HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 09152020
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or
email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
The meeting can be viewed live via cable channel 16 in the North Suburbs or the web broadcast at
https://webstreaming.ctv15.org/regionview.php?regionid=64. Due to health concerns and limited seating,
we encourage use of virtual option by using this link
https://www.savmn.com/admin/calendar.aspx?EID=997&CID=14
There is also a dial-in option available. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so
in person.
For those not in attendance, If you wish to submit a comment or question, electronically submit your
comments at https://www.savmn.com/FormCenter/Public-Comments-for-City-Meetings-conduc-20/Public-
Comments-for-Planning-Commission--95 no later than 5:30 pm on the day of the Planning Commission
meeting.
Following guidance from state health officials, some commissioners may choose to participate in upcoming
meetings electronically pursuant to MN Stat. §13D.021.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and possible action on all of the following items:
I. Approval of the September 15, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda. (action requested)
II. Approval of the August 18, 2020 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.
(action requested)
III. Public Hearing.
A. Consider a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Dynamic Display Electronic Sign at
the property located at 2827 Anthony Lane.
IV. Staff Reports.
V. Other Business.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 PM
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City Clerk at 612-782-3313 or
email city@savmn.com. People who are deaf or hard of hearing can contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
VI. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business item not included on the
regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the
form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk’s record, and limit their remarks to
five minutes. Generally, the Planning Commission will not take official action on items discussed at
this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be
scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
VII. Information and Announcements.
VIII. Adjournment.
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2
3
DATE AUGUST 18, 2020 4
7:00 p.m. 5
6
CALL TO ORDER. 7
8
Chairperson Westrick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 9
10
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 11
12
Chairperson Westrick invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of 13
Allegiance. 14
15
ROLL CALL. 16
17
Commissioners Present: Chair Westrick, Commissioners Socha, Neumann, Payne, Rude, 18
Erickson, and Morita. 19
20
Absent: None 21
22
Also Present: Student Liaison Bethlehem Beyene and City Planner Stephen 23
Grittman 24
25
I. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 18, 2020, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26
AGENDA. 27
28
Commissioner Neumann indicated nowhere was it noted that she was unable to participate 29
verbally because she was muted by the host on the other end. She requested the document 30
reflect that as well. Commissioner Payne asked if the comment from Commissioner 31
Neumann was related to this agenda approval or the minutes from the April 21, 2020 meeting. 32
Chair Westrick thought that was a good point and should be reflected in the Approval of 33
Minutes rather than the Approval of the Agenda. 34
35
Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to approve the August 36
18, 2020, Planning Commission agenda. 37
38
Motion passed 6-1 (Neumann abstained). 39
40
Commissioner Neumann indicated she was abstaining because she was not able to speak. 41
Chair Westrick indicated this was voting for the Agenda. Commissioner Neumann 42
indicated she was abstaining for the above reason. 43
44
II. APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 21, 2020, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION 45
MEETING MINUTES. 46
47
Chair Westrick asked that the record of the minutes reflect that Commissioner Neumann was 48
unable to participate due to being muted. Commissioner Neumann indicated that was correct. 49
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 2
1
Motion by Commissioner Rude, seconded by Commissioner Payne, to approve the April 21, 2
2020, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. 3
4
Motion carried 7-0. 5
6
III. PUBLIC HEARING. 7
8
A. Consider a request for an Amendment to the Silver Lake Village Planned Unit 9
Development (PUD) at 3725 Stinson Blvd. 10
11
Chair Westrick reviewed how the public hearing will proceed this evening. This item will 12
come before Council on September 8, 2020. Chair Westrick indicated she could attend the 13
Council meeting for presentation of this item. 14
15
Chairperson Westrick opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. 16
17
City Planner Grittman reviewed the request for an amendment to the Silver Lake Village 18
Planned Unit Development at 3725 Stinson Blvd. 19
20
Commissioner Neumann asked what the actual demographic was going to be for this 21
“affordable housing” building that is going up. Mr. Grittman indicated he would let the 22
applicant address this question. He indicated the application packet suggested it would be a 23
general market tenant base with rents affordable to sixty percent of area median income. 24
25
Commissioner Neumann indicated the Comprehensive Plan was mentioned in the presentation 26
and she was actually part of the Planning Commission at the time this was being submitted 27
and part of the public comment, heavily so, from two of the bigger community organizations 28
in the City, and as far as constituents have commented about what equity looks like in the 29
Village and who needs to be also looked at from an equitable lens in order to reach equality. 30
She indicated everyone knows there are some pretty large racial disparities in St. Anthony 31
Village. What she has witnessed in these three years, and is glad the Mayor is actually in 32
attendance with it looks like the Superintendent of the schools Cornear, these places coming, 33
for example, Apache being one of the developers, is someone that had been through the 34
