motion by Vice Chair Stille, second by Chair Melsha, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of
4 June 19, 2001, as corrected above.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
7 7.1 Designate a Planniny, Commission Member to the City Council regular meetingof July 24
8 2001.
9 Chair Melsha indicated that he was available to attend the City Council Meeting of July 24, 2001.
1 o VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
11 8.1 Northwest Ouadrant Planning Study Report/Concept Options.
12 a. Report/Presentation by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban (DSU).
13 John Shardlow indicated that he would be reviewing the final report of the Northwest Quadrant
14 Task Force. He stated that the report concentrates on the southern third of the 250-acre study
15 area, from Silver Lane to the railroad tracks and from Stinson Boulevard to Silver Lake Road,
16 focusing on the Apache Mall property.
07 Mr. Shardlow stated that the redevelopment ideas included in this report do not directly affect
18 Silver Lake or the neighborhood bordering the lake to the south except that the quality of runoff
19 entering the lake from the Apache site will be improved through redevelopment. He informed
20 the Commission that the northern third of the site, currently the Salvation Army Camp, is in the
21 final stages of acquisition by the Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District.
22 Mr. Shardlow stated that the report documents the entire planning process to date, including the
23 results of the initial background studies conducted by the consultant team.
24 Mr. Shardlow indicated that Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates, was present and would be the
25 person responsible for marketing the project to developers, which is the next phase in the
26 project.
27 Mr. Shardlow continued by reviewing the two basic Redevelopment Concepts that are
28 presented with this report. He added that the Concepts illustrate what could reasonably occur
29 on the site, demonstrating proper uses, site configurations, and the relative intensities of use
30 necessary to support the redevelopment. He stated that the Concepts are illustrated to exhibit
31 several key development principles and patterns.
32
103 Mr. Shardlow indicated that the Redevelopment Concepts do not contain definitive site plans
34 but they are reasonable examples of what is feasible given the current market conditions and
35 financial constraints. He added that the Concepts are important and instructive as they allow
36 the community of St. Anthony to visualize the look and feel of patterns and styles of
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 3
development that could occur on the site as part of a full-scale redevelopment of the Apache
P P
2 Mall area.
3 Mr. Shardlow indicated that the Report is intended to be transmitted along with the request for
4 proposals to developers. He added that it summarizes the process, and identifies the concerns
s and issues that have been identified by the community. Mr. Shardlow added that the document
6 also includes the Master Framework Plan.
7 Mr. Shardlow continued that they have put together some designs, and that it is not a time for
s anyone to panic.
9 Mr. Shardlow stated that the Concepts have been designed to reflect the balance between the
10 various land uses identified through the market demand study conducted for the study area. He
11 indicated that the densities identified reflect the fact that a redevelopment project would have to
12 be capable of generating considerable revenue through tax increment financing in order to offset
13 the sizeable upfront costs associated with redeveloping the site.
14 Mr. Shardlow stated that the work of the Steering Committee, input received from the
15 community at the Community Issues Forum, and initial discussions held with the development
0 community were also used to develop the concepts.
17 Mr. Shardlow discussed the Salvation Army Building, and the likely purchase of the building by
18 the Suburban Hennepin County Park Reserves. He indicated that the potential sale would take
19 away one of the cornerstones of the economic strategy for trying to redevelop the over-tired
20 site.
21 Mr. Shardlow referred to the great financial gap in the project which would be discussed later
22 in the evening by Mr. Prosser.
23 Mr. Shardlow stated that there was a great deal of unutilized center space on the site that was
24 also inaccessible. He indicated that they felt there needed to be a strong sense of entrance into
25 the site, and that it would be necessary to reestablish some type of street system to the area.
26 Mr. Shardlow explained that the Concepts both indicate the need to add more of a parkway to
27 the center spine, with some high image open-space area. Examples of the open-space were
28 trails, a community bandshell, gazebos, etc.
