HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 10212003 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
iosaea
Box: 34
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2003
Document: PL MINUTES 10212003
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
• • Page 1
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 October 21, 2003
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER
10 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Melsha invited the Council and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille; Commissioners Hanson,
17 Hoska, Steeves, Stromgren and Tillman.
18
19 Absent: None.
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Hall; Greg Brock, LaNel Financial
Group; Jim Crockeril Representing St. Anthony Shopping Center;
2 Michael Wagner, Owner
24
25 IV. PUBLIC INPUT.
26
27 No one stepped forward.
28
29 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
30
31 Motion by Commissioner Stromgren, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting
32 agenda as presented.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
37 6.1 Review and Approval -Planning,Commission Minutes of September 16, 2003.
38
39 Commissioner Stromgren stated he had corrections. He noted:
40 Page 11, lines 4 and 7 reference KKV, it should be BKV.
41
42 Vice Chair Stille stated that he had a correction. He noted:
43 Page 11, line twenty-two instead of`area medium income' it should state `average mean income'.
Motion by Commissioner Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the Planning
46 Commission meeting minutes of September 16, 2003 as amended.
1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
•� Page 2
Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
7 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the October 28, 2003 City Council
8 Meetine.
9
10 Chair Melsha noted that Commissioner Steeves has indicated that he would be available to
11 attend the next City Council meeting on October 28, 2003.
12
13 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
14 8.1 Autumn Woods II, LLP, 2534, 2538, 2542, 2546 and 2548 Kenzie Terrace, amend
15 Planned Unit Development (PUD) for an additional 38 units of adult rental housing.
16
17 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
18
19 Susan Hall stated that on July 25, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
20 Autumn Woods II Planned Unit Development(PUD) amendment and recommended City
21 Council approval subject to there being 38 parking stalls rather than the 35 proposed; review of
22 the plans and cross easements by the City Attorney; and completion of the replat. She stated that
23 on July 22, 2003 the City Council approved the PUD amendment with the conditions
24 recommended by the Planning Commission. She stated that after the approvals Staff learned that
25 some of the neighbors of the development had not been notified of the July 15'h Public Hearing,
as they should have. She noted that Mr. Brewer opted to have a rehearing so that these
2 neighbors would have an opportunity to speak and provide input to the development. She
28 provided the Commission with a brief overview of the development details stating that the
29 developer has proposed an excellent fit with the adjacent Autumn Woods development. She
30 further stated that Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment.
31
32 Chair Melsha confirmed that the July Planning Commission and City Council meeting minutes
33 and all information has been incorporated for a complete review of the information.
34
35 Vice Chair Stille noted that the resolution approval was conditional upon the lot split and cross
36 easements and asked if this had occurred yet. Ms. Hall confirmed that it has not happened yet.
37
38 Greg Brock, Partner, LaNel Financial Group, stated that he is available for any questions the
39 Commission or residents might have regarding the proposed development. He referenced a
40 change from the last set of plans stating that they initially requested approval for 35 underground
41 parking stalls noting that it has been amended for a total of 38 parking stalls. He reviewed the
42 access points and provided an overview of the project to the Commission. He stated that they
43 intend to maintain the same type of architecture as the Autumn Woods I development adding
44 that it would be more upscale and include amenities such as fireplaces and washer and dryers in
45 some units.
46
47 Barbara Sullivan, 2005 22nd Avenue Northeast, referenced Rule 350 stating that the residents
should have been notified. She asked the Commission why they did not receive notification of
this project.
50
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
•• Page 3
1 Chair Melsha acknowledged Ms. Sullivan's concerns and explained that it was an oversight that
2 they did not receive the appropriate notification. He reviewed the PUD with the residents
3 present and clarified that the PUD could be changed or amended depending on the input received
4 from the hearing.
5
6 Ms. Sullivan asked if an environmental impact study had been done prior to the project being
7 approved. She expressed concerns regarding the environmental impact with respect to
8 stormwater runoff and groundwater. She noted that for every five acres a holding pond should
9 be incorporated and asked if this would be done for the Autumn Woods II project. She strongly
10 encouraged the Commission to consider all issues with respect to the environmental impact of
11 the area.
12
13 Ms. Hall stated that the Engineer has reviewed the site and is not concerned about the issues Ms.
14 Sullivan raised. She further explained the scope of the project noting that an EAW is not
15 necessary for a project of this size.
