| Windego plan doesn’t have support of planning commission |
|
|
| Thursday, 12 June 2008 | |
|
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Union Editor The Windego Park Society’s site plan for restoring the Anoka Amphitheater does not have the support of the Anoka Planning Commission. After its June 3 meeting the commission recommended that the Anoka City Council deny the site plan submitted by the group when it goes before council June 16. The commission voted 4-2 to deny the site plan approval and variance requests. This is the second time the plan has come under review of both the planning commission and the council. “This is the same request that was submitted in December of 2006 and was ultimately approved by city council,” said Erik Thorvig, an associate planner with the city of Anoka. “There were variances that were part of the project and no work was done within a year so those variances did expire.” In December, the council chose not to give the Windego Park Society (WPS) an extension on the site plan approval, forcing the group to go through the process again this year. The commission voted against the site plan, citing concerns over handicapped accessibility, parking and traffic on busy Highway 169, which runs along the west side of the amphitheater property. While the plan is essentially the same as the one submitted in 2006, Commissioner Manley Brahs said the commission has more information and questions since the original application. “The more I have been hearing, a lot is unknown tonight about the existing condition of the whole site,” said Brahs, who chaired the June 3 meeting in the absence of chairman Donald Kjonaas. “We have more information tonight, some pro and some con.” Erik Skogquist, WPS president, said he was disappointed with the commission’s lack of support for the site plan. “I am disheartened the planning commission decided not to approve the site plan when it was the very same plan that was approved a year and a half ago,” said Skogquist. He said when the application goes before council June 16 he will be addressing some of the commission’s concerns regarding handicapped accessibility and safety in regards to traffic around the site. Along with the site plan is the need for the approval of three variances for the project to go ahead. These include reducing the setback to zero feet along Ferry Street for the construction of a sound wall, bathrooms and a ticket booth, to reduce the number of required parking stalls to zero and increase the allowed impervious surface to 32 percent, from the required 29 percent for additional concrete for handicapped accessibility. According to city code, the amphitheater, which aims to seat more than 900 people, should have 246 parking stalls, said Thorvig. WPS has proposed that audiences could use the nearby municipal parking ramps and surface lots as most concerts will take place during the evenings and weekends when downtown parking is not at a premium, according to Skogquist. Accessibility A main sticking point for the commission was access to the site, particularly for those who are handicapped. Skogquist proposes using neighboring parking lots along Highway 169 or a shuttle service as a drop-off for people who are handicapped. “Dropping way up there to the north, that is not handicapped accessible in my world,” said Commissioner Borgie Bonthius, regarding the surface lot near the Walker on the River apartment building, which WPS considered using with a shuttle service. “Handicapped parking is typically not a half-block away, it’s by the front door.” Commissioner Jim Cook also voiced concerns for safety, traffic and accessibility to the amphitheater. Under the Windego plan patrons would be encouraged to make their way to the amphitheater from the east side of the Rum River, using the pedestrian bridge. The main entrance to the venue would be from that foot bridge, while two emergency doors would exit onto the sidewalk along Highway 169. Performers would use an access to the site that runs along the Rum River. This would require permission from neighboring property owners, which Windego has received. But an official easement has not been signed. “We have had a real interest in making that place look nice,” said Dennis Medved, who owns the property with his wife Bev. “To be consistent with what we’ve already done with our properties in that area we’d love to see that amphitheater improved. We would like to see the Windego people have the opportunity to do something there. “Our intent is for anybody who wants to improve that amphitheater area to give them permission to get back there to do what they want to do.” This access would be used for the purposes of construction and drop off and pick up for performers and their equipment. But Cook said the single-lane roadway was too narrow. “There really isn’t much opportunity for access or egress there,” he said. “It’s really more of a single-lane kind of thing.” Skogquist said he realizes the plan isn’t perfect. “While it’s not an ideal situation, it works,” he said. Access to the site for performers, handicapped parking and drop off plans and traffic safety all had Cook opposed to the plan. “I don’t think that’s realistic,” he said. “I think you are going to be creating a public nuisance, menace, a hazard.” Difference of opinion The public hearing, which lasted more