Village before and she had mentioned that this was super rushed, if looking back at meeting 35
minutes, there was not a lot of transparency as far as who these people were and how are we 36
ending programs that are affecting the individuals that the City is supposed to be actually 37
looking at through an equitable lens for. The demographic for this particular building, it is 38
sort of like, how are the developers building places that the people who live around cannot 39
afford. The people that live in Equinox cannot afford a one bedroom for $1,400 with three 40
children. There has been talk about how in this community a lot of families of color, 41
especially a lot of poorer families, let us talk about the disparities and remove the racial piece 42
of it and just talk about the economic disparities at face value. This seems to affect a lot more 43
the families of color and after being here and the family grows, there is not a lot three-44
bedroom apartments, for example, to accommodate families that did grow. Let us forget 45
about income or inflation. She is really having a problem understanding where the voice of 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 3
the people in the community, that are the majority, as far as the family, the people who want 1
to stay here. The new Mosque came in and is a whole new demographic. She is not seeing 2
any of that represented here in the proposed policies. She was seeing a lot of “this needs to be 3
two inches”, etc. She wondered how “we” are being represented in this. 4
5
Chair Westrick thanked Commissioner Neumann and indicated those are good points and the 6
Commission can discuss those with the City Planner and developer after the public hearing is 7
closed. She asked if there was any clarifying questions for Mr. Grittman on his presentation. 8
9
Commissioner Rude indicated Mr. Grittman mentioned there was a study that mentioned .9 10
parking spaces per bedroom, and he wondered if that was in facilities with primarily one 11
bedroom or was that where there were two or three bedrooms. Mr. Grittman explained he did 12
not have the research in front of him but to his recollection the median bedroom size count in 13
the studies that were done supporting that number was 1.3 bedrooms per unit. 14
15
Chair Westrick asked if the representative or developer was at the meeting. 16
17
Mr. Mike Holst, lead developer, addressed the Commission on who Interstate Development is 18
and presented the proposed plan. 19
20
Commissioner Morita asked if there have been any adjustments made to the plan since the 21
working session. Mr. Holst indicated there have only been further refinements of the 22
landscape plan and the exterior but those were minor refinements. 23
24
Chair Westrick asked if there was any public comment. 25
26
There were no comments from the public. 27
28
Chair Westrick inquired if any written comment was received by staff. Mr. Grittman 29
indicated he has not seen any. 30
31
Chairperson Westrick closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. 32
33
Commissioner Neumann indicated one of the things as a person of color, as a black or non-34
black identified person of color in this community that also pays taxes, is a constituent and 35
cares about what goes on in the City and wants to make sure that it also benefits her and those 36
that look like her and those who represent her, etc. She wondered how Mr. Holst went about 37
taking into consideration for example, the racial inequalities or disparities that are in St. 38
Anthony Village. She thought everyone was aware of the 2016 confrontation where St. 39
Anthony Police Department ended up killing Philando Castille and also aware of the Federal 40
racial lawsuit with the Mosque in the City and also what is going on with the Lowry Grove. 41
She indicated all of those things that have impacted the residents in the community, people 42
have come out in an outpouring of emotions saying this is what we need, etc., she wondered if 43
or how the developer took into consideration that piece, the human aspect versus how many 44
parking space and light fixtures and how residents will be living. She asked where the people 45
of color are represented in there. 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 4
Mr. Holst explained that is not an easy question to answer. Obviously, it is a very important 1
question in todays time of what is being dealt with. He indicated there are tremendous issues 2
with racial inequalities throughout the Country. He thought most people are trying to do their 3
part. He thought what they are focused in on here is trying to make their housing affordable. 4
To get projects that have tax credits, there is a backlog of that and is not easy to do, and 5
certainly there is a need for affordable housing that in a demographic that this project is not 6
addressing. He noted there are also people that are doing their careers and just starting out 7
that his company is trying to build a product that they can afford and be proud of. Most 8
people making twenty an hour will not be able to look towards new developments typically. 9
He stated they want to take them out of the development next door that is 1960’s built and 10
have not been renovated which are still over $900 a month. They are trying to have a product 11
that people can be proud of which includes all races. He stated his company’s goal was to be 12
as affordable as can be for most of the population. 13
14
Commissioner Neumann thought Mr. Holst answered the first part of her question but the 15
other piece where his company’s focus is coupling up with the Unofficial. She asked if she 16
heard right that his company wants to work with them in the future on something that will 17
benefit both of you being that you are neighbors on that property. Mr. Holst indicated that 18
was correct, but his company did not have an ownership interest in the operation of the 19
Unofficial, but his company does own the real estate, the building and the land and the 20
Unofficial rents from his company. Clearly, in support of any kind of relationship like that, is 21
a partnership and his company wants the Unofficial to be successful and the way they can 22
partner together at the apartment or working with the Unofficial and both want the other to 23
