HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 01182005 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
104941
Box: 33
Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011
Document: PL PACKET 01182005
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
JANUARY 18,, 2005
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
III. ROLL CALL.
IV. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CHAIR.
V. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR.
VI. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA.
VII. MEETING MINUTES.
VA Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of December 21, 2004
VIII.COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
VIA Designate a Planning Commission Representative to the January 25, 2005 City
Council Meeting
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
None
VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS.
VIII.1 Sunset Memorial Park Proposed Renovations - Please bring your copies of the
original proposal from the October Planning Commission meeting. Attached
and included in this packet is updated information received from the applicant.
IX. PUBLIC INPUT.
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on
the Regular Meeting Agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state
their name and address for the City Clerks record and limit their remarks to five (5)
minutes
X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
X. 1. Extension of PUD Request for 4001 Stinson Boulevard NE
XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
XI. Open Commission Seat
XII. ADJOURNMENT.
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 December 21, 2004
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners Gray,
17 Hoska, Jensen, Tillman and Young.
18
19 Absent: None.
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes.
22
23 IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
24
25 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting agenda
26 as presented.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously
29
30 V. MEETING MINUTES.
31 5.1 Review and Approve Planniniz Commission Minutes of November 16, 2004.
32
33 The Commission had no corrections to the minutes.
34
35 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Young, to approve the meeting minutes
36 of the Planning Commission of November 16, 2004 as presented.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously
39
40 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
41 6.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the January 11, 2005 City Council
42 Meeting.
43
44 Chair Stromgren stated that he would attend the City Council Meeting on January 11, 2005.
45
46 VII. PUBLIC HEARING.
47 A. Subdivision of Property at 2821 Silver Lane
48
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 2
1 Chair opened public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
2
3 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Mr. John Dennison, 2812 Silver Lane is requesting that a 20-foot
4 strip of land that he is purchasing from the owner of the adjoining property at 2825 Silver Lane
5 be split from that lot and subdivided to add it to his property. She explained that the proposed lot
6 split would not adversely affect 2825 Silver Lane noting that the lot would continue to meet the
7 requirements of the City's lot requirements for R-IA, Single Family Lakeshore and also the City
8 zoning ordinance. She reviewed with the request with the Commission.
9
10 Craig Keppler, Representative for Mr. Dennison stated that the request under consideration
11 corrects the original request adding that he is present to answer any questions the Commission
12 might have.
13
14 Chair Stromgren asked if any of the neighbors in the area have expressed any concerns. Ms.
15 Moore-Sykes stated that she received two phone calls from residents, a neighbor and a
16 prospective buyer, called to ask what was going on with the property. She explained the request
17 noting that their concerns were addressed.
18
19 Mr. Dennison stated that this would not adversely affect the home on the property and briefly
20 reviewed his request with the Commission.
21
22 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
23
24 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Tillman, to recommend approval of
25 the application for the subdivision of Lot 2 Block 1, Birkeland 2"d Addition; plus 20-feet of Lot
26 1, Block 1, Birkeland 2"d Addition, as an addition to the property at 2821 Silver Lane.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously
29
30 Chair Stromgren stated that City Council would consider this request at their January 11, 2005
31 Regular meeting. He suggested that the applicants be present to answer any questions the
32 Council might have.
33
34 B. Subdivision of Property at 2504—39`h Avenue Northeast
35
36 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
37
38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Hunt Associates, owner of the 5.4-acre property located east of
39 Stinson Boulevard and just south of 39`h Avenue is requesting for a subdivision/plat approval to
40 subdivide and replat the property to include the vacated portion of Apache Lane. She stated that
41 the proposed legal description of the property would be Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Silver Lake
42 Homes, Ramsey County, Minnesota, 2504 39`h Avenue Northeast. She provided the Commission
43 with a brief overview and history of the request.
44
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 3
1 Chair Stromgren clarified that this is a housekeeping item and is required because the property is
2 being vacated. Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed.
3
4 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
5
6 Motion by Chair Stromgren, Second by Commissioner Gray, to recommend approval for
7 subdivision and replat for Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Silver Lake Homes, Ramsey County,
8 Minnesota, 2504 39`h Avenue Northeast in accordance with the Village of St. Anthony.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously
11
12 Chair Stromgren stated that City Council would consider this request at their January 11, 2005
13 Regular meeting. He suggested that the applicants be present to answer any questions the
14 Council might have.
15
16 C. Planned Unit Development Rezoning Request Application for 4001 Stinson Boulevard
17 Northeast
18
19 Chair Stromgren opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
20
21 Jim Waters presented concept plan at the November 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
22 Reviewed the proposed plan with the Commission. Main issues—overloading city sanitary
23 sewer, water pressure, traffic and storm water systems. Suggested EAW to address concerns.
24
25 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Mr. Jim Waters, Quest Development, presented concept plans at the
26 November Planning Commission meeting that proposed renovating the Apache Medical Building
27 into residential units on the second and third floors with medical offices being relocated to the
28 main floor and the construction of two additional residential buildings. She stated that after the
29 concept review Staff met with Mr. Waters and his team to discuss the issues brought forward by
30 the Planning Commission and indicated that Mr. Hubmer, in his summary, recommends that the
31 City amend the EAW to address some of these concerns and determine the impact of adding an
32 additional 87 units to the City water, sanitary sewer and storm water sewer systems.
33
34 Ms. Moore-Sykes reviewed the proposal and options with the Commission stating that Quest
35 Development is requesting a rezoning of the property located at 4001 Stinson Boulevard
36 Northeast, the Apache Medical Building site, to a Planned Unit Development site. She stated
37 that based on the information presented by WSB, the City's engineering consultant, Staff is
38 recommending that WSB be directed to revise the St. Anthony Village Northwest Quadrant
39 EAW to determine the impact of adding an additional 87 residential units to the water, sanitary
40 sewer and storm water sewer systems. She stated that Staff is also looking for direction in
41 applying the requirement of the PUD ordinance, which states that the parcel being considered for
42 a PUD designation shall not be less than three acres. She noted that this parcel is 2.77 acres.
43
44 Peter Beck, Quest Representative stated that they are requesting that the Planning Commission
45 recommend approval of their proposal to rezone the property. He stated that he would like to
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 4
1 point out that this property has long been considered for redevelopment by the City and also by
2 Quest. He noted that a couple of years ago the City had included this parcel as a part of a future,
3 undefined phase for development. He explained that Quest objected, in a letter dated October 23,
4 2004, to being included in someone else's project without a date for redevelopment. He briefly
5 reviewed the objection with the Commission and provided an overview of the proposal noting
6 that they are not asking for any public assistance for this project. He stated that in taking a closer
7 look at the Engineering Report it was noted that the traffic impact would be less with the mixed
8 use. He stated that it was determined that the City water supply is adequate and capable of
9 supporting the development and storm water. He stated that the area would be 100 percent hard
10 surface and would comply with all City requirements utilizing a combination of ponding and
11 underground storage. He indicated that the sanitary sewer is a technical issue that could be
12 resolved through the normal process noting that they do not see this as a reason to hold up the
13 project. He encouraged the Planning Commission to consider the project based on its merit.
14
15 Joe Waters, Quest Development, stated that they have reviewed the EAW and it is their belief
16 that this project would not pose any significant issues. He noted that the projected sanitary waste
17 from the development would be an additional 7-percent and reviewed with the Commission. He
18 stated that they have been working on this project with City Staff for over two years noting that
19 the entire project would be privately funded. He explained that the units would be marketed as
20 highly affordable and cost efficient with a focus on singles, professionals and empty nesters. He
21 reviewed the transportation options available noting that one parking space would be provided
22 per unit. He stated that the pricing for the units would be between$170,000 to the low$200,000
23 range. He stated that this would be a well phased, thought out project with a relatively small
24 impact. He asked the Commission to consider recommending their project as requested.
25
26 Commissioner Jenson asked for further clarification of the requested amendment. Mr. Waters
27 stated that they are requesting an amendment to the PUD to incorporate this parcel into the
28 existing PUD and provided the Commission with an overview of the current site plan.
29
30 Chair Stromgren asked for further clarification of the objections. Mr. Beck explained that the
31 original proposal was that they be included in the land acquired in the Northwest Quadrant
32 Redevelopment Project, which would have made it impossible to finance their project. He
33 further explained that they wanted to be left out of the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment
34 Project in order to be able to pursue the redevelopment of their property independently. He
35 stated that the proposed plan was shown in phases, theirs being in the last phase, which would
36 have cost them tenants. He stated that they do not have any objections to being included in the
37 TIF District adding that they do have an objection to being redeveloped by others without having
38 any control over the process. He acknowledged that they are a part of the Apache area and the
39 City efforts to redevelop. He stated that they are asking to be included in the current PUD and
40 recognized as a part of the TIF District. He noted that they understand that they would be
41 accountable to meet all PUD requirements and reviewed with the Commission.
42
43 Chair Stromgren asked if they would benefit by being in TIF district. Mr. Beck clarified that they
44 are not asking for any City assistance for the redevelopment and reviewed funding with the
45 Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 5
1
2 Commissioner Tillman asked why this development should be a PUD. Mr. Beck explained that
3 the reason for the PUD request is due to the mixed use and density. He further explained that
4 currently there are no specific categories allowing mixed use for medical offices and residential
5 units.
6
7 Commissioner Jensen clarified that they are asking to become an extension to current PUD zone
8 and that their proposed concept would be compatible with the design phase currently in process.
9 Mr. Beck confirmed noting that with PUD the Commission and Council would have the ability to
10 ensure that they are in compliance with the requirements outlined in the PUD.
11
12 Commissioner Jensen asked if Quest has worked with the Design group to define the
13 compatibility. Mr. Waters stated that they have not met with the Design group yet. He
14 referenced the City requirements outlined in the PUD stating that they are familiar with the
15 guidelines and assured the Commission that it is their intent to be compliant.
16
17 Commissioner Jensen asked for clarification on how they could become a part of an existing
18 PUD. Mr. Beck clarified that they are asking to extend the PUD zone noting that they would not
19 sign the existing PUD; they would have their own PUD agreement as an extension to the current
20 PUD zone. Mr. Waters further explained that they would follow the current PUD guidelines and
21 requirements that would define the building process, the appearance and how it would work
22 together with the rest of the redevelopment in the area.
23
24 Commissioner Jensen asked how it happened that this group was left out of the original PUD.
25 City Attorney Lindgren stated that the developer was not seeking redevelopment at that time and
26 did not apply with the original PUD.
27
28 Commissioner Jensen asked if the Silver Lake developers applied for the current PUD. Ms.
29 Moore-Sykes confirmed and reviewed the current PUD with the Commission.
30
31 Vice Chair Hanson stated that the Quest Development Group did attend all of the Commission
32 meetings and clearly stated that they did plan to do some redevelopment with the building noting
33 that they are now presenting the Commission with their proposal and plans.
34
35 Commissioner Young asked if they could actually have two developers under one PUD or would
36 it be one large PUD zone. Mr. Beck clarified that it would be one PUD zone.
37
38 Commissioner Tillman clarified that a PUD is a flexible form of zoning and is designed to work
39 towards and benefit both the City and the Developer. She asked if they would abide by the
40 standards already agreed to or would they want to do something additional. Mr. Beck stated that
41 they are hoping for specific approval noting that they are bringing forward a specific project that
42 is consistent with the current development.
43
44 Chair Stromgren noted there are two other options that could be considered, a variance for
45 minimum acreage or an amendment to change the text to lower the threshold. Mr. Beck stated
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 6
1 that they have had several discussions with City Staff regarding the options available and the
2 suggestion made was to add onto the existing PUD zone. He noted that they would work with
3 City Staff to work out the specifics of the project that should be incorporated under the PUD
4 zone.