29 Mr. Shardlow indicated that the reason they eliminated low-density residential development in
30 their recommendation was because it was not economically feasible to tear down the building
31and redevelop the site, and only generate the revenue that would result from only low-density
02 residential development. He added that it was important for the concern by the community for
33 low-density residential development to be included in the evaluation criteria for the developers
34 as they come in.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 4
Mr. Shardlow reviewed the Residential Redevelopment Concept and indicated that the goal is
2 to provide St. Anthony Village with a dynamic new residential neighborhood that will be
3 thoughtfully designed and built to compliment the community while at the same time establishing
4 its own sense of identity.
5 The Concept has a total of 850 housing units. The unit mix was not mentioned. The Concept
6 also includes 75,000 square feet of mixed commercial redevelopment.
7 Mr. Shardlow indicated that, based upon the Market Research Report, this site does not have
8 the visibility to be a"Class A" office building. But, he added, they have been contacted by
9 people who were looking for sites for corporate headquarters that were very similar to what
10 this Concept Plan includes. However, it was not without obstacles. Thus, Mr. Shardlow
11 continued, they felt the need to develop a Concept Plan that would show how they could
12 accommodate up to 500,000 square feet of corporate office on the site.
13 Mr. Shardlow reviewed the Corporate Campus/Residential Redevelopment Concept and
14 indicated that the goal is to provide St. Anthony Village with a strong base of well paying jobs
15 in a multi-building corporate campus facility on the site of the existing Apache Plaza.
06 The Concept includes 500,000 square feet of corporate offices in multiple buildings and 2,000
17 parking spaces that includes a 5 level parking facility on the east half of the site. The west half
18 would be a residential neighborhood with 406 housing units. The Concept also includes 75,000
19 square feet of retail development.
20 Mr. Shardlow stated that, in order for a new development to happen, it was necessary to have
21 a Master Framework to be given to the developer. He added that the idea of the Master
22 Framework was to make sure they were clear about the major elements.
23 Mr. Shardlow stated that having the parking take a backseat to the buildings themselves and
24 framing the roadways with the buildings was the idea that they were working toward.
25 Mr. Shardlow summarized the key factors that were included in the Master Framework:
26 Development Principles and Patterns, Street Patterns, Open Spaces,Natural Environment, and
27 Building Development. He added that it was premature to get into any sign criteria at this point,
28 but the general nature would include continuity in signage and lighting.
29 Mr. Shardlow indicated that the next step would be to have meetings with Metropolitan Council
30 and property owners. He added that, prior to new legislation, they had a manageable financial
31 gap. Mr. Shardlow indicated that the changes in state tax structure took 40% of the revenue
out of tax increment financing, which left hundreds of projects around the state to be under-
33 funded.
34 Mr. Shardlow concluded that this is a project perfectly positioned to bring to Metropolitan
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 5
�t Council. He added, that this is one of the opportunity sites identified by the Metropolitan
2 Council and stated that they did assist in the funding for some of the studies done for this
3 project. Fortunately, he added, this is the first project to be at this point.
4 Mr. Shardlow stated that it is also important to meet with the bank that owns the property and
s discuss the potential ways that they feel the gap could be closed.
6 Mr. Shardlow added that this is not a hopeless situation, but there exist some significant gaps
7 that need to be dealt with.
s Mr. Shardlow stated that the decision on part of Salvation Army to probably sell to the
9 Hennepin County Park Reserve, and the change in tax structure are the two significant changes
10 that have occurred since the onset of this project.
11 Mr. Shardlow stated their recommendation is that the Planning Commission accept this report
12 and recommend that the City Council direct the consultant team to move forward in marketing
13 the site for redevelopment. He indicated that by approving this report, they will be indicating
14 their conditional agreement that developments of the style, use and intensity indicated in the
0 concepts are appropriate for the site and will be beneficial to the community.
16 Jim Prosser came forward to discuss three topics: reviewing the framework for concepts
17 included in the Plan,the financial challenges, and the specifics about the next step.
18 Mr. Prosser stated that they would provide a framework, a building block, to look at
19 redevelopment options for the area. He indicated that the information is to be used by the
20 developers to give them a very general framework for preparation of development proposals.
21 Mr. Prosser stated that it is very likely that the development proposals that result from the
22 proposal process will vary extensively from what is found in the framework. He stated it is
23 important to note that this is not any formal zoning for approval.