than an hour, included a presentation from Minneapolis-based developer Mark McGowan. McGowan had been in discussions with the Windego Park Society earlier this year about being contracted to coordinate contractors to volunteer to get the work done at the site. “I have studied the history of this project intimately for the last four months,” said McGowan, who has worked on other historical restorations in the metro, including the Lake Harriet Band Shell. During the hearing McGowan pointed out a series of flaws in Windego’s plan and questioned the integrity of the information the group was presenting to the city. His list of concerns included sound, traffic and insurability. “We were talking with him about doing this project, he was excited about it but he did have some concerns,” said Skogquist about Windego’s dealings with McGowan. The developer said he had questions about the project, which he never had properly answered regarding sound studies, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) approval and finances. “As a potential developer, this site could be catastrophic,” he said. “Before you even consider (the site plan)...you’ve got to rely that this information is credible, is real, is definitive. I haven’t got my questions answered.” Skogquist told the commission he has talked to insurance companies who have said it would be possible to insure the amphitheater. Planning Director Carolyn Braun also had e-mail correspondence from MnDOT, which noted the department’s concerns about the project had been satisfied. McGowan had hoped to receive a $30,000 retainer to coordinate the project using the business model he used for the volunteer restoration of the Lake Harriet Band Shell, which involved 38 different companies donating time and materials. “This project is simple – it’s a concrete project,” he said. “This project is something I could do in this city.” McGowan had been in negotiations with the Windego Park Society in hopes of securing a $30,000 retainer to coordinate the construction effort. Those discussions have stopped. McGowan and Skogquist disagree over what ended the deal. “The reason we could not come to an agreement between the society and Mr. McGowan was the system,” said Skogquist. “He had wanted us to put lots of money forward without any real guarantees up front and as a society we were not very comfortable with that.” McGowan said he walked away from the project because he couldn’t get the answers he needed and he saw flaws with the plan. “Negotiations didn’t break off because of lack of interest or due diligence,” he said. “I broke them off.” McGowan said his presentation during the public hearing was not a case of “sour grapes” because he was not able to secure a contract with Windego. Vote The planning commission decision was not unanimous. Commissioners Mark Jensen and Karna Brewer did not vote in favor of denying the plan. “I really don’t understand what has changed from a little over a year ago until now,” said Jensen, who was not on the commission when the original site plan was approved in 2006. Brewer’s reason for voting against the denial was different. She said she felt since Windego is not in a position to go ahead with construction right now, the group will have to go through the entire process again, costing time and money. “If the city does not extend their site plan to 2010 they’re going to be back here next year anyway,” she said. Each site plan application comes with a fee of more than $500. City council Ultimately, the Anoka City Council will make the final decision on whether or not the site plan is approved at its June 16 meeting. The commission’s June 3 decision is offered as a recommendation to the council. Windego Park Society will be asking for council to approve the plan and the variances until 2010 – the deadline for construction to start under the lease agreement with the city of Anoka. The lease on the property is for 25 years, but if construction does not start before the end of 2010, the agreement can be terminated by the city. In the original ordinance passed by council in 2006, a site plan had to be approved before the lease agreement would be signed. “We need to be able to use the time the city has given us in the lease agreement,” said Skogquist. “Every six months or so this comes up and people ask why it isn’t done yet. We have only been allowed to do anything on the site for the last year and a half.” The amphitheater restoration project has been in the works for more than a decade. Skogquist said the site plan approval and the support of the city is essential for the project to be a success. “We need a site plan first and foremost before we can even go forward with building permits and architecture,” he said. It is important for Windego’s donors to know the city supports the project, Skogquist said. Included in the agreement with the city, 75 percent of the funding must be in place before the first phase of the project can begin. This can be in cash or guaranteed in-kind donations of materials or services. Original phase one of the construction was estimated at $638,000 in 2006. In February, Windego reported to council it had $7,600 in cash on hand. Skogquist confirmed the society’s still had approximately the same amount of money in the bank. Mandy Moran Froemming is at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|