5
6 Commissioner Gray referenced the traffic impact and asked if the office building is currently
7 fully utilized. Mr. Beck stated that approximately 75-80 percent of the building is utilized noting
8 that the current proposal would be half of the current percent and traffic would be considerably
9 less.
10
11 Commissioner Gray noted residents are concerned about the impact this would have on traffic in
12 the area and suggested that the traffic impact be reviewed further. Mr. Beck stated that they have
13 provided Staff with the traffic impact projections for their review and determined that it would
14 not have a large impact on the area.
15
16 Commissioner Gray expressed concerns stating that there is a lot of traffic along 39`h Avenue
17 during the day adding that it could be easier to access from Silver Lane. Mr. Waters stated that
18 they have never received any complaints from the residents along Silver Lane with regards to
19 traffic generated by the medical offices. He explained that they would be reducing the traffic
20 counts considerably and expect a decrease of almost 300 cars a day, which is considerably less
21 traffic, at least a 25%reduction.
22
23 Commissioner Gray noted that the traffic would increase during the weekend due to the
24 additional residential units. Mr. Waters agreed noting that the overall traffic in the area would
25 increase due to the changes in the entire redevelopment project.
26
27 Glen Meyer, Architect, stated that he has worked with Quest for the past two years on this
28 project. He provided the Commission with an overview of the zoning map for the area noting
29 that the map shows the general sanitary sewer in the area. He stated that currently Stinson
30 Boulevard is the route for the sanitary sewer noting that the EAW does address this area. He
31 explained that the water main for the project would be accessed on Stinson Boulevard noting that
32 there is adequate capacity for pressure and activity. He stated that there have been significant
33 improvements made to the stormwater system and reviewed with the Commission. He stated
34 that the site plan includes some of the concepts for landscaping noting that they would propose to
35 do the new building construction first and then address the existing office space areas. He stated
36 that there would be a heavy landscaping strip added along the east side and reviewed the
37 entry/access points along Stinson Boulevard. He stated that there would be underground parking
38 that would extend along under the two proposed additions and would be predominately accessed
39 from 39`h Avenue. He explained that the considerations that led to changing the original proposal
40 included the traffic impacts and reviewed with Commission. He stated that the addition of the
41 proposed retention pond in the southwest corner of the site would handle the majority of the
42 storm water runoff. He stated that the storage facility on the north side would take care of the
43 other half. He reviewed the proposed changes to the unit sizes as it compares to the current
44 existing building with Commission and discussed the exterior design of the building. He stated
45 that they are responding to the City guidelines as it pertains to the existing materials and building
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 7
1 heights. He stated that the materials to be used would be a mix of base brick, stucco veneer and
2 siding product. He noted that the feedback received from Staff is that the proposal is in keeping
3 with the redevelopment standards and that Staff is comfortable with the current proposal.
4
5 Chair Stromgren asked to clarify the siding material that would be used. Mr. Meyer stated that
6 they would probably use a type of hardy board noting that the plan is little to no maintenance. He
7 explained that it would be located in the recess areas of the building and reviewed with the
8 Commission.
9
10 Chair Stromgren asked what the distance would be between the existing building and the new
11 building. Mr. Meyer stated that the distance between the buildings would be approximately ten
12 to twenty feet.
13
14 Chair Stromgren asked if they would attempt to match the current materials. Mr. Meyer stated
15 that they have not made the attempt to match materials at this point noting that their goal is to
16 match the brick and reviewed with the Commission.
17
18 Chair Stromgren asked if the sill and head height is similar or the same. Mr. Meyer stated that
19 the head height would be approximately seven feet and the sills would be lowered. He stated that
20 the goal is to salvage and reuse the brick removed from the window areas.
21
22 Jeff Shopek, Civil Engineer, reviewed the traffic concerns stating that they have done an analysis
23 to determine the impact and it indicates that there would be a reduction in traffic. He stated that
24 they reviewed the EAW information noting that traffic would be very low to the north and most
25 would move to the south. He stated that they are currently working with the City Engineer to
26 determine the impact to the water pressure and if there would be a need for a booster pump to
27 maintain pressure. He reviewed the sanitary sewer calculations, uses and flow noting that it
28 would increase slightly over the existing use due to the additional units. He reviewed the
29 stormwater concerns stating that currently the site is 100 percent impervious blacktop adding that
30 they plan to increase the green space on site considerably and ensure that the water runoff would
31 be reduced. He indicated that they would have water quality enhancements that would be in
32 compliance with the Watershed.
33
34 Vice Chair Hanson clarified that buildings B and C would be completed before work begins on
35 building A and the medical office space. Mr. Waters explained that the medical building would
36 not be renovated until all leases have expired. He further explained that during this time they
37 would work on tenant improvements and upgrades to the building and also reorganize some of
38 the tenants. He stated that they would not complete the final units until approximately 2008. He
39 reviewed the basic schedule stating that construction would begin in late 2005 with projected
40 occupancy in 2006.
41
42 Vice Chair Hanson noted that the property would not be as dense and asked how they would
43 handle the situation if they have overestimated the needs for residential units and end up with
44 more response to medical office space. Mr. Beck clarified that the PUD agreement would only
45 allow one floor for medical office space and reviewed with the Commission.
Planning Commission-Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 8
1
2 Chair Stromgren asked if they have a set pre-sale level that should be achieved before beginning
3 redevelopment. Mr. Waters explained that most creditors do require a set number of presale
4 units for financing. He stated that they plan to begin pre-sale of the units in late spring/early
5 summer of 2005.
6
7 Vice Chair Hanson asked if they have spoken with Equinox Apartments regarding the property to
8 the north and would that make what is discussed this evening a mute point to meet the 3-acre
9 requirement.
10 Chair Stromgren noted that as far as the process it would still be the same process.
11
12 Mr. Waters stated that they could not purchase the land to the south as it is reserved. He stated
13 that they have spoken with the Equinox Representatives and they are not interested in selling the
14 land. He indicated that it has been a long-standing understanding that this strip of land would
15 provide a buffer and reviewed with the Commission.
16
17 Doug Jones, 2505 Silver Lane,referenced the berm strip stating that he was around in 1960's
18 when this was first arranged with Equinox Apartments. He explained that this area of the
19 property has to be maintained as a berm and is designated as a non-developed area. He indicated
20 that covenants are tied to the requirement and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that he
21 is a neighbor that would be directly affected and is also a member of the Northwest Quadrant
22 Redevelopment Committee. He stated that Quest has never come forward to officially announce
23 their intent to develop this area adding that they should have included the Northwest Quadrant
24 Redevelopment Committee in their communication process. He stated that he likes the proposals
25 regarding the underground water treatment noting that he is very disappointed that they did not
26 include the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Committee in the process. He asked if the main
27 commercial building would be connected to the garage space. Mr. Waters confirmed that the
28 building would be connected to the garage space.
29
30 Mr. Jones asked how many total parking spaces would be provided on the site and if they would
31 maintain the air conditioner. Mr. Waters stated confirmed that the elevator housing and
32 equipment would be maintained. He referenced the cooling tower noting that their current plan
33 does not speak to this issue as it is early on in the development process. He stated that it is
34 possible that an alternate type of heating unit would be used adding that the new building would
35 be using an alternate heating/cooling system. He stated that they would not see another cooling
36 tower. He referenced the parking stating that they are looking at over 89 to 100 parking stalls for
37 the interior, covered parking, in addition to at least 103 surface parking spaces on site.
38
39 Mr. Jones stated that one of their concerns regarding the air conditioning would be the noise level
40 throughout the neighborhood. He referenced the drawings stating that they indicate a tan or
41 brown tone to the color of the brick adding that this is not the current color of building or brick.
42 Mr. Waters confirmed that the current drawing does not depict the specific brick color. He
43 explained that this is only a draft of the colors and assured the Commission that they would work
44 to match the current materials.
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 9
1 Mr. Jones noted the density of the site stating that he cannot fathom this kind of density in this
2 area. He expressed concerns regarding the parking noting that in his opinion the parking would
3 not be sufficient. He stated that there are no proposed alternatives for parking such as an
4 overflow area adding that there is no on-street parking allowed in this area. He asked that the
5 Planning Commission work to keep the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment Committee more up
6 to date on the issues so that the Committee can offer the appropriate comments throughout the
7 process.
8
9 Len Pratt, Pratt/Ordway, stated that Bruce Malkerson, Attorney and Gary Vogel, BKV Architects
10 are present to address their concerns regarding this proposal. He stated that they are currently
11 very busy working their development noting the time and effort they spent pulling the current
12 PUD together. He referenced a letter presented to the Commission that formally requests that the
13 Planning Commission deny this request stating that the letter also includes summaries for their
14 review. He stated that before the City considers amending the PUD the City should allow what is
15 already approved to run it's course. He expressed concerns stating that the project is set for
16 specific market conditions that could be adversely affected and reviewed the current market
17 conditions with the Commission. He stated that they are currently underway with both the retail
18 and housing portions of the project. He indicated that foundations are in for over 128 of the
19 condominiums adding that it appears that Quest's market range of$170,000 to $250,000 could
20 blend in well with what they are currently offering and reviewed. He expressed concerns stating
21 that this is the same exact market they are trying to work with and it could have a substantial
22 impact on the marketing process before they are able to get the second phase of homes started.
23 He stated that it is their intent to serve a variety of markets in order to avoid competing against
24 them. He stated that this would impact the scope of the project noting that they are right in
25 middle of implementation with their plan,based on City PUD.
26
27 Bruce Malkerson, Attorney referenced the letter and summaries provided to Planning
28 Commission stating that the documents summarize their concerns. He provided the Commission
29 with a detailed overview of the concerns noting that Quest does not have the authority to apply
30 for an amendment to the existing PUD, as the request was not from the original developer. He
31 referenced the three-acre minimum requirement for the PUD noting that Quest's property falls
32 under that requirement because it is only 2.77 acres. He stated that their request cannot be a
33 standalone PUD without specific changes and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that
34 Quest could not be a part of their PUD as the developer is defined in the PUD ordinance as the
35 person who has control and ownership of all land included under the PUD. He stated that Quest
36 only has ownership of the 2.77 acres and does not have any control over their PUD. He stated
37 that the Ordinance would have to be changed to identify them as Developers noting that the
38 current PUD prohibits this. He stated that the approval of Quest's proposal would impair the
39 ability of the Village PUD noting that the developers are expected to adhere to their final plan.
40 He stated that Mr. Pratt obtained approval of the PUD with all benefits as outlined noting that
41 anyone becoming a part of their PUD would be included in the overall judgment of the project.
42 He stated that inconsistencies could be an issue noting that this is the reason why a PUD, by
43 definition, has to be controlled by one developer and cannot allow another piggyback due to the
44 potential impacts.
45
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 10
1 Mr. Malkerson stated that they do not want to be saddled with an asphalt parking lot noting that
2 legally they cannot be allowed into the PUD. He expressed concerns stating that this would
3 adversely affect them if they are allowed. He asked the Commission to have Quest stand on their
4 own noting that the City must prepare an environmental worksheet before approving the PUD
5 request. He stated that the EAW done on their PUD did not involve any part of this proposed
6 project noting that this applicant did not want to be a part of the original PUD redevelopment.
7 He stated that the environmental review process did not address any issues related to the
8 proposed project and the traffic impact is not the test to determine if the EAW requirements have
9 been addressed. He stated that an EAW has to be done on this project noting that this would be
10 mandatory because it is a spin-off and does affect the environment in the same way as they do.