24 Mr. Prosser reviewed the challenges faced by this redevelopment. He stated it was an
25 ambitious undertaking to begin with. He indicated that the city involvement is critical in this
26 project, and that, without intervention on the part of the City, redevelopment would not occur.
27 Mr. Prosser stated that the challenges are quite clear. He indicated that changes in the tax
28 laws have created a nearly 40% gap in the project, versus a previously comfortable 10%gap.
29 Mr. Prosser then asked if the process was still possible, to which he responded yes. He stated
30 that there existed three alternatives: Talking to the property owners to reduce cost of purchase,
01 Looking at some of the other businesses along Silver Lake Road that could be designed into a
32 more focused retail center, and For the City to look at gaining some grant funds from
33 Metropolitan Council or the State.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 6
•� Mr. Prosser addressed the third issue of where to go from this point. He stated that once a
2 Concept Plan is approved it would go to the development marketplace. He indicated that the
3 developers would want to see that there is a vision and a commitment from the City. He
4 indicated that they would then ask for proposals to be reviewed by Planners. Mr. Prosser
s stated that the Planners would not be making recommendations but provide them with the tools
6 needed to make decisions.
7 Mr. Prosser stated that, once a developer(s) is selected for preliminary acceptance, the
s developer(s) goes back to the Plan to provide more details and then go back to the community
9 before they go to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He explained that they would
10 be in the position to proceed with a more formal development procedure at that point.
11 Mr. Prosser stated that they want to seek a developer who works well with the community, has
12 a flexible track record, and has the ability to secure outside funding. Mr. Prosser indicated that
13 there are certainly challenges ahead, but they are confident that the community of St. Anthony is
14 poised to address those challenges.
15 b. Commission comments.
16 Vice Chair Stille asked Mr. Prosser if they needed to approach Metropolitan Council early on.
0' Mr. Prosser stated that they would suggest sitting down with Metropolitan Council as soon as a
s document is approved. He stated that this project should get the attention of the Metropolitan
19 Council, even though they have several projects of the same nature that they are funding. He
20 added that they would need to have a developer before approaching Metropolitan Council.
21 Chair Melsha stated he was trying to determine how challenging the obstacles they are facing
22 really are. Mr. Shardlow indicated that the last legislative session really eliminated any sense of
23 certainty for the future. He added that the Metropolitan Council has been very clear to cluster
24 their support for the communities that are re-investing in themselves, and stopping sprawl,
25 which is the City of St. Anthony.
26 Commissioner Tillmann asked about the Master Framework Plan, and asked for some specific
27 examples that came directly from the Steering Committee. Mr. Shardlow indicated that they
28 went through some exercises with the community and surveys of visual preferences. He stated
29 that from that input, they drafted goals for the project, which led to the Concept Plans.
30 Mr. Shardlow identified some of the concerns that have been expressed by the community
31 which were the number of school- aged kids generated from this development, and the long-
32 term maintenance of the area. He stated that what they were unable to deliver on was low
33 residential and wide-open spaces.
aChair Melsha referred to the Task Force and the tour that they went on with Mr. Shardlow,
35 and asked him what resulted from that tour. Mr. Shardlow stated that members of the Task
36 Force should respond to the question of their perception. He added that they looked at other
37 cities on the tour, and the people seemed to be more comfortable with the project, having seen
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 7
1 actual examples.
2 Chair Melsha added that the project can be done, if done right. Mr. Shardlow added that
3 building quality, everyone wins.
4 Commissioner Tillmann asked about Corporate Campus versus Residential, and stated that one
5 of the cons of Corporate Campus stated that it might bring demand on the city. Mr. Shardlow
6 stated that real challenge would be a matter of weighing the pros and cons. He added that
7 there are traffic implications of people coming and leaving a corporate entity at the same time of
8 day that would effect traffic.
9 Chair Melsha thanked both gentlemen for their information, and invited members of the
10 community to come forward and keep their comments brief and concise.