16
17 Mr. Brock noted that Phase I had an analysis done of the area that included drilling samples. He
18 stated that no issues were found at that time.
19
20 Mark Gibbs, 2617 Lowry, asked if they would be installing some type of barrier between the
21 houses and the project area. He asked if they would be installing a fence. He expressed
concerns stating that they do not want any unnecessary traffic into their yards. He noted that last
2 year he was approached by the developer with an offer to purchase his property and asked if they
24 would be coming back with any further offers. He stated that it was his understanding that the
25 City had pulled back the funding to purchase their property. He explained that he had signed a
26 purchase agreement for another home thinking he had sold his property and asked if the
27 developer still intended to purchase their property.
28
29 Mr. Brock addressed Mr. Gibbs concerns regarding the barrier. He referenced the landscaping
30 plans stating that the plans include a heavily treed and bermed area between the houses and the
31 development. He added that the plans do not include fencing. He addressed Mr. Gibbs
32 questions regarding the purchase of his property stating that acquisition of his property was
33 dependent upon the ability for the development to purchase all five properties along Lowry
34 Avenue NE and not portions of the area. He explained that had they been able to acquire all of
35 the properties it would have allowed further development of the area noting that not all
36 homeowners wanted to sell their property. He stated that in reviewing costs to purchase the
37 properties that were available they found that it would have cost too much. He stated that this
38 was the reason for their withdrawal of the offer, not because the City pulled back dollars.
39
40 Glen Gavic, 2605 Lowry Avenue,referenced the fencing stating that he agrees with Mr. Gibbs
41 that they should install a fence between their properties and the development. He also noted that
42 money had been offered for their property that was up to three times the market value and
43 expressed his frustration and disappointment noting that they never heard another word from the
0 developer. He asked the Commission who was in charge of this process.
1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
•� Page 4
5 Chair Melsha addressed Mr. Gavic's concerns and explained that the Planning Commission has
6 no decision power with respect to land acquisition.
7
8 Vice Chair Stille agreed with Chair Melsha and suggested that Mr. Gavic discuss his concerns
9 with those who did not want to sell their property.
10
11 Chair Melsha further clarified that in order for the acquisition to be worthwhile they needed to
12 be able to purchase a certain amount of land mass. He explained that this was not accomplished
13 based on the fact there was one property owner that did not want to sell their property.
14
15 Mr. Gavic expressed his disagreement stating that the Planning Commission is responsible to
16 work with the neighbors that surround the project area. Chair Melsha agreed that the Planning
17 Commission should work with the residents and acknowledged their request for fencing and
18 their concern regarding the water runoff. He clarified that both of these issues would be
19 Planning Commission concerns adding that land acquisition is not. He clarified that land
20 acquisition is a private party matter between the property owner and the developer and that it
21 does not involve the Planning Commission.
22
23 Commissioner Tillman further clarified that land acquisition is not part of the City planning
24 process adding that it is a developer issue.
25
Mr. Gavic suggested that the City Planners work with the Residents to determine the impact it
2 would have on their neighborhood.
28
29 John Sullivan, 2005 22nd Avenue Northeast, asked if they were changing the zoning from Single
30 Family. Chair Melsha clarified the PUD amendment adding that it would not affect any of the
31 current homes,just the new properties to be developed.
32
33 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
34
35 Chair Melsha acknowledged the frustrations expressed by the residents. He reviewed the issues
36 regarding the land acquisition concerns and clarified that this issue is outside the City process
37 and referred further questions to the developer. He stated that he is comfortable with the
38 proposed development and stated that he is satisfied with the buffer and stormwater issues.
39
40 Commissioner Hanson suggested polling the residents for fence separation.
41
42 Commissioner Tillman clarified that the fencing would be instead of the landscaping, not in
43 addition to it.
44
45 Mr. Brock reviewed the landscaping proposal stating that they have done this kind of buffer in
46 other areas adding that they have found that berming, heavily treed areas and shrubs work well
`47 as a natural barrier and are easier to maintain than fencing.
40 Vice Chair Stille acknowledged Mr. Gavic's concerns and frustrations with respect to the land
50 acquisition issues and reviewed. He suggested discussing his concerns with the developer.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
• Page 5
1 Chair Melsha agreed noting that the resident's comments have been duly noted. He stated that
2 he is comfortable with the plan as presented.
3
4 Mr. Gibbs disagreed with the proposed landscaping stating that he would prefer fencing. He
5 expressed concerns regarding safety of the neighborhood adding that he was also concerned
6 about additional pedestrian traffic. Mr. Gavic agreed adding that he is concerned about the
7 additional pedestrian traffic through their yards.
