HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 08181987 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
iooaiz
Box: 15
Folder: PL PACKETS 1987
Document: PL PACKET 08181987
C
AGENDA
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
City of St. Anthony
Tuesday, August 18, 1.987
7: 30 P.M.
1 . Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3 . Minutes of July 21 , 1987 Planning Commission Meeting
4 . Designate Commission Representative to the August 25 , 1987
City Council Meeting.
5 . Public Hearings.
• a. 7 : 35 P.M. Request for Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to allow for an additional caretaker unit in a
mini-warehouse facility.
b.-. 7 : 50 P.M. Request for a Temporary Use permit: for
Minnesota Scientific at 3839 Chandler Drive
for a temporary office facility.
6. Other Business.
a. Memo re: recent Supreme Court decision.
7 . Adjournment.
• C=�]DY OF' E3`J P o ANTHONY
PLANN2NG C'OMMT SS20W MTNUr=E;
2 1 1 9 87
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
2 Chair Pro Tem Wagner.
3 Present for roll call: London, Wagner, Werenicz , Madden.
4 Absent: Franzese, Hansen, Wingard ( arrived at 7 : 34 P.M. ) .
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 JUNE 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7 Motion by Madden, seconded by Werenicz to approve the above with the
8 following changes:
9. Page 3 ,- •Li-ne 43 : Insert "of" after "most-" .
1u Page 4, Line 16: Delete second "Campbell" .
11 Page 4 , Line - 38: Insert "would" after "eventually" . '
12 Page 5, Line 21: Substitute "further" for "farther" .
13 Page 6, Line 36: Substitute "snow" for "now" .
14 Page 6, Line 54: Delete "to be" .
05 Motion carried unanimously.
16 WINGARD TO REPRESENT COMMISSION -AT JULY 28TH COUNCIL MEETING
17 The Commissioner agreed to contact Chair Franzese if he was unable to do
18 the above.
19 PUBLIC HEARING
20 Approval Recommended° for Transfer of Land Within Johnson Manor
21 Subdivision
22 The hearing was opened at 7: 35 P.M. with the notice of the hearing read
23 aloud by Chair Pro Tem Wagner. The notice had been published in the
24 July 8 , 1987 Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record within
25 350 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to
26 receive the notice or objected to its content.
27 Application: for subdivision without platting which would allow the
28 transfer of approximately 1 , 580 square feet of left-over
29 property not utilized by the tennis courts from the com-
30 mon area in Outlot A to Outlot B, which is the property
31 owner' s own back yard.
4 2,,-Staff Report: -Mr. Childs.-reiterated the statement .in his July 17th
3 memorandum to the Commissioners that he perceived this
34 was a simple lot split and everything seemed to be in
35 order;
36
1 -2-
• I
2 -said the 22 . 8 X 72 . 4 foot parcel had apparently been
3 left over after the tennis and basketball courts had been
4 constructed in Outlot A and the owner of the subdivision
5 apparently wanted to tie it to his own backyard at 3306
6 Belden Drive;
7 -reported receiving no calls- or letters either for or -
8 against the proposal but said did receive one letter from
9 Robert Kluwe, 2600-34th Avenue N.E. inquiring about what
10 was being proposed;
11 -indicated no further contact by this neighbor after he
12 had sent him the same explanation he had given the Com-
13 mission in his memo on this - proposal.
14 Proponent: -Rick Johnson, subdivision owner who confirmed for Com-
15 missioner Werenicz that last year another small piece of
16 land had beentransferred from Outlot B to Outlot A when
17 he learned tennis courts had to run north and south;
18 -said the currently proposed parcel wasn' t needed for the
19 courts and would fit better with the property in Outlot B
20 since Outlot A is fenced.
21 Opponents: -none, but Robert Churilla, who said he lives directly
22 behind the Johnson home at 2608-34th Avenue N.E. reported '*
23 the storm sewer intake behind his house had been moved
24 off its base with. the heavy rainfall several weeks ago
25 and had been put back by the neighbors;
26 -said about a fourth of his plantings had been - ruined_,when
27 that happened and he was concerned about whose responsi-
28 bility it was to maintain the storm sewer;
29 -was told by Mr . Johnson that the storm sewer is the! -.
30 City' s;.
31 -was assured by Mr. Childs that the Public Works Depart-
32 ment would be checking the erosion around the sewer line
33 which they probably knew nothing about because it had
34 happened on private property;
35 -Mr. Churilla said he had no objections to Mr. Johnson
36 transferring the parcel.
37 The hearing was- closed at 7 : 48 P.M.
38 Commission Recommendation
39 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Madden to recommend the Council approve •
40 the ,*request from Rick Johnson., 3306 Belden Drive, for subdivision
41 without platting to allow transfer to a parcel of land approximately 22
-3-
2 feet X 72 feet in size from Outlot A to Outlot B of Johnson Manor
Subdivision as indicated on the sketch -in the Commissioners July 21,
4 1987' agenda packet. The purpose of the transfer is to transfer unused
5 land from the parcel the owner had dedicated for a tennis court common
6 area to his own back yard.
7 In recommending approval, the Planning Commission finds:
8 *Mr. Johnson initially owned all this property and this transfer
9 would only be allowing him to take back a piece of land not needed
10 for the tennis courts constructed on the common area he had
11 dedicated for that purpose;
1.2 *staff reported receiving no letter or calls objecting to the
13 transfer and no one appeared at the Planning Commission hearing
14 to voice an objection to the proposal.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
17 Commission Recommends Council Grant Two Variances for Undeveloped Lot On
18 Southeast Corner of 37th Avenue N.E. and Roosevelt Street N.E.
19 Action had been tabled June 16th on the petition from William Campbell
20 of Campbell Construction Incorporated, 12409 Drake Street N.W. , Coon
* Rapids, to construct a home on the above property which would require
2 . variances for a substandard lot and house size as well as a 14 foot
23 setback from 37th Avenue N.E. , where 30 feet are required by Ordinance.
24 The Commission. direction, in their motion to table, had been that legal
25 ownership of the property be established before the matter was returned
26 for Commission consideration.
27 A copy of the June 22nd letter from the Randall, Dehn & Goodrich law
28 firm to Mr. Childs had been included in the agenda packet, which
29 addressed this issue by stating that "as Special Administrator ' to be ' ,
30 Don Flynn, the law firm' s deceased client' s brother, had concurred with
31 Mr. Campbell ' s variance application to build a 26 foot X 38 foot house
32 on the said lot.
33 The Chair Pro Tem read aloud the notice of the June 16th hearing which
34 had gone out to all the property owners within 3200 feet of the subject
35 property and stated, that, as had been promised at the conclusion of
36 that hearing, those same neighbors had been notified that the request
37 would be reconsidered at the July 21st Commission meeting. This notice
38 advised the neighbors that, although the legally required public hearing
39 on the matter had been closed, any of them who cared- to do. so would be
40 permitted � to provide further input to the issue at this meeting.
•
1 -4- •
2 Staff report -Mr. Childs ' July 17th memorandum, which, along with a
copy of his June 12th memorandum, but had been included in
4 the agenda packet;
5 -the City Manager read aloud the letter from the law firm
6 which clarified the issue of ownership and reported he
7 had read the letter to the City Attorney over the phone;
8 -said the City Attorney had concurred the clarification of
9 ownership had been acceptable in terms of making a valid .
10 application and, more importantly, since the variance
11 runs with the land and not the owners, the City Attorney
12 had perceived the June 22nd letter would be an accept-
13 able basis on which the Commission could take action.
14 Commission Response
15 Wagner: -indicated he believed the question of ownership had been
16 satisfactorily clarified by the attorneys;
17 -said he had concluded after reading the literature, the
18 Manager had provided in the agenda packet related to
19 recent Supreme Court decisions, that the City, would
20 literally be running the risk of being accused of "tak- •
21 ing" that property if construction were denied alto-
. 22 gether;
23 -added, however, that he perceived the City would be
24 permitted to impose certain criteria for the constru-
25 ction including the requirement that the driveway could
26 only exit off Roosevelt. He also said he would be
27 reluctant to recommend a variance for a setback which
28 would be less than half of what the City Ordinance
29 requires;
30 -pointed out that any questions about drainage would
31 have to be settled before the City would issue a
32 building permit.
33 London -said he would be very uncomfortable allowing a house
34 size less than the Ordinance required and ask whether
35 there had been many similar variances granted in the
36 past;
37
38 -indicated he perceived the neighbors ' concerns about
39 snow storage obstructing drivers' view might be -legi-
40 timate, -.although he had noticed there were also build-
41 ings, fences and large .spruce trees in the same neigh-
42 borhood which probably obstructed the .view more than •
43 this house would.
0
J
•
2 Wingard: -reported he had paced off the lot and. concluded the
3 house where it is proiposed to be constructed would not
4 be a deterrent to the sight distance for drivers '
5 approaching that corner from Roosevelt;
6 -agreed the blue spruce on the other corner probably
7 interferred more with the drivers ' view than, a house on
8 the other side would;
9 -suggested the vegetation height could be limited so as
10 not to interfere with the drivers ' sight distance on
11 37th Avenue; and
12 -thought that by requiring a 20 foot_ drainage easement
13 across the back of this lot, there would be no interfer-
14 ence with the continuation of northerly drainage off
15 adjacent homes onto 37th Avenue and away from the ad-
16 joining property to the east.
17 Madden: -noted thast if the proposed house were built two feet
18 narrower and four feet longer it would require no house
19 size variance; and
20 -said he believes it would be a reasonable compromise for
1 applicant to build the house this way and to provide a
2 16 foot rather than a 14 foot setback off 37th Avenue.
23 Mr. Childs ' reaction to these statements was to say:
24 *he could recall no cases where a variance for less than minimum
25 house size had. been granted in the six years he had served as City
26 Manager, except perhaps where small homes had been allowed to be
27 reconstructed after the tornado;
28 *he could see no reason why the Commission couldn' t recommend the
29 contractor be required to construct a 24 feet X 42 feet house and
30 to provide two more feet of setback off 37th Avenue;
31
32 *in relation to possible obstruction of view, indicated that with.
33 around 12 feet of City right-of-way there would be either 26 or 28
34 feet between the house and the street;
35 *the City is restricted from piling snow anywhere but the right-of-
36 way in any event.
37 In response to Commissioner 'Wingard' s question of whether- there would
38 ever be sidewalks in that right-of-way, Mr. Childs said the City' s
39 policy for the last 15 years had been "no more sidewalks'!, and the only
40 interest he had seen for sidewalks had been in front of ' the Kenzington.
401 Commissioner Madden added that the County had "shoved sidewalks down the
2 residents ' throats" when 37th Avenue had been reconstructed past. his
43 townhome.
1 -6-
• i
2 Mr. .Childs said that an example where a swale was required across a'
3 property to maintain drainage would be the Nesser property on' St.
4 Anthony Boulevard.
5 Hoxmeier Reiterates Neighbors ' Opposition to a House on that Corner
6 Jerome and Marjorie Shaddrick, 2510 and 2508 - 37th Avenue N.E. , and
7 Kenneth Hoxmeier, 3657 Roosevelt Street N.E. , were the only neighbors
8 who had accepted the City Manager ' s invitation to attend the meeting and
9 only the latter spoke. He said:
10 *he lived just south of the subject property and perceived a drive-
11 way off Roosevelt would be "awfully close" to the stop sign at
12 that intersection and any large object like a truck in the new
13 driveway might obstruct the view of the sign;
14 *since his driveway would be directly parallel to the new drive-
15 way, he would expect he and his new neighbors would be fighting
16 over where to store their snow in the winter;
17 *St.- Paul doesn' t permit certain species of trees, including blue
18 spruce to be planted on the City' s right-of-way and any tree which
19 obstructs drivers ' vision is removed with a chain saw in that
20 City; •
21 *the City could also follow St. Paul ' s example of sending out
22 someone from the forestry department to assure the right type of
23 vegetation is planted next to the intersection;
24 *he was still concerned about how the drainage behind his garage
25 would be handled after the lot is built up and wondered who would
26 be responsible for the maintenance of the swale;
27 *continued to perceive there would be a problem with obstruction of
28 view on that corner during a winter of heavy snows if a house is
29 built so close to the intersection;
30 *questioned whether the Supreme Court ruling meant only. a house
31 could be built on that lot;
32 *he understood one of the Flynn relatives were going to contest
33 the will, which could mean the matter could be held up on court
34 for a year or more.