11 C. Public Input.
12 Jim McNulte, member of the Steering Committee, stated he was now in favor of high-density.
13 Mr. Thorby stated that the tour showed them that what the city is trying to do is not
14 progressive, but other cities are doing it. He added that he was a little put off by the multiple
family proposal, and that the Corporate Campus Plan has obtainable objectives. He stated that
6 difficult tasks are often broken up in order to digest them, and that the Corporate Campus Plan
17 had the opportunity to speed up the process, by using several different developers. He
18 concluded that funding is a huge task for them.
19 Resident Stan Nelson read the following statement:
20 "My comments are based on the information presented tonight along with two editions of the
21 SAV Redevelopment Update brochure, the latest edition of the SAV Village Notes and
22 watching cable TV coverage of the June Planning Commission and City Council meetings
23 where the consultants gave updates.
24
25 Three Recommendations:
26 1. The Planning Commission should vote to put this project on hold until the Salvation
27 Army site purchase by the Hennepin County Regional Parks has either been completed
28 or scrapped.
29 a. Geoff Batzel told me that the inclusion of the Salvation Army site in the planning
30 mix with the Apache site could change the nature of the entire project and make
31 it possible to propose a lower density option for the Apache site.
32 b. The contractors that are to be contacted surely know about the Salvation Army
33 site and they will not be bashful about asking and even demanding that the
X34 future for the Salvation Army site be established before they spend
development/proposal dollars on a Apache only site plan.
36 C. Our mayor states in the latest edition of Village Notes:
37 `We should know soon if the Salvation Army Camp has been officially purchased by
38 Hennepin Regional Parks.'
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 8
•1
2 2. Again the Planning Commission should put this project on hold until you have obtained
3 and evaluated written statements from District 282 schools and from the St. Anthony
4 Police, Fire and Maintenance Departments as to what capital outlays in buildings and
5 equipment plus staff increases will be required to support this project.
6 a. I think we can assume an influx of 300 to 500 children of school age. This
7 would require the building of new school facilities plus more teachers.
8 b. The Police Department will need at the very least more policeman. The Fire
9 Department will probably need more engines, facilities and staff. The
10 Maintenance Department may need more sewage treatment infrastructure and
11 maybe a new well to support the increase in fresh water needs.
12 C. We need to know what these capital and recurring costs will be before
13 proceeding with this project because only the current citizens of St. Anthony
14 Village will be paying for these new expenditures due to Tax Increment
15 Financing. Can the current citizens of SAV afford whatever this number is?
16 3. Now that we have some concept drawings and building density estimates the Planning
17 Commission should recommend that the NW Quadrant committee seek out and visit
18 projects of equivalent size and complexity as is being proposed here.
19 a. The NW Quadrant committee has driven by several local sites to get a feel for
o this type of project. However, only one site in Edina of 350 condos was
1 anywhere near the size of this project. Do building sites of the size and building
22 density being proposed here even exist? I don't know and I don't think you do
23 either.
24 b. Much valuable information on what works and what doesn't work could be
25 obtained by visiting equivalent sized sites. This would most likely require a
26 search of the continental U.S. to find likely candidates to visit but it would be
27 worth it.
28 C. I for one will feel a lot better about the project if it can be determined that a
29 sites of similar size and complexity built on an approximately equal land area
30 has been successfully accomplished.
31 Summary: I believe that the Planning Commission has insufficient information with which to
32 make a decision and should vote to put this project on hold until:
33 1. It is known whether the Salvation Army site is included in the Apache project or not.
34 2. Reports outlining new facility and staff costs necessitated by this project are obtained
35 from the District 282 Schools, the Police Department, Fire Department, and
36 Maintenance Department so that the added capital and recurring costs tied to this
37 package are known and can be judged for affordability.
38 3. The representatives of the NW Quadrant committee complete visiting building sites of
like size and complexity and provide their findings to the Commission.
40 Comment: All of this will take more time and push out the current schedule. In my opinion a
41 push out of a few months in schedule would have been significant 10 years ago for this site but
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
• Page 9
� not today.
2 Chair Melsha asked Mr. Prosser to elaborate on some of Mr. Nelson's points.
3 Mr. Prosser stated that the change in the tax structure puts a general education levy back on the
4 state. He added that, in any case, they need to look at the specific proposal. Mr. Prosser gave
s an example of 300-unit in Richfield that had no effect on the school system. He indicated that
6 Police services are driven more by retail and corporate. He identified the questions as good
7 and that they should be noted. Mr. Prosser added that even doing nothing is not a zero-impact
s option.
