Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPCMin_85Feb4• • • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Al Stefanson. Stefanson, Wallin, Black, Trent-Sullivan, Olson and Northrup. Also present was Council Liaison Hard. Grittner and Chenoweth. Member Trent-Sullivan moved, seconded by Member Black, that the December 3, 1984 Planning Commission Minutes be approved as presented. Motion carried unanimously. PRESENT ABSENT DECEMBER 3, 198 MINUTES APPROVED Bob Collins, representing Bullseye Golf Centers, Inc. requested a APPROVAL conditional use permit for the installation of a paint booth at 1708 OF CONDITIONA North Snelling. Chairman Stefanson referred to a report from the Fire USE PERMIT Inspector indicating that following the proper channels of obtaining a FOR BULLSEYE building permit, doing the appropriate electrical work and venting, he GOLF, INC. would approve the installation. Member Olson asked what they would be UNTIL MAY 1, painting to which Mr. Collins indicated he did not know. Member Northrup 1985 FOR was of the opinion that they spray painted golf club heads. She also THE INSTAL- felt, and Chairman Stefanson agreed, that filtering would be essential. CATION OF Member Olson stated that since they were in violation because they were VENTING FOR painting without City approval, had they discontinued that practice. Mr. THE PAINTING Collins replied that "he hoped so". Member Black asked Mr. Collins how OF GOLF CLUB long Bullseye Golf, Inc,. intended to use the facility at 1708 North HEADS Snelling as their retail facility. Mr. Collins answered that as soon as the shopping center is ready for occupancy, then the building would be razed. Stefanson felt that in the development agreement it stated that the building would be razed by May 1, 1985. Mr. Collins stated that the ', agreement needed clarification as that was never his understanding. May 1, ', 1985 is the date that the buildings are to be torn down on Larpenteur. The Plan was from the outset, whether it was articulated correctly or not, was that Bullseye would move from the store on Larpenteur to the store at 1708 North Snelling as a temporary business establishment. Stefanson was of the opinion that Bullseye was going to use 1708 North Snelling as a warehouse for building supplies. Mr. Collins repeated that it was always in his mind and in Mr. Hunt's mind that 1708 North Snelling was going to be used as a temporary retail establishment--it is only good business practice. After further discussion, Member Black moved approval of the venting of the buildi ng at 1708 North Snelling to allow spraying of golf club heads only until May 1, 1985 with the condition that the permit be approved by the building inspector and subject to PCA standards. Member Mead seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF PARKING Member Black moved approval of the variance for parking at 1708 North VARIANCE AT Snelling until May 1, 1985. Motion was seconded by Member Mead. Motion 1708 NORTH carried unanimously. SNELLING (BULLSEYE GOLF, INC.) MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 • PAGE 2 PUBLIC Chairman Stefanson closed the Public Hearing of November 5, 1984, due HEARING ON to the fact that the Lido. Restaurant has withdrawn its request for REZONING rezoning and is now requesting approval of a conditional use permit. CROFT PROPERZ CLOSED Chairman Stefanson thanked the St. Mary's Committee for their work on the project and the owners of the Lidp Restaurant for their cooperation with the Citizens Committee. Wally Case, representing Howard Dahlgren Associates, felt that the following points should be addressed: (1) whether or not the city wants to allow WALLY CASE, commercial or any other use to encroach or penetrate a residential area, HOWARD (2) in this decision, the city has to determine what the costs and benefits DAHLGREN to the city are, (3) is the development economically feasible, and the ASSOCIATES city needs to decide specifically what the future of the corner is--does the city want to define boundaries in an orderly fashion or is piecemeal acceptable. They have determined that Scheme E would be most viable, it would set limits in establishment of a strong separation between the neighborhood and commercial development; create a shared parking situation. The neighborhood may opt to protect themselves with a convenant on the property. Barb Smith read a letter dated February 4, 1985 from Dennis Smith to the BARB AND Planning Commission and City Council regarding the proposed Lido expansion. DENNIS SMITH • John Labalestra, Lido Restaurant, distributed plans for the expansion of JOHN their restaurant as well as a parking analysis. He then specifically LABALESTRA, referred to Scheme E and advised that the scheme would not