11
12 Mr. Malkerson suggested that the Planning Commission work with the City Council to determine
13 if an EAW is in order before making any further decisions. He stated that there are no reasons to
14 continue to proceed without a traffic analysis. He requested that Quest's proposal be denied, as it
15 is adverse to the current plans for the area. He noted that it was their understanding that
16 throughout the redevelopment process that any development in this area would be governed by
17 the Northwest Quadrant Committee and reviewed the Northwest Quadrant Redevelopment
18 Committee planning process requirements with the Commission.
19
20 He expressed concerns stating that it is premature to begin promoting a new housing proposal
21 when they have yet to have an opportunity to complete their marketing. He stated that the area
22 could become blighted and this proposal could put the remainder of their project at risk. He
23 stated that there was a residential plan in place for this area noting that the plan did not include
24 residential development on that property. He noted that Mr. Pratt has relied on the City's plan
25 for redevelopment. He referenced the proposed landscaping and trail access stating that Quest
26 should be required to present the same level of detail and should go through the full review
27 process before any further approval of their request. He asked that the Planning Commission
28 require the same level of detail and compliance that was required for Pratt/Ordway. He requested
29 that this matter and discussion be tabled until further clarified.
30
31 Gary Vogel, BKV Group, stated that they did the master planning for this project and provided
32 the Planning Commission with the approved drawings for their review. He reviewed the
33 drawings with the Commission noting that the area set aside to the south of the existing Apache
34 Medical Building would be true side by side townhomes. He explained that they purposely set
35 the townhome area away from the condominiums in order to take advantage of the open space
36 between the Apache Medical, Firestone and the Car Wash. He stated that bringing in a four-story
37 building would definitely hamper their development and expressed their agreement that more
38 traffic studies should be done to determine if the weekend traffic would definitely be increased.
39 He reviewed the proposed landscaping for the area noting that their plan is well beyond what
40 currently shows on the concept layout plan. He stated that this could be a PUD amendment in
41 addition to what is currently in place noting that the density is an issue. He reviewed their
42 concerns regarding the height of the building stating that if this is going under site plan approval
43 the zoning would have to be changed to accommodate the height of the building in addition to
44 the density. He agreed that the proposed materials are consistent with the current buildings in the
45 area.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 11
1
2 Mr. Pratt noted that this is a big deal and they have summarized their concerns regarding the
3 potential approval of this request. He stated that they are not afraid of competition but do need to
4 think about the good of the order adding that it is their hope that the Planning Commission would
5 see it from their perspective.
6
7 Mr. Beck stated that it is their belief that most of what has been discussed is incorrect and
8 reviewed with the Commission. He stated that their application has been accepted and suggested
9 that before making any decisions they should get advice from the City Attorney. He explained
10 that they have sought not to be in a position where they are stuck without being able to develop
11 and are now trying to upgrade their property. He asked for further direction from the Planning
12 Commission. He explained that their proposal is take the property and create a mixed use
13 without seeking public assistance. He agreed that there are issues that should require further
14 review and legal advice before moving forward.
15
16 Mr. Malkerson clarified that they are requesting that they comply with the ordinance on the PUD;
17 comply with the plan; perform the EAW and listen to Staff recommendations on the plan.
18
19 Mr. Jones stated that they are very concerned about the density on this site and asked the
20 Commission to take this into consideration before making a decision. He stated that they believe
21 it is totally inappropriate for this area noting that the parking proposal would be a definite
22 problem.
23
24 Chair Stromgren closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.
25
26 Todd Hubmer stated that they are looking at a land use change that would have an impact on the
27 City infrastructure. He stated that the first item reviewed was the traffic impact noting that they
28 have not received a current traffic analysis from the developer on proposed changes. He stated
29 that the City has requested the information on current access rights and would like to review, as it
30 would affect the current application process and access to the site. He stated that the traffic
31 model developed for the initial redevelopment plan has not been modified to incorporate
32 changes. He referenced the sanitary sewer stating that the City of St. Anthony had to create a
33 new trunk line and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that Staff would like to review the
34 anticipated affects that the proposed development would have on the sanitary sewer line and
35 would also review the change in land use and changes in peaks. He stated that Staff wants to be
36 sure that the current system can accommodate the changes. He stated that the City has an
37 adequate volume in water to support the land use changes noting that there is a need to be sure
38 that the water plan is up to date and reflects the changes in land use. He stated that the project
39 would have to be in compliance with the Watershed rules noting that there are significant
40 stormwater regulations that would be required for this site. He stated that the EAW does not
41 include this particular parcel noting that it does represent a 14 percent increase for residential.
42 He reviewed four options stating that the City could determine that the proposed development is
43 not significant enough to require a new EAW or that that the proposed development includes
44 enough changes that it could require a discretionary EAW. He suggested that they consider a
45 revision to the EAW and commercial mixture on the site.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 12
1
2 Commissioner Tillman asked for further clarification of the PUD and PUD zones. City Attorney
3 Lindgren stated that he is not in a position to fully analyze the issues. He stated that he is
4 prepared to comment on whether there is a prohibition to amend the final plan. He stated that
5 when Staff discussions occurred with the applicant, Staff indicated that no amendment has ever
6 been sought for less than 3-acres. He stated that at the time they believed it would be appropriate
7 if the Planning Commission chose to grant an amendment that there would be a second
8 agreement. He stated that his current analysis is that two agreements would be appropriate.
9
10 Chair Stromgren referenced the 60-day clause for the variance request and asked if this would be
11 impacted. City Attorney Lindgren clarified that the 60-day clause would apply noting that the
12 one question raised is the issue of the EAW and if it is mandatory. He explained that the 60-day
13 requirement starts to run after the EAW is completed.
14
15 Commissioner Jensen clarified that it has been recommended that the City should request a full
16 EAW. City Attorney Lindgren clarified that the City has the authority to make a
17 recommendation for a full EAW.
18
19 Commissioner Gray stated that this is a great deal to have someone want to come in and expand
20 the tax base and not ask for dollars to fund the project. He agreed that the legal questions
21 regarding the impact should be addressed and recommended that a revision to the EAW be
22 completed to address these concerns.
23
24 Commissioner Tillman agreed stating that the City should take some time to consider how the
25 new proposal fits in with the current design standards and the existing development agreement.
26 She stated that she is most concerned about the height of the buildings. She asked if the
27 consultant that helped to create the plan could help review these issues and further clarify. She
28 asked how much detail is actually needed and how would they be met before extending the PUD
29 zone.
30
31 Commissioner Jensen agreed that all issues should be reviewed in detail ahead of time and
32 ensure that there are no double standards. He stated that the City, after many years of planning,
33 has launched a very large development project and the success of this project has been divided
34 into two phases. He stated that they chartered this company to develop the area and should
35 ensure that it happens based on the agreement.
36
37 Chair Stromgren stated that he would like to see more information from Staff and the
38 Consultants on all issues and concerns, including comparison of densities with what is going on
39 in Silver Lake development and other areas of the City. He stated that he also has questions
40 about the Market Analysis and the Market Studies and would like to review the viability and
41 determine the demand for commercial\office space. He stated that as a whole, he does not see a
42 problem with a mixed-use development on this site noting that there may be a place for it, but
43 this may not be the right approach. He stated that it would also be helpful to put together a
44 timeline or flowchart that would include the steps for approval for a PUD. He stated that the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 13
1 Planning Commission does need more information noting that the submittal is lacking critical
2 information that would address the adjacent properties and the potential impacts.
3
4 Chair Stromgren asked if it would be appropriate to request a motion to postpone this discussion
5 for further review. City Attorney Lindgren stated that the Planning Commission could do this
6 but should keep in mind the 60-day clock. He asked if the question is whether there is additional
7 information needed from Staff to recommend or deny the EAW at next meeting. Chair
8 Stromgren stated that they could request City Council to ask for a full EAW with no other action
9 at this point. City Attorney Lindgren concurred.
10
11 Motion by Commissioner Gray, Second by Commissioner Jensen, to recommend to City Council
12 to direct WSB to revise the St. Anthony Northwest Quadrant EAW and to include the impact to
13 residential sewer, sanitary, stormwater and traffic for the proposed mixed unit development
14 located at 4001 Stinson Boulevard.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously
17
18 Chair Stromgren stated that City Council would consider this request at their January 11, 2005
19 Regular meeting. He suggested that the applicants be present to answer any questions the
20 Council might have.
21
22 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW
23
24 NONE
25
26 IX. PUBLIC INPUT
27
28 NONE
29
30 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
31 A. Proposal from Charlene Roise Hess Roise Re: Sunset Memorial Park
32
33 Ms Sykes stated that Staff met with the Sunset Memorial group and discussed their proposal.
34 She stated that Chair Stromgren and Commissioner Young were also in attendance to discuss the
35 proposal for the administrative building at Sunset Memorial Park.
36
37 Chair Stromgren provided the Commission with an overview of the discussion noting that the
38 Sunset Memorial group had requested the meeting because they felt they had gotten off on the
39 wrong foot with the signage. He explained that they reviewed a number of options that would
40 address what it would take to preserve the administrative building. He noted that the burial sites
41 are too close to allow the additional space. He stated that they also discussed a scenario to add
42 onto the mausoleum and bell tower noting that this would not alter the administration building
43 and would allow them to add to the chapel.
44
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 14
1 Commissioner Jensen asked about the directional sign issue along Highway 88. Chair Stromgren
2 stated that they had a similar theme where they would utilize the existing blocks to form the base
3 for a new sign. He stated that the sign was smaller and was moved to the corner of the parkway.
4
5 Commissioner Jensen asked if it is still against the ROS zoning. Chair Stromgren stated that
6 they would want to align with the ROS zoning noting that it is non-conforming usage. Ms.
7 Moore-Sykes stated that this would not be as big of an issue as it was originally thought and
8 reviewed. She explained that the biggest issue was the administrative building noting that Sunset
9 Memorial clearly wants to rebuild. She stated that they did provide some scenarios that try to
10 utilize the building and reviewed with the Commission. She stated that Staff has also been in
11 touch with an architectural preservationist to review the historical significance of the building.
12
13 Chair Stromgren stated that the next step is to provide feedback and explain all of the concerns.
14 He noted that they couldn't tell them what to do adding that they did provide Sunset Memorial
15 with a clear direction and reviewed with the Commission.
16
17 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Sunset Memorial plans on holding an Open House on January 11,
18 2005; from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. to gain community feedback that would assist them in making
19 a determination. She stated that she has emailed their attorney requesting further information
20 regarding the Open House adding that there is a potential for a full quorum representing the
21 Planning Commission and City Council on this issue. She stated that the City could also notify
22 those citizens living in the vicinity of the Open House.
23
24 Commissioner Young stated that they discussed the design for the center island and parking areas
25 and reviewed with the Commission. She explained that they have moved the center access and
26 parking to the outside and have also contacted an arborist to evaluate the trees on the site. She
27 stated that they have made some strides towards not breaking apart the value of the mausoleum
28 and bell tower to the administration building and reviewed with the Commission
29
30 Chair Stromgren stated that Sunset still wants, very much, to be able to build a new funeral home
31 in the current location. He stated that they did show that it was possible to use the current
32 footprint of the existing building and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that Sunset
33 Memorial has asked that the Planning Commission review and make a recommendation to
34 Council.
35
36 Commissioner Jensen referenced the costs noting that this is his biggest concern. He suggested
37 moving forward with a recommendation to City Council.
38
39 Commissioner Young noted that one item lacking from the Sunset Memorial is the discussion on
40 the historical significance of the building. She stated that it would be good to have outside
41 exploration on the issue to provide information regarding the historical significance of the
42 building.
43
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 15
1 Motion by Vice Chair Hanson, second by Commissioner Gray, to recommend to City Council to
2 employ Hess Roise to determine the historical significance for the Administration Building
3 located at Sunset Memorial Park.
4
5 Motion carried unanimously
6
7 XI. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8
9 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes provided the Commission with the following update:
10
11 City Council held interviews to appoint Commissioners to the Planning and Parks Commissions.
12 She stated that Vice Chair Hanson and Commissioner Gray have been reappointed to the
13 Planning Commission.
14
15 Commissioner Tillman stated that this is her last meeting with the Planning Commission. She
16 stated that her membership on the Commission has provided her with a great learning experience
17 as to how the government body really works. She stated that over the last six years she has
18 gained a better understanding of how it all works and noted that the process really does work.