9 Jake Cadwallader who owns a property within the discussed area, came forward to address
10 the Commission. He stated concern about the notification for the public hearing. He stated his
11 concerns were financial, and that he had received a copy of the tax increment financing funds
12 that were available. He stated that the numbers he received did not account for cause and
13 effect of buying businesses and buildings. He was concerned about not knowing how the cost
14 and cash are going to be established and believed it was reason for not moving forward. He
15 stated that the actual cost of the property is the problem. He identified the 40% shortfall and
16 the cost factors involved in this project as the reasons why he does not see it possible to move
�s 0 forward with the project. He stated he has owned an office in the City of St. Anthony since
1972. He concluded that, if the 40% can be remedied, he would love to see it happen, but said
19 he would be happy to see the City wait for a year, or more and let the financing get straightened
20 out.
21 Mr. Shardlow stated that the public hearing portion of this is not to be approving anything, but
22 to recommend moving forward. He stated that they need to see if a real proposal is going to
23 happen.
24 Commissioner Hanson asked if there was a cost associated with the City in order to move
25 forward. Mr. Shardlow stated that they have essentially completed the work that was in their
26 contract.
27 Resident Billie Deblak asked if the Northwest Quadrant was zoned commercial. Chair Melsha
28 stated that it was not all zoned commercial. She asked if there was anything to prevent a
29 property-owner from selling their property. Mr. Prosser stated there was nothing to prevent a
30 property-owner from selling their property to any developer at this time. He added that the
31 reality it would be very difficult for a developer to come in at this time and do piecemeal
32 development.
X33 Resident Jeanette Dick asked if the corporate offices were to definitely be where they were on
0 the map. Chair Melsha stated the maps contain concepts, and that nothing was for certain.
35 She asked if they could be placed in the empty parking lot by Apache Medical, and if the units
36 were intended to be rented, or owned. Chair Melsha stated that all are to be determined. Ms.
37 Dick concluded by saying that in the 2000 Census, half of the units that came out were rental,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 10
101 and she feels that is enough.
2 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
3 Chair Melsha thanked Mr. Shardlow and Mr. Prosser, and acknowledged the difficulties each
4 of them face in their separate roles on this project. Chair Melsha stated he believes the project
5 should happen the way that it is, with the city defining their vision, then developers coming on
6 board to adopt their vision and concepts. He added that he was very pleased with the report,
7 and the level of detail.
8 Commissioner Tillmann stated that, looking at the report she saw a lot of what was mentioned
9 in the Task Force meetings. Regarding the schools, she referred to her son and the size of his
10 class. She stated that the concern over a lot of students coming in can be absorbed through
11 normal attrition of people moving out. Chair Melsha stated that the School Board is most
12 interested in knowing what the input might be, so that they can be prepared for it.
13 Vice Chair Stille stated they have come a long way from when they started this process. He
14 stated that the report was very well put together, and that he was impressed with the content.
15 He added that, as a Planning Commission, it was difficult to add much to it. He continued that
0 6 every consideration has been looked at, and that sometimes they just have to look forward, and
� deal with things as they come up.
18 Commissioner Stille continued that, since they are being somewhat forced into a higher-density
19 housing situation, he would like to see examples of how their chosen developer has handled
20 high-density housing elsewhere.
21 Commissioner Steeves stated that his experience in working with the city of Minneapolis on
22 redevelopment projects has taught him that it is an uncomfortable process, fraught with
23 uncertainty from beginning to end. He stated that they needed to be prepared for a number of
24 pitfalls along the way. He indicated that the way to mitigate the uncertainty is to keep the lines
25 of communication open.
26 Commissioner Hanson stated that the public brought up several good concerns tonight. He
27 added that all of the mentioned ideas tonight were brought up by the Steering Committee, and
28 will be addressed. He asked if they needed to have a backup plan. He indicated that he did
29 not want to jinx the project, and the possibility of it not happening makes him want to work
30 harder.