35 Mr. Hoxmeier concluded by saying he was present to represent the
36 concerns of not only himself but of all the neighbors who had signed the
37 petition against the development of this lot which had been presented at
38 the June 16th hearing. He said those concerns continued to be related
39 to the potential for drainage problems and vision obstruction if a house •
40 is built on that small corner lot. He also stated -that it was the
2 neighbors.' belief . that . the denial. of a duplex -in 1979 should still stand
3 for single family resident in 1987. because "this is till only a 45
4 foot lot.
5 The following responses were made .to. Mr. Hoxmeier ' s objections:
6 Wagner -perceived the question of who owned the lot was not really
7 vital in view of the City Attorney' s opinion that the vari-
8 ance went with the land; and
9 -added that construction could not be started anyway until the
10 ownership is settled.
11 Werenicz -told Mr. Hoxmeier the Commission' s hands were "almost tied"
12 by the Supreme Court ruling;
13 -said he also hated to see a house built on such a small lot
14 and wished the City could find some other use for it; but
15 -perceived the problem would be somewhat alleviated if a
16 longer, narrower house and a deeper setback from 37th could
17 be required;
08 Wingard -told Mr. Hoxmeier he also wanted to keep St. Anthony "a
9 first class city" but unfortunately this. request involved
20 a 45 foot lot which had been grandfathered into the Ordin-
21 ance as buildable.
22 Proponents: Mr. Campbell and Jay Cadwallader of Cadwallader Realty
23 were present .but did not speak.
24 The consensus was that the Commission should proceed with the
25 recommendation for approval but that it should not include a variance
26 for a house size which did not meet the Ordinance and that the setback
27 variance should be for a 16 and not a 14 foot setback from 37th Avenue:
28 Commission Recommendation
29 Motion by Madden, ,seconded by Wingard to recommend the Council grant a
30 variance to the Ordinance requirement for 11 ,000 square foot lots for
31 single family residences, which would allow a home to be constructed on
32 the .5 ,648 square foot lot on the southeast corner of 37th Avenue and
33 Roosevelt Street N.E. and a setback variance to the Ordinance
34 requirement for 30 foot setbacks on corners which would allow the house
35 to be constructed 16 feet from the 37th Avenue property line. The
36 Commission further recommends the following conditions be imposed on
37 granting the variances:
38 1 . that in response to the neighbors ' concerns about drainage,
0.9 a 20 foot drainage easement be maintained on the east side of
40 the property;
I
I
1 -8-
2 2 . that no vegetation higher than- 3-1/2 feet -be planted along
3 37th- Avenue from Roosevelt. Street to the eastern edge of the.
4 house; and
5 3 . that no curb cut off on 37th Avenue be allowed.
6 In recommending these variances be granted, the Planning Commission
7 finds that:
8 *other uses of the lot seem to be limited;
9 *the extent of the variance .request presented at this time dif-
10 fers greatly from the variances which were denied in 1979 for a
11 duplex;
12 *all three conditions required by statute to be satisfied affirma-
13 tively before these variances can be granted have been met and
14 satisfactorily addressed by the applicant in his petition.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 MISCELLANEOUS
17 Dairy Queen Owner Explains Signage
18 In his July 17th memorandum to the Commission related to the signage on
19 the above, Mr. Childs .reiterated the differences in perceptions which
20 had arisen since the Dairy Queen had been remodeled with two identifying
21 signs in the mansard and retention of the revolving roof sign, which had
22 been "grandfathered in" with the 1973 City Ordinance. -As indicated in
23 the minutes of the October 21 , 1986 Planning Commission hearing on
24 proposed signage for the establishment, the City Manager reiterated
25 that he had not been in attendance, but rather the Public Works
26 Department Director had. given the staff report on the signage request.
27 The Manager said what he had perceived from hearing all sides of the .
28 question was that members of -the- Planning Commission, the Dairy Queen
29 owner, Al Plaisted, and Mr. Hamer was that "evidently not everybody
30 functioned on the same wave length related to understanding that
31 meeting" because the Commissioners believe they were firm above only two
32 signs being erected and Mr. Plaisted thought he was allowed three and
:33 went ahead and put up all three when the facility was remodeled to match
34 the new -design adopted for all Dairy Queen stores. A copy of the June
35 28, 1987 , letter to Mr. Plaisted from Charles Anderson of the Blue Line
36 Construction Company, contractors for the project had been included in
37 the agenda packet and set forth the contractor ' s understanding of the
38 events which led to the erection of three signs on the store. The
39 Commissioners had also been provided with copies of the pertinent
40 .minutes of the October 21st meeting in their agenda packets.
�l -9-
2 A sketch of the -elevations of the new store which, it was agreed, had
3 not been presented at either the Commission hearing or .Council
4 consideration October 28th, was also included.
5 The informal discussion which followed brought out the following
6 comments:
7 Madden -said he had been very surprised when what he thought was a
8 "remodeling project" turned out to be a complete removal of
9 all but the foundation and floors of the existing store.
10 Childs -gave the Chair Pro Tem the signage which the store would be
11 allowed under the Ordinance and added the instances where. the
12 City has allowed a second sign when a store fronts on two
13 streets. Mr. Childs later confirmed that the store is be-
14 tween platted streets, a service road Sunset and Highway 88 ;
15 -also confirmed that the store size had gone from 693 square
16 feet to 1,100 square feet with the new addition;
17 -estimated the total current signage to be about 150+ square
18 feet which is not much above what would be allowed by vari-
19 ance for two signs.
*0 Plaisted -said the sign on top of the building is .6, X 8 . The sign on
21 the back of the building before the remodeling was 8 X 10 and
22 the signage on front was a "Blizzard" sign which was up .for
23 many years;
24
25 -agreed. the plans which had been given the Commission at the
26 October 21st meeting were a sketch of the remodeling plans
27 and not the sketch in the agenda packet that night;
28 -insisted the Commission had been shown pictures of another
29 Dairy Queen store showing both sides of the proposed build-
30 ing, including two signs in the mansard roof, during the
31 hearing;
32 -insisted pictures had never been returned to him.
33 werenicz -said his recollection of the October 21st meeting was that
34 the big issue had been whether the rotating sign would
35 remain;
36 said he certainly hadn' t envisioned the extent of the "remo-
37 . -deling" which had followed and had come away from the meeting
38 thinking only the rotating sign and one other wall sign had
39 been agreed: to;
00 said -he was certain "no one in the Commission had envisioned
41 the building coming down. "
1 -10- •
2 Plaisted : -certainly wouldn' t have spent. $9 ,000 on those signs .unless he
3 was certain the City was going to allow them;
4 -considered the building permit he was issued as the authori-
5 zation of the signage as well .as the construction project.
6 Childs -indicated he was also surprised when he saw the entire build-
7 ing gone but upon looking at the sketch the City had been
8 provided at the hearing could see where with the elimination
9 of the space within the dotted lines "there probably wasn' t
10 much left of the old building in that sketch either. "
11 Wagner -said he could see that where the City could say that, with
12 the building gone, the rotating sign was no longer "grand-
13 fathered in" and would require a variance to put it back, as
14 stated by Commissioner Madden during the October 21st hear-
15 ing.
16 Childs -said from an objective view, since he was not present at the
i
17 hearing, the reality of the situation was that' there were i
18 obviously differences of opinion of what happened at the
19 hearing; the building and signs are up; and it now remains to
20 determine what the City' s position is related to the signs
21 that are there. •
22 Plaisted -reiterated that the building permit he held in his hands was
23 "your OK of these plans" ;
24 -said his perception was "I 've been there since 1974. I up-
25 dated the store to make it a respectable place and since
26 I ' ve done this, I ' ve gotten nothing but heat from the City. "
i
27 Werenicz -said he wanted to be the first to compliment Mr. Plaisted on
28 the remodeling job with which "I couldn' t be more pleased" ,
29 but the fact remains that the Commission had come away from
30 the October 21st heating believing they had only approved the
31 retention- of -the- rotating sign on the roof- and -one- other
32 additional sign.
33 Madden -told Mr. Plaisted he perceived part of the confusion came
34 from the construction letter to the store owner which said
35 that "at some point after starting construction,. they were
36 notified by someone from the City that this building could
37 have two signs" ;
38 . -asked who that someone was and how that had come about.
39 Plaisted -indicated he had come away from the hearing with the impres-
40 sion •his signage was alright and had talked to Larry Hamer •
.41 about it later;
42
• 1 -11-
2
3 -added.-that the matter had been checked with two .people from
4 the City before ordering the $9, 00 signs;
5 -said he recognized there could have been some misunderstand-
6 ing about the signs., but there was certainly none in his
7 mind when he ordered those signs because experience with
8 other stores had taught him to be sure he had City approval;
9 -said he never understood thee was a misunderstanding until he
10 got the City' s letter about the signs;
11 -said he had consulted a lawyer after the letter arrived and
12 had been told to "cooperate with them. "
13 Wagner -assured Mr. Plaisted that was what the Commission was also
14 trying to do;
15 -was told the rotating sign is now 6 X 8 .
16 Childs -indicated that if the City gives Mr. Plaisted ' a variance for
17 the second sign because the store fronts on two streets, he
18 could have 144 square feet total signage under the Ordin-
19 ance and has about 150 square feet now (based on a rough
10 0 estimate) .
• 21 Plaisted -complained that he had to remove- his new window signs:: even
22 though the City' s liquor warehouse windows are "plastered
23 100% all over with signs" ;
24 -indicated he had concluded "it' s OK for you to operate that
25 way but not for me. "
26
27 Werenicz -told Mr. Plaisted that if he had seen the sketch provided
28 that night at the Commission hearing, he would clearly have
29 voted against the extra sign and. he still perceived the.
30 request had been somehow misrepresented at the hearing;
31 -added however, that the question before the Commission was
32 what do we do now?
33 Wagner -pointed out to Mr . Plaisted that the Commissioners perceived
34 the building had been altered more than 75% which had been
35 quoted as the point past which the rotating sign would not
36 have to be allowed;
37 -told the store owner the City had used this same formula for
38 not allowing the two florist companies to rebuild after the
39 tornado.
00 Werenicz -assured Mr. Plaisted that this was not the first time where
41 the City had written letters to businesses about non-conform-
42 ing signage.
I
-12-
•
2 Childs -said' if there is a ,Commission -consensus the City could make
3 arrangements to have Mr. Plaisted apply fora -variance for
4 the second mansard sign;
5 Wagner -said he would support a variance for two signs..
6 Werenicz -said he didn' t think the proposal had been presented to the
7 Commission as it should have been and next time he would not
8 be satisfied with "letting the City look at it later,"
9 however, indicated he couldn't see forcing additional costs.
10 to rectify the mistakes; and
11 -said he would recommend approval of the necessary variances
12 for the additional signage when it came before the Commis-
13 sion.
14 Plaisted -told Commissioner Wingard the shopping center owners are
15 responsible for resurfacing the parking lot around his
16 store. He said he has a letter from Eberhardt. promising
17 the center would be updated if he rebuilt his 'store to
18 match their renovation plans. A threat to take legal action
19 against the owners had resulted in the attorney who is
20 supposed to be responsible for the center promising to come
21 to visit the store owner in July. The attorney had also
22 indicated the owners would not want the City to condemn
23 their property;
24 -said the business leaders were 100% behind the City taking
25 firmer measures against the center owners.
26 Childs -told the store owner he had certainly been more successful
27 in getting a more positive response than the City had been.
28 Mr. Plaisted was thanked for coming in and giving his side of the
29 controversy.
30 OTHER BUSINESS
31 The June 23rd advisory on recent U.S. Supreme Court case --affecting
32 municipal zoning practices and the article from the Engineering News
33 Record on the same issue which had been provided by Commissioner Madden
34 were discussed briefly.
35 Before the meeting was adjourned the new retail center near Apache and
36 the proposals the H.R.A. anticipates receiving from various developers
37 related to finishing the Kenzie project were reported on by the- City'
38 Manager.
i
39 The Stonehouse project also reported on including the possibility of •
40 Mannings taking over the food service in the remodeled bar and the long
41 amount of - time it ,takes - to get steel roof trusses for the warehouse
42 portion.