19 She stated the system works best with as much public input as possible adding that it provides
20 the Planning Commission with the information needed to give them the ability to make good
21 decisions for the City. She stated that it has been a real pleasure serving with the Commissioners
22 and working with Staff. She thanked everyone adding that she has truly enjoyed her time on the
23 Planning Commission.
24
25 Vice Chair Hanson stated that it has been pleasure working with Commissioner Tillman and
26 thanked her for her service to the City of St. Anthony. He asked for an update on the pub.
27
28 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that there is nothing new to report on the pub. She stated that the
29 project is moving forward noting that they recently applied for a liquor license.
30
31 Commissioner Gray stated that he represented the Planning Commission at the November 23,
32 2004 City Council meeting stating that the Council asked him to pass on their Thank You for a
33 job well done. He stated that the Council was very impressed on the amount of research done by
34 the Planning Commission when considering various proposals.
35
36 Commissioner Hoska thanked Commissioner Tillman for her time on the Planning Commission
37 and wished everyone a Happy Holiday.
38
39 Chair Stromgren thanked Commissioner Tillman for her service and time on the Planning
40 Commission and wished her well.
41
42 XII. ADJOURNMENT
43
44 Motion by Commissioner Tillman, second by Commissioner Young, to adjourn the meeting at
45 10:15 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
December 21, 2004
Page 16
1
2 Motion carried unanimously,
3
4 Respectfully submitted,
5
6
7 Bonnie Sullivan
8 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIII.1.
From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager
Date: January 18, 2005
Subject: Concept Review of Sunset Memorial Park
Requested Action:
None;information only.
Background:
Representatives from Sunset Memorial Park requested that they be placed on the Planning Commission January
18,2005 meeting agenda for a Concept Review. Since they last met with the Planning Commission, they have
met with Staff and a subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review and discuss revisions that they are
proposing to Sunset Memorial Park project. Sunset group also held an open house on January 11,2005.
Attachments:
• Updated Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery Planning Studies (November 16, 2004).
• Letter from the Kestrel Design Group regarding the Inventory of Evergreen tree-lined boulevard.
Sunset Concept staff report 01805
i
a
a
a
a
a
a
SUNSET FUNERAL DOME AND CEMETERY
St. Anthony, Minnesota
Planning Studies
November 16, 2004
ALDERWC>O!)S%-
GROW,
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS
I INTRODUCTION 3
2 PREVIOUS STUDIES 4
Maintenance Yard Site 5
Lxisung Mausoleum Site 6
East Entrance Site 7
Conclusions 8
3 EXISTING SITE . 9
4 EXPANSION/RENOVATION STUDIES ll
Option A 12
Option B 13
5 PRELIMINARY DESIGN 14
Site Plan 14
Floor Plans 15
EaSL Elevation 16
East Elevation-Rendering 17
6 PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE 18
7 IMPLEMENTATION SCM RULE 20
PROJECT NO 20425 Page-2
Novembei 16,2004
MI:KUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery and their Owner,Alderwoods(Minnesota)Inc a subsidiary of Alderwoods Group Inc (the Owner),is requesting to rezone a part of the existing cemetery property from us current
R-1 classification to R-OS Per conversations with the City Staff,the cemetery property,located at 2250 St Anthony Boulevard in St Anthony,is a legal non-conforming R-1 use The Owner would like to correct the
zoning to the appropriate classification R-OS(Recreation Open Space) This use group allows cemeteries as a permitted use as well as mausoleums and crypt structures as permitted accessory structures
Following this change in zoning classifications,the Owner would like to request a Text Amendment to the R-OS classification referenced above to allow"Funeral Homes"as a permitted conditional use structures within
the R/OS classihCaLion The following document presents a proposed funeral home design at the entrance to the cemetery on St.Anthony Boulevard
It should be noted that the cemetery boundaries overlap the City of St Anthony Village and the City of Minneapolis The site proposed for the funeral home lies entirely within the St Anthony jurisdiction and the
property is currently providing funeral services to the community
a On September 21,2004,MekUS Studios and the Alder-woods Group presented to the City of St Anthony Village Planning Commission their request for rezoning and text amendment During this Concept Review,the
a team presented the preliminary design of the proposed Funeral Home In order to achieve this,as we know,a few revisions are required to the current zoning designation and zoning code The property is currently a legal
non-conforming R-1 district We asked the Planning Commission to rezone the property to R/OS(Recreation Open Space) In addition,we requested a text amendment be made to the R/OS district to allow Funeral
Ilomes as a conditional use Finally,we presented the proposed new funeral home preliminary drawings
The Commission seemed to be in agreement the cemetery should be rezoned to RIOS in fact,many on the Commission assumed it was,The Commission will consider the requested for Text Amendment,but asked
a assistance from Alderwoods in the definition of Funeral Home
The Commission expressed concern on the proposed demolition of the existing Administration Building in order to construct the new Funeral Home The Chairman felt that we should investigate renovating and adding
to the existing structure MSL was asked to investigate other sources of I-fistorical Building Registries to see if this building is listed The investigation that followed did not discover any other sources that identified
this building as a historic building
a
a
a
a
PROJECT NO 20425
� Page-3
November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNEIZAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PREVIOUS STUDIES
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Mekus Studios was originally asked to prepare an analysts of three(3)proposed sites for a Funeral Home for Sunset Funeral Home and Cemetery. Some of the sites were to include additional components sucli as a
cemetery office clue to their potential location
The three viable proposed sites were
a • The Maintenance Yard Site located on the west side of the property
• Thee Exisnng Mausoleum Site area behind the existing main mausoleum on the west side
• The Last Entrance Entry Gate area on the east side—currently occupied by the cemetery office
Other non viable sites were investigated but not pursued further These sites were the Tower Circle and the northeast corner north of St Anthony Blvd
The purpose of the analysis was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each of the sites so that a decision could be made as to the best location for a new funeral home Each site was analyzed in Lei ins of the
following categories
• Location
Zoning
• Size
• Topography
Acccssibihty
• Image
• Utilities
Parking
• Function
PROJECT NO 20425
' Page-4
November 16,2004
P
ZI MEKUS STUDIOS L-I-D
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
SI-ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PREVIOUS STUDIES
Maintenance Yard Site
0 MAINTENANCE YARD SITE PROS:
r
• AD.IACENT PARKING
• IDENTIFIABLE FROM A CEMETERY ENTRANCE 6 couuEpwSt
p mT �—
l. P
FY17 1nEE V ��R .`�K3i�1�
�
MAINTENANCE YARD SITE CONS:
• SIGNIFICANT EARTH WORK WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE TO THE
SITE TO MAKE IT USABLE FOR A FUNERAL HOMF,ZI
• ACCESS TO THE SITE IS LIMITED TO NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC ONLY
yo x J
ON COUNTY ROUTE 88 AND WOULD REQUIRE ACCELERATION AND
DECELERATION LANES ,;•
1
• TI IL'IMAGIi OF THE SITE IS OBSCURED BECAUSE OF THE DENSE Er,?fi. w��s•±.;;=r�tz���_
LANDSCAPINGTHAT BORDERS THE SOUTH AND WEST SIDES OF
THE SITE %"
• THE SIZE OF TI IE SITE WOULD DICTATE A SMALLER BUILDING o��
FOOTPRINT
• THE SITE WOULD NOT INCLUDE A CEMETERY OFFICE S,.,.s
• SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED ON
COUNTY ROUTE 88
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY MAINTERNANCE YARD SITE m ID m
ST. ANTHONY, MN. 11-03-04 ° " '°
PROJECT NO 20425
� Page-5
November 16,2004
3
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL I IOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTI IONY,MINNEso"rA PREVIOUS STUDIOS
Existing Mausoleum sitc
EXISTING MAUSOLEUM SITE PROS:
EXISTING MAUSOLEUM COULD BE
6 THE UTILITIES THAT SERVE THE
EXTENDED TO SERVE THE FUNERAL HOME AT THIS LOCAMON,
0 THE SITE WOULD ALLOW FOR SINGLE FLOOR HORIZONTAL
LAYOUT,WHICH WILL FACILITATE THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF
THE FUNERAL HOME
EXISTING MAUSOLEUM SITECONS:
0 PREV'E'NTS FURTHER EXPANSION OF THE MAUSOLEUM W 1*
0 ACCESS TO THE SITE WOULD BE THROUGH THE CEMETERY
ROADS AND WOULD BE CONTROLLED THROUGH SIGNAGE
THE SITE IS I ITDDEN FROM THE EASTERN ENTRY GATE AND
WOULD NOT BE VISIBLE UNTIL YOU WERE BEHIND THE EXISTING
MAUSOLEUM-IDENTITY PROBLEM
• PARKING FOR THE FUNERAL1%
HQ1,413)XIOULD BE LOCATED ON THE
CEMETERY ROAD SYSTEM WITH MINIMAL PARKING AT THE
FRONT ENTRY
0 THIS SITE WOULD NOT ACCOMMODATE ACEMETERY OFFICE
SUNSET FLJNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY EXISTING MAUSOLEUM SITE
ST.ANTHONY,MN. 11-03-04 av ---ur
PROJECT NO 20425 Page-6
Novembei 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
M SUNSET FUNERAL IIOME AND CEMETERY
PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PREVIOUS STIJWES
Last Entrance Site
EAST ENTRANCE SITE PROS:
• THE SITL:IS ESSENTIALLY FLAT AND Ih4PROVED WITH ENTRY GAPE }
AND FENCES ANDGIROUND 13URIALS IN ADJACENT SECTIONS 7
c
• ACCN�SS IS 9F1:ST.ANTHONY BLVD,WITH SEPERAi'E INr'OU3'DRIVES J' �
s
ori aa+
• GOOD EXPOSURF FROM ST ANTHONY BLVD. sc p,t•.nnvn
• STRONG;AXIS WITH 13ELL TOWER AND WITH THE MAIN MAUSOLEUM
TO THE WES'T
- _ [EIYq'pAZS
• THIS LOCATION WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CEMETERY OFFICE AND 1
FUNERAL HOME TO BE LOCATED IN THE SAME BUILDING a '�
• ALL NECESSARY UTILITIES ARE.WITHIN IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO THE
SITE F*
EAST ENTRANCE SITE CONS:
• MAJORITY01'PARKING WOULD OCCUR ON CEMETERY ROADS
• DUF TO THE SMALL SITE.AREA AND EXISTING CONSTRAINTS SUCH AS
GROUND BURIALS AND hiAl'URE TREES,THIS BUILDING WOULD NEED
I'013L %IULTI-LEVEL-(TWO STORIES)
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY EAST ENTRANCE SITE
ST.ANTHONY,MN. 1I-03-04
PROJECT NO 20425 Page 7
November 16,2004
a
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
Sr ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PREVIOUS STUDIES
Conclusions
l he Maintenance Yard Site location is the most difficult site because of the topography and its exposure to County Road 88 Another drawback is the existing maintenance building and yard would have to relocate to
another part of the propel Ly which would burden the cost of the funeral home with additional demolition and reconstruction costs for the maintenance building and yard
The Existing Mausoleum Site has greater land usability but its exposure is somewhat compromised by the fact that it is hidden from the east by the existing mausoleum and the landscaping and distance to the highway
on the west These conditions provide a very limited exposure to this property and thus compromise the viability of the site
a The East Entrance Gate Site has the most prominent exposure to St Anthony Blvd The traveling speed on St Anthony Blvd Is substantially less than on County Road 88 making the building easier to see This location
would require a temporary relocation of the cemetery office operations to either a trailer or mobile office and additional demolition costs
a
a
a
PROJECT NO.20426
Page-B
November IG,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL I TOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA EXISTING SITE
EXISTING SITE
The proposed site is located at the main cemetery entrance on the east side of the property along St Anthony Boulevard The project would replace the existing cemetery office building with a new MUILifuncuon building
—� housing the cemetery offices and a new funeral home facility with ADA accessibility Care needs to be taken to locate the existing ground burials in the adjacent cemetery sections near the entrance gate
Note
Historical Building Research
Mekus Studios Ltd searched the Minnesota-National Registry of Historical Places to see if the existing administration buildingwas aprotected buddingon the registry httpJ/nrhp mnhs org/NRSearch cfm Mekus Studios searched under Hennepin County,
there were/-1400 listings in the County No listing came up under Sunset Memorial MehusStudioscontactedtheVillageofStAnthonyZoningAdministratortoinquireiftherewasalocallistTheZAwasnotawareofaVillageprotectedbuildinglistbut
would verify with others at the Village(07/13/04)
The following are photographs of the existing cemetery Administration Building,proposed to be removed and replaced with a new Funeral home, and photographs of the main cemetery boulevard road where Lhe funeral
home parking is located
a PROJECT-NO 20425 Page-9
November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA
� � EXISTING SITE
Ap
d a �]�•
� � N
S �
F .