31 Commissioner Hanson stated that, as a business owner, he looks at the possibility of someone
32 wanting to buy him out, which makes him uncomfortable, but realizes that selecting a good
developer could actually make his business more viable by total redevelopment.
34 d. Planning Commission Findings/Recommendations to City Council.
35
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 11
•t Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Tillmann, to recommend approval of the Northwest
2 Quadrant Redevelopment Plan Report presented to the Planning Commission this evening to the City
3 Council, and that they adopt it and implement the following findings found in the report:
4 - The proposed Concepts and uses for the redevelopment of the area presented in the
5 report are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended.
6 - The proposed Concepts in the report are consistent with the Metropolitan Council's
7 Smart Growth Initiative.
8 - The Master Framework Plan provides the development community with a clear
9 expression of the City's vision for the area, yet still flexible enough to accommodate
10 high-quality developers.
11 - The Report and the concepts contained in the Report genuinely reflect the community's
12 wishes for the area.
13 - The Concepts contained in the Report will benefit the City by, among other things,
14 improving the Silver Lake water quality, restoring high-quality, and viable uses to the
15 site, restoring a sense-of-place to the site, and providing some open-space, or other
16 pedestrian-friendly amenities so that the area will be accessible and inviting to all
17 residents.
18 - The Concepts presented in the Report, while being financially challenging, contain some
19 reasonable hope of feasibility.
40 - The City remain conscious of the on-going expenses in trying to achieve the
1 redevelopment.
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 8.2 Amendment to Section 1400 of the City Code to permit electronic governmental information
24 signs to be located in the Recreational Open Space District.
25 Susan Henry stated that per the direction at the June 26 Council meeting, City staff has been in
26 consultation with the City Attorney's Office to draft an ordinance amendment with necessity language
27 rather than go the route of a conditional use permit, as discussed at the June 19 Planning Commission
28 meeting. She stated that the City Council consensus was to set the parameters for electronic
29 governmental informational signs in the City Code.
30 Ms. Henry continued in effect the proposed changes to the city ordinance is to permit in the
31 Recreational Open Space District an electronic message sign providing public information that is owned
32 by a governmental unit. She added that the sign must be a ground sign containing a sign surface area
33 not to exceed 150 square feet. The sign must be turned off between 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., contain
34 no flashing lights, and the message may not be changed more than twice per day.
35 Resident Ron Hansen thanked the Planning Commission for having him back. Mr. Hansen stated that
36 he felt he was wasting his time here tonight, as he indicated that he learned at the City Council meeting
that the sign would be happening. He stated he suspected that this was a done deal at the last meeting,
38 and he was not happy. Mr. Hansen stated he was there tonight to ask the Planning Commission to say
39 no to this proposal, because it is something that they do not need.
40
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 12
•1 Mr. Hansen asked, "What has been added to this proposal tonight, other than school district property,
2 and city-owned property ordinance that is included in recreational areas?"
3 The Commission requested that Mr. Hansen continue with his comments, and then they will respond.
4 Mr. Hansen identified the change in the ordinance to include the ability for the sign to flash. Chair
5 Melsha corrected Mr. Hansen by stating that the ordinance states that the sign cannot contain a flashing
6 sign. After reviewing the ordinance, and the letter from the City Attorney, they identified a conflict
7 between the two documents. Chair Melsha stated that they will adjust Ordinance 2001-002, Section
s 1400.12.
9 Mr. Hansen stated that the Planning Commission said that they wanted to eliminate the need for people
10 to have to come in to request a variance, but that amending the City Code would not accomplish that.
11 He was concerned that this was opening up to even more than before. He stated that the City should
12 be a leader for the rest of the businesses that they want in the city.