I
it -13-
.2 The possibility of the medical building next to the Kenzington being
3 constructed soon was also explored.
4 Commissioner Madden announced he understood Hennepin County Commissioner
5 Sam Sivanich was going to move into the Village, which might be a
6 benefit for the City.
7 ADJOURNMENT
8 Motion by Wingard, seconded by Madden to adjourn the meeting at -9: 25
9 P.M.
10 Motion carried unanimously.
1.1 Respectfully submitted,
12 Helen Crowe, Secretary
13 :cjk
14
�5
August 14 1987
To: Members of the City Planning Commission
From: David M. Childs, City Manager `.
Re: Request from Ken Solie for amendment to the City Zoning
Ordinance.
Through the attached letter, Ken Solie is requesting that the
City Zoning Ordinance as it relates to caretaking units for mini-
storage warehouses be amended to allow two -such caretaking units.
The current language in the Zoning Ordinance allows a caretaking
unit as a conditional use only. The language is as follows:
7. Dwelling unit of not more than 600 square feet and one
bedroom for use as a residence for a caretaker for a
mini-warehouse facility. No such dwelling unit shall be
occupied by a person other than a bona fide caretaker of
a mini-warehouse facility and the caretaker' s spouse and
dependent children. For purposes of this subsection, the
term "mini-warehouse" shall mean a building or buildings
designed and intended for warehouse use by three or more
different tenants.
The applicants have recently purchased the mini-warehouse
facility previously owned by Bernie Blanske and located at the
intersection of Foss Road and Chandler Drive. This is the only
mini-warehouse facility located in the City at this time. They
state that they wish to add another caretaking residence to the
present facility. I indicated to them that could not be
accomplished without an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance.
One major question that -needs to be addressed is whether a
facility this small really needs two on site resident caretakers?
It should also be noted that if an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance is approved by the Commission and the City Council, the
applicants would then have to return to the Commission and City
Council for approval of the new conditional use permit before
such a unit could be allowed.
Because this is a request for an amendment to the text of the
Ordinance, it should be noted that the City Attorney advises .that,
the notice of the amendment is made by publication and posting
only and not by mailing to residents. Such a mailing would later
be required for a Conditional Use Permit hearing if such an
• amendment is actually made to the Ordinance. To date we have
received no calls either for or against this request.
r
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing by the
Planning Commission of the City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, August
18, 1987 , at 7: 35 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast corner) for the purpose:
Consideration of a request from Ken Solie, Village
Properties for an amendment to the language of the City
Zoning Ordinance, Section 10, Subd. 3 , Item 7,
• relating to a permitted conditional use in the Light
Industrial (L. I . ) zoning classification. The proposed
amendment would allow not more than two dwelling units
of not more than 600 square feet and one bedroom for
use as a residence for a caretaker for a mini-warehouse
facility as a permitted conditional use. (The current
Ordinance allows one caretaking dwelling unit. )
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at said time and place. Questions regarding this
matter may be referred to the City Manager, 789-8881 .
David M. Childs
City Manager
Publish: August 5, 1987
P.O. BOX 18875
VILLAGE PROPERTIES
2916 PENTAGON DRIVE N.E.
i MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55418
Jule 9, 1987
Dave Childs
City Manager
City of St. Anthony
3301 Silver Lake Road
St . Anthony, Minnesota 55418
Dear Dave:
I understand that Jerry Cowan has spoken with you about obtaining
a Special Use Permit to allow the use of an area of the St.
Anthony Self Storage building as a second caretaker unit . We
would like to request that you initiate whatever action is
necessary to apply for this permit .
Jerry has been meeting with Larry Hamer to determine what
remodeling is required to allow such a use and we will comply with
his recommendations .
Please contact me at 378-5069 or Jerry at 636-1646 if you need
additional information.
Thank ou,
Kenneth Solie
cc : Jerry Cowan
C:
1
i
August 14 , 1987
To: Members of the City Planning Commission }
From: David M. Childs, City Manager
Re: ' Request for Minnesota Scientific for a temporary office .
facility.
This is a request - -for & special permit to allow Minnesota '
Scientific, 3839 Chandler Drive N.E. to locate a 12-I x -56-'
temporary mobile office on the east side of their business at
that location. They request permission to allow its use through
December of 1988 . The applicants lease the space from Donatelle
Properties and have their permission for this temporary use but
need City approval. Their need is based on a very rapid growth
of their business and a desire to stay in the City.
The Zoning Ordinance does not address such a temporary use but
the City Attorney states that it could be handled using the same
procedures as a Conditional Use Permit if the City wishes to
grant the temporary permit. The difference in this case is that
in a Conditional Use Permit it is already assumed that the use is
allowed and that it is up to the City to impose reasonable
conditions. In this case, however, the conditions can be imposed
but also the more basic decision about whether the use is allowed
at all must also be made.
If the Commission decides to allow a temporary use permit,
several conditions imposed should include:
* A specific timetable for removal of the structure.
* Requirement that its placement comply with applicable
building codes.
* That it be properly skirted or otherwise installed to be -
aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.
* That the permit only apply to, the operations of Minnesota
Scientific and that immediate removal be required should
they cease operations prior to the expiration of the permit.
Notice has been mailed to property owners within 350 feet of this
location and no calls have been received either for or against
this request.
•
•
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing by the
Planning Commission of the City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, August
18, 1987 , at 7: 50 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast corner) for the purpose:
Consideration of a request from Minnesota Scientific,
• Inc. , 3839 Chandler Drive, for a special use permit to
allow a 672 square foot temporary mobile office on the
east side of the building at that location through
December of 1988 . The request is based on rapid growth
of this local business, which designs, manufactures,
and sells specialty surgical/medical equipment.
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter
will be heard at said time and place. Questions regarding this
matter may be referred to the City Manager, 789-8881.
David M. Childs
City Manager
Publish: August 5, 1987
i
I
J
IMINNESOTA
SCIENTIFIC
TM INCORPORATED • 3839 Chandler Drive•Minneapolis, MN 55421-4497•612/781-0654
July 29 , 1987
Mr. Dave Childs
City Manager
City of St. Anthony
ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE COMMUNITY CENTER
3301 Silver Lake Road N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Dear Mr. Childs:
Thank you for the opportunity to present this letter stating the
need of a special permit for additonal office space for:
Minnesota Scientific, Inc.
3839 Chandler Drive N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55421
• Where ? - On the East side of our building.
• Size ? - 12 ' x 56 ' - 672 square feet.
• What? - Temporary Mobile Office.
• Description - See attached brochures.
• Term? - Earliest possible date through December 1988.
• Why? - We have approval of the building owner,
Donatelle Properties. Now we need per-
mission of the City of St. Anthony.
• Important to maintain all our staff under one (1 ) roof.
Minnesota Scientific, Inc. is a very rapidly growing medical device
Company, involved in the design, .development, manufacture and sale of
proprietary. surgical instruments:. The Company has. tripled in size
since we moved to this facility.- Our lease expires October 31 , 1988.
The addition of this office space will allow the company to complete
the term of the lease. Accordingly, you can see how much this
special permit will assist our company.
•
r
MINNESOTA
`SCIENTIFIC
PO INCORPORATED • 3839 Chandler Drive•Minneapolis.MN 55421-4497.612/781-0654
F
July 29 , 1987
F
Mr. Dave Childs
City Manager
City of St. Anthony E
ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE COKKUNITY CENTER
3301 Silver Lake Road N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418
Dear Mr. Childs :
Thank you for the opportunity to present this letter stating the
need of a special permit for additonal office space for:
Minnesota Scientific, Inc.
3839 Chandler Drive N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55421
o Where ? - On the East side of our building.
o Size ? - 12 ' x 56 ' - 672 square feet.
o What? - Temporary Mobile Office.
4i
o Description - See attached brochures.
o Term? - Earliest possible date through December 1988. `
o Why? - We have approval of the building owner,
Donatelle Properties. Now we need per- r
mission of the City of St. Anthony.
o Important to maintain all our staff under one (1 ) roof.
Minnesota Scientific, Inc. is a very rapidly growing medical device
company, involved in the design, development, manufacture and sale of
proprietary surgical instruments. The Company has tripled in size
since we moved to this facility. Our lease expires October 31 , 1988. ;.
The addition of this office space will allow 'the company to complete
the term of the lease. Accordingly, you can see how much this
special permit will assist our company.
j
w Mr. David Childs, City Manager
July 29, 1987
Page 2
We are are requesting accelerated handling on this application, since
we are already two ( 2 ) offices short.
Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.
Sincerely,
MINNESOTA SCIENTIFIC, INC.
i
Bruce A. LeVahn
President
BAL:na
Enclosure
I ni a
............
. . ...........
John) 'lezzerga Marshall Screw Products- Apache ,Print
3813 Chandler Drive N.E. 3820 Chandler Drive N.E. 3819 Chandler Drive N.E.
St. Anthony, VIN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421
Happy' s Potat;; -Chip Co. Village Properties Mirror Lake Condo Association
3900 Chandler Drive N. E. c/o Ken Solie 4000 Foss .Road N.E.
St. Anthony, -IMN, 55421 2817 'Silver Lane St. Anthony, MN 55421
St. Anthony, MN 554%1
Russell Teske
J. R. Gould & Sons Bernard Blanske 1100 PC Hwy. 2, Ste. 93
3820 Foss Road N.E. 3829 Foss Road N.E. Hermose Beach., CA 90254;
St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony; MN 55421 Re: 3821 Foss Road
Fudali et al Lary Firm William G. Graff Mark Jurkov.ich
Phyllis Fudaii 3824 Foss Road N.E. 3753 Foss Road N.E.
2408 Central Ave. N. E. St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Re: 3759 Foss Road N.E.
Lezlee Hustad Richard Sauer Robert Patterson
3755 Foss Road N.E. 3757 Foss Road N.E. 3761 Foss Road N.E.
St. Anthior.y , MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421
Leo Zaworski
3763 Foss Road N.E.
St. Ar.th-ony, MN 55421
•
J
f=iFFiUAVi I OF ('AILTNG
1 , 0 rin'le hereby certify that
• 1 placeo the attacned Pvotice of Hearing for
9 L(21
In the U.S. Mail on the ceiow specified cafe.
Date 0 q
Signature' &MI'.1
•
• WHAT CAN A PLANNER EXPECT
FROM THE JUNE 9 U.S . SUPREME COURT
LAND USE DECISION
On June 9 , 1987 the United States Supreme Court announced its
opinion on a land use "taking" case in the State of California .
The Court held that the Just Compensation Clause of the First
Amendment to the Constitution requires that a government must pay
landowner value of use when all use of the land has been denied
the landowner through a regulation adopted by the government .
Supreme Court Justice Stevens dissented , and stated that the
opinion is a loose cannon unattached to the Constitution , which
will have an adverse impact on the land-use regulatory process .
This report is an examination of the opinion from the viewpoint
of the community planner .
HISTORY OF THE CASE
In 1957 the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of
Glendale , California purchased land on which the Church operated
a campground as a retreat center and recreational area for
handicapped children . The land is located in a canyon on the
• banks of the Middle Fork of Mill Creek in the Angeles National
Forest in Los Angeles County .
In 1977 a forest fire denuded 3 , 860 acres of mountain woodlands
in the watershed area drained by the creek .
In 1978 a heavy rainfall caused a flood , killing 10 people and
destroying the church ' s campgrounds and buildings .
In 1979 , the County of Los Angeles adopted an interim ordinance
prohibiting the construction or reconstruction of any - building or
structure in an interim flood protection area which included the
land on which the church ' s campgrounds and buildings had stood .
In 1979 , a little more than a month after the ordinance was
adopted , the church filed a complaint in the Superior Court of
California claiming , among other things , that the ordinance was
an inverse condemnation of their land , . . . that all use of the
land had been denied them . . . and that they were therefore
entitled to be paid compensation.
Subsequently the Superior Court of California denied the claim,
and the California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court ' s
decision . The plaintiff then appealed to the United States
Supreme Court .
• On June 9 , 1987 the U . S . Supreme Court announced its opinion
overturning the California Court .