work because LIDO they do not have. shared .parking as a possibility. Also, as presented, RESTAURANT the addition could only be 30 feet, which would not give the expansion enough additional space for the deli, banquet room and a lounge that would accommodate they kind of business they need. Also, it did not allow the tax increment financing that was needed. He also felt that ~ the easement through the property is not big enough to handle the delivery trucks. The plans as submitted by the Lido Restaurant would (1) allow a 50 foot addition and not putting. any parking next to the addition, which allows 30+ feet for vehicles to drive through and deliver, (2) completely berms -the residential area, (3) takes land use from the Croft property and not the residents, and (4) leaves enough adequate space for greenery, and landscaping around the proposed building. The plan indicated 98 parking spaces self-contained; traffic would be kept out of the alley to prevent congestion. Employees would be requested to park in the last row. Berming would be accomplished according to City requirements. They have no objection to a "cut" being made for emergency vehicle access. A preliminary applicatio n has been submitted for tax increment financing. Jim Bykowski, 1745 St. Mary's Avenue, was of the opinion that if St. Mary's JIM BYKOWSKI Avenue were vacated half of the property would be turned over to the Lido 1745 ST. Restaurant and half would be turned over to Bucks. Mr. Labalestra felt that MARYS it was considered shared parking and the owners of Bucks have been • approached and have no objection. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 • PAGE 3 Member Wallin asked Mr. Labalestra how could the Planning Commission MEMBER and City Council insure the financial success of the project. Mr. WALLIN/ Labalestra indicated that anyone is welcome to look at their financial LABALESTRA records. They have been in business for 28 years. Mr. Labalestra feels that their plans are consistent with the character LABALESTRA of their business, consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the existing zoning ordinance, and consistent with the guidelines for tax exempt financing. Ted Meyer, 1710 St. Marys, spoke on behalf of Scheme E as being far from TED MEYER, perfect but workable. Felt the Labalestra's plan was going backwards 1710 ST. since they initially asked for rezoning of the Croft property and with a MARYS fifty foot addition so the Croft property being used for parking would support that. Now, they are requesting not only the entire Croft property but the vacation of St. Mary's to support the 50 foot addition. He felt this wholly unacceptable. Scheme E retains the house on the Croft property which would significantly reduce the impact on the residential neighbor- hood. The neighborhood is prepared to make substantial sacrifices; mainly by allowing some parking on the Croft property and allowing partial cul-de-sacing of the street. He felt the issues are being confused-- the Lido expansion is irrelevant. The proposal that should be addressed is what should be done with the Croft property (should it be a parking lot or a house) and whether St. Mary's should be cul-de-saced either partially • or fully so part of the property could be turned into parking. There is no guarantee who is going to own the property in the future; therefore, it it unreasonable to think in terms of what the Lido Restaurant needs for that property. The issue is, in terms of that site which is a commercial lot, what makes sense, what is a orderly reasonable development what is in the best interests of the entire community. He is concerned about what is going to happen in the future and what kind of a facility will that site support and what kind of parking needs does it have. Scheme E is reasonable. Further intrusion into the residential neighborhood is simply not warranted under the circumstances. Member Black asked Mr. Labalestra is Scheme E were possible for them at .MEMBER BLACK/ this time to which Mr. .Labalestra answered that it was not. Member Black LABALESTRA then asked if shared parking could be arranged with the Hermes, would then Scheme E be possible to which Mr. Labalestra answered that the door has been closed since it was not realistic. Black pointed out and Wallin clarified that what the Planning Commission BLACK/ needed to address was approval or disapproval of the conditional use WALLIN request. Scheme E is not up for consideration. Wallin asked if the Lido Restaurant were willing to accept the conditional WALLIN/ use being personal to the Labalestra family such that it could not be LABALESTRA transferred to a purchaser at a future time. Mr. Labalestra indicated that they would be unwilling to accept the conditional use as