13 Mr. Hansen stated he has not seen the Communications Plan that is referred to in the quarterly
14 newsletter. He commended Ms. Henry on her enhancements to the newsletter. He asked if they have
15 a Communications Plan, and if they do not have a Communications Plan in place, he suggested they get
06 one. Mr. Hansen stated that the cable station indicated that you can receive a copy of the agenda for
7 this evening on their website, which he found to be untrue. Mr. Hansen suggested that they enhance
18 and better utilize the communication tools that are now in place and stated he would like to see a
19 Communications Plan in the City of St. Anthony.
20 Mr. Hansen stated that his number one problem with the sign was the safety issue. He stated he
21 drove 40 mph down the road where the sign would go every day last week, and was being passed, or
22 tailed. He added that the school has been concerned about traffic in the past. He stated that if they
23 want this City Hall to look good, why don't they look at landscaping.
24 Mr. Hansen suggested doing some research to find out what the best bang for the buck is on this issue.
25 He believes the website could be better used.
26 Mr. Hansen stated he was very disappointed, and felt as though he was wasting his time since Mayor
27 Cavanaugh said that the sign would happen. He said they are practicing bad politics, and if they really
28 want to communicate with the people, study the subject. Finally, Mr. Hansen stated he wanted
29 answers to his questions.
30 Vice Chair Stille restated the motion from the last meeting, and said that it appears that the city, or
31 school-owned property aspect of the ordinance is not included in the draft of the ordinance, and
32 needed to be discussed by the Commission. Chair Melsha stated that the Salvation Army property and
the Golf Course are also recreational open-space.
34 Mr. Hansen asked about the Communications Plan. Ms. Henry stated that the City does have a goal
35 regarding communication which contains a lot of the information discussed tonight. She added that it is
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 13
•1 part of the City Council's goals. Ms. Henry acknowledged Mr. Hansen's ideas, and thanked him for
2 coming.
3 Mr. Hansen reiterated that it was bad politics, if the deal is done.
a Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
5 Chair Melsha stated that they have taken a step back to sort of redraft.
6 Vice Chair Stille agreed and identified some of what they had taken into consideration were Mr.
7 Hansen's comments. He added that he would like to maintain control.
8 Commissioner Hanson asked about the Task Force that is looking into the beautification of the City
9 Hall Building. He suggested that Mr. Hansen, and other residents lend their time to help with the
10 improvements.
11 Mr. Hansen asked Ms. Henry if part of the findings of the Community CenterTask Force was to
12 recommend the sign. Ms. Henry stated there is an initiative to work to spruce up the grounds. She
13 added that it coincides very well with the electronic sign, but that she needed to check with Jay
0 Hartman to see where the Task Force process is at this time.
15 Commissioner Hanson added that Ms. Henry inform residents in her newsletter that members of the
16 community do not have to subscribe to cable in order to have access to the city meetings. He added
17 that he does not see the lack of information on the website that Mr. Hansen referred to. Ms. Henry
18 stated that she feels they are doing well with the website, and acknowledged the importance of keeping
19 the website current.
20 Commissioner Tillmann stated that the conditional use permit is a very sensitive issue among the
21 community and among the Commission. She added that she felt that the process that they are using is
22 adequate. Commissioner Tillmann stated that after the decisions are made surrounding this sign, other
23 changes could be made.
24 Commissioner Steeves stated that the decision of the cost is for the City Council to make. He added
25 that what they have been attempting to do with this ordinance was to allow for some limited use. He
26 added that he would be opposed to what has been outlined because he feels it would never be brought
27 back to the Commission to address safety concerns, landscaping, and design guidelines. He added
28 that this change would allow for change without any permits. Commissioner Steeves stated that he felt
29 the conditional use achieved what they wanted to do while still allowing the City to proceed with its
30 plan.
*1 Chair Melsha stated that they are not wed to what they have, and that it appeared that the Commission
32 wanted to go back to the conditional use route.
33 Commissioner Tillmann stated that the City Council were concerned about was that the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 14
•1 recommendation was a not specific enough. She added that she has concerns as to how the ordinance
2 was written.
3 Commissioner Tillmann distributed her suggestions for the electronic sign issue:
4 "Recommendation for ordinance change:
5 1. Add definition of"Electronic Sign" to definitions section 1400.04.
6 2. Add to Section 1400.07 Prohibited Signs:
7 Electronic signs except public service signs owned by governmental units and located in
s recreational/open space.
9 3. Add to Section 1400.12 District Scheduled, Subd. 4 Recreational Open Space.