GENE FRANCH ETT & ASSOCIATES
5713 Chowen Ave.So. Minneapolis.MN 55410 1612)926-6201
• THE SUPREME COURT' S OPINION
First let ' s look at what the Court did not do .
The Court did not decide whether or not -the Los Angeles County
ordinance did actually deny the church all use of its land .
The Court did not decide whether or not the county can avoid the
conclusion that a "taking" had occurred by establishing that the
denial of all use was insulated as a part of the State ' s
authority to enact safety regulations .
What the Court said was : "We merely hold that where the
government ' s activities ( regulations ) have already worked a
taking of all use of property , no subsequent action by the
government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for
the period when the taking was effective" .
In its conclusion the Court noted that its opinion "will
undoubtedly lessen to some extent the freedom and flexibility of
land-use planners and governing bodies of municipal corporations
when enacting land use regulations . It is principally to this
statement that the remainder of this report is addressed .
• f
WHAT OTHER' S ARE SAYING
The June 9 land use decision of the Supreme Court has been given
much play in the press , much more so than many of the Court ' s
opinions. Several notable persons have commented on the opinion
and many publications have reported on the action of the Court .
The following is a fair representation of what others are saying .
National League of Cities:
"Before the Court ' s decision in this case , it had been assumed
that a city or town which lost a case under the takings clause
could simply rescind or revise the challenged regulation without
compensating the property owner . The Court ' s ruling places
landowners whose property interests are adversely affected by a
so-called regulatory taking on a par with property owners whose
land is actually condemned through eminent domain for public
projects such as a highway . "
•
2
• Minnesota League of Cities:
"Cities have new reason to think carefully about municipal
regulations , especially those involving zoning and building
matters . "
Jerome G. Rose, professor of urban planning , Rutgers University :
"What the decision means is that if zoning starts to get so
harsh , onerous and restrictive that it can be characterized as
confiscatory , then compensation must be made . "
James Fischer , president of the National Association of
Homebuilders :
"It is the most important land-use decision in the United States
since 1926 , when the Court first declared zoning constitutional .
And it is recognition by our nation ' s highest court that under
the constitution landowners are entitled to compensation when
their land is made useless by zoning , planning , environmental and
other land-use restrictions . "
Robert R. Best, lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation :
• "I don ' t think it is going to have much impact on the local
treasuries . The reaction should be a more careful and
responsible regulatory conduct , given the difficulty of proving a
regulatory taking . "
Joyce Holmes Benjamin, lawyer for the National Association of
Counties and the National League of Cities :
"Now , it ' s a lot of litigation . We ' ll know more about the
decision ' s impact after we run a few more cases through . "
Rick Slowes , assistant solicitor general , Minnesota Attorney
General ' s office :
"It opens up what we see as a can of worms , not only for the
state , but for local governments . It ' s going to make it more
difficult to do the kind of planning they ' ve been doing . "
Jim Tripp, Counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund :
"This case will spawn litigation right and left" .
•
3
• Planning Magazine, American Planning Association :
"The decision didn ' t resolve any of the pressing land-use issues
that have appeared on the Supreme Court docket with increasing
frequency since 1980 . Those questions are likely to come up
again in the new round of legal challenges sure to be generated
by the ruling . "
Gus Bauman, counsel to the National Association of Homebuilders :
"The courts must still determine in each case whether the
property interest is so large and whether enough time has gone by
to raise the taking issue"
Guideon Kanner, Loyola University , Los Angeles , and University
of Los Angeles law school , professor of law:
"A procedural muddle still remains . The Court sent the case back
to the California courts to decide whether the county has other
defenses to the lawsuit or to determine the amount of
compensation . "
• Richard Neely , justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals :
"That is a radically new holding . The Supreme Court is making
political and not legal decisions. No state government in its
right mind would give landowners a right to compensation for the
over-regulation of land" .
Neal R. Pierce, columnist :
"It was Black Tuesday at the Supreme Court June 9 for the open
spaces of America that lie in the path of development
juggernauts . "
Israel Stollman , American Planning Association executive
director :
"Planners had better be more circumspect in the kinds of things
they promote and produce and the regulations they design . "
In reading these comments of others it ' s apparent that the
viewpoints from around the country cover a wide spectrum, ranging
from a--let ' s wait and see what happens--point of view to a
gloomy forecast of much costly litigation .
4
• What do the top public planners in the Twin Cities think of the
opinion? The following is an analysis of their responses to that
question .
TWIN CITIES PLANNING DIRECTORS ' VIEWPOINTS
To find out how the decision is viewed by the top professional
planners in the local governments in the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area , a poll was taken of forty- six municipal planning
administrative officials holding the office of community
development director or planning director . They are the persons
in the the professional planning community whose activities are
most likely to be affected by the Court ' s decision .
The directors were first asked to indicate whether they agreed ,
strongly agreed , disagreed , strongly disagreed or had no opinion
with regard to the following statement .
"The June 9 decision of the United States Supreme Court will
weaken the ability to plan and manage effectively the
development of cities. "
Exactly 50 percent of those polled said they agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement . On the other side of the issue , 39
percent said they disagreed or strongly disagreed . The remaining
11 percent had no, opinion . Of the 50 percent who believe that
the opinion will eventually contribute to a weakening of land use
management by cities , many commented that the impact may be quite
light , given the circumstances of the case and the uniqueness of
the Los Angeles County ordinance .
Closer examination of the responses showed that concern about the
impact of the decision on city planning_ and development
management was significantly higher among the central city and
first-ring suburb planning directors , with 78 percent of them
agreeing with the statement . Among the outlying suburbs and
free-standing cities and county directors significantly fewer , 43
percent , agreed or strongly agreed that the ability to
effectively plan and manage community development will be
weakened . Proportionately more city and first-ring suburb
directors are concerned about the impact of the supreme court
decision weakening the ability to effectively plan and manage the
development of communities than their counterparts in the
developing parts of the metropolitan area .
Frequently the directors added to their comments the
qualification that it was too early to have any clear reading at
all as to what the eventual impacts might be , noting that the
case has been remanded back to the California courts for
• consideration of the case on its merits .
5
•
The respondents were then asked , "do you think the June 9
decision will cause your council members to be less restrictive
in regulating land-use in your city?"
In response , 54 percent said "no" , they do not expect their
councils to be any less restrictive in the regulation of land
uses in the future . There were , however , 35 percent answering in
the affirmative , expecting that their elected policy makers would
be influenced directly or indirectly by the Supreme Court ' s
decision to be less restrictive in the future . The remaining 11
percent had no opinion .
A further analysis of the responses shows that a larger
proportion of the central city and first ring suburb directors do
not expect their councils to be influenced by the supreme court
action . A much higher 78 percent of them responded "no" . In
contrast , substantially fewer of the directors in the outlying
communities (48 percent) responded "no" . A significant 38 percent
of them do expect. their councils to weaken land-use regulations
as a result of the Court ' s opinion . The remaining 14 percent had
no opinion .
Next , each of the directors was asked , "Do you think the June 9
land-use decision will cause your city council to amend the
• existing land use regulations to make them less.- restrictive?"
A significantly high number (85 percent) of the directors felt
that their councils would not take a step backward and weaken any
of their existing land-use regulations . None of the central city
and first ring suburb directors expect such action and only 5
percent of the outlying directors foresee any such action by
their councils ; the remaining 14 percent of the outlying
directors reported no opinion .
The final question asked of each of the forty-six directors was :
"Do you think there will be more land-use litigation in your city
as a result of this supreme court decision?"
A full 70 percent of all directors expect that there will be more
litigation as a result of the supreme court decision . The
proportion of "yes" and "no" responses was very similar among
central area directors and outlying suburban and free standing
directors , with only slightly more of the latter expecting more
land use litigation in their communities . Of those polled 11
percent had no opinion .
Comments from the directors which expect more litigation in their
communities indicated that they do not expect the suits to arise
out of any existing vulnerabilities of the existing regulations ,
• but rather from individual land owners who may believe that they
may have a remote chance of financial gain by suing the city , and
will procede to try it , at least until there is a history of
6
cases to discourage such litigation .
Most of the directors described the land-use decision making
process in their communities as sound , reasonable , and
consistently based upon a comprehensive city development . plan , a
-- -- ---- process -whic-h -has--r-epor-tedly__withs.t.o_o_d many challenges on the
part of some landowners who felt the need to litigate . Two did
say that there have been rare occasions when their councils
acted out of "local political reasons" , contrary to professional
land planning advice , and with full knowledge that their decision
would probably be overturned by the court , but by taking, such
action they were "off the political hook" .
There is , however , a general expectation that some land owners
will begin using the supreme court case with their own
interpretations of its significance in their attempts to persuade
planning professionals and council members to be less restrictive
vis-a-vis their particular land . Indeed , several directors have
already been approached by landowners with such arguments .
Overall , the perception of directors is that the zoning and other
land use regulatory measures in effect in their communities are
fair and reasonable , have been built upon a comprehensive plan
and are designed to protect the health , safety and welfare of the
city .
What Should A Planner Do?
First , don ' t make any major substantive changes in any plan or
regulation on the basis of this supreme court decision. until the
case has been resolved in the California courts to whom it
has been remanded . Why? Because it is unclear as to its
applicable significance .
1 . The ordinance was never, throughout this process, considered on
its merits , though it now will be in the California courts . Bear
in mind that immediately preceding the adoption of the interim
ordinance a rain storm caused a flood so severe that it not only
destroyed the church ' s buildings and recreation area but it also
killed ten people . That , it seems to me , is cause for action to
protect the safety , health and welfare of the community .
2 . The United States Supreme Court assumed and accepted as true
the church ' s claim that it had been denied all use of its
property . The Court did not examine and affirm the claim of the
church . This is particularly interesting . First , because the
County will now have the opportunity to argue whether or not all
use of the property was denied , since this point was also not
examined previously by the lower courts . Second , if the
California courts find that in fact all use of the property was
denied , how applicable would that be to the typical municipal
zoning ordinance? The essential purpose of zoning was , and -still
7
is , to maintain. a balanced community of land uses---to keep the
pig out of the parlor---and to do this basically through
districting , and not to deny all use of the land to any property
owner .
3 . Some lawyers are now speculating as to whether the Court
really meant all use of land denied . They ask , did it mean almost--
all , or most , or some ; looking back, no doubt , to Oliver Wendell
Holmes ' Court opinion in 1922 in which he said "the general rule
at least is , that while property may be regulated to. a certain
extent , if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a
taking . " What is too far? On the face of it this Court acted on
a case where it explicitly stated its acceptance that all use of
the property had been denied the church.
The most problematic part of the court ' s opinion for land
planners is its holding that if a municipal regulatory action is
later held by a court to be a "taking" , the municipality is
required to pay some compensation to the landowner for the time
when he/she was denied all use of the land , ie . , the period
between the time the ordinance was placed in effect and the
time of a court ' s decision that it constituted a "taking" and/or
was repealed by the municipality . Certainly no professional
planner has the remotest desire to bring such unpredictable costs
to their community government , and it is doubtful that they will
as long as sound planning precedes ordinance enactment .
Three of the more restrictive land use actions of a municipality ,
and therefore three areas in which to be more watchful and
cautious , are the adoption of moratoriums , environmental
protection regulations and historic preservation regulations .
But , even here , if the ordinance is constructed carefully and
appropriately recognizes existing uses it will be a sound land
use management tool . If by chance a municipality does have an
ordinance which denies all use of the land to a property owner ,
it is suggested that it be examined closely and reviewed with
the city attorney to consider possible amendments .
In the final analysis , it is too early and unclear to take action
of significant substance based on this supreme court decision . It
is suggested , however , that in the preparation of any .land use
regulatory ordinances in the future , steps be taken to assure
that the regulations are based on good land use data ,
professional land use analyses and a sound land use plan.
8
APPENDIX
• SURVEY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING DIRECTORS
ON JUNE 9 SUPREME COURT LAND USE DECISION
Between July 15 and July 30 , 1987 forty-six community development
or planning directors in the Twin Cities metropolitan area were
interviewed with the following questions .
1 . Please indicate whether you strongly agree , agree , strongly
disagree , disagree or have no opinion in regard to the following
statement .
The June 9 decision of the United States Supreme Court will
weaken the ability to plan and manage effectively the development
of cities .
