pf08-024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Minutes Attachment D � Consider Presbyterian Homes Request for a General Concept Planned Unit Development 2 to expand their office building at 2845 Hamline Avenue (PFO8-024) 3 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of Presbyterian Homes and Services for a approval of a General Concept Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct an addition of 5 approximately 27,000 square feet to their existing office building at the corner of Hamline o Avenue and Centennial Drive, as detailed in the staff report dated July 28, 2008. � Mr. Lloyd noted revised conditions based on Planning Commission recommendations, outlined � in Section 10.2, condition f regarding future 10 foot building setback from the southern property � line, as negotiated by the City Attorney and the applicant. � c Discussion included location of the trash enclosure and access for garbage collection vehicles 11 without encroaching on Hamline Avenue and based on Ramsey County-approved curb cuts for 12 an approach area in the proposed building expansion area; size of garbage trucks at 37' long and � 3 their ability to access the site with the interior turnaround; inability to find research on a cross i a parking agreement between the office and shopping center prior to ownership by Presbyterian 15 Homes; and intent for cross parking agreements to be recorded against the office and shopping 16 center properties, as well as with Roseville Covenant Church across Centennial Drive that would � � supersede any previous agreements and follow the property. �� Further discussion included Planning Commission rationale for including a condition not 19 allowing for patient care on site and need for applicable licensing for any expanded or future 2o uses; and significant and different traffic demands if patient care were a use in that area. 2� Applicant, Valerie Alt, owner representative of Presbyterian Homes 22 Ms. Alt advised that the Planning Commission had been assured that this building was intended 23 for use as a corporate office for administrative purposes only; and noted that any patient care 2a would need to be addressed through state and federal licensing regulations. 2c� By consensus, Councilmembers supported removing that condition. 26 Councilmember Roe sought additional background information and questioned rationale for 2� condition g. in Section 10.0 of the staff report, indicating that the property shall remain on the 2� property tax rolls. 2g Associate Planner Lloyd advised that, upon counsel from City Attorney Jay Squires, at best it 3o was improper to condition land use approval on something that was fiscal in nature; and since the s� Planning Commission recommendation, staff was suggesting that such a condition not be s2 applied, as noted in Section 9.3 of the staff report. 33 City Attorney Anderson opined that such a condition seemed to place an unfair restriction on 3� future property use. s5 Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of Presbyterian Home's intent to not seek tax exempt 36 status of the property. However, Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if this was not an enforceable 3� condition, that another alternative, such as negotiating PILOT, would indicate a commitment 3� from Presbyterian Homes to the City for reassurance. 39 City Planner Thomas Paschke noted that, by law, at this time, based on the intended function and ao use of the property, Presbyterian Homes was not able to make this property tax exempt. 4i Mayor Klausing expressed his unease with continued discussions on limiting entities that enjoy a2 tax exempt status from doing so, when federal and state statutes provided for that status. Mayor 43 Klausing opined that the City needed to accept that status, and not attempt to circumvent the law. a� Mayor Klausing clarified that what was currently before the Council was a land use application, Page 1 of 3 • .