10
1 I Public Service, Electronic signs are a conditionally permitted use. (CUP required) The conditions
12 cover at least the following:
13 1. Flashing and animation prohibited.
14 2. Hours of operation. (Maximum allowable is 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. May be less if situation
15 warrants.)
16 3. Message changeability should be minimum required to accomplish the purpose of the sign.
17 4. Sign aesthetics such as message color, size of reader-board and sign, construction materials,
Wo
1s landscaping."
After reviewing her ideas with the Planning Commission, Commissioner Tillmann stated that she liked
21 the CUP idea because they have definite ideas for the project at hand, and she does not believe that
22 the restrictions, or limitations would be the same with every case.
23 Chair Melsha stated that the Commission does not recommend approving a permitted use permit now,
24 and asked Ms. Henry for advice.
25 Ms. Henry stated that City Attorney Jerry Gilligan could draw up the definition of electronic sign, and
26 that the information that Commissioner Tillmann outlined was quite detailed. She added that, if they do
27 not want to carry this on, perhaps they want to go with the CUP.
28 Commissioner Hanson recommended they take the information that Commissioner Tillmann outlined,
29 along with what is contained in the packet tonight and merge them together.
30 Vice Chair Stille identified Commissioner Tillmann's outline as quite detailed, but was still confused at
31 to what they should do next.
32 Commissioner Steeves stated that he was surprised at the City Council's decision to send the issue
33 back to the Planning Commission. He stated that they can reiterate their thoughts, or they can attempt
34 to try to make them very polished and specific. He added that Commissioner Tillmann's outline was a
great basis for legal staff to work from.
36 Ms. Henry stated that, if they were to do that, it would probably not be ready in time for the next
37 meeting. Chair Melsha asked if they would be waving a reading by not having the information in time
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
Page 15
•� for the next City Council meeting.
2 Commissioner Tillmann referred to the minutes from the last Council meeting and comments made by
3 Mayor Cavanaugh, and stated that they have completed some of what he has requested.
4 After discussing the option to recommend the sign with a conditional use, the Commission decided to
5 add a few things to the outline drawn up by Commissioner Tillmann, which would keep them on
6 schedule in terms of the readings.
7 Commissioner Hanson suggested that they add a fifth point to the outline to include safety issues.
8 Motion by Vice Chair Stille, second by Commissioner Tillmann, to recommend that electronic reader-
9 board signs are allowed as a conditional use on lands zoned recreational open-space on city, or school-
10 owned property with the following conditions:
I I - Flashing and animation are prohibited.
12 - Hours of operation are limited. (Hours shall be between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00
13 p.m.)
14 - Message changeability should be a minimum required to accomplish the purpose of the sign.
15 - Sign aesthetics such as message color, size of reader-board and sign, construction materials,
06 - and landscaping.
Consideration should be given to safety issues.
18 - Purpose of the sign should be for public services only.
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20 IX. COMMITTEE REPORTS.
21 Chair Melsha indicated that he distributed an outline of the Antenna Ordinance to the Commissioners,
22 which had been drawn up by the antenna ordinance sub-committee.. He reviewed the requirements
23 and Standards for all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs): Siting, Color and Architecture,
24 Landscaping, Signs, Lighting, Monopole, Setbacks, Height, Safety/Environment Standards.
25 Chair Melsha asked the Commission to review the outline for the next meeting, and indicated they
26 would tweak and polish it then.
27 Commissioner Hanson stated that he had nothing new to report at this time on the housing point-of-sale
28 ordinance.
29 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
30 Chair Melsha thanked the sign sub-committee for their efforts and progress thus far.
101 Chair Melsha added that he was encouraged by the presentation this evening on the Northwest
32 Quadrant.
33 Commissioner Hanson noted that the Fitness Crossroads Fitness Center opened last week.
,Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
July 17, 2001
• Page 16
1 Commissioner Tillmann stated that she is in favor of the electronic sign as a vehicle for information. She
2 added that the area by the tennis courts could be a lot more attractive, and the electronic sign would be
3 a very appropriate piece for the area.
4 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
5 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 Respectfully submitted,
8
9
10
1 l Courtney Seesz
12 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
•
•