8
9 Commissioner Stromgren asked Mr. Gavic and Mr. Gibbs where the traffic would come from.
10 Mr. Gavic stated that they are concerned about additional pedestrian traffic coming from the
11 streets and surrounding area.
12
13 Chair Melsha noted the Residents request for fencing adding that he felt that the landscaping was
14 the better choice for the area. He noted the line of vision stating that the taller trees would
15 provide a level of privacy. The Residents acknowledged the line of vision adding that there is
16 also an added concern with respect to a possible increase in pedestrian traffic through their
17 yards. The Residents expressed concerns regarding the safety in the area in addition to privacy
18 issues.
19
20 Chair Tillman noted that the landscaping plan calls for deciduous trees, which would eventually
21 be very large trees, as tall as a building. She asked if they were asking for a fence only or a
fence with the landscaping. She expressed concerns that there would not be enough room for
both. The Residents asked if it would be possible to have both. Chair Melsha suggested having
24 the developer review the plans to determine what could be included as a barrier and leave the
25 final decision to the developer's discretion. He stated that he is comfortable with the proposal as
26 it is.
27 Vice Chair Stille stated that in the long run, landscaping would be more appealing. He noted
28 that the consensus of the residents is that they would prefer fencing.
29
30 Ms. Sullivan asked who would be responsible for maintaining the fencing and the landscaping.
31 Chair Melsha stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer.
32
33 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Vice Chair Stille, to recommend approval of the PUD as
34 presented, as amended with the additional 38 parking stalls, conditional on the approval and
35 reviewal of plans by the City Attorney, Condition of the Replat and with the condition that the
36 landscape plan, as proposed, can be amended at the discretion of the applicant in lieu of the
37 south end of the property to provide a fence.
38
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40 IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
41
42 9.1 St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC. 2900 Pentagon Drive. Continuation of Public
43 Hearing to Amend Comprehensive Sign Plan.
0 Susan Hall stated as requested at the September 16`'Planning Commission meeting, the St.
46 Anthony Shopping Center has presented sign criteria to address logo signage for their
1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
•: Page 6
5 comprehensive sign plan. She explained this is unfinished business from the September 160,
6 Public Hearing in the applicant's efforts to update their comprehensive sign plan. She noted
7 the Shopping Center has been attending the Planning Commission and City Council
8 meetings since August to address the need and implementation of logo signs. She noted the
9 St. Anthony Shopping Center recently signed leases with two tenants that have regional and
10 national scope, Bumper to Bumper and Subway. She explained that the current
11 comprehensive sign plan does not provide sufficient flexibility of sign design to
12 accommodate regional and national tenants that have logo signage for all locations. She
13 reviewed stating that at the last Planning Commission meeting it was recommended to the
14 City Council that yellow lettering be added into the comprehensive sign plan for approval to
15 allow Subway to put up their sign adding that it was decided that the remaining issues
16 surrounding the logos would be addressed at a future meeting once the applicant presented
17 the City with proposed language. She reviewed the proposed language for the logo signage
18 with the Commission. She noted several other issues that should be addressed stating that
19 the Subway logo sign also includes white lettering and suggested that this color should be
20 included into the sign criteria. She noted the temporary banner above the Bumper to
21 Bumper appears to take up more than it's share of the wall and asked that this be reviewed.
22 She noted that the El Ray Bakery has had a temporary sign for quite some time and that they
23 have not pulled a sign permit yet. She asked what their plans are for permanent signage.
24 She explained that the question for the Planning Commission is whether the proposed
25 language for logo signage addresses the issues raised over the last couple of months. She
suggested that the Planning Commission ensure that the parameters are in place to ensure
consistency.
28
29 Commissioner Tillman asked if specified height and percentage of space used in front was
30 clarified in the proposal.
31
32 Commissioner Stromgren noted the City Council objections had to do with the size. Ms.
33 Hall suggested clarifying the size of the signage with Bumper to Bumper.
34
35 Jim Crockeril Co-Owner-St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC stated that he touched base with
36 eleven of the fifteen tenants to determine whether there were any issues with the proposed
37 language. He stated that no one had any issues. He reviewed, noting that 50% or less would be
38 backlit signs adding that they are quite attractive.