being personal due to the fact that it would diminish the fair market value of the property. • MINUTES PLANNING COMMIS . FEBRUARY 4, 19E PAGE 4 Member Olson a~ access for the that he had nor to work with tr Labalestra repl whithin reason, upon the neighf Fred A. Kueppe Hermes, referr referred to th approached for zoning ordinan SION MEETING ked if Mr. Labalestra had any objection to an emergency St. Marys neighborhood to which Mr. Labalestra replied e. Member Olson then asked if they would be willing e citizens and the city on landscaping to which Mr. ied that they would be willing to landscape and berm, to make it a separate entity so that it would not infringe orhood. Jr. Attorney at Law, representing Mr. and Mrs. Norbert to his letter of February 4, 1985. Specifically, he private alley and Mr. and Mrs. Hermes have not been urchase or use. Also, parking is inconsistent with the MEMBER OLSON/ LABALESTRA FRED A. KUEPPERS, JR., REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. HERMES Member Olson sp'pke in favor of the conditional use request because it is OLSON important that the Lido Restaurant has been in the City for 28 years and has always been a good neighbor to the community. It is important that the Planning Commission and City Council take an interest in successful business who have contributed to the community. Jim Bykowski felt that the Planning Commission either approving or BYKOWSKI disapproving the conditional use as presented without the vacation of St. Marys is unacceptable; the Planning Commission is working on an • issue that satisfies no one. Member Wallin clarified the conditional use request--razing of the Croft WALLIN home and use of'the lot for parking as well as using a portion for cul- de-sacing at so e future date as well as vacation of St. Marys, which he felt went ha~id in hand. He felt there was a technicality. Mr. Labalestra indi~ated that the only item they were askirgfor in the conditional usel,request was the use of the entire Croft property for parking in its ~ntirexy. Chairman Stefan on spoke in disapproval of the conditional use but would CHAIRMAN be in favor of ~cheme E and would hope the Lido Restaurant would consider STEFANSON submittingit fob approval. Member Trent-Sullivan felt that after hearing the discussion, she felt the MEMBER TRENT- Croft house should remain in tact. She also liked Scheme E and for any plan SULLIVAN to work that world allow the Lido Restaurant to develop like to and have adequate parking will not just involve permit of the c~mplete Croft lot for parking, which she the real estate values of the people in close proximity use of a private alley and the vacation of St. Marys. people in the a~ea that will be most greatly affected. d in the way they would the conditional use felt would affect but will also involve Lt will not serve the The residents do eserve some pr tection of their property values. She is against the conditional use. Member Mead staled that Scheme E also appealed to him since it was the best of all worlds. He als~ asked what would happen to the value of the Croft lot with one • row of cars-the'ilot itself will depreciate. If there is problems in keeping it MEMBER owner occupied c~r rented, it might become an eyesore. Cannot approve the MEAD conditional use for the entire Croft lot. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 PAGE 5 • Member Black also felt that using the strip of land from the Croft lot would turn that property into something less than a single family house in character with the neighborhood. He respects the Labalestras and their business and MEMBER felt that they know what their business needs, but he does not favor the BLACK conditional use permit because it is too much of an intrusion into the neighborhood and the benefit to the City is not matched by the intrustion. Does not like using the whole Croft lot for parking as requested in the conditional .use permit and it is not appropriate. Has a concern over the use of tax increment financing in the removal of a single family home for the benefit of a business and it is not an appropriate use of .public funds. Member Olson spoke strongly on the superior aesthetic quality of the MEMBER Labalestra plan. One of the things the City was concerned about in the OLSON comprehensive plan was that we keep merging commercial and residential. Scheme E turns the Croft property into. a very unattractive lot and house because of its proximity to the parking spaces. The Labalestra plan uses the .whole lot for their business but there is a definite division between the residential and the commercial development which purposes substantial screening. The City was very concerned about that in their comprehensive plan--all over the city there is no substantial