Entr-ance Boulevard.Jpg Existing Admin Building-Llpg Existing Admin Building-2.ft
C y5
��.
Existlng Admin Building-3 jpg F�latlng Admin Bullding-41Pg
PROJECT NO.20425 Page-10
November 16,2004
NIEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
S7 ANTI MINNESOTA EXPANSION/RENOVATION STUDIES
EXPANSION/RENOVATION STUDIES
In response to the request by the City of St Anthony Planning Commission,MSL has studied two possible reuse and expansion options for the existing Administration Building These studies are shown on the following
pages and are listed'Existing Building Study-Option A'and'Existing Building Study-Option A' These studies were an attempt to reuse the existing Administration Building to the extent possible and expand with the
required square footage needed for the Funeral home.
Option A—wraps a new two story addition around the 4 sides of the existing building adding approximately 8,400 s f of budding to the existing 3,700 s f Administration Building Although this options allows foi better
vehicular Circulation around the building than Option B,it essentially conceals the original building from St Anthony Boulevard
Option B -is an attempt to keep mote of the original building facade unaltered by expanding the new building further west into the cemetery property This solution would cause the size and location of interior spaces to
be compromised clue to the existing budding walls Necessary vehicular traffic around the building would be elirmnated due to the location of existing ground graves
PROJECT NO 20425
Page-11
'� November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS 1,I D
SUNSET FUNERAL lJON11,AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,HONl',MINNESOTA EXPANSION/RENOVATION STUDIES
� Option A
� PROS• W+ ~� r tJ• ' , 1 .,.,. _ k� �x�l.�}4,s.
OPTION 1
• KEEPS NEW BUILDING WITIIIN TIIF,
BOUNDARIES
GRAVE "n= v ''
. ',r•`, e,� I :,� `. �� ...p:t.. to.:
�
TION OI A CON :S
� � �' � ' �� �� 4` � •.d.. ��"`�'�,�"�-��,�����
NEW BUILDING 'I P1 9 e>a•11, � '.n ��rN•141
OTALLY SURROUNDS
EXISTING BUILDING
• 500 000 N EXPENSIVE THAN NEW
$ MORE I r
BUILDING
ARCHITECTURAL
• 'F.C'I'URAL SOLUTION IS NOT AS '� .,, - x• �`� � ''io- s. �� '' �' s``�����-� �N."�����"�
TO
SYMPATHETIC DUE
TI1F, 'IIIP ROOF CON'FIGURA'I'ION'
3 COMPROMISES INTERIOR LAYOUT DUI
TO EXISTING EXTERIOR ALL � � � - � ',,�,,�:�, ��'• ;�
45p
4111 y;„y. u.,.:
� „ - -- ?;�.xa {[i drlPy bl.' '�”V✓f&] ',.; - W GATE
y
NEW-W
-
'��°,if• NEW FENCE WEn
i0 E%R1WG qy, ..1, .®Yr • 2 iNPARKixL - -
Wi�� Rp(/.] (. 9 k _ --• - I - -7 GARS-HA MCAPP
-
F�}J Yp
• - - r-� SZ RN1Y�'
r...
0.NNL
PROJECT NO 20425
Page-12
November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNEIZAI_HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
SC ANTHONY,MINNI=SO"1A EXPANSION/RENOVATION STUDIES
Opt ion B
��-•�'.��'�T F %!�:!r�"44.'�F' �,,' :.�` ; f� e,� i +%a' faR r�.wx +�.°,ay•.K e��:..^-::rry g�r7
� yM '� n,F�,��"^ - 'SA'i�•j,��°`��y' '� �"� �) }"e -�'�`i' G '' ">{t� `''7t{ �;'C �.��Y�"�a'GI
OPTION B PROS:
w !
• MORE OF THE FA4yADE OF THE EXISTING �' ' ' N' ti r. r
BUILDING IS EXPOSED " t �A • s." 3�.a{jr:p
g9
OPTION CONS: ' ,;
F rr ;,3
LOCATION OI '1'ITE BUILDING AND +, L * i° ROM
I k
VEHICULAR CIRCULATION INTERRUPTS M ,
OM
EXIST'IN'G GRAVE LOTS
s c'
,r4 iC
$500,000 NIORE EXPENSIVE TI-IAN NEW
BUILDING 71
�%-
. was .n.w •e-.
COMPROMISES INTERIOR LAYOUT DUE 1' I
TO EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS M L''�
UNION
21,
ppp
i.ro csisnra. _,-�'•® �&•' .1 `KL'��� -i c.x ' - _ -. .. .
D
]
PROJFC-1-NO 20425
] Pagc-13
NOVCITII)CI-16,2004
MEKUS Sl UDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL_I IOMF AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Site Plan
-
PARKING'50 SPACES .I^I'. .%t•. ,
• - CERY•OFFlCE `-"••,+...'- l .' _ A,F`'�,_' �r\�r 1,' ,
.. ENTRY.rMT'-`�\ I •.i', •,.,a"�
0VERROW PARKING -•t r .I,i `• - -,`-.. _ - -•
_ -.50 SPACES.
-I INGRESS ACCESS
- - - , FUNERAL HOME
• - It,LL 2 FLOORS)
411 T
•a te��'�1;`�%°� 'jt:,�P ly4 xr;,?�'�I�t'�''e4's`'e' i 1`, ,+�,1 r �`as,,. �� �
r'-�ki�i j+1,5",<'"',_Z,�s�� � ":'�-"' -�' GlgY�3 •�>`� �y' x °3,�, ,-' "� r -
I A't fir.=1• .4'n rr�r s A+,Y" 7• .n .at;�i4. : %n ewL
Nv .. ..fst,•Ire={."t'h't?td-ikftie+^nb�"�r'...ruai.+�,=`�";-:,I?-`FP:'.r=i, — +'�,i>i
� ;7''Y' •��� `�•,,:r.,w ':_" � ab ;1 'sib' -
f•_;i(.,M�.
mpp
rl
'PORTE COCHERE^ i -l� I y: [� ��- � Y� "d y'ro.•"'''"-� a, i.Fti
C
- _ W/NNERAL HOME t ��"`' •k ��, ;;YYYY77
- ENTRY
NEW CATS
EGRESS ACCESS I `--_I 4Z },� -{ `', (' -�, •j, - •
fa7 4 � 6 \
PROJFCE NO 20425 Page-14
Novenilm 1G,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Floor Plans
® - - ®
t � �
-----
� I O IT
a
- w
In p
FIRST FLOOR P aN �_$ECOND FLOOR PLAN
can v �a v.
® PROJECT NO.20425 Page-15
November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET FUNERAL HOME AND CEMETERY PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY DESIGN
East Elevation
T OOF
+31'-8"
r� STArWING SEAM
METAL ROOF
MASUNRT
VENEER SKIN
AWOOD WWDDWS I
T/SEOON0 FLOOR
IF FI:: I
Foo
R3T FLOOR
+Da—�
RUSTICATED
MASONRY BASE ORNAMENTAL
IRON
ENTRANCE
GATES
PROJECT NO.20425
® Page-16
November 16,2004
I
i
r
14
j Ii II I _ I
cd
I t ALJ• y 3
r r' �l• -.+��� � l:� -LILIIJLI �'�' III�L I' i :I- � f ^! 'r
" • 1 1•
11•
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
®1 PROPOSED ZONING TEXT CHANGE
® Petition No.
Petitioner-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 16
ID OF THE CITY CODE
ZONING CODE
ORDINANCE NO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.ANTHONY:
[Note to team:The existing ordinance includes the term"cemetery"as a permitted use in R/O Recreational/Open Space district. The existing ordinance includes the term funeral home as a permitted use in
the General Commercial District. The existing ordinance also includes the terms mausoleums and crypts as accessory uses in the R/O District. The several questions we discussed are:l)Do we want to do we
want to include the new definition of crematoriums and columbarium in this text amendment?(2)Do we want to refer to animal remains? (3)Do we want to include the concept of a"facility for cremation"
in the definition of funeral home?(4)Do we want to add the concept of columbarium to the existing accessory uses in the R/O district? (5)Should we limit these changes only to the change to add funeral
home and its definition?]
Section 1. Chapter 16. Zoning and Land Use of the Code of the City of St Anthony is hereby amended as follows:
>� A. Chapter 16,Section 1605:Definitions.
Amend Section 1605.01"Definitions"by adding the following definitions and inserting the same in alphabetical and then in numerical order:
Cemetery.
39 Land used or dedicated to the burial of human or animal dead,including crematoriums,mausoleums for crypt or vault internments,a columbarium for cinerary internments,related office and maintenance
facilities.[This term is used in the Ordinance,but not defined.]
Columbarium.
A structure or building substantially exposed above ground intended to be used for the internment of the cremated remains of a deceased persons or animals.[This term is neither used nor defined in the
Ordinance.]
PROJECT NO.20425
Page-18
November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Crematorium.
A location or building containing properly installed,certified apparatus intended for use in the act of cremation of the remains of deceased persons or animals. [This term is neither used nor defined
in the Ordinance.]
Funeral home
A building or part thereof used for the preparation of the deceased for burial and display of the deceased and rituals connected therewith before burial or cremation.Such building may contain offices and
meeting rooms to be uses to support the functions of the funeral and burial services.Such building may also contain space and facilities for embalming(and the performance of other services used in the
preparation of the dead for burial),the storage of caskets,funeral urns,and other related funeral supplies,the storage of funeral vehicles,and facilities for cremation. Where a funeral home is permitted,a
funeral chapel shall also be permitted.[This term is used in the Ordinance,but not defined.]
Mausoleum.
g A building containing above ground crypts or vaults for internments of deceased persons or animals.[This term is used in the Ordinance,but not defined.]
B. Chapter 16,Section 1645'WO Recreational/Open Space District"
l�
Amend Chapter 16 by renumbering the existing Section 1645 04 to be Section 1645 05,renumbering the existing subsequently numbered sections 1645.05 to be 1645 06 and 1645 06 to be 1645 07 and
adding as the new Section 1645 04 the following-
164504
ollowing•164504 Permitted Conditional Uses Within a R/O District,the following uses are penrutted only if a conditional use permit has been issued by the City Council.
® (a)Funeral homes
® Section 2. That this ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption.
Approved as to form:
® City Attorney
I, City Clerk of the City of St Anthony,Minnesota,DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of an Ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of St Anthony,Minnesota,
in regular session convened on the_day of ,2004,the reference having been made in ,and recorded in full in the Ordinance Book ,Page(s)
O WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of the City of St.Anthony,Minnesota,this_day of 2004.
