Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC 07.20.1976CITY OF ST. -ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES c July 2o, 1976 The meeting was called to order by Chairman ProTem Hiebel at 7:41 P.M. Present for roll call: Johnson, Marks, letourneau, Rymarchick, Hiebel and Cowan. Absent: Bowerman Also Present: Jim Fornell, Adm. Asst., The following corrections were made to the minutes for the June 15, 1976 meeting of the Board: Page 4, para 8: "ugliest entrance"is to the "shopping area" rather than "City". Page 3, para 4: change "do" to "services which are allowed to build" Notion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Johnson to approve the June 15th minutes as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. The board expressed their appreciation that the final platting plans had been shown to them and made the following motion: Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Cowan to recommend approval of the replatting of the Murray Heights 3rd Addition to the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. Arvid J. Birkeland, 2821 Silver Lane, presented the preliminary plat for the Birkeland Second Addition which he will need to build a new home at approximately 2851 Silver Lane. There was a discussion cf the July 16th letter from City Attorney William Soth whi..'t indicated the platting proposal seems to meet the size requirements of the State which are set down in the guidelines from the Dept. of Natural Resources even though the City has not yet been required to adopt an ordinance incorporating such guidelines. Mr. Marks said he had difficulty with the belief that the State requirements do not apply to the City. Mr. Johnson agreed and both were concerned with the inclusion of that portion of the lots which extends out into the lake in the determination of the size of the individual lots. page 2 Motion by Mr. Cowan and seconded by Mr. Hiebel to recommend to the Council approval of replatting of the Birkeland Second Addition as presented, subject to the platting meeting all provisions of the City and DNR regulations as applicable to these lots with a request that Mr. Fornell research the point before the next Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The Board considered Mr. Fornell's memorandum regarding the application by Gordon Hedlund for a Planned Unit Development for Lots 9 through 16, MoundsView Acres, Second Addition as well as the proposal that the Board could set the date for a Public Hearing on the application for its meeting in August because the zoning ordinance would probably be adopted at the next Council meeting. when Mr. F�rmarchick questioned whether the submission requirements for a PUD had been met, he was told Mr. Fornell had spent some time with Mr. Hedlund helping him prepare the application and informed him of the submission requirements, some of which could be fulfilled before the Public Hearing. Mr. Hedlund said he would have no trouble meeting all such requirements. Concern was expressed by the Board whether they could legally take action on the application since the zoning ordinance had not been adopted and the guidelines now written in the ordinance might be changed before the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Fornell said changes being discussed were the elimination of height requirements for multi story residences and the percentage of commercial development to be allowed in a PUD. Mr. Cowan was concerned that the residents would not have sufficient time to acquaint themselves with such changes in the proposal before the hearing. Mr. Hedlund then gave his plan for the property which would incorporate a two story dental clinic to be built by Dr. Philip Brandeen, a Country Kitchen restaurant, and a beauty shop for which the existing building at ?909 Silver Lake Road would be remodelled by Mr. Jim Hughes and the retirement apartment complex for which First American Care Facilities, Inc. had been granted a conditional use permit. Mr. Hedlund said the proposal he had previously made for the development of the land along Penrod Lane would also be a part of the PUD and these homes would be built almost immediately, should the PUD be approved. Because of the problems with obtaining the financing for the retirement home, Mr. Hedlund acknoirledged that the rest of the project would probably go in before that was built. Mr. Charles,"ovac who represented County Builders, a subsidiary of Country Kitchen Restaurants, presented the preliminary site plans for the proposal. These included plans for parking, landscaping, curb cuts and an access drive which would be built, owned and maintained by the individual owners of each portion of land which it served. Mr. Johnson said he would like to see some specific arrangement made to guaranty the maintenance of the road. Mr. Novac said the natural slope of the grade of the property between the commercial and residential areas as well as existing trees and vegetation would provide a buffer for the residences to the east. He said if a fence were built there much of this vegetation would have to be cut down. page 3 The parking had also been planned around existing trees but Mr. Johnson pointed out that they would probably not