succeed. He noted they certainly will be working together. 24
25
Commissioner Neumann thanked Mr. Holst for clarifying that and indicated that was the piece 26
she was looking for. She understood the working relationship and did not understand how 27
that will work moving forward but she did not think it was awful. She thanked Mr. Holst for 28
answering the questions as earnestly as he could because she indicated she can tell when she 29
is being lied to and appreciated his answering as earnestly as he can. 30
31
Commissioner Neumann indicated the last piece she wanted to ask about is with this alcohol 32
coupling. She did not know if there is a way for Mr. Holst’s company to talk with the City 33
leadership about how, because her concern is, especially with the pandemic and the economic 34
pandemic as well along with the racial pandemic going on that there are a lot of community in 35
the Village who do not have a lot of the resources that bigger cities have. She explained in 36
this community there is hidden poverty so there are families living together, sharing things 37
and no one is actually talking about those things and there is actually homelessness in St. 38
Anthony Village and when she sits in this position on the Planning Commission, and she is 39
supposed to serve the community as a whole, she wants to make sure that she is also 40
highlighting the people that they are not talking about. 41
42
Commissioner Morita asked staff for clarification on the two properties. He wondered if the 43
City proceeds to grant these adjustments for this property, if something should happen and the 44
Unofficial should close and they do decide to expand to the adjacent property, they will still 45
have to go through the same approval process. Mr. Grittman indicated that was correct. This 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 5
is just for the initial building only. Commissioner Morita indicated his concern would be if 1
this development is using the Unofficial property for additional parking, overflow parking as 2
needed and then they decide to build upon the adjacent property then how would the parking 3
needs be addressed and would that be compensated for. 4
5
Commissioner Erickson asked for clarification on the affordable housing nature of the project. 6
It sounds like this will be entirely affordable housing, in terms of the market being targeted, 7
which is great, but will this project require any sort of income tax credits or tax increment 8
financing. Mr. Holst indicated he was always hesitant to use the word affordable, he thought 9
he said this is affordable by design, this will be market rate but their demographic targeted is 10
the sixty to eighty percent of AMI. He stated his company will not be getting any sort of tax 11
credits from the State or any other agency. A lot of what they have been trying to do is hon in 12
on this and unfortunately there is a ton of things going on that is working against them right 13
now. He was hoping to come in without asking for Tax Increment Financing. There is just a 14
small amount that is remaining in this PUD, but every little bit helps here. What his company 15
will be asking for is some Tax Increment Financing to help make this project feasible and to 16
keep the rents low. 17
18
Commissioner Erickson asked if there will be an income restriction, could someone rent at 19
this development who makes one hundred percent of the area median income. Mr. Holst 20
indicated that was correct and there will not be any sort of income criteria but in reality if 21
someone is making that much that person is going to want a project that has the amenities 22
typically that have covered parking but there will not be any requirement of verifying income. 23
24
Commissioner Erickson stated regarding the permeability ratio and the uniqueness of the 25
drainage situation in St. Anthony, a lot of the soil is clay based so runoff and flooding issues 26
are a little more prevalent than other areas. He asked given the uniqueness of the construction 27
product used on this building, are there any concerns with the seventy-six percent coverage 28
ratio to negative consequences on the structure. Mr. Holst addressed the modular aspect of 29
the building and indicated this will not be low quality construction. Everything is built in a 30
factory and much more precise, these modules will be delivered, and the construction 31
technique will be comparable, although the walls will be straighter with this type of 32
construction. In terms of the soil, they had Geotech performed already and need to remove 33
four feet of the top and replace it with better fill and should be good to go. The type of 34
construction is of no concern. 35
36
Commissioner Rude indicated his reading of the plans there is some sort of a drywell going in 37
under the parking lot to the south of the building and he wondered if that was part of the 38
drainage plan. Mr. Holst indicated that is something they are trying to define. There is no 39
engineering yet on that drywell. What they need to confirm is whether the existing 40
infrastructure is sufficient to handle the runoff or if onsite mitigation needs to be done. 41
42
Commissioner Rude asked Mr. Grittman if that is something the City is interested in. Mr. 43
Grittman stated he cannot speak for the engineer but some of the infiltration basins or holding 44
basins have become more common as sites are more intensely developed. He explained he 45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 6
was not aware of any objections from the engineer to the concept of it. He thought it became 1
more of a technical aspect. 2
3
Commissioner Rude asked if there were any housing projects done elsewhere that is similar to 4
this one. Mr. Holst noted he has been in the multi-family business for twenty plus years. 5
Most of his work has been with Westcoast developer and he has teamed up with Interstate 6
over the last year, looking at both existing investment opportunities as well as development. 7
Most of their development opportunities they are looking at are a lot of buying project like 8
Equinox and then renovating those and increasing the rents. What he has found in his years of 9
doing that is they are taking a lot of horrible housing stock away from individuals and their 10