PROJECT NO.20425 Page-19
November 16,2004
MEKUS STUDIOS LTD
SUNSET MEMORIAL PARK PLANNING STUDIES
ST ANTHONY,MINNESOTA IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Based on conversations with the City Staff,the below are meeting dates and a preliminary schedule based on successfully obtaining zoning revisions that we are pursuing
Implementation Item Description QP.—elMeeting DateA
I Start Design Document Process ...... . ...... ... .... .......... ... ..... .. ....... . ..... August 1-December 31,2004
2 Concept Review with Planning Commission- ......... ......... ........ ....... September 21,
2004
3 Apply for Zoning Changes
i Complete Rezoning Application for property from R-I to R/OS
u. Send Letter of Request for Text Amendment to include"Funeral Homes-as permitted Accessory Use in R/OS
4. Public Hearing for Rezoning . ..... .. ........ . ........ October 19,2004
ID 5. 2ND Concept Review with Planning Commission for Text Amendment ......... .......... ......... ... ... . ...... ....... ......October 26,2004
6 City Council Text Amendment Reading(I"Reading)**. . . .. . . ....... ....... ....... October 26,2004
7. City Council Text Amendment Reading(2'd Reading)... . . . ........ TBD.
8 City Council Text Amendment Reading(3d Reading) . ...... TBD
9 Apply for Conditional Use Permit(If approved by City Council) ........... .. TBD.
Deferred
Denied
A new date will be established for resubmission to the Planning Commission for concept review
PROJECT NO.20425 Page-20
OPPENHEIMEIL 2269200v031WIL/2004 November 16,2004
&KE 5TRELff Landscape Architecture
I a Ecological Design
Natural Areas Planning
.04
'If
�j Delineation,Permitting,Mitigation
_
Env
ironmental Master Planning For.
CaCR! -U..P'4 Wetlands,Lakes,Rivers,Prairie,
Savanna,Woodland
December 13,2004
Technical Memorandum:
Tree Inventory with recommendations for Evergreen Tree Lined Boulevard(Allee) at Sunset Funeral
Home&Cemetery, St. Anthony Blvd, Minneapolis,MN.
To:
Michael Lyons, Gen. Manager, Sunset Funeral Home&Cemetery
Author:
L.Peter MacDonagh, Reg.Land.Arch. (MN, WI, IL- 1992),Int'l. Soc.Arboriculture Cert.Arborist
(1992),Royal Hort. Society Certified Horticulturist(England- 1979)
Adj.Faculty Landscape Architecture Dept., Univ. of Minnesota(1999);
Lecturer: Univ. of MN. Landscape Arboretum(1998)&Morton Arboretum(Chicago,IL- 1992)
VP, The Kestrel Design Group, Inc. (1990)
Introduction:
Michael Lyons, and the author, met on site 12/10/04 to identify and inventory the condition of an
Evergreen Allee of trees on the north end of the main drive of Sunset Cemetery.This does not cover all
the trees in the cemetery or even all of the trees on the allee.Although all of the trees in the Allee were
examined and all suffered from the same symptoms, only the trees adjacent the Chapel at the entry from
St. Anthony Blvd. are within the scope of this document. Sunset Funeral Home&Cemetery is
considering removing these trees to create more parking for a planned enlarged chapel at this location—
cemetery entry. This field investigation portion of this assessment for the 44 trees was completed by the
author on 12/10/04.
Tree Inventory Methodology:
Trees were first identified.Next,DBH(diameter at breast height)and height were measured with a
Cruising Stick. Tree trunks were examined for wounds,calluses, presence/absence of diseases. Root/trunk,
collars were examined for the presence/absence of girdling roots. Scaffold branches attachments were
examined for integrity and included bark. Likely tree senescence or mortality was considered. These
conditions were recorded, with recommendations for the inventoried trees described below.
Following assessment of current conditions,the author calculated projected rates of mortality, based on
research literature by: Din,Hightshoe,Urban. Rates of Growth were calculated for.all trees, based on size
and age class,and species,projected at 60 to 70 years. Likely mortality of urban trees vs. naturally
occurring trees was based on Urban's research. Flint and Harris were the sources used for diseases of
Eastern Red Cedars.
THE KESTREL DESIGN GROUP,INC.5136 Hankerson Avenue,Suite 1 Edina,Minnesota 55436
(952)928-9600 Fax(952)928-1939 www.kestreldesigngroup.com
Tree Inventory:
The entire population of trees(44)surveyed on this portion of the Allee were Junipers or Eastern Red
Cedars(Juniperus virginiana). Their girth ranged from 8 inches to 11 inches diameter at breast height(4.5
feet) or DBH. Their heights ranged from 22 feet to 30 feet. The spacing of the trees was approximately 12
to 14 feet on center.Historic photographs from the cemetery's photo collection indicate that these trees
were planted in the late 1920's or early 1930's. This indicates that the trees range in age from 70 to 75
years.
Background of Eastern Red Cedars:
Eastern Red Cedar are a US native, and naturally occur in the midwest. Historically, it was limited to
rocky outcrops and cliff tops on the edge of oak savannas, protected from fires.In those secluded places it
could reach 300 years of age. It is has no resistance to fire because of the high essential oil content of its
leaves and bark. With fire suppression in the Midwest these trees have spread dramatically across
abandoned lands,quarries,etc..
Eastern Red Cedar in-Urban Plantings &Allees:
Although this planting occurs in a cemetery,these Eastern Red Cedars are not growing in park like
conditions.These Eastern Red Cedars,to all extents and purposes, occur on an urban street with water
saturated and compacted soils, salt spray,with severe susceptibility to diseases as a single species stand.
The straight species of Eastern Red Cedar(not a horticultural cultivar(CV) or hybrid) is rarely used in
horticulture, because of its susceptibility to a large number of leaf blights, viruses and rusts that this
species suffers from. Large groupings of Eastern Red Cedar, like this cemetery planting,with hundreds of
individuals of the same species and age class,rarely occurs anymore.Although visually striking this is a
vulnerable planting.As with all monotypic(single species)planting in cultural settings,disease is more
prevalent and more severe than in mixed species plantings.
Condition of Inventoried Trees:
In general terms,the 44 tree population surveyed was unhealthy,with signs of approaching mortality
evident in many individuals. Many of the 44 trees have broken or missing limbs. On close inspection 10
individuals have significant twig blight with cedar apple rust evident on a number of individuals.
Additionally, 5 trees have already been removed from this portion of the Allee. Michael Lyons said that
the trees had been removed due to their poor condition.
The site's soils adjacent the trees was severely compacted, likely, because of their location on this
cemetery entry drive that invites frequent parking on their root zones.Eastern Red Cedars are sensitive to
compaction, and are subject to frequent and severe compaction here. Eastern Red Cedars are also
sensitive to wet soils,which occurs here because of direct runoff from the adjacent asphalt road. The
amount of turf surrounding the trees has mitigated some impacts to the root zone;however all of the trees
in the Allee have suffered massive disturbance from heavy machinery excavating graves and markers.
(See Images#1,2, 3).
Most of the trees have poor scaffold branch attachments with many broken limbs. These trees are
susceptible to breakage during ice and snow storms, and are modest hazard trees due to the presence of
targets(passing and parked cars). Additionally,the trees have been improperly pruned with flush cuts,
which causes significant internal structural weaknesses within the trunk. This factor raises the likelihood
of these trees being hazard trees. (See Images#2, 3, 4).
Severe twig blight leads to defoliation and death of Eastern Red Cedars. The blight as seen on these 10
individuals causes decline over a 5 to 10 year period(Dirr). Although cedar apple rust does not harm
Eastern Red Cedars in a significant way they are the alternate host for this disease which severely attacks
trees that exist here in high numbers in the surrounding landscape: apples, pears, hawthorns and roses
(Harris). (See Images#1,2, 3).
Juniper leaves persist and photosynthesize for several years.As with all conifers(evergreens)the energy
reserves are concentrated in the leaves,not the root system. Therefore a large loss of leaves almost always
leads to death(Shigo).
If this Allee occurred on a farm as a shelter belt, it would be a case of no harm done.However the main
purpose of this evergreen All is an aesthetic visual statement,therefore mass defoliation and branch
thinning are not desirable characteristics. (See Image#1).
Likely Mortality:
The lifespan of Eastern Red Cedars in urban areas, like many trees of urban areas, is much shorter than
their lifespan in natural settings. Decades of data for trees in urban areas, collected and analyzed by
researchers (Urban, et al), place the average age of planted trees on urban streets at 7 years. Contributing
factors include those seen at this site: lack of proper cultural care of the tree population(e.g. mulch,
compost), competition from turf roots, compaction in root zone, lawn mower damage to tree trunks,
pruning with flush and head cuts,and waterlogged conditions from urban stormwater.These problem are
endemic to urban tree populations and are the primary limiting factor in optimal growth and longer life
spans of these trees.
Obviously all of these trees have lived many more than 7 years.However the number of trees that have
been removed 5 of 49 (10%), and the number with significant twig blight on the remaining, 10 of 44
(23%), for a total of 33%, indicates near term mortality for all of these trees. (See Image#1).
Summary& Recommendations:
In general terms,the tree population surveyed was largely unhealthy and is in significant decline.
1)The removal of these trees from an urban forest point of view is not significant. However as a cultural
resource the line of sight of this evergreen allee is very visually striking. These trees will not last long in
their current condition. Based on the need for more parking for optimum use of the cemetery; however
removal of the trees in this portion of the Allee is recommended in the near term.
2)It is also recommended that the main trunks of these trees be sold/.donated to a specialty lumber
retailer because of the high demand for straight Eastern Red Cedars in cedar cabinets,furniture, etc.This
will reduce the waste stream or the waste of such high quality lumber as wood chips.
3)In the event that parking is installed, angled parking is recommended. To ensure the continuity of this
evergreen allee, replacement evergreen trees(see list below)can be planted in the islands between the
parking bays and at the edge of the graves.Essentially behind the existing Eastern Red Cedars allee.
Wheel stops to protect the trees against compaction from tires and trunk damage are also recommended.
Structural soil in the tree islands is also recommended.
4)In the long term, loss of trees throughout the evergreen allee is assured. Therefore it is recommended
that from the Tower of Memories to the Mausoleum Chapel a second evergreen allee at the edge of the
graves in the 16 foot setback be planted at the same time as the portion that will receive the new angled,
parking bays. Then as the trees defoliate and expire there will be a replacement evergreen allee
maintaining the original design intent and character of this significant feature.
5)At a minimum,to ensure diversity,the following species are recommended as replacement evergreen
trees in the Aliee:
Norway Spruce(Picea abies)
Arborvitea(Thuja occidentalis)
Limber Pine(Pinus flexilis)
Research Citations:
Dirr,Michael A. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants. Champaign,Illinois: Stipes Publishing, 1998.
Flint,Harrison L. Landscape Plants for Eastern North America.New York: John Willey and Sons, 1983.
Harris,Richard W. Arboriculture: Care of Trees, Shrubs, and Vines in the Landscape. Engelwood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1983.
Hightshoe, Gary L. Native Trees, Shrubs, and Vines for Urban and Rural America. New York:Van
Norstrand Reinhold, 1988.
Shigo,Alex L. Modern Arboriculture: A Systems Approach to the Care of Trees and Their Associates.
Durham,New Hampshire: Shigo and Trees, Associates, 1991.
Landscape Architecture
I
a Ecological Design
Natural Areas Planning
~ Delineation,Permitting,Mitigation
Environmental Master Planning For:
L�»i U p' r t Wetlands,Lakes,Rivers,Prairie,
W - Savanna,Woodland
Image #1
Sunset Cemetery
Eastern Red Cedar Allee - adjacent Chapel
View looking Southwest from Chapel
Image taken 12/10/04 KDG#04251
Please Note the following:
- 4 missing trees from planting, removed because of twig blight;
- 2nd and 3`d tree from right,note significant thinning of needles in the canopy. This is twig
blight. In single species plantings, such as this, with trees in close proximity to one
another, this twig blight simply infects other trees through the canopy.There is no effective
treatment for twig blight.