39
40 Chair Melsha asked if they expected any other large tenants besides Bumper to Bumper or
41 Subway that could have logo issues. Mr. Crockeril clarified that typically the tenants are local
42 merchants who do not have logos to display adding that he does not expect any other large
43 tenants.
44
45 Vice Chair Stille asked Mr. Crockeril if he brought any examples for the Commission to review.
46 Mr. Crockeril stated that the examples had been provided in a previous package and that he did
`47 not have anything that has changed.
0 Mr. Crockeril reviewed the comments from City Council regarding the backlighting in addition
50 to Council concerns that the sign is inconsistent with the rest of the tenant. He explained that
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
.• Page 7
1 due to Council concerns Bumper to Bumper has agreed, as a compromise, to the channel-style
2 lettering with their logo located on each side and reviewed the changes with the Commission.
3
4 Commissioner Stromgren suggested including language that clarifies that no single or double
5 logo sign could be larger than 25%. Mr. Crockeril stated that this would be consistent with
6 Bumper to Bumper's expectation and reviewed with the Commission.
7
8 Commissioner Tillman stated that there is nothing in the language that includes the color white
9 and suggested including it within the language changes. Chair Melsha stated that the addressed
10 the colors at the last meeting and reviewed the discussion with the Commission.
11
12 Chair Tillman noted that the approved colors were red and blue stating that they agreed to
13 include yellow. She suggested adding white for clarification. Mr. Crockeril stated that he would
14 be satisfied with the five colors, red, blue, orange, green and yellow. Chair Melsha agreed that
15 they should include white on the list of acceptable colors.
16
17 Vice Chair Stille asked Mr. Crockeril how important it is for Bumper to Bumper to have
18 repetition of the logo on each side of the sign. Mr. Crockeril explained that it is very important
19 to have the logo at each side, as it is consistent with the design they use nationwide.
20
21 Chair Melsha suggested incorporating into the language that a sign could not have more than two
0 logos at 25% each in size and that it is not to exceed 20 square feet.
24 Mr. Crockeril assured the Commission that they do not expect any other large tenants.
25
26 Commissioner Steeves stated that he is very comfortable with Chair Melsha and Commissioner
27 Stromgren's suggestion of 25% for each logo with the 20 square foot restriction.
28
29 Vice Chair Stille explained that they are trying to establish continuity within the community. He
30 referenced the El Way Bakery sign and asked when they plan to be in compliance. Mr.
31 Crockeril assured the Commission stating that he would follow up with the Bakery adding that
32 they would be in compliance very soon.
33
34 Commissioner Stromgren asked if there is a time limit for temporary signs in the ordinance. Mr.
35 Crockeril explained that it is outlined in the lease and that it is up to them to enforce compliance.
36 Ms. Hall clarified that they have a 30-day time limit for temporary signs. She reviewed the sign
37 criteria with the Commission and suggested monitoring the timeframe for Bumper to Bumper.
38
39 Motion by Commissioner Stromgren, second by Commissioner Hoska to recommend
40 approval of the amendment of the St Anthony Shopping Center Comprehensive Sign Plan,
41 dated October 2, 2003 with the following changes: 1. That the proposed language be
42 amended to read up to two logo signs per tenant be allowed. 2. That each logo sign cannot
43 exceed 25% of the surface face area and that each logo sign cannot exceed 20 square feet in
certain space area. 3. Add language that any temporary signage must also comply with the
maximum area sign criteria. 4. To amend to allow white lettering, consistent in color with
46
1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
•3 Page 8
P1 the Subway sign. 5. The amendment of approval is to be subject to all tenants being in
� PP
6 compliance with the sign plan and all other applicable City ordinances regarding signage.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously
9
10 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
11
12 10.1 Adult Day Care in Industrial Zoning District
13
14 Susan Hall stated that Michael Wagner, owner of the professional building located at 2924
15 Anthony Lane North, has approached City Staff regarding an adult day care center to be located
16 in his building. She explained that the building is located in a light industrial zoning district and
17 that Mr. Wagner is requesting an amendment to the ordinance to allow the adult daycare in a
18 light industrial location. She explained that a potential client who has an interest in the building
19 has approached Mr. Wagner. She explained that currently, adult day care is permitted in the
20 Commercial zoning district as a permitted conditional use. She stated that Mr. Wagner and his
21 client have asked Staff if this request could be expedited. She reviewed with the Commission
22 the process Mr. Wagner would take with the Commission/City Council to advance his request.