preference and collective goal is to try to find a solution to the challenges they have on the 11
horrible housing side. That is where they started putting together this modular type of 12
housing concept plan. This will be their first prototype project done here. 13
14
Commissioner Socha thanked Mr. Holst for making affordable housing. She indicated she did 15
have some concerns regarding the parking. It is being described as tight and preferable there 16
would be more. It seems like the Unofficial is being counted on to have overflow parking, as 17
necessary. She asked if there will be a curb between the Unofficial lot and the new 18
development or will it be free flowing and has it been considered to do an easement 19
agreement with that property for overflow parking in case the partnership dissolves. Mr. 20
Holst explained parking is probably one of the most important things a real estate owner needs 21
to be mindful of and certainly they would not be building a project if they felt there would 22
possibly be problems there. Units cannot be leased if there is not any parking available. He 23
believed one parking space per bedroom is the right amount. Their plan is to manage the 24
parking between the two properties and if there is demand that cannot be satisfied then they 25
will figure out an appropriate agreement with the Unofficial lot. They will make sure an 26
appropriate agreement is in place. 27
28
Commissioner Payne stated one of the concerns he raised at the last meeting is that this is 29
seeking a lot of flexibility on several different issues and also it looks like this development 30
will be looking for Tax Increment Financing. He wondered what Interstate’s track record was 31
on maintaining affordability. Mr. Holst indicated this is a market rate project and their goal is 32
to find the sweet spot where they think there is demand. What they are designing is going to 33
be limiting it in what rent they can actually charge the residents who will be willing to pay it. 34
35
Chair Westrick indicated typically twenty-five to fifty percent increase to impervious surface 36
is a precedent that they do not want to set in the City. She asked when the City’s impervious 37
at fifty percent for the R4 District come into place. Mr. Grittman indicated he did not know 38
when it was adopted. 39
40
Commissioner Rude stated his preference would be, as a condition to approve this, would be 41
to require the easement to up the parking amount. If affordability were to be discussed he 42
would be open to discussing much greater differences in variances and making this 43
development higher density with more affordability. 44
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 7
Commissioner Socha indicated she was also going to suggest there be an easement 1
requirement as a condition for the back-row parking. She also wondered if this would be 2
economically feasible to get an easement for the back row or would it make the project no 3
longer feasible. Mr. Holst explained the real concern they would have with any sort of 4
requirement on the easement is that the other project is also zoned multi-family. They hope 5
the Unofficial survives and thrives and they certainly have no plans to redevelop that site, but 6
he was concerned with any sort of easement language and the development potential of that 7
site. His preference would be to not have any sort of requirement. 8
9
Commissioner Neumann did not know why at this point the Commission wants to add 10
requirements, the Commission is just giving its recommendations and at the end of the day the 11
Mayor and City Council are going to do what they want to do and it does not matter what the 12
Commission really recommends. When the Commission gets into this minutia and start 13
acting like they are the architect and contractor and also the lawyer, it really takes up time and 14
she gets irked. She is speaking because obviously they have a relationship with an entity that 15
is already here in the City, that the powers to be, prior to the Commissioners, thought was a 16
good idea and that right now with the triple pandemic is not doing too well. This is obviously, 17
from what she has heard, is a new project type that the developer is trying out because they 18
like their tenants and want to succeed. 19
20
Commissioner Socha stated although she does have concerns with the parking being tight she 21
understood the concerns about making the easement formal at this stage and based on those 22
concerns and that it could tie up development of the other property and also make it more 23
expensive to proceed, she is not supportive of requiring an easement as a condition at this 24
point but rather trusting their reasonable assurances that it will all work out. 25
26
Motion by Commissioner Socha to recommend that the City Council approve an amendment 27
to the Silver Lake Village Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 3725 Stinson Blvd., with the 28
conditions as detailed in the staff report. 29
30
Motion failed due to lack of a second. 31
32
Commissioner Neumann thought that the Commissioners were not satisfied with whatever it 33
is. She thought people had different perspectives on this. She is more than happy to re-34
examine it if people are going to say they want certain allowances. She really needs an 35
allowance in there, some kind of collaboration with the community. She did not know if it is 36
going to be with one of the youth programs here so that the whole aspect of how this is a more 37
equitable community here in St. Anthony Village can also be reflected in these new 38
developments that come in but are not really here to necessarily serve that piece of the 39
community but that are also welcome. In this case it has a relationship with the already 40
existing business. 41
42
Commissioner Socha asked what were the concerns of the other Commissioners that did not 43
second the motion. 44
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 8
Commissioner Rude firmly believed that the City has far too many places to make money and 1
only places to live. This is one of the last few commercial spots and in order to convert it 2
from a commercial space where people can make money in order to afford the housing the 3