THE KESTREL DESIGN GROUP,INC.5136 Hankerson Avenue,Suite 1 Edina,Minnesota 55436
(952)928-9600 Fax(952)928-1939 www.kestreldesigngroup.com
� .
r- "' .�'�,�+`�c��w,_' � ;Vis,, .,�'+'" "��*}�� _
#„ "'afar•� ''�:9,5.�-�r.� r � •_+,� �j�r•'J �.,5•�,
r
A �',, _
' � I �V� _ wl r.
,A`' s .�� +►ate' �,' a.,� � -�^�.,.
?` _ _
f11
�� � ,
i -��
iis {•_,� '
_,:
�.+p;� �'
..
_. � � �
� • • � • . � "
� . •- 1 1� � '1'
- -- � . � . •- - • - a� . 1 �� • • -� ••
• • •. • •� • . 1� � • - � � •
Ima a #3
Sunset Cemetery
Eastern Red Cedar Allee - adjacent Chapel
View looking North to Chapel
Image taken 12/10/04 KDG#04251
Please Note the following:
- This is the 2nd tree from right on Image#1 and Image#2. This close-up image at the base
of the canopy shows complete defoliation of the needles from twig blight. There is no
effective treatment for twig blight.
- Also visible in middle left of Image#3 is a severe heading back cut wound,which the tree has not
recovered from pruning.
- Also note on other trees,base of trunk injuries, tire tracks causing compaction in root
zone, and multiple flush cut pruning wounds.
Ima2e
• /
Sunset Cemetery
Eastern Red Cedar Allee - adjacent Chapel
View
!fr y,! t-Jfp
tvb
b X:1�` y rib� E
looking to East
Image taken 12/10/04 KDG#04251
Please Note the following:
- This shows noticeable defoliation of the needles from twig blight.
• visible in middle of u.• broken limbsfrom poor scaffold branch
attachments that have • from either wind or • damage.
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission Report No.: X.1
From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager
Date: January 18, 2005
Subject: Extension of PUD Request Application for 4001 Stinson Boulevard NE
Requested Action:
None;information only.
Background:
On December 28,2004, Staff received a fax from Quest Development requesting that their application for PUD
Amendment be removed from the Council's January 11 h meeting agenda. The Council received the request and
at the January 1 Vh Council meeting, approved a 30-day extension.
Attachments:
• Faxed request from Quest
• Letter advising of Council's approval of extension to Quest
Quest PUD Request extension staff report 01805
12/29/2004 {QED 7:54 FAX QUEST REAL ESTATE INC 002/002
Quest 'l.l .
yri, au Inc
� 9
$uuc 150
10700 Oka Couu6y Rw d 15 �
Plymuu114 MN 56441
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Kim Moore-Sykes
St Anthony City offices
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
�(eSide„tlaI Dear Kim:
I am requesting that consideration of our application for PUD
Amendment, scheduled for the January 11, 2005 City Council meeting
be removed from that agenda for consideration at a future meeting. This
will allow us time to gather additional information in order to properly
respond to questions regarding our proposal, which were raised by city
Land staff and the Planning Commission.
Please confirm your agreement with this request_
incerely,
Deve 1,orment
eters
President
SPeciaiists
1eh 763-595-9511
Fax:763-595-9512
. aioillae tho
January 12, 2005
Mr. Jim Waters, Pres.
Quest Development, Inc.
Suite 150
10700 Old County Road 15
Plymouth, MN 55441
Dear Mr. Waters:
This letter is being sent to advise you that the City Council approved your request for a
30-day extension to your PUD application at last night's City Council meeting.
Consideration of your PUD application has been rescheduled for the February 8, 2005
City Council meeting and you will need to be in attendance.
Also,the copying costs for the documents regarding Silver Lake Village PUD and plans
comes to $13.50. These copying costs include:
Recorded Silver Lake Village PUD 15 pages $ 3.75
Comp. Plan Zoning Map 1 page $ .25
DSU Sketch Plan 13 pages $ 3.25
DSU Concept Plan Layout 9 pages $ 2.25
Final Report/Findings E-Applications 16 pages $ 4.00
These costs will be deducted from the escrow that you established recently.
If you have any questions or require additional information,please feel free to contact me
at 612-782-3312.
Sincerely,
Kim Moore-Sykes
Assistant City Manager
cc: City Manager
City Finance Director
3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699•www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us •(612) 789-8881 •FAX(612) 781-9323
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village,which is safe and secure.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
5 January 18, 2005
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners Jenson,
17 Hoska, and Young.
18
19 Absent: Commissioners Jensen and Gray
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes.
22
23 Chair Stromgren noted that Commissioner Gray is not present as he is now a member of the St.
do Anthony City Council.
26 IV. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CHAIR
27
28 Commissioner Young nominated Commissioner Joel Stromgren as Chair.
29
30 The Commission agreed by consensus to approve the appointment of Commissioner Joel
31 Stromgren as Chair for the St. Anthony Planning Commission for the year 2005.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously
34
35 V. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
36
37 Chair Stromgren nominated Commissioner Todd Hanson as Vice Chair.
38
39 The Commission agreed by consensus to approve the appointment of Commissioner Todd
40 Hanson as Vice Chair for the St. Anthony Planning Commission for the year 2005.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously
43
44 VI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
45
Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Vice Chair Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda
qP as presented.
48
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 2
Motion carried unanimously
2
3 VII. MEETING MINUTES.
4 7.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of December 21, 2004.
5
6 The Commission had no corrections to the minutes.
7
8 Motion by Commissioner Young, second by Vice Chair Hanson, to approve the meeting minutes
9 of the Planning Commission of December 21, 2004 as presented.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously
12
13 VIII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
14 8.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the January 25, 2005 City Council
15 Meeting.
16
17 Chair Stromgren stated that he would attend the City Council Meeting on January 25, 2005.
18
19 IX. PUBLIC HEARING.
20
21 NONE
01 X. CONCEPT REVIEW
24 10.1 Sunset Memorial Park—Proposed Renovations
25
26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that since the last meeting with the Planning Commission the
27 Representatives from Sunset Memorial Park have met with Staff and a subcommittee of the
28 Planning Commission to review and discuss the revisions that are being proposed to the Sunset
29 Memorial Park project. She stated that Mr. Dan Tyson, an Attorney representing the Alderwoods
30 Group and Sunset Memorial Park is present to review the results of the Open House held last
31 Tuesday, January 11, 2005.
32
33 Mr. Tyson stated that he would be pleased to provide the Commission with an update on the
34 Open House held last Tuesday, January 11, 2005 noting that post meeting it was decided that it
35 would be best to postpone the Concept Review. He explained that the Planning Team want to
36 come back, fully prepared, with a sign proposal that would meet and address the concerns raised
37 by the Planning Commission and the Community. He further explained that they received
38 several comments from Residents, members of City Council and the Planning Commission
39 adding that the Alderwoods Planning Team is currently working to process all of the feedback
40 received at the Open House. He stated that they were also informed, last week that the City
41 Council has retained the services of an architectural specialist to review the building and they
42 would like to include the Specialists input before bringing their proposal for final plans before
the Commission. He stated that they spoke with the Architectural Preservationist earlier today to
16 determine what would be needed prior to reviewing the building. He assured the Planning
45 Commission that they are very open and willing to work with the Architectural Preservationist to
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 3
ensure that all concerns are addressed.
2
3 Mr. Tyson stated that the Open House went well noting that all of the people who attended were
4 very interested in the presentation, which included renderings of the current building as it looks
5 today, the new proposed structure, the park area, the bell tower and the mausoleum. He stated
6 that several invitations were sent to people who have relatives interned in the cemetery noting
7 that many came out of interest in what is happening in the Park area. He stated that the feedback
8 received was very positive adding that it has been given to the Planning Team for incorporation
9 into the plan. He stated that there were several discussions regarding the signage, parking, and
10 the possibilities of placing benches along the way for guests to use as a place for recollection
11 while visiting the park. He indicated that comments made regarding the historical nature of the
12 building are being reviewed and would also be included in their final report to the Commission.
13 He stated that their plan is to proceed within the timetable outlined by the City and plan to come
14 back with a responsible proposal for the Commission's review.
15
16 Commissioner Jensen referenced page nine, stating that the client has searched the National
17 Historic Register database for references noting that nothing has been found for this facility. Mr.
18 Tyson stated that the report referenced was prepared earlier this past fall and acknowledged that
19 no formal designations have been found. He stated that a survey of the Bell Tower and
20 Mausoleum were done by the City of Minneapolis adding that it did not include the building.
21
Commissioner Young asked if the City of Minneapolis' review included the overall landscape as
a whole unit. Mr. Theisen explained that they do not have the results of the final survey report.
24 He noted that the only things reported back included the application and a copy of the survey.
25
26 Commissioner Young stated that she is very pleased to see that they are willing to wait for the
27 results from the Architectural Preservationist's review of the property. She asked that the
28 pictures and drawings located in the basement of the building are made available for their review.
29 Mr. Tyson assured the Commission that they would make every about the building and area
30 available for review.
31
32 Commissioner Jensen noted that the plan shows they are wrapping building on three sides and
33 asked if the architectural team would consider a second floor. He explained that this could
34 possible address the shortage for square footage and circulation. Mr. Tyson stated that he would
35 discuss the suggestion with his clients noting that the packet provided outlines several options
36 and reviewed with the Commission.
37
38 Commissioner Jensen referenced Option B noting that most of the new construction is occurring
39 midpoint and at the back of the structure. He stated that if they are looking at saving square
40 footage they could consider this as an alternate sketch and option. Mr. Tyson stated that he
41 would discuss this with their architect and have them review.
42
40 XI. PUBLIC INPUT
45 NONE
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 4
2 XII. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
3
4 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes advised the Planning Commission that the City has
5 received a request for extension from Quest Development for the project at 4001 Stinson
6 Boulevard. He stated that they want to be better prepared with their presentation and would be
7 back on the agenda for the February 8, 2005 City Council meeting.
8
9 Chair Stromgren noted that the City's legal council determined that they could not legally attach
10 to the current PUD, as they do not fully own the property. He explained that they must have a
11 majority of control of the property or the ability to control the majority of the property and they
12 have neither. He stated that further discussion is necessary and that this would be back before the
13 City Council on February 8, 2005.
14
15 XIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
16
17 Vice Chair Hanson welcomed Commissioner Don Jensen to the Planning Commission and
18 congratulated Mr. Gray on his appointment to the City Council. He stated that he plans to attend
19 the City Retreat this Thursday at the Northland Inn noting that he also attended last year. He
20 stated that he is looking forward to the retreat and will report back to the Commission at their
21 February meeting.
IR Chair welcomed Mr. Jensen.
24 Commissioner Jensen referenced the existing zoning and text amendment for the cemetery and
25 its accessories and asked if it would be prudent to examine whether a 3-acre PUD is appropriate
26 as a standard for the City. He stated that as a Commission, in the future they would be reviewing
27 smaller developments and would probably not find too many logical options that would total 3
28 full acres. He explained that the numbers were determined 10 to 15 years ago and are no longer
29 relevant. He stated that this speaks to a bigger issue and seriously doubts that the Commission
30 would see a 3-acre minimum.
31
32 Chair Stromgren agreed noting that a cursory review was done with some of the neighboring
33 cities noting that Minneapolis is a 2-acre minimum.
34
35 Commissioner Jensen referenced the disconnect between the legal description of property and
36 Comprehensive Plan and suggested canvassing other communities. Chair Stromgren suggested
37 Hopkins and Golden Valley noting that both Cities have recently seen considerable
38 redevelopment.