division between commercial and residential. Member Northrup could not approve the conditional use because going from MEMBER residential to commercial is too big a jump. and cannot agree with the NORTHRUP philosophy of using tax increment financing for the project. • Member Wallin felt the charge of the Planning Commission is looking out MEMBER for the best interests of the City as a whole, which has to embody the WALLIN business interests and also take into consideration the interests of the surrounding residents. Regardless of what the City would like to be, Falcon Heights is a predominately residential community--there needs to be some balancing. The request that the Lido Restaurant is making at this point is too one sided. There is substantial encroachment into an R-1 area; it needs vacation of St. Marys in order to make it a viable plan as well. Also, in the future. there will be a possible condemnation request over the alley issue. He feels it is insufficient just to be voting on the conditional use when the other issues he previously mentioned have not been addressed. Also does not like the idea of snowballing because there are several steps that need to be taken and would like to see them all in one comprehensive package. Member Wallin also sees an unwillingness to make the kind of commitment that might help with the approval (personal covenants that would run with the family). Reacts negatively to a large amount of screening, which would need to be tall, because it would create a d ark south side on the Meyer's property. He looks at the project as to how the City would benefit and the most immediate is taken away through tax increment financing. There is not enough compromise to make it more palatable for his approval of the conditional use. Member Wallin then moved, seconded by Member Mead, that the conditional DISAPPROVAL use request be disapproved. Upon a vote being taken, the following OF CONDITION- voted in favor thereof: Northrop, Stefanson, Mead, Trent-Sullivan and AL USE REQUES • Black and the following voted against the same: Olson. Motion carried. FOR LIDO RESTAURANT MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 PAGE 6 • Mayor Eggert addressed the Planning Commission regarding the issues of MAYOR development in general. He reviewed the development projects that have EGGERT come before the Council and Planning Commission from the American DISCUSSES Shelter project to the present time. Mayor Eggert then advised of the DEVELOPMENT need for a formalized procedure and policy for tax increment financing and industrial revenue bonds and referred to the documents approved by the City Council. He also made reference to the need for citizen input and how each citizen's committee was appointed and how they functioned. Mayor Eggert requested the Planning Commission review the policies as approved for the obtaining of tax increment financing and industrial revenue bonds by a developer. Susan A. DeLange requested variances for parking and extension of a family room 16 feet from the rear lot line (site of existing garage) at 1899 West Larpenteur Avenue. Ms. DeLange teaches classical ballet to SUSAN A. young children and is currently renting space above Shakeys. Her hours DELANGE of operation are .from 4:00 to 9:00 P.M. Monday thru Friday with classes PROPOSAL TO on Saturday. There may be from six to fifteen students per class and BUILD DANCE would plan 15 minute intervals between classes. She would plan to live STUDIO AT in the home and remove the present garage to build her dance studio. 1899 WEST Discussion centered around how many parking spaces could be located on LARPENTEUR the property itself, where they would be located, approximately how many DEFERRED cars would be involved in the drop-off and pick-up of children as well as how many cars would remain during the class time, could cars be parked on Tatum Street since Larpenteur is posted no parking, removal of the garage in a residential area, encouraging class participants to drop off and pick up children in a no parking zone, the presence of rush hour traffic during the start of classes, the children's safety, and the encouragement of commercial business in a residential area. The Planning Commission requested Ms. DeLange obtain further information regarding exactly how many parking spaces could be located on the property and their location as well as how they .would circulate on the premises for pick-up and drop-off before the next Planning Commission meeting. Also, the City Engineer should be requested to review the drainage of the property (drainage ditch). Member Olson moved, seconded by Member Wallin to adjourn the meeting at ADJOURNMENT 11:10 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. r~- J rry W llin, Secretary •