City is turning it into more housing. If you look at the map of the City it is just all people and 4
no way to make money with no reason to live in the City if there are no jobs nearby. He 5
indicated it has to be a pretty special project for him to jump on it. 6
7
Commissioner Morita explained from his perspective, the reason why he was hesitant to 8
second the motion is because there was a work session where the Commission met with the 9
team and the Commissioners all voiced concerns and he thought Commissioner Payne and 10
himself stated the developer was asking a lot. He was not seeing a lot of what the City would 11
be getting out of the development and now hearing that it is market rate with no guarantee on 12
the affordability and they have seen no changes from the last time it was proposed. He was 13
hoping to see some kind of effort to make change from the last time discussed. He thought 14
the plan was reasonable but was hesitant to be the one to second the motion because he did 15
not see any effort in changing what was presented the first time. 16
17
Commissioner Erickson seconded what Commissioner Morita was saying and that the 18
applicant is asking the City for a great deal of flexibility and the plan really has not changed 19
since the last time. He thought this was a viable plan but there has been no give what-so-ever. 20
The parking issue would be one thing that could remedy something and give something on 21
their part. 22
23
Commissioner Payne concurred with the other Commissioners. He thought this was a good 24
project but not what the City needs in conjunction with all of the flexibility the City is being 25
asked to provide. 26
27
Commissioner Socha indicated this is her third year on the Commission and she was involved 28
in a PUD with Doran Properties and a PUD for Lowry Grove that did not end up going 29
forward and both of those projects were asking for a tremendous amount of flexibility as well. 30
It seems to be the nature of the beast when asking for a PUD to make a project happen, in that 31
there has to be flexibility. The amount of flexibility this project is asking for does not strike 32
her as crazy, based on the other two that she has been involved with. 33
34
Commissioner Morita asked Mr. Grittman from his perspective, was he over-reacting and 35
being unrealistic. Mr. Grittman indicated he would not comment on realistic or unrealistic, 36
but he thought it would be helpful if a couple of Commissioners mentioned that the proposal 37
had not changed substantially since the concept discussion. He thought it would be helpful to 38
mention how it might have changed in the Commission’s view which would make the project 39
more palatable to them. As the Commission originally talked about this at the concept level, 40
the applicant is asking for flexibility here on a number of items. The primary benefit that staff 41
looks at in trading off in a PUD is meeting or at least leading to meeting the City’s 42
comprehensive plan goals for greater affordability. He understood there were a couple of 43
comments about concern over ensuring that the affordability aspect is actually maintained 44
here. If there are other aspects of the project that would persuade the Commission to think 45
differently or more positively, that would be important to know, or if it is just straight 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 9
concerns of the assurance of affordability or concerns about assurances over the parking 1
supply. 2
3
Commissioner Morita thought from his perspective, it was assurance of affordability as the 4
key factor for him, but he would have taken into consideration effort over any one of those 5
issues that was brought up. 6
7
Commissioner Erickson agreed with Commissioner Rude that parking did seem to be the big 8
issue, aside from affordability. He thought parking was a huge concern in terms of future 9
marketability of this site. He thought one thing the Commission failed to consider was the 10
assumption that the residents would be mass transit and since the pandemic started he read 11
that mass transit use has gone down eighty to ninety percent. Once the pandemic ends maybe 12
mass transit levels will go to the pre-pandemic levels, but they do not know that. Maybe there 13
will be this new paradigm where mass transit is not used to the degree it was before the 14
pandemic so that would kind of negate the studies that were done. He felt that parking was 15
the biggest concern he had that could be remedied. 16
17
Commissioner Neumann stated she did not think they were thinking about the environment 18
with the 1.2 parking spots and pollution. There is the aspect of reducing the number of 19
vehicles per household to consider since they also want to be a more livable Village and not 20
just encouraging public transport but also encouraging biking. She thought that a lot of 21
concerns people share as far as there being no changes since the work session, the applicant 22
focused on the feedback given. She was there but was unable to speak because she was muted 23
but this is the feedback the Commission gave to the applicant. The applicant came back with 24
a more streamlined project, but it is the same thing. She did not hear anything about racial 25
equity, but she is not crying about it. She did not know what else the Commission is 26
expecting. 27
28
Mr. Holst explained regarding the work session, they absolutely looked at everything. What 29
they are trying to do here is extremely bad on the financial side. Certainly with the pandemic 30
and everything that has been happening, the terrorists in place, price of lumber, everything is 31
working against them right now. Even if this is reduced by one unit, it kills the deal. He 32
stated they absolutely looked at everything. He noted they cannot add more parking. He 33
would like to try to enclose parking but if they went with enclosed parking on that side they 34
would lose a stall or two so there is a lot of things that were evaluated, based on the feedback 35
and comments at the work session. He stated this site has been vacant since 2006 and has 36
already been zoned and many developers have looked at this site and passed it by because it is 37
really hard to make a .85-acre site work. It is extremely hard to do and what they are trying to 38