39
40 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that at the time the current PUD standards were outlined the idea was
41 initially five acres and the Planning Commission had suggested three acres to better
42 accommodate the smaller development projects. She stated that if Quest does move forward
with the PUD request the Engineering department would have to review the sewer and storm
16 drainage system due to the higher density. She noted that the City is being more cautious due to
45 the infrastructure and the impact it could have on it.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 5
2 Commissioner Jensen asked if there were earlier discussions regarding what the vacant lot could
3 yield. Ms. Moore-Sykes briefly reviewed the request with the Commission adding that she
4 would provide Commissioner Jensen with copies of the earlier handouts for his review.
5
6 Commissioner Young welcomed Commissioner Don Jensen and congratulated Chair Stromgren
7 and Vice Chair Hansen on their appointments. She thanked them for their time and service to the
8 Planning Commission.
9
10 Commissioner Hoska welcomed Commissioner Don Jensen and congratulated Chair Stromgren
11 and Vice Chair Hanson on their appointments. He thanked them for their time and service on the
12 Planning Commission.
13
14 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that they would be working to fill the second vacancy on the Planning
15 Commission. She stated that it is her hope to have candidates identified for Council
16 consideration at the February 8, 2005 meeting and appoint a Commissioner in time for the
17 February Planning Commission meeting.
18
19 Commissioner Young asked if there has been any contact with the Hess/Roise offices. Ms.
20 Moore-Sykes stated that she spoke with Ms Roise earlier this afternoon adding that the plan is to
21 schedule a visit to the cemetery sometime next week.
01 Commissioner Hoska asked for an update on the Grill &Pub Bar. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that
24 things are still in the works and does not have anything new at this time. She stated that H &R
25 Block would not be moving into this location and that the proprietor feels the space is large
26 enough for the sports bar.
27
28 Commissioner Hanson asked if any feedback has been received from Amcon. Ms. Moore-Sykes
29 stated that the correspondence received last week states that Amcon is continuing to work
30 towards meeting the deadlines.
31
32 IV. ADJOURNMENT
33
34 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Hoska, to adjourn the meeting at
35 7:40 p.m.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 Respectfully submitted,
40 Bonnie Sullivan
41 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
0
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 January 18, 2005
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER.
10 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Stromgren; Vice Chair Hanson; Commissioners Jenson,
17 Hoska, and Young.
18
19 Absent: Commissioners Jensen and Gray
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes.
22
23 Chair Stromgren noted that Commissioner Gray is not present as he is now a member of the St.
24 Anthony City Council.
25
26 IV. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF CHAIR
27
28 Commissioner Young nominated Commissioner Joel Stromgren as Chair.
29
30 The Commission agreed by consensus to approve the appointment of Commissioner Joel
31 Stromgren as Chair for the St. Anthony Planning Commission for the year 2005.
32
33 Motion carried unanimously
34
35 V. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
36
37 Chair Stromgren nominated Commissioner Todd Hanson as Vice Chair.
38
39 The Commission agreed by consensus to approve the appointment of Commissioner Todd
40 Hanson as Vice Chair for the St. Anthony Planning Commission for the year 2005.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously
43
44 VI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
45
46 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Vice Chair Hanson, to approve the meeting agenda
47 as presented.
48
: 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 2
1 Motion carried unanimously
2
3 VII. MEETING MINUTES.
4 7.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of December 21, 2004.
5
6 The Commission had no corrections to the minutes.
7
8 Motion by Commissioner Young, second by Vice Chair Hanson,to approve the meeting minutes
9 of the Planning Commission of December 21, 2004 as presented.
10
11 Motion carried unanimously
12
13 VIII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
14 8.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the January 25 2005 City Council
15 Meeting.
16
17 Chair Stromgren stated that he would attend the City Council Meeting on January 25, 2005.
18
19 IX. PUBLIC HEARING.
20
21 NONE
22
23 X. CONCEPT REVIEW
24 10.1 _Sunset Memorial Park—Proposed Renovations
25
26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that since the last meeting with the Planning Commission the
27 Representatives from Sunset Memorial Park have met with Staff and a subcommittee of the
28 Planning Commission to review and discuss the revisions that are being proposed to the Sunset
29 Memorial Park project. She stated that Mr. Dan Tyson, an Attorney representing the Alderwoods
30 Group and Sunset Memorial Park is present to review the results of the Open House held last
31 Tuesday, January 11, 2005.
32
33 Mr. Tyson stated that he would be pleased to provide the Commission with an update on the
34 Open House held last Tuesday, January 11, 2005 noting that post meeting it was decided that it
35 would be best to postpone the Concept Review. He explained that the Planning Team want to
36 come back, fully prepared, with a sign proposal that would meet and address the concerns raised
37 by the Planning Commission and the Community. He further explained that they received
38 several comments from Residents,members of City Council and the Planning Commission
39 adding that the Alderwoods Planning Team is currently working to process all of the feedback
40 received at the Open House. He stated that they were also informed, last week that the City
41 Council has retained the services of an architectural specialist to review the building and they
42 would like to include the Specialists input before bringing their proposal for fmal plans before
43 the Commission. He stated that they spoke with the Architectural Preservationist earlier today to
44 determine what would be needed prior to reviewing the building. He assured the Planning
45 Commission that they are very open and willing to work with the Architectural Preservationist to
P
i
I
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 3
1 ensure that all concerns are addressed.
2
3 Mr. Tyson stated that the Open House went well noting that all of the people who attended were
4 very interested in the presentation, which included renderings of the current building as it looks
5 today, the new proposed structure, the park area, the bell tower and the mausoleum. He stated
6 that several invitations were sent to people who have relatives interned in the cemetery noting
7 that many came out of interest in what is happening in the Park area. He stated that the feedback
8 received was very positive adding that it has been given to the Planning Team for incorporation
9 into the plan. He stated that there were several discussions regarding the signage,parking, and
10 the possibilities of placing benches along the way for guests to use as a place for recollection
11 while visiting the park. He indicated that comments made regarding the historical nature of the
12 building are being reviewed and would also be included in their final report to the Commission.
13 He stated that their plan is to proceed within the timetable outlined by the City and plan to come
14 back with a responsible proposal for the Commission's review.
15
16 Commissioner Jensen referenced page nine, stating that the client has searched the National
17 Historic Register database for references noting that nothing has been found for this facility. Mr.
18 Tyson stated that the report referenced was prepared earlier this past fall and acknowledged that
19 no formal designations have been found. He stated that a survey of the Bell Tower and
20 Mausoleum were done by the City of Minneapolis adding that it did not include the building.
21
22 Commissioner Young asked if the City of Minneapolis' review included the overall landscape as
23 a whole unit. Mr. Theisen explained that they do not have the results of the final survey report.
24 He noted that the only things reported back included the application and a copy of the survey.
25
26 Commissioner Young stated that she is very pleased to see that they are willing to wait for the
27 results from the Architectural Preservationist's review of the property. She asked that the
28 pictures and drawings located in the basement of the building are made available for their review.
29 Mr. Tyson assured the Commission that they would make every about the building and area
30 available for review.
31
32 Commissioner Jensen noted that the plan shows they are wrapping building on three sides and
33 asked if the architectural team would consider a second floor. He explained that this could
34 possible address the shortage for square footage and circulation. Mr. Tyson stated that he would
35 discuss the suggestion with his clients noting that the packet provided outlines several options
36 and reviewed with the Commission.
37
38 Commissioner Jensen referenced Option B noting that most of the new construction is occurring
39 midpoint and at the back of the structure. He stated that if they are looking at saving square
40 footage they could consider this as an alternate sketch and option. Mr. Tyson stated that he
41 would discuss this with their architect and have them review.
42
43 XI. PUBLIC INPUT
44
45 NONE
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 4
1
2 XII. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
3
4 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes advised the Planning Commission that the City has
5 received a request for extension from Quest Development for the project at 4001 Stinson
6 Boulevard. He stated that they want to be better prepared with their presentation and would be
7 back on the agenda for the February 8, 2005 City Council meeting.
8
9 Chair Stromgren noted that the City's legal council determined that they could not legally attach
10 to the current PUD, as they do not fully own the property. He explained that they must have a
11 majority of control of the property or the ability to control the majority of the property and they
12 have neither. He stated that further discussion is necessary and that this would be back before the
13 City Council on February 8, 2005.
14
15 XIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
16
17 Vice Chair Hanson welcomed Commissioner Don Jensen to the Planning Commission and
18 congratulated Mr. Gray on his appointment to the City Council. He stated that he plans to attend
19 the City Retreat this Thursday at the Northland Inn noting that he also attended last year. He
20 stated that he is looking forward to the retreat and will report back to the Commission at their
21 February meeting.
22 Chair welcomed Mr. Jensen.
23
24 Commissioner Jensen referenced the existing zoning and text amendment for the cemetery and
25 its accessories and asked if it would be prudent to examine whether a 3-acre PUD is appropriate
26 as a standard for the City. He stated that as a Commission, in the future they would be reviewing
27 smaller developments and would probably not find too many logical options that would total 3
28 full acres. He explained that the numbers were determined 10 to 15 years ago and are no longer
29 relevant. He stated that this speaks to a bigger issue and seriously doubts that the Commission
30 would see a 3-acre minimum.
31
32 Chair Stromgren agreed noting that a cursory review was done with some of the neighboring
33 cities noting that Minneapolis is a 2-acre minimum.
34
35 Commissioner Jensen referenced the disconnect between the legal description of property and
36 Comprehensive Plan and suggested canvassing other communities. Chair Stromgren suggested
37 Hopkins and Golden Valley noting that both Cities have recently seen considerable
38 redevelopment.
39
40 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that at the time the current PUD standards were outlined the idea was
41 initially five acres and the Planning Commission had suggested three acres to better
42 accommodate the smaller development projects. She stated that if Quest does move forward
43 with the PUD request the Engineering department would have to review the sewer and storm
44 drainage system due to the higher density. She noted that the City is being more cautious due to
45 the infrastructure and the impact it could have on it.
r
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
January 18, 2005
Page 5
1
2 Commissioner Jensen asked if there were earlier discussions regarding what the vacant lot could
3 yield. Ms. Moore-Sykes briefly reviewed the request with the Commission adding that she
4 would provide Commissioner Jensen with copies of the earlier handouts for his review.
5
6 Commissioner Young welcomed Commissioner Don Jensen and congratulated Chair Stromgren
7 and Vice Chair Hansen on their appointments. She thanked them for their time and service to the
8 Planning Commission.
9
10 Commissioner Hoska welcomed Commissioner Don Jensen and congratulated Chair Stromgren
11 and Vice Chair Hanson on their appointments. He thanked them for their time and service on the
12 Planning Commission.
13
14 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that they would be working to fill the second vacancy on the Planning
15 Commission. She stated that it is her hope to have candidates identified for Council
16 consideration at the February 8, 2005 meeting and appoint a Commissioner in time for the
17 February Planning Commission meeting.
18
19 Commissioner Young asked if there has been any contact with the Hess/Roise offices. Ms.
20 Moore-Sykes stated that she spoke with Ms Roise earlier this afternoon adding that the plan is to
21 schedule a visit to the cemetery sometime next week.
22
23 Commissioner Hoska asked for an update on the Grill &Pub Bar. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that
24 things are still in the works and does not have anything new at this time. She stated that H&R
25 Block would not be moving into this location and that the proprietor feels the space is large
26 enough for the sports bar.
27
28 Commissioner Hanson asked if any feedback has been received from Amcon. Ms. Moore-Sykes
29 stated that the correspondence received last week states that Amcon is continuing to work
30 towards meeting the deadlines.
31
32 IV. ADJOURNMENT
33
34 Motion by Commissioner Jensen, second by Commissioner Hoska, to adjourn the meeting at
35 7:40 p.m.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 Respectfully submitted,
40 Bonnie Sullivan
41 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.