Strongly . Agree Strongly Disagree No Total
Agree Disagree Opinion
Central
Cities ,
.First Ring 0% 78% 11% 11% 0% 100%
• Suburbs
Outer Suburbs ,
Free Standing
Cities and 5% 38% 5% 38% 14% 100%
Counties
All Directors 4% 46% 7% 32% 11% 100%
2 . Do you think the June 9 decision will cause your council
members to be less restrictive in regulating land use in your
city(S) ?
Yes No No Opinion Total
Central Cities ,
First Ring Suburbs 22% 78% 0% 100%
Outer Suburbs ,
Free Standing Cities 38% 48% 14% 100%
And Counties
All Directors 35% 54% 11% 100%
•
9
3 . Do you think the June 9 land use decision will cause your
city
council(s) to amend the existing land use regulations and
make them less restrictive?
Yes No No Opinion Total
Central Cities ,
First Ring Suburbs 0% 100% 0% 100%
Outer Suburbs ,
Free Standing Cities 5% 81% 14% 100%
And Counties
All Directors 4% 84% 11% 100%
4 . Do you think there will be more land-use litigation in your
city(s) as a result of this Supreme Court decision?
Yes No No Opinion Total
• Central Cities ,
First Ring Suburbs 67% 33% 0% 100%
Outer Suburbs ,
Free Standing Cities 70% 16% 14% 100%
And Counties
All Directors 69% 20% 11% 100%
GENE FRANCHETT 6 ASSOCIATES
10
. C 2 TY OP ST e A1*%7.'2°HONY
COUIST C2L M3LNU'3PES
DULY 1 4 , 1 9 8 7
7 = 30 ]P - M -
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
2 Mayor Sundland.
3 Present for roll call: Marks, Ranallo, Sundland, Enrooth.
4 Absent: Makowske.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 JUNE 23 , 1987 COUNCIL MINUTES
7 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve with the following
8 changes:
9 Page 6, line 15;. Substitute "update" for "does" .
10 Page 7 , line 5: Substitute "had indicated her interest in being" for
11 "said she was expecting to be" .
Motion carried unanimously.
13 LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
14 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to grant the following licenses as
15 listed in the July 14 , 1987 Council agenda packet:
16 Heating
17 Care Air Conditioning, Inc.
18 Air Conditioning Association
19 Total Energy Heating and Cooling
20 Northeast Sheet Metal
21 Rouse Mechanical
22 Contractors
23 E.F.H. Company
24 Aspen Excavating, Inc.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 Temporary, 3 . 2 .Beer Permits
27 Motion by Sundland, seconded by Ranallo to. grant the above permits to
�9
8 the following in accordance with the applications included .in the July
14 , 1987 Council agenda packet:
1 -2-
2 *Gary Harvey, 3004-31st Avenue 'N-.E. ; for .the Honeywell softball •
3 tournament to be held in Central Park from, 4 :00 to 10: 00 P.M..-;
4 July 31 , 1987 ;
5 ' *William Myers, St. Anthony Fire Department, for a department - softball
6 tournament to be held in Central Park from 8 : 00 A.M. to 6: OO .P.M. ,
7 August 15, 1987 ;
8 *St. Charles Borromeo Womens Club for the annual steak fry to be held
9 on church property, September 25, 1987 .
i
10 Voting on ,the motion:
i
11 Aye: Sundland, Ranallo, Enrooth.
I
12 Nay: Marks.
i
13 Motion carried.
- i
14 CLAIMS
15 Motion by Marks, seconded by Sundland to approve payment of the City
16 accounts payable listed for June 30, 1987 in the July 14 , 1987 Council
17 agenda packet and the July 14 , 1987 listing which had been distributed
18 by the City Manager before that meeting.
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of $2, 274 .76 to
21 Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc. as the City' s share of consulting costs
22 connected with the consultants ' participation in the meeting with the
23 U.S. Army et al related to assumption of responsibility for the City' s
24 water contamination problems and the follow-up letters issued by Bruce
25 Liesch Associates following that meeting.
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to approve payment of $24 , 896. 08
28 to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for June sewer services.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 Motion by Marks, seconded by Sundland to approve payment of $38 ,561. 46
31 to Norwest Bank as a -certificate payment for the motor grader purchased
32 by the Public Works Department.
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34 Motion by ' Ranallo, seconded. by Marks to approve payment of $1 , 517 . 32 to
35 the Dorsey & Whitney law firm for legal services during May, 1987 .
36 ' Motion carried unanimously. •
-3-
2' Motion by Enrooth, -seconded by Ranallo .to approve payment of $2, 976 :70
3 the Briggs and Morgan law firm for professional services provided in
4 ,conjunction with the City' s law suit against the U.S. Army et al as
5 related to .St. Anthony's water contamination problems.
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 Motion by Marks, seconded by Sundland to approve payment of $3 , 691 .70
8 for annual membership dues in the League of Minnesota Cities.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 REPORTS
11 COUNCIL
12 Mayor Reports Attendance at Washington D.C. Kiwanis Convention
13 Mayor Sundland gave his own insights about the above convention he had _
14 attended as a delegate the previous week. He said there .had been 5,700
15 delegates present and one of the accomplishments of the meetings had
16 been to open the organization_ to membership by women. The Mayor
17 described the tightly regulated .voting processes and explained the
18 problems the representatives of some states had with their own charters
related to the extension of membership.
20 DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES
21 The following were noted and ordered filed -as informational:
22 *Report from the Edward J. Hance law firm on matters conducted at the
23 Hennepin County District Court on June 17 , 1987 , in which they
24 represented St. Anthony as Prosecutor;
25 *June Fire Department Report;
26 *June Liquor Operations Sales Summary.
27 CITY MANAGER
28 There were no questions related to the July 7th staff meeting notes.
29 Personnel Decisions Selected to Assist the City in Completing. Its ,
30 Comparable Worth Study
31 Mr. Childs had distributed the proposals for the above study.-which had
32 been submitted by Personnel Decisions, Inc. and Arthur Young and gave
33 his reasons for accepting the former.. He said telephone calls to both
34 firms had reaffirmed that Personnel was proposing to provide the service
Wfor $1 , 800 while it would cost the City between $4,800 and $5,400 to
have the Young Company help the City .with its study. He explained that
37 one of the reasons Personnel could 'submit a- lower bid was because the
J i
1 -4- •
2 staff at that firm who would be doing the work were the same people who
3 had done the original study for St.. Anthony for-'Control Data who had '
4 sold the Focus System, including the St. Anthony data, in their computer
5 to Personnel Decisions. The City Manager advised .that he perceived
6 either firm would certainly be- able to meet the .State' s requirements for
7 the study and, although Arthur Young proposed to spend more time on an
8 actual pay plan, he nevertheless recommended the lower bid be accepted.
9 Council Action
10 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to accept the proposal from
11 Personnel Decisions, Inc. to assist the City in implementing the pay
12 equity study required by State Statutes -at a cost not to exceed $2,000.
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14 AGENDA ADDENDUM
15 RCM Associates Selected to Provide Engineering Services on Pedestrian
16 Crossing Signals for Kenzie Terrace
17 Proposals for the above from Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. and
18 Short-Elliott-Hendrickson, Inc. had been distributed before the meeting.
19 Mr. Childs observed that RCM' s proposal to design, construct, and
20 provide periodic site observation for a little over $5 ,000 was a
21 substantially lower than SEH' s proposal to design and construct the
22 signals for $5 , 000 and to provide administration and construction
23 observation for $3 ,000 . He therefore recommended the lower bid be
24 accepted, indicating he perceived the installation of crossing signals
25 would probably not require the supervision envisioned by SEH.
26 Council Action
27 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to accept the lower bid from Rieke
28 Carroll Muller Associates, Inc. to provide the necessary engineering
29 services on the pedestrian crossing signals at Kenzie Terrace as per
30 their July 13 , 1987 proposal for $5, 000 with the costs to be paid from
31 Community Development Block Grant funds allocated for that purpose.
32 ' Motion carried unanimously.
3.3 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
34 Animal Impounding Ordinance Adopted
35 The above had been prepared in final form by- the City Attorney to
36 include modifications in wording accepted by the- Council during the
37 second reading, June 23 , 1987 .
38 Council Action
39 Motion by • Ranallo, : seconded by Enrooth ,to adopt Ordinance 1987-003 .
•1 -5-
2 ORDINANCE 1987-00.3
3 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE IMPOUNDING OF 'ANIMALS AND RELATING TO
4 PENALTIES FOR ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS; -AMENDING
5 SECTIONS 1010 AND 1100 : 00 OF THE 1973 CODE OF .ORDINANCES
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 ADJOURNMENT
8 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to adjourn- the meeting at 7 : 50. P.M.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 Helen Crowe, Secretary
12
`3 Mayor
14 ATTEST:
15 .City Clerk
16 :cjk
•
C Z TY CD 1F ST' a ANTHONY
• � COUNCIL M2NUTES
.7ULY Z 8 1 9 8 7
1 The meeting was opened at 7: 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
2 Mark Soldatow, a St. Anthony- Cub Scout, who was taking notes on the
3 meeting to fulfill badge requirements.
4 Present for roll call: Marks, Ranallo, Sundland, Enrooth.. Makowske
5 ( arrived at 7 : 34 P.M. ) .
6 Also present:. David Childs., City Manager; William Soth, City Attorney;
7 and Larry Hamer, Public Works Director.
8 JULY 14 , 1987 COUNCIL MINUTES
9 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve the above with the
10 following changes.:
3.1 Page 3 , line 14: Insert "St. Anthony Kiwanis" delegate "whose
12 attendance fees had been paid by that organi-
13 zation" as 'clarification before "the previous
14 week" .
5 Page 3 , line 37 : Insert "Decisions" after "Personnel" .
Motion carried unanimously.
17 LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
18 Motion by Marks, seconded by Enrooth to grant the following licenses as
19 listed in the July 28, 1987 Council agenda packet:
20 Heating
21 Gusk Heating and Air Conditioning
22 Contractors
23 James C. Miller, Minneapolis
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 CLAIMS
26 Motion'. by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve payment of all liquor
27 accounts payable listed for June 30 and July 14 in the July 28 , 1987
28 Council agenda packet.
�29 Motion carried unanimously.
-2- i
2 Motion.:by .-Ranallo; . -seconded'by.-Enrooth to approve.-payment of. $1_j825 . 00 .-_
3 to the Edward J:.' Hance law firm -for services -rendered in- connection with
4 St. Anthony prosecutions from June 4 through .July 1 , 1987 .
5 a Motion carried unanimously.
6 Councilmember Makowske arrived at 7 : 34 P.M.
7 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to approve payment of $93 , 609. 00 in
8 premiums to the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust Fund for.
9 coverages listed in the July 28 ,. 1987 Council :agenda packet to be paid ,
10 from both General and Liquor Operation Funds.
11 Motion carried -unanimously.
12 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $3 , 041. 92 to
13 the Briggs and Morgan law firm for professional services provided in
14 conjunction with the City' s law suit against the U.S. Army et al as
15 related to St. Anthony' s water contamination problems.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $972 . 80 to
18 the Higgins Insurance Agency for volunteer firefighters blanket accident
19 policy coverage.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Makowske to approve payment of $839. 00 to
22 WCCO Television for the City' s share of costs for the marketing video
23 for St. Anthony, which Councilmembers viewed as a "real bargain" .
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $2 , 500 to the
26 Dorsey & Whitney law firm for legal services to the City related to the
27 issuance of $690,000 in Liquor Store Revenue Bonds for the Stonehouse
28 remodeling and-warehouse construction project.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 REPORTS
31 JULY 21 , 1987 PLANNING- COMMISSION- MINUTES - COMMISSIONER JOHN WINGARD
32 . Transfer 'of Land Within Johnson Manor Subdivision Approved
33 Application: from Rick Johnson, 3306 Belden Drive for
34 subdivision without platting which would allow .the
35 transfer of 'approximately 1 , 580 square feet of
36 left-over property not utilized by the tennis
37
2 -courts from the common area in :Outlot A to Outlot
3 B, which is, the property owner-' s. own -back yard.
4 Staff report :. Childs reiterated July 24th memorandum advice that
5 the request represented a simple lot split for which
6 every thing appeared to be in order;' and
7 had included in the agenda packet the survey which he
8 . - had also provided the Planning Commission.