do is find a creative solution here. 39
40
Commissioner Neumann indicated this would be a no for her because it does not deal with 41
racial equity. 42
43
Commissioner Erickson asked if it was too late to second the motion. Chair Westrick thought 44
it was but was not sure. 45
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 10
Motion by Commissioner Socha, seconded by Commissioner Erickson, to recommend that the 1
City Council approve an amendment to the Silver Lake Village Planned Unit Development 2
(PUD) at 3725 Stinson Blvd., with the conditions as detailed in the staff report. 3
4
Motion failed 2-2 (Rude, Payne opposed) – 3 (Morita, Neumann and Westrick 5
abstained). 6
7
Mr. Grittman indicated the failure of the motion leaves the Chair with two options, it can be 8
sent forward to the Council with the split recommendation, basically a negative 9
recommendation or a Commissioner could render another motion if someone desires to. 10
11
Chair Westrick asked if another Commissioner wanted to propose a motion. 12
13
Commissioner Neumann thought this seemed pretty straight forward in the impassioned 14
presentation and plea from the enterprise and representative. She did not know what the 15
Commission is continuing to discuss. 16
17
Chair Westrick indicated the Commission either needs to move forward with the 18
recommendation as it stands to the City Council and they can decide because the Commission 19
is recommending or if someone has a different motion for the Commission to take. 20
21
Commissioner Neumann thought the Commission should move forward with what it has. Chair 22
Westrick indicated she did not disagree with that and unless she hears another motion this will 23
move forward to the City Council. 24
25
Chair Westrick thanked Mr. Holts for coming to the meeting and thought the project had a lot 26
of potential and exciting things along with a lot of tradeoffs. 27
28
29
IV. STAFF REPORTS. 30
31
Commissioner Neumann indicated she met with the Mayor and City Staff last week and 32
discussed defunding the police in order to invest in community programs in St. Anthony. 33
That was attended by a representative from St. Anthony SACA and SAVEC and some 34
community members of color, including Mosque representatives. It was a really fruitful 35
conversation and were able to get the Mayor’s stance on defunding police. She believed they 36
pay about ninety thousand dollars per police officer in the City and they hire every year more 37
police officers since 2016. She thought it was important to go through the budget line by line 38
to see that what they care about is where their money goes in the City. She was looking to 39
have those community agencies meet with City Staff again. She knew they were running a 40
few open sessions with Coffee with the Council and some other things on August 25th. She 41
thought it was good to see that community groups for black and brown individuals of color in 42
St. Anthony want to meet and go line by line over the budget with the Mayor and City 43
Council. 44
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 11
Chair Westrick indicated she did attend Ramsey County’s Community Action Team on 1
Affordable Housing and bringing up business to the County. She indicated it was informative 2
and neighboring communities from New Brighton and Falcon Heights along with additional 3
cities within the County attended that. 4
5
V. OTHER BUSINESS. 6
7
A. Consider Scheduling a Work Session of the Planning Commission to Discuss (1) 8
Temporary Signs, and (2) Accessory Buildings 9
10
City Planner Grittman indicated the Commission has been discussing accessory buildings and 11
the issue of temporary signs has come up as well. The pandemic derailed some of the work 12
session opportunities. Doing work sessions remotely can be somewhat cumbersome but both 13
of these items have sat fallow for a while. There will be one agenda item at the next Planning 14
Commission meeting in September. He thought it might be timely to consider getting back 15
together to talk about both of these items if the Planning Commission is willing to do so. 16
Remotely would work if the Commission prefers or it could be done in person as well. 17
18
Commissioner Neumann indicated she did not want to die so will remain in her house and it 19
would be easier to do the work session remotely. Commissioner Socha indicated she would 20
be open to having the option to come into City Hall in person as well as remotely. 21
Commissioner Morita concurred as did Chairperson Westrick. Commissioner Rude indicated 22
the Zoom meetings work well for him. 23
24
Chair Westrick asked if the work session would be scheduled prior the Planning Commission 25
meeting. Mr. Grittman thought with the Commission’s agreement, that is what would be 26
proposed. He was thinking of 5:30 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. time prior to the regular meeting at 7:00 27
p.m. 28
29
Chair Westrick indicated for her that would be fine. Commissioner Erickson noted it would 30
be fine for him as well. Commissioner Neumann indicated she would prefer not to be double 31
stacked that way. She felt there was brain fatigued as they are discussing things so those 32
types of meetings tend to be less productive but if that is what the Commission wants to do, 33
then she will be there. Commissioner Socha indicated she was supportive of doing it before 34
the September meeting. 35
36
Consensus of the Commission was to hold the work session prior to the regular September 37
Planning Commission meeting. 38
39
VI. COMMUNITY FORUM – NONE. 40
41
VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 42
43
VIII. ADJOURNMENT. 44
45
Motion by Commissioner Neumann, seconded by Commissioner Payne to adjourn. 46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 18, 2020
Page 12
1
Motion carried 7-0. 2
3
4
Chairperson Westrick adjourned the meeting at 8:59 p.m. 5
6
Respectfully submitted, 7
Sue Osbeck 8
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 9
MEMORANDUM
To: St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From: Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for September 15, 2020
NAC File No: 323.01 – 20.15
Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an electronic (digital display) sign
for B&F Fastener Supply at 2827 Anthony Lane.
