HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTEELE'S MARKET AT HARMONY MARKET PUD, 3RD FILING - FINAL - 54-87E - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTES • •
November 5, 1991
COv M� u�S
Appeal of the September 23, 1991 Final Decision
of the Planning and Zoning Board Approving, With Conditions,
the Request for Administrative Change to Nash Finch/Steele's
Market at Harmony Market, Filing Three, Final P.U.D. ,
Planning and Zoning Decision Overturned
The following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 23, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-0 to approve, with
three conditions, the request for an administrative change to Nash Finch/Steele's
Market at Harmony Market, Filing Three, Final P.U.D. The appeal relates only to
the locational aspect of condition number three of the Planning and Zoning
Board's final decision. Condition number three reads as follows:
"The three signs on the lower fascia be lowered off the fascia and be of
blue color to carry the established signage theme across all three anchors and
to promote consistency. "
The project was a referral of an administrative change to the Planning and Zoning
Board. The applicant 's request was to add wall signage to the north elevation
of Nash Finch/Steele's Market over the allowable amount approved on the original
P.U.D. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the request subject to three
conditions. Conditions number one and two were agreed to by the applicant. The
third condition relates to the proposed location of three, individual lettered
signs advertising separate and distinct tenants within the structure. The appeal
takes issue with the locational aspect of the condition number three, not the
color aspect. It is the appellant 's desire to place three, individual- lettered,
wall signs upon the lower fascia of the north elevation.
SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT'S ALLEGATIONS:
The appellant alleges that the Planning and Zoning Board abused its discretion,
in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence
in the record, and that the Board failed to receive all relevant evidence offered
by the appellant.
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
The issue that Council must resolve in this appeal is as follows:
Did the board fail to conduct a fair hearing by:
Abusing its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the
support of competent evidence in the record?
Improperly failing to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
10
� ' • •
November 5, 1991
appellant?
The attached background memorandum contains the appellant 's specific allegations
and a summary of the public record. "
City Attorney Steve Roy explained the appeal procedure.
Mayor Susan Kirkpatrick acknowledged a potential perceived conflict of interest
but stated she believed that her ability to participate objectively in the appeal
was not impaired.
Councilmember Maxey acknowledged an aircraft partnership with one of the proposed
tenants but stated his belief that this partnership would not affect his
participation or decision on the appeal .
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to hear
the appeal on the basis that the grounds alleged conform to the requirements of
the City Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Fromme, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Planner Ted Shepard, project planner, made a presentation.
Greg Fisher, project architect for the new building with Neenan Company,
outlined arguments supporting the grounds for the appeal .
Russ Kates, an owner of Steele's Market, supported the signage request, stating
that a travel agency, dry cleaner and mail box rental are not businesses
typically located in a grocery store.
Bill Brown, owner of Ambassador Travel , supported the signage request.
Kathy Anderson, co-owner of Mail Boxes, etc. , explained that the franchise is an
independent business tenant which needs visibility.
Bill Burger, Country Cleaners owner, supported the signage request.
Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to overturn
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board and grant approval of the signage
request of the appellant. Based on the testimony and review of the record, the
Planning & Zoning Board was unable to establish a relationship between the
location of the signs and the uses of those businesses. The decision made by the
Board does not conform to All Development Criteria #233 or 246.
City Attorney Roy clarified that if Councilmember Edwards' motion passed, it
would not be necessary to address the other ground for the appeal .
11
• .
November 5, 1991
Councilmember Fromme inquired if Steele's Market attempted to give evidence that
the Board refused to receive.
Greg Fisher replied that the evidence was presented, but the Board focused on
other issues and overlooked some issues brought up early in the presentation.
Councilmember Winokur spoke in support of the motion.
Mayor Kirkpatrick supported the motion.
Councilmember Maxey, after referencing a citizen letter of concern, supported the
motion.
The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to overturn the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board and grant the request of the appellant was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Fromme, Kirkpatrick, Maxey and Winokur. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
. ' s .nce No. 131, 1991, Authorizing the . .nce
of Stor 'rainage Revenue Bonds Series —1 Dated
Dec 4ber 1, 1991 in the Aggr- .te
Principal Amount •f $6,235,000, Adopt., on First Reading
The following is staff's memora sum on this i .
"FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Stormwater Utility proposed 19' Bud. -t identified bond proceeds in the
amount of $5,133,700 in 1992 and $1, 6,610 in 1995. To take advantage of the
extremely favorable market for bonds s aff is proposing to combine the two
issuances into one in the amount of $6, ' ,000 and to market those bonds before
the end of the year. This would amou to savings of about $167,300 in bond
amount, debt service, bank qualified an - .ond insurance costs. The debt service
on the bonds will be paid from the rev•nu-, generated by the Stormwater Utility
monthly capital fees and developer b.sin '-es. The combined coverage for the
proposed 1991 bonds and the bonds i .sued by the utility in 1988 is 1.5% in 1993
and 2.29% in 2003.
1992 1997 Increase over 5 years
Minimum fee $1.90 $3.58 $1.62
Maximum fee $3 '8 $3.94 $0.36
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This Ordinan - 'rovides for the issuance of $6,235,01: of Storm Drainage revenue
bonds to . er the cost of capital projects in the City storm drainage system.
12