23
24 Michael Wagner, Owner, 2924 Anthony Lane North explained that the building is located in a
25 light industrial area, specifically the old Pratt-Whitney building. He stated that the building was
built in 1982 and includes handicapped access points. He explained that the proposed use for the
building would be very compatible adding that it would not affect current property values as it
28 provides a service to the community. He asked the Commission to consider and approve his
29 request for the amendment.
30
31 Commissioner Stromgren asked for clarification on the location of the building. Mr. Wagner
32 clarified that the building is located at County Road C and Anthony Lane. He noted the location
33 on the City map for the Commission.
34
35 Chair Melsha explained that they have allowed adult day care in the commercial zoning district
36 because they also allow child daycare. He further explained that his concern, if they approve the
37 zoning change, is that it would affect every industrial zoned property. He acknowledged that the
38 service could be compatible for this particular location adding that it may not be conducive in
39 another area.
40
41 Mr. Wagner explained that his client looks for specific types of buildings for this type of service
42 and reviewed their criteria with the Commission. He further explained that the State would also
43 be involved in the review process and clarified State restrictions for the Commission.
44
45 Melsha asked Ms. Hall what the next step in the process would be. Ms. Hall explained that they
46 would schedule a Public Hearing with the Planning Commission for an amendment to the
47 ordinance. She stated that if the Planning Commission is in agreement with the proposal Mr.
Wagner is then requesting a Public Hearing to be scheduled in November with the intent to apply
10 for a Conditional Use Permit.
50
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2003
Page 9
Commissioner Stromgren asked for further clarification of the Conditional Use Permit process.
2 He also asked if the Planning Commission is specifically bound by the criteria or do they have
3 some leeway in considering this specific request. Ms. Hall stated that they are not specifically
4 bound by the criteria and reviewed the process with the Commission.
5
6 Chair Melsha stated that he is comfortable with Mr. Wagner's request for a public hearing.
7
8 Mr. Wagner clarified his understanding of the process and asked if City Staff would be in
9 contact with him to assist him with filling out the conditional use application. Chair Melsha
10 stated that City Staff would be available to help him through the process and reviewed with Mr.
11 Wagner.
12
13 Ms. Hall confirmed with Mr. Wagner that he is requesting a public hearing,to be held in
14 November, to discuss an ordinance amendment adding adult day care as a conditional use in the
15 light industrial area. Mr. Wagner confirmed that he is requesting a public hearing to be held in
16 November. He stated that he has received the letter outlining the process to take and assured the
17 Commission that he would be present at the next Commission meeting.
18
19 Commissioner Stromgren suggested that Mr. Wagner include the Nurse Aids and provide further
20 information for the next Planning Commission meeting.
21
Mr. Wagner asked if the owner/operator of the business should attend the meetings. Chair
Melsha confirmed that they should also be in attendance.
24
25 Commissioner Steeves stated that he would like to know what factors the State considers. He
26 explained that it would help him to better understand and decide. Mr. Wagner stated that he
27 would research and provide the information for the Commissioner's review.
28
29 Commissioner Tillman asked Mr. Wagner to include information that would show how common
30 these facilities are in a light industrial area. Mr. Wagner stated that he would research and
31 provide information for the Commission's review.
32
33 10.2 Opinion Signs in Residentially Zoned Districts
34
35 Vice Chair Stille stated that earlier this summer the Commission discussed issues regarding the
36 posting of opinion signs. He explained that they have been reviewing the ordinances and plan to
37 provide an update on the Sub-Committee activities and findings at the November meeting. He
38 stated that he would have a more specific report available at that time for discussion.
39
40 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
41 Ms. Hall stated that the Commissioners Letter of Intent for their term is due by November 24,
42 2003. She stated that the interviews would take place on December 8, 2003.
43
Commissioner Hanson asked Commissioner Steeves to update the City Council regarding the
residents affected by the LaNel/Autumn Woods H project. He asked if LaNel has any plans for a
46
I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
2 October 21, 2003
.3 Page 10
11 Phase III. He requested an update on the KFCNideo Update location and also asked if LaNel
6 would be interested in the location for expansion.
7
8 Ms. Hall noted that Sprint has expressed interest in placing an antenna on their water tower and
9 reviewed the request with the Commission.
10
11 XII. ADJOURNMENT
12
13 Motion by Commissioner Hoska, second by Commissioner Tillman, to adjourn the meeting at
14 8:25 p.m.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Respectfully submitted,
19
20
21 Bonnie Sullivan
22 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
23
•