BACKGROUND AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The applicant is proposing to construct a new ground sign identifying its business location at 2827
Anthony Lane. The ground sign would be located along the north side of the building, adjacent to 29th
Avenue NE. Because a portion of the sign will include an electronic digital display, the sign requires a
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 155.29 of the City’s Sign Ordinance.
Based on a review of the proposed sign and the applicable regulations, Planning Staff recommends
approval of the CUP request, with conditions related to compliance with code requirements applicable
to dynamic display signs.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Stratford Sign Company
Owner: B&F Fastener Supply
Location: 2827 Anthony Lane
Existing Land Use / Industrial / Zoned: LI – Light Industrial District
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Industrial / Zoned: LI – Light Industrial District
Use / Zoning: East: Industrial / Zoned: LI – Light Industrial District
South: Industrial / Zoned: LI – Light Industrial District
West: Industrial / Zoned: LI – Light Industrial District
Deadline for Agency Complete Application Date: 08-20-20
Action: 60 Days: 10-19-20
Letter Sent: No
120 Days: 12-18-20
September 9, 2020
Page 2
ANALYSIS
1. Background
The applicant proposes to construct a new ground sign at the subject property along 29th Avenue NE
(County Road C). There was a prior sign in this general location, however, that sign was removed
during the reconstruction of the adjacent roadway.
The new proposed sign would be located approximately 10 feet from the property line along 29th
Avenue, although the plans do not specify the exact proposed setback. The plans show an overall
sign height of 7 feet, 6 inches. The permanent sign display area is 23.1 square feet, and the
proposed electronic message board sign area is proposed to be 10.3 square feet – a total sign area
of 33.4 square feet, of which the electronic display area comprises approximately 31%.
For ground signs in the LI, Light Industrial District, the relevant requirements are as follows:
Maximum Height: 8 feet
Setback: 15 feet from street curb
Sign Area: 34 square feet per surface (up to 2 surfaces totaling 68 square feet)
For Dynamic Displays in the LI District, these additional requirements are imposed:
Percentage of total sign display area: 35%
Minimum duration of continuous image: 5 seconds
Transitions: Image changes must be instantaneous, without special effects or gradual
transitions
Messages: Must be complete with each image, not continuing in context or intent to the next
images
Color: Must be monochromatic against a solid black background
September 9, 2020
Page 3
Sign Construction and Maintenance. All permanent freestanding ground signs shall have self-
supporting structures erected on and permanently attached to concrete foundations. The base
of Dynamic Display signs must maximize the use of natural materials, such as stone, brick, rock
or similar decorative material, in construction and should conform to the material design of the
principal structure.
In addition to these requirements, there are several operational requirements which are designed
to prohibit the impression of video, movement, flashing, scrolling, or similar perceptions of motion.
The image must be static for the full 5 seconds (or more). The applicants and owner should be sure
to familiarize themselves with the operational requirements, as compliance with these
requirements will be a component of the Conditional Use Permit.
The proposed sign meets the dimensional and locational requirements of the code. While the image
presented as a part of the application shows a graphic that the code would not allow, this appears to be
for illustrative purposes, and the sign may be allowed under the CUP, with the notations identified in the
code and as summarized above.
It should be noted that the base of the structure is shown as a metal panel material. The code requires
that the base be constructed of natural materials that complement the principal structure. The principal
structure exterior consists of grey ribbed concrete tip-up panels. A grey stone or brick on the ground
sign base would comply with the requirements of the code.
In summary, the proposed sign appears to meet the requirements of the relevant Zoning and Sign
Ordinance requirements, with the following conditions:
1. Verification of the setback – at least 15 feet from the curb line of 29th Avenue NE.
2. Exterior base materials changed to add natural materials as required in the code, and as noted
in this report.
3. Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the
requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 seconds duration, and other
related requirements.
2. Applicable Code Sections.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 152 Zoning Code, Section 152.253 establishes the process and findings
required for consideration of Conditional Use Permits.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §152.29 Dynamic Displays regulates the
construction and use of electronic dynamic display signs by Conditional Use Permit, and sets the
various performance standards applicable to such signs.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit for an electronic dynamic display
sign at 2827 Anthony Lane with the following conditions:
1. Verification of the setback – at least 15 feet from the curb line of 29th Avenue NE.
2. Exterior base materials changed to add natural materials as required in the code, and as noted
in this report.
September 9, 2020
Page 4
3. Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the
requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 seconds duration, and other
related requirements.
ALTERNATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
1. Motion to recommend approval of the request for CUP at 2827 Anthony Lane with the
conditions identified in this report, and direct staff to prepare resolution declaring terms of
the same.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP. In the event of a recommendation for denial, the
Planning Commission must state its findings related to denial on the record.
3. Request Additional Information and Table Action. A motion to table should be accompanied by
the specific information requested of staff or the developer necessary to make a
recommendation.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit B: Draft resolution
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 2020
2827 Anthony Lane South
B&F Fasteners : Dynamic Display Sign Conditional Use Permit
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP -SITE LOCATION
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –AERIAL PHOTO
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –SIGN ILLUSTRATION
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –SIGN LOCATION PHOTO
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –REVIEW SUMMARY
DYNAMIC DISPLAY CUP –PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Motion to recommend approval of the request for CUP at 2827 Anthony
Lane and direct staff to prepare resolution declaring terms of the same.
1.Verification of the setback –at least 15 feet from the curb line of 29th Avenue NE.
2.Exterior base materials changed to add natural materials as required in the code,
and as noted in this report.
3.Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably
the requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 seconds duration,
and other related requirements.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _____________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AN ELECTRONIC DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGN AT 2827 ANTHONY LANE
SOUTH IN THE L-I, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the City of St. Anthony Village received a request from Stratford Sign on behalf of
B&F Fastener Supply for a ground sign with an electronic dynamic display at 2827 Anthony
Lane South; and
WHEREAS, the property consists of approximately 1.3 acres and is located in the Light
Industrial zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the subject parcel is currently developed with an industrial building; an
WHEREAS, such electronic digital display signs are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the
Light Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, subject to verification, the proposed sign is consistent with the requirements of the
Sign Ordinance with regard to size, setback and other standards; and
WHEREAS, the sign can be constructed to be consistent with the materials standards required
by the Sign Ordinance related to such signs; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 15, 2020 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit
with the conditions noted in the Staff report, and as listed below; and
WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings of fact in support of the resolution
for approval:
1. The property is located in an area of industrial land use on a collector roadway.
2. The proposed sign is reasonably consistent with the character of the neighborhood in
which it is located.
3. The dimensional requirements of the City’s Sign Ordinance are met by the proposed
application.
4. With the modification to the construction materials under conditions as recommended by
the Planning Commission, the proposed improvements constitute a reasonable use of the
property.
5. The operational aspects of the City’s Sign Ordinance can be met on an ongoing basis by
the owner/operator of the sign.
6. The proposed sign, constructed and operated within the requirements of the Code, will
not adversely impact surrounding property or public areas.
NOW THEREFORE MAY IT BE RESOVLED, that the City Council of the
City of St. Anthony Village accepts the findings and recommendations documented in the staff
report and approves Conditional Use Permit for a dynamic display sign as shown on the plans
submitted on or before August 20, 2020, at 2827 Anthony Lane South, with the following
conditions:
1. Verification of the setback – at least 15 feet from the curb line of 29th Avenue NE.
2. Exterior base materials changed to add natural materials as required in the code, and as
noted in this report.
3. Compliance with the operational standards of the code in Section 155.29, notably the
requirements for a static, monochrome message of at least 5 seconds duration, and other
related requirements.
Passed in regular session of the City Council on the ___ day of _________, 2020.
____________________________________
Randy Stille, Mayor
ATTEST:____________________________
Nicole Miller, City Clerk
Review for Administration: ____________________________________
_________________, City Manager
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on September 15, 2020 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the
Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a
proposed Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Dynamic Display Electronic Sign at the property located
at 2827 Anthony Lane. The Planning Commission will hear public comment and review the proposal.
Following the public hearing the Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the
proposed request to the City Council for their meeting expected to be held on Tuesday, October 13,
2020 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be
accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony
Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the
hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Planner, Stephen Grittman at 763-957-1100 or
planner@savmn.com.
The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made available
prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com .
Stephen Grittman
City Planner