9 Hamer indicated the Public Works Department had the
10 problem with erosion around the sewer line west .of
11 Mr. Churilla' s home at 2608-34th Avenue N.E. , on its
12 project schedule, which had lengthened considerably
13 with the heavy rainfall the previous Thursday night.
14 Commission
15 recommendation: Council approval.
16 Council Action
17 Motion by Makowske, seconded by Marks to approve the request from Rick
18 Johnson, 3306 Belden Drive, for subdivision without platting to allow
4 the transfer of a parcel of land approximately 22 feet X 72 feet in size .
from. Outlot A to Outlot B of Johnson Manor Subdivision as indicated in
21 the survey in the Council' s .July 28 , 1987 agenda packet. The purpose of
22 the transfer is to transfer unused land from the parcel the owner had
23 dedicated for a tennis court common area to his own back yard.
24 In granting approval, the Council finds, as did the Planning Commission,
25 that:
26 *Mr. Johnson initially owned all the property in this subdivision and
27 this transfer would only allow him to take back a piece of land not
28• needed for the tennis courts constructed in the common area he had
29 dedicated for that purpose;
30 *Staff reported receiving no letters or calls objecting to the transfer
31 either before or after the July 14th hearing or the July 28th Council
32 consideration and no one appeared at either meeting to voice an objec-
33 tion to the proposal.
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35.: Council Perceives Supreme Court Rulings Preclude Denial of variances to
36 Develop Substandard Lot on Corner of 37th Avenue and Roosevelt N.E.
37 Application for variances for:
-lot size of 5 ,648 square feet where 11 ,000 square
9 feet are required by Ordinance for a : single family
40 home and 14 ,000- square- feet for -a -duplex;
1 -4-
2 -a 988 square- foot - house where the Ordinance requires
3 1 ,000 square feet;
4 -a 14 foot setback from 37th Avenue N.E. where 30 feet
5 are required on both sides of corner lots.
6 Commission
7 recommendation: Commissioner Wingard- indicated that the Commission was
8 only recommending the Council grant the lot size
9 variance and -permit the house to be constructed 16 feet
10 from the property line because:
11 -they perceived the layout of the house could- be re-
12 drawn for a longer, narrower structure which would
13 move the house two feet further back from the street
14 and reduce the setback variance to less than 500 of
15 what the Ordinance requires;
16 -indicated the Commission had accepted the clarifica
17 tion of ownership provided .by the deceased owner' s
18 attorney; and
19 -concurred with the City Manager ' s perception that case
20 law seemed to indicate the City could not prevent this
21 property from being developed at all.
22 Staff reports: Childs had included a copy of his June- 12th- memorandum
23 to the Commission in the agenda packet which, gave a
24 history of the substandard lot which he had
25 nevertheless perceived to be "a lot of record" and
26 "buildable" ;
27 cited the variances which had been requested;
28 explained how case law appeared to indicate the City.
29 would be "taking" the property if the lot were not per-
30 mitted to be developed at all.
31
32 Soth affirmed Councilmember Marks ' assumption that a
33 court would probably view the City' s denial of the vari-
34 - ances necessary to build a house on the property as
35 . "taking without compensation"
36 added that he perceived such denial might be considered
37 to be one of the. clearest cut cases of '!.hardship"
38 because the City .would be creating the "ultimate" hard-
.39 ship for the land owner because he would be . unable to
40 make use of his property altogether; •
41
Sr; _
�1 -5-
'2 told Councilmember- Makowske he did not- believe the fact
.3 that the neighbors'- might -want- to buy the land -to keep it
4 from being developed would justify further .tabling of
5 action on the proposal; but
6 advised that an exception- to the Supreme Court ruling
7 would be that, if the property- owner owned the adjoin- .
8 ing lot, the City would not be required to grant these
9 variances;
10 -added that Council'-s approval that evening would cer-
11 tainly not preclude the neighbors' negotiating such a
12 purchase later on,. but the above would be true of that
13 ownership as well;
14 reiterated his belief that, with their June 22nd letter,
15 the attorneys for the deceased property owner "had
16 joined in the, variance application
17 recommended the Council take action on the variance
18 requests that evening.
19 Proponent: William Campbell; of Campbell Construction Inc 12409
�0 Drake Street N.W. , . Coon Rapids, MN. -
21 indicated he opposed any further delays on his request;
22 questioned whether the .fact that the "neighbors might
23 give me trouble" was a viable reason for denying the
24 variances;
2-5 replied to the question of- whether he was going to live
26 in the house he proposed to construct by saying "that
27 depends on the neighbors. "
28 Jake Cadwallader of Cadwallader Realty, 3901 Silver Lake
29 Road, was present but did not speak.
30 The neighbors ' opposition to a house being built on that small lot was
31 again stated by Kenneth Hoxmeier, 3657 Roosevelt who:
32 drew. the. Council' s attention to the. copy of the petition against
33 the :City' s.. allowing a house on this lot which had .been included
34 in their agenda packet;
35 reiter:ated., the -concerns he and his neighbors shared related to
36 problems with. .drainage, snow storage, and. sight distance ob-
37 struction- for drivers' on -Roosevelt, if a house is built on this
38 lot;
t =pointed out -that in 'some instances the City was being asked to
40 grant variances which were 50% more than the Ordinance allowed;
1 -6-
2 -said even if tha-t could be corrected by .changing the shape of. .
3 the house the homeowners who had signed the petition would -.per-
4 sist -in their opposition;
5 -indicated, however, at the conclusion of the discussion, that he
6 understood the Council' s conclusion that. "their hands were tied" ,
7 even, though they shared the neighbors ' - concerns about such a
8 small lot being developed.
i
9 Expressions of frustration with having to grant such excessive variances
10 fore the project had been expressed individually - by the Mayor and each
11 of the Councilmembers.
12 Enrooth: indicated he couldn' t see the City spending the .money which
13 would be necessary to try to win "an indefensible issue in
14 the courts" .
15 Marks: told Mr. Hoxmeier he also hated to see the undeveloped pro-
16 perty next to' him which the neighborhood kids had been using
17 for a playground for years built up but had to accept the
18 property owner' s right to use his property..
19 Makowske: reported she had stepped off the property and had a hard time
20 visualizing a house fitting into such a small space,
21 wanted to delay the decision if there was -any chance of the
22 neighbors buying the property;
23 Mr. Soth told her "selling the land not to be used" would
24 probably not be considered by the court to be a legitimate
25 use of the land.
26 Sundland: indicated he concurred with the City Attorney that there
27 appeared to be no legal basis for not acting on the request
28 that evening.
29 Ranallo: agreed that the City would be "fighting a losing battle by
30 denying the variances ; but
31
32 told Mr. Campbell after the motion to grant the variances had
33 been passed that:
'34 *the decision had not left a good taste -in the Council' s
35 mouth or a sense of cooperation with his neighbors;
36 *it-might be good for him to . try. to .work out some
37 arrangement with his neighbors to- buy the -property.
38 Council Action
39 Motion by' Raftallo, seconded by Makowske to gra-nt a variance to the. City •
40 Ordinance requirement for 11 , 000 square foot aots .,for single -family
1 -7-
. 2 'residences; which would allow a . home to be' constructed on the 5 ,648
3 square. foot . -lot. on- the :southeast corner of 3-7th Avenue and Roosevelt
4 Street- N.E. .-and a_ setback variance to the Ordinance requirement for 30
5 foot setbacks on corners which would allow a reduced size house to be
6 constructed 16 feet from the 37th Avenue property line.. The Council
- 7 further agrees with the Planning Commission that the- following
8 condition's be imposed on the granting of these variances:
9 1 . that, in response to the- neighbors ' concerns about drainage,
10 a 20 foot drainage easement be maintained on the .east side.. .
11 of the property;
12 2 . that the easement papers and information on the title be
13 submitted for the City Attorney' s review;
14 - 3 . that no vegetation higher than 3-1/2 feet be planted along
15 37th Avenue from Roosevelt Street to the eastern edge of
16 the house; and
17 4 : that no curb cut off 37th Avenue N.E. be allowed.
18 In granting these variances, the Council finds, as did the Planning
19 Commission, that:
00 *other uses of the lot seem to be limited;
21 *the extent of the variance request presented at this time differs
22 greatly from the variances for a duplex which were denied in
23 1979 ;
24 *all three conditions required by statute to be satisfied affirma-
25 tively before these variances can be granted have been satis- .
26 factorily addressed-' by the applicant in his petition.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Commissioner Wingard was thanked for his report. He remained for the
30 discussion of damage to basements, which had resulted from the inability
31 of the City' s storm and sanitary sewer systems to handle the 9 inch
32 rainfall which fell in a short time during the storm the metropolitan
33 area had experienced the evening of July 23 , 1987 .
34 Residents ' Complaints Are Heard
35 Allen and Cris Kremer, 2829 Coolidge reported they had installed a
36 waterproofing -system on their home which "had worked beautifully" during
37 -the- storm, but had sewage backing. up' into .their basement. and ruining :
38 that newly decorated area. Mr. Kremer reported .his wife had canvassed
39 the four blocks around their home and found 21. of the 30 homeowners
00 whose names appeared- on the listing the Kr•emers presented, .had
41 experienced sewage backup into their basements. The homeowner
1 -8- �•
2 suggested a. -study..be- made :to see what- could be done- to remedy the
3' situation. before --the 'next storm occurred: Mrs. 'Kremer said none of her.
'4 friends in other communities had experienced problems like those she had.
5 with sewage. .
6 Councilmembers responded to the Kremers as follows:
7 Makowske: -indicated it had to be recognized that a great deal of the
8 problem had resulted -' from homes with drain tiles connected
9 to the City' s sanitary system which she viewed as being
10 cases of "neighbors causing problems for neighbors. "
11 Sundland: reported ' a study done after what had been termed "a hundred-
12 year" :rainfall in 1978 , had estimated there were dozens of
13 homes in the Village at that time which had their drain
14 tiles and even some had their downspouts connected with
15 their sanitary sewer lines;
16 -indicated he perceived there were many second or third
17 owners of homes today or first owners who were not aware
18 what their contractors had done who were not even con-
19 scious of such connections;
20 -perceived that, with carpeting or tiles installed after the
21 house- was built, it would be very difficult for those home-
22 owners or the City to know these connections were made.. in
23 particular homes;
24 -added that the potential for problems had not even been
25 recognized until long after the community had grown when
26 new standards for building codes had been instituted;
27 -indicated the Infiltration & Inflow study developed by a
28 task force of concerned residents and City staff after the
29 problem in 1978 had suggested one way of remedying the pro-
30 blem of sewer backup would be for the City to help defray
31 the costs of purchasing check valves which would close off
32 individual home sanitary sewer systems during heavy periods
33 of rainfall;
34 -reported few of the homeowners who had experienced .sewer
35 backup in 1978, including some of those on 29th Avenue who
36- had experienced -problems this time, had indicated an inter-
37 est ' in the City' s offer - ten years ago.
38' Ranallo: -told .Mrs. . Kremer the ent-ire. metropolitan area had exper
39 . ienced similar. problems -to .St. Anthony' s with their -,sani-
40 - , tary sewer systems and: that it -had been so bad in Edina ' -
41 that the City had to ,mandate all private wells in that
42 City be shut down -because. there was sewage in the drinking
43 water;
•1 -9-
2- -said,-he. .perceived there were a lot- of people in . St:. .Anthony
3 who- had experienced the same problems with-the rain last
4. .. Thursday .night. because-- both .the sanitary and storm sewers
5 had. been overloaded with 9 inches of rain .falling on the
6 City. -in such a short period of time;
7 reported .his . own drain tile is correctly connected to a
8 sump .pump which directs.- the ground water around his 'home out
9 into his back yard; but
10 -said the water was seeping into his house from the front
11 yard and running down his floor drains;
12 -had concluded if - this was true of a lot of homes in the
13 Village, it certainly would have helped to overload the
14 entire sanitary sewer system that night._
15 Mr. Hamer agreed that many homes had experienced surface water- inflow
16 which had nothing to do with sanitary sewer backup from incorrectly
17 connected drain tiles. He also said there had been infiltration from
18 the overloaded storm- sewer system into the sanitary sewer system.