last more that five years and suggested a different plan for parking which he felt would provide more pedestrian safety. It was also felt that two of the existing curb cuts could be eliminated. a Development of a walkway along the pathway now used by the residents to the east to reach Apache Plaza Shopping Center was also considered as well as the problem of ascertaining who would assume liability and maintenance of such a walkway. No association of owners had been formed. Mr. Hiebel questioned how this proposal was any more innovative or creative as a PUD than any of the other individual plans for the property which Mr. Hedlund had previously presented. Mr. Novae and Mr. Daniel Gustafson, who also represented Country Kitchen, gave their philosophy of the purpose of the Planned Unit Development. Both felt the Board should make a decision on the total concept for the plan with the specifics to be negotiated later. Mr. Gustafson said his firm had three other sites in the same area which they were considering for a restaurant and they may decide on one of the others if the project does not go through soon. He felt it was unfair to the developer to hesitate and cited the increase in the tax base of the community. Mr. Fgmarchick said that he felt since Mr. Hedlund had assured them that all submission requirements for a PUD could be met, he should be given a hearing. Mr. Johnson sympathized with Mr. Hedlund regarding the number of years in which he had tried to dispose of this particular property and apologized for the length of time it had taken to get a new zoning ordinance adopted. Board members all felt they had taken a positive attitude towards the proposal and Mr. Cowan told Mr. Gustafson he felt their conversations had not been "whether it should be done" but rather "how it should be done". Mr. Marks and Mr. Letourneau, however, felt that because of a lack of an official ordinance the Board had no basis for making a recommendation to the Council and did not believe they had received enough specific information on the individual proposals to make a decision. Mr. Marks was especially w ncerned about the buffering of the residential area from the commercial and wondered what the justification was for accepting the filing fee for a PUD which had not yet become a part of the zoning ordinance. Motion by Mr. F�ymarchick and seconded by Mr. Johnson to recommend that the Council set a date for a Public Hearing be"ore the Planning Board on the PUD application from Mr. Gordon Hedlund fc. Lots 9 through 16, Block 6, Mounds View Acres, Second Addition subject to the official adoption of the new zoning ordinance. Voting on the motion: Aye: Fgmarchick, Hiebel, Cowan and Johnson Nay: Marks and Letourneau Motion carried. page 4 Mr. Hedlund was then advised to have a total package of specific plans including the residential developementfor the July 27th Council meeting at which Mr. Letourneau will present the Board's recommendations. Mr. Johnson then told the Board of the meetings which had been held with the St. Anthony Merchaqts Association and the owners of the properties in the shopping area on July 7th and 14th which he and Mr. Bowerman had attended. The other Board members said they had not been informed of such meetings. Mr. Johnson said the Council had recommended that a task force or steering committee be set up by the Planning Board and he suggested that such a group should include representation from the Council, the Board, the tenants and all the owners including Red Owl who have no representative to the Merchants Association. He said the purpose of the committee would be to identify the problems existing in the operation of the shopping center, establish reasonable goals for improvement including the financial feasibility of the goals and propose solutions for revitalizing the shopping center. It was felt that Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Johnson should continue their interest in the project. Mr. Marks and Mr. Letourneau also expressed an interest in serving. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Cowan to establish a task force to study the renovation of the St. Anthony shopping area and to name Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marks and Mr. Letourneau to serve on the committee. Motion carried unanimously. :Sr. Hiebel then told of being especially conscious of the appearance of the neighborhood along Stinson Boulevard since the Jiffy Market hearings and felt the Sroga Standard Station was an intrusion on the residential nature of the neighborhood. He felt that the Planning Board should be informed of the history of the use of that land including zoning and the car storage arrangement with the City. Motion by Mr. Johnson and seconded by Mr. Hiebel to request Mr. Fornell to provide the Board with information regarding the zoning of the Sroga Standard Station property at 3201 Stinson Boulevard, the legality of the attached automobile storage and to find out what formal or informal arrangements have been made with the City "or the continuance of such storage. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Cowan to adjourn the meeting at 9:4o P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Helen Crowe, Secy