19 The Public Works Director said the City had done two things which had
�0 helped the situation . considerably:
21 *:a bypass had been installed- on Downers Drive through Wilshire
22 Park which directed sewage .into the Lydia Street connection with
23 Roseville; and
24 *a second- bypass was .made on Anthony Road and Roosevelt. Street
25 which directed sewage into the Minneapolis system.
26 Mr. Hamer said, because of these bypasses, there had been less pumping
27 time on Wilson Street but when the sewage reached the Lydia connection,
28 it was overloaded and the sewage was forced down 29th Avenue and. into so
29 many basements on that street that his department couldn' t keep up with
30 all the calls for assistance which came in. He added that many persons
31 whose basements :had. been -damaged had .faiied to let .the City know .about:
32 it until the next day.
33 Mr .. Kremer . said :he perceived the Public Works and Fire Department had
34 nothing to apologize for after the. way City crews had tried to do
35- everything they could to help- after: the crisis . However, the -resident
36 said he wondered what the City could do to force disconnection of drain
37 tiles into the sanitary sewers.
38 Mr. Hamer told him it had not-.only been the sanitary sewers which had
39 been overtaxed. - He said the amount. of rain the City had received had
40 been demonstrated by, the fact.:that the five or six acres of holding
1 -10- •
2 pond known as Mirror Lake, had overflowed by .at least six inches in an
3 hour' s time and the inability of .the storm sewers -to handle the downpour
4 had caused infiltration of .storm water into the sanitary sewers.
5 The Public Works Director suggested it might be necessary to contact the
6 City of Minneapolis to see if they could handle a larger line coming off
7 Wilson Street, but cautioned that option-might be very costly .for St.
8 Anthony.. .
9 Councilmember Enrooth commented that within the last ten or fifteen
10 years St. Anthony had experienced two "rainfalls of the century" as
11 well as the one the previous Thursday night which had been termed as one
12 which "would occur only once every five or ten thousand years. " He
13 indicated he didn' t perceive the City could have done anything at all
14 about the amount of rain which fell that night because, even tripling
15 the size of the system, would probably have not been enough.
16 Check Backflow and- Gate .Valves Discussed
17 Hamer: -explained that such valves can be installed at the point
18 where the house pipes enter the main sanitary system and
19 prevent sewage from entering the structure during overflow
20 conditions;
21 -cautioned that the gate valves which prevent flow either
22 way can cause more problems for the homeowner if toilets,
23 showers, or faucets are used while the valve is closed;
24 -also said the system would not work where drain tile are
25 connected to the sanitary sewer system.
26 Sundland: -recalled the Council at one point years ago was seriously
27 considering imposing penalties on homeowners who had non-
2.8 conforming connections but "people went wild when they heard
29 about that. "
30 Jack Farenholz , 2836 Silver Lake Road, indicated he had water in his
31 basement during the last storm and had concluded from watching the water
32 flow out of the storm sewer in the intersection of 29th and Silver Lake
33 Road that it was not the drain tiles connected to peoples' sewers which
34 had caused the most problems but .rather the storm sewer system itself
35 which could not handle the excess rainfall. He -said the water in his
36 own basement had started to go down the -minute the intersection had
37 started to drain.
38 In reference to the check valves, Mr. Farenholz pointed out they could
. 39 only provide "temporary, rather than a permanent"solution to the
40 problem- because sewage which. is prevented from entering one home would
. 41 then enter the - next house. on .the . line which did not have a preventive
42 system. It was his contention that the City had to get some control •
43 over the storm water before future problems could be avoided.
•1 -11-
2 Mr. Hamer responded by saying:
3 . *he perceived both the storm sewer . and sanitary sewer- systems had
4 been overtaxed, but
5 *he did not believe infiltration from the -storm sewer system had
6 been the overriding reason the sanitary sewer system had backed
7 up;
8 . *he thought a more extensive study of the two systems would have
9 to: be made to solve the problem; but
10. *when the state had reconstructed 'Highway 88 , they 'had- taken St. :
11 Anthony' s inflow into consideration and had built pipes large
.12 enough for a man to walk through and he guessed that main line
13 had been "purged" , which meant no matter what capacity storm
14 sewer the City might build, the lines into Roseville and Minne-
15 apolis they would probably never be big enough to handle the
16 City' s run off in extreme situations like the storm the previous
17 week.
3-8 John Brostrom, 2800-29th Avenue N.E. , said he had lived in the Village
19 for 37 years arid, in spite of the fact that his drain tile was connected
to a sump pump, he had ended up with 8 inches of sewage in his basement..
Mr. Brostrom said he had been gone last Thursday, but his daughter had
22 done everything she could to get everything up- off the basement. floor,
'23 but he_ "had still experienced a tremendous amount of loss. The homeowner
24 asked if the City could inspect basements and force the -disconnection of
25 drain tiles from the sanitary- sewer. system.
26 Mr. Hamer: -indicated the current. City Ordinance absolutely. requires
27 all drain tiles in :new structures to be diverted . outside the
28 house and not into the sanitary sewers;
29 -told Councilmember Ranallo it would almost be impossible to
30 tell whether older systems were incorrectly connected
31 because the non-conforming connections are buried under
32 floors or around the foundation; .
33
34 -added that his department could identify those systems by
35 the clear water running out of homes during a heavy rain-
36 fall which appear on the screen when his men are televising
3*7 for cracks in the underground sewer systems;
38 -indicated there might be . some legal problems connected with
39 blowing smoke through the sewer lines as some . communities
40 have done;
agreed that the'' charges -f-r.om -the Metro Waste Control Commis-
sion proved the City has :a problem with too much rainwater
43 passing through the. sanitary sewer system resulting in the
44
1 -12 •
2 City having to. pay more to have clean rain water
3 treated as sewage.
4 Councilmember -Marks commented that. he perceived the conversation that
5 evening was almost identical to the one in 1978 which had led to the
6 establishment of a task force whose Inflow and .Infiltration- (I and I)
7 study had concluded that, "after the ' rain of the century'" which had
8 occurred that year, there was- little the City could do to .prevent
9 similar problems when a rainfall of the same extent .hit the City the
1.0 next time.
11 Mr. Farenholz persisted in his claim that the problem was caused more by
12 the storm sewer system than drain tile ,connections because.-he had
13 perceived the people who resided on the City hills .had not had the
14 problems that the ones at lower levels had during the storm Thursday.
15 He suggested the City' s engineers be directed to look into that
16 possibility..
17 His observations were challenged by several Councilmembers who told Mr.
18 Farenholz he would see how wrong his assumptions were if he drove around
19 the City and saw for himself how much damaged material there was piled .
20 near the street awaiting pick up, irrespective of the topography of the
21 area. He was also told the City already had the kind of engineering
22 study he had suggested, which had been made after the 1978 storm and
23 which had been the basis for the task force' s conclusions at that time.
24 Mr . Farenholz ' claim that the . water in basements along 29th Avenue had
25 receded as soon as the intersection had cleared was countered by the
26 Public Works Director who told him there was . still .sewage in the Surface
27 basement just down the street from him most of the following. day.
28 Mr. Childs reminded everyone that the City' s storm sewer system had been
29 designed to handle only the type of rainfall which was expected to fall
30 every five or ten years and not century or thousand year downpours which
31 are way beyond the design capacity of a feasible system. -He agreed the
32 sanitary sewers presented a separate problem. Mr. Childs clarified that
33 the 1978 I & I study had concluded that it would not be cost .effec
• 34 tive in terms- of fees and costs to attempt to force disconnection of all
35 such non-conforming drain tile connections in the City.
36 The- City -Manager , on the other hand, suggested the City might consider-
37 offering some -monetary incentive program, to encourage disconnections, .
38 recognizing the costs the homeowner- would incur making those
39 corrections. He' said it would also be quite costly to install either
40 bAckflow check valve system. Mr. Child&- then indicated some of the
41 reasons the southern portion of the---'City -experiences the most problems
42 with sewage .backups is because the - uphill drainage goes north to about.
43 36th Avenue on the west side of Silver Lake Road and past 33rd on the.
44 east side of Silver Lake Road.
45
-13-
2 Mayor Sundland responded-:'to the latter statement by saying it was for.. ,
3 that very reason the City had.' made.-the diversions into ,Minneapolis. and.
4-Roseville which Mr. Hamer had- discussed. The Mayor. recalled that- when. '
5 29th Avenue was being rebuilt, the proj.ect-.engineer had commented that
6 the biggest sanitary sewer line in the world could be put in that .street
7 and there would still be backup problems because when the sewage. .
8 ultimately leaves the City it has to pass through. the. pipe size .provided
9 by Minneapolis and Roseville.
10 Mr. Farenholz responded by saying.,he knew the City of Minneapolis.-.h.ad
11 been involved for the last forty years in trying to separate its
12 sanitary sewage flow from its storm sewers. He was told the two
13 systems are already separated in St. Anthony and that the sewer pipes
14 along St. Anthony Boulevard had been enlarged when that street was
15 rebuilt to provide additional capacity at some future time when the
16 Wilson Street line might be enlarged.
17 Commissioner Wingard reported St. Paul had undertaken an incentive .
18 program to encourage its residents to disconnect drain tiles and
19 downspouts which are connected to the sanitary sewer system. He asked
20 what could be done to keep storm water from infiltrating the sanitary
21 sewer lines and was .-told any type of plug in- the manhole cover might.
22 result in an explosion of sewer, gas. He was also, told there was jut not
�3 enough vacant land left in the City to provide much more ponding area,
4 although a holding pond was planned for the last phase of the Kenzie
25 Terrace Redevelopment project. Mr . Childs told the Commissioner it had
26 been evident from the eruption of water in the 32rd and Edward
27 intersection during the last storm that there had not been the drainage
28 across the higher Johnson Manor property which had been assumed.
29 Councilmembers Suggest Public Education Attempt
30 Enrooth: -acknowledged that many of the issues had been thoroughly
31 examined in 1978 but perceived the Council wanted to get
32 the same issues before the residents , especially those
33 who are new to St. Anthony, so they can be fully apprised
34 of their options.
35 Ranallo: -suggested the City should encourage those residents with
36 apparent illegal connections to disconnect and advise those
37 whose connections are not easily discernible that they are
38 causing problems for their neighbors..,
39 Makowske: .-was told, even though the City has access .to any house in
40 the City, it would be very difficult for non-conforming con-
41 nections to be seen; however,
42 those connections could be logged when the lines are tele-
403 vised so there would be a record which could be used if the
4 City decided to mandate disconnections whenever a structure.
45 is sold.
1 -14 •
2- Mr . Brostrom said he had been told by realtor friends that other
.3 communities had been able to force owners of wells to cap them off even
4 though it cost between $500 and $1 ,.000, to have that done properly. When.
5 he inquired whether it- might be a good idea for him to install a backup
6 valve system, Mr. Hamer said that might be the best -way of protecting
7 his own property as long as he remembered not to use .any of his
8 facilities while his pipes. are closed off . _
9 Mr. Farenholz was told that although little could be. done about. the type
10 of storm experienced the previous..week, that didn' t mean .some of the
11 remedies suggested that evening wouldn' t help to alleviate some of the
12 problems. He was encouraged to examine for himself all the data on the
13 subject developed over the years which was available at City Hall.
14 Mr. Childs indicated staff would be bringing in a budget proposal for
15 Council consideration to pay for an educational program for next year. ,
16
17 Councilmember Marks Requests Further Information on Bench Warrants
18 During the consideration of matters conducted July 1 , 1987 at the
19 Hennepin County District by the City .Prosecutor,- the Edward J. Hance law
20 firm, Councilmember Marks commented that it seemed -to him there were an
21 awful .lot of these type of warrants issued when the defendants failed to
22 appear for arraignment on which the Council had no-way of knowing
23 whether the defendants were ever caught. Mr. Childs said many of these
24 arrests appear as "outstanding warrants" in the police logs. He agreed
25 to see if the Council could be provided with some way of tracking these
26 arrests in the future.
27 Invitation to Meet With Congressman Sabo Issued by Mayor.
28 Mayor Sundland indicated the Council had been invited to meet with the
29 Congressman in his office in the Federal Courts Building at 9 : 30 A.M. ,
30 August 11th, for a follow-up on the Army' s agreement with the State of
31 Minnesota to conduct a cleanup of contaminated water emanating from the
32 Twin Cities Arsenal.
'33 Councilmember Makowske to Attend Government Service Training
34 The Councilmember indicated she would be in Brainerd the .next two days
35 for the above which would be conducted by Brian Lee from Canada. She
36 would therefore be unable to attend the Ramsey County League of Local
37 -Governments conference on St: Paul water quality the following evening.
38 CITY MANAGER
39 July 21 , 1987 Staff Meeting Notes
40 *Chief Hickerson to Give Council His Views on Police Reserve ' Program
41 The Police Chief had indicated he wanted to discuss the above program
42 with the Council before he proceeded any further with it. Mr. Childs
Al -15-
2 said lie =would :either have the . Chief attend the next Council :meeting- or
3' prepare a. listing 'of his concerns. for Council reaction. The Manager
4 gave a listing -of services he perceived other communities had :their
5 reserves perform.
6 Councilmember-- Marks stated he perceived there had been unanimous Council
7 agreement that such--a program had been mandated for the City. -
8 *Firefighter. Bob Lee Suffers Serious Leg Injury from Fall at ,.Home
9 Mr. Childs described the seriousness of the - firefighter' s injury which
10 he sustained off-duty but which had required hospitalization and would
11 probably prevent him from returning to work for six weeks. The Manager
12 said this would leave the' Fire Department somewhat short-handed but so
13 far, with the exception of one full time fill in it. had only been
14 necessary to use reserves for fill in.
15
16 Street Light Approved for 2500 Block Between Roosevelt and Murray
17 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to grant the petition .signed by
18 the' homeowners in the above area to have NSP install a street light on
19 the existing light pole in the alley behind 2524 Roosevelt Street,
20 concurring with the petition assertion that the subject area needs more
�1 lighting.
22 Motion carried unanimously..
23 City to Participate in Second Year Study of Silver Lake Upon Receipt of
24 1986 Study
25 Councilmember Enrooth indicated that as the City' s representative on
26 the Rice Creek Water Management Committee, he had been invited to attend
27 the meeting where Terry Noonan, a lake management specialist, had
28 proposed a second sampling of the lake as a basis for drafting and
29 implementing a lake management plan. The Councilmember said he had
30 informed Doug Jones of the Silver Lake Residents Association, . who had
31 requested City participation again this year, that he thought the City
32 should have a copy of the data' already gathered before it puts out any
33 more money for further study. Mr. Childs indicated he understood
34 Columbia Heights was also going to make its participation contingent
35 upon that city receiving a copy of Mr. Noonan' s first year study.
36 Council Action
37 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Makowske to authorize the payment of
38 $378 . 62 as the City' s share-. of costs of making a second year study of
39 the- water quality of Silver Lake contingent upon St. Anthony' s getting a
40 copy of the- results of the 1986 monitoring of the lake.
401
2 Motion carried unanimously.
1 -16- A
2 Army' s::Agreement to Submit to State Su ervision.:of. Water Contamination
3 Clean .Up Should Benefit St. Anthony
4 Mr. Childs gave the reasons he perceived the above action announced at
5 the July 21st press conference would be of value to ,St. Anthony.
6 However , he also- reported the fact that the standards for water quality
7 had been lowered made it even, more. imperative that the carbon filtration -
8 system be installed on the City' s water supply as soon as possible
9 because, under the new standards to be implemented in. 18 months, one of ,
10 the City wells - would be above and one below the limit of contaminants . .
11 allowed. The MPCA is applying pressure on the EPA to release already
12 approved funds for the carbon filtration system so. St. Anthony will _be
13 able to meet those standards when they .are implemented. Mr.. Childs
14 indicated it would be up to the City to encourage Congressman Sabo and
15 other Congressmen to apply further pressure to get the money for the -
16 system freed up.
17 The City Manager indicated MPCA had helped move the project schedule. up
18 by convincing EPA that they should go along with a pressurized system
19 rather than waste time studying other systems. He said barring further
20 red tape in getting the money, and with from six to eight months needed
21 to design the facility and around 3 months to get the design approved
22 and to take bids, construction should start some time next spring.
23 First Budget Planning Session Scheduled for August 26th
24 The above work session was set for 7 : 00 P.M. that Wednesday evening and
25 the Manager promised to send reminders in advance.
26 NEW BUSINESS
27 NEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CONTRACT AUTHORIZED WITH HENNEPIN
28 COUNTY
29 A copy 'of the . proposed resolution authorizing the execution of a new
30 three year joint cooperation agreement which qualifies the City for,
31 participation in the County' s CDBG program had been distributed before
32 the meeting.
33 Council Action
34 Motion by Marks , seconded by Ranallo to adopt Resolution 87-025 .
35 RESOLUTION 87-025
36 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER
37 - TO EXECUTE THE JOINT :COOPERATION 'AGREEMENT
38 -WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY..TO ESTABLISH THE URBAN
39 HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT •
40 PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY.
41 Motion carried unanimously.
J
•1 -17-
2 ASSESSMENT- ROLLS REAPPORTIONED FOR APACHE 'COURT TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION
3 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to adopt the resolution which
4 apportions new assessments for the Blanske property lot split.
5 RESOLUTION 87-024
6 A RESOLUTION RELATING .TO THE APPORTIONMENT OF .
7 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS
8 Motion carried unanimously.
9 COMPLAINTS ABOUT CABLE SERVICE TO BE REFERRED TO NORTH SUBURBAN CABLE
10 COMMISSION
11 Mr. Childs reported he refers the many calls he gets to Bootsie
12 Anderson, the Commission' s staff person who is responsible for St.
13 Anthony' s service.. He added that from the calls he receives from
14 persons he has referred to her, Ms. Anderson has done a good job taking
15 care of the complaints she has received from the City.
16 ADJOURNMENT
WMotion by Marks , seconded by Ranallo to adjourn the meeting. at 9 : 30
18' P.M. for the St. Anthony Housing and Redevelopment "Authority meeting
19 which followed at 9: 35 P.M.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 Respectfully -submitted,
22 Helen Crowe, Secretary
23
24 Mayor
25 ATTEST: '
26 City Clerk
C 2 TY OF S T e ANTHONY .
HOU S 2-1 G AND RED EVE LORMENT.
AUTHOR 2 TY M=NUT E S
-7ULY 28 . 3- 987 .........
1 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Sundland at 9 : 35 P.M.
2 Present for roll call: Sundland, Vice Chair Enrooth, Secretary/
3 Treasurer Marks, and Commissioners Ranallo
4 and Makowske.
5 Also present: David Childs, Executive Director .
6 William Soth, H.R.A. Attorney
7 Richard Krier of Development Advisory Services,
8 Consultant
9 JUNE 23 , 1987 H.R.A. MINUTES
10 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve with the following
11 change:
12 Page 2 , line 2; Substitute "expenses and up to" for "and" .
03 Motion carried unanimously.
14 CLAIMS
15 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to approve payments of $952. 86
16 and $2, 269. 64 to Development Advisory Services for current services and
17 services on the Walbon Redevelopment project respectively, in
18 accordance with the billings included in the July 28 , 1987 H.R.A.
19 agenda packet.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve payments to Norwest
22 Bank of $17 , 937 . 50 for the debt service on the Walbon and Walker
23 redevelopment projects and $78 ,475. 00 for debt service interest payment
2.4 on the Kenzie Terrace Phase III project bonds.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Enrooth to approve .payment of $2 ;035.00
27 to the Dorsey: &- Whitney law firm for legal services to the H.R.A.
28 during May, 1987 .
29 Motion carried unanimously.
t -2-
2 NEW BUSINESS.
3 META Certificate of Completion Tabled for Further Information on-
4 Handicapped Access
5 The above document in connection with the completion of the Kenzington
6 had been reviewed by Mr. Soth, who had advised that if the H.R.A. was
7 satisfied that Phase I was completed, it ,could be executed by the
8 Chairman and Secretary.
9 Commissioner Makowske said she knew .there was a handicapped person who
10 lived in one of the Kenzington condominiums who had indicated the need
11 for a handicapped access from the rear of the building as well as the
12 front entrance. Mr. Childs said he didn' t know what leverage the
13 H.R.A. had because that access was probably not required by the
14 Building Codes. The Executive Director reported this item had been
15 discussed about ten months ago but would be glad to check it again if
16 the H.R.A. wanted him to do so:
17 H.R.A. Action
18 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to table action on the Certificate
19 of Completion for the Kenzington for further research by staff on
20 whether the project meets all handicapped access codes.
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 H.R.A. to Execute Assessment Agreement for the St. Anthony Nursing Home
23 Project.
24 The above document had been submitted by the H.R.A. Attorney for
25 execution if the City wanted the market value estimated for assessment
26 recorded.
27 H.R.A. Action
28 Motion by Marks, seconded by Ranallo to authorize the execution of the
29 $6 , 300 ,000 St. Anthony Nursing Home Revenue Bonds Assessment Agreement,
30 which had been submitted by the H.R.A. Attorney and included in the
31 July 28 , 1987 H.R.A. agenda packet.
32 Motion carried- unanimously.
33 Process. for .Selecting New Redeveloper for Phase III of Kenzie Terrace
34 Redevelopment Project Agreed to by H.R.A.
35 Mr. Krie.r reported he had encouraged four "quality redevelopers" to
36 submit proposals for developing an acceptable housing project for the
37 final phase of the Project. Included were Lang/Nelson, who were
38 expected to come in with a proposal to develop 100 units of family and .
39 100 units of elderly housing which would be phased over a period of
40 time; Walker/St..iart for .a mixture of e�Lderly, market rate, and
1 -3-
commercial; the P. J. Gaughan Corporation for a 50/50 combination of
3 elderly and general occupancy; and finally, the Sherman Boosallis
4 Corporation, who have indicated they had some real problems with
5 providing elderly housing, but who Mr. Krier expected.to submit a
6 proposal nevertheless.
7 The consultant. indicated that in his opinion, each, of the prospective
8 developers had a very good track record in doing the type of project
9 St. Anthony wanted and all seemed to have the financial capability to
10 put such a project together. He said the schedule he was requesting
11 should result in everything being..in place and ready to go in a month
12 and a half. Mr. Krier indicated he had requested each .of the
13 developers ha,,e his proposal in his hands by- August 10th to be
14 presented to the H.R.A. for acceptance at their August 11th meeting.
15 It was agreed that no formal presentations would be made at the August '
16 11th meeting but it would rather be during a work session scheduled for
17 6: 00 P.M. , August 20th, when the proposals would be ranked by the
18 H.R.A. in order of preference. The developers who were not selected at
19 that work session. would be advised that the City intended to work with
20 the first ranked company for a month and if all the H.R.A. requirements
21 had not been met and a Redeveloper Agreement not signed by .the end of
22 the month, the other developers would be contacted in order of their
23 ranking to resubmit their proposals.
Mr. Soth suggested Mr. Krier advise the developers that they should
25 present the best proposal they could right at the outset because that
26 might well be the last opportunity they would be given to do the
27 project.
28 Mr. Krier reported his negotiations with the Minneapolis Communitv
29 Development Association -related to that or providing
30 financing for a low income large family townhouse rental project had.
31 been delayed because of a death in the family of one of the MCDA staff
32 persons, but he was confident those talks would be resumed the
33 following day.
34 Mr. Krier said one of the criteria he told each prospective developer
35 would have to be addressed to do the project was that they would have
36 to work with St. Anthony to make a presentation of the project to the
37 adjacent St. Anthony residents as well as the nearby Minneapolis.
38 residents.
39 Commissioner Ranallo said he thought it was essential to have Mr...
40 Childs be very involved in that presentation because of the spirit of
41 distrust which had evolved around the failure of the first developer to
42 provide ,a' satisfactory project.
43 other criteria which Mr.. Krier perceived had to be met by the developer
44 the H.R.A. selected included:
IR5 *financial capability to do the project;
1 -4-
2 -#exper.tise in doing, a similar. redevelopment project(s)' and' .proof
3 -of ability to work' with•. the communities'- where those. projects, are
4 located;
5 *site plan to include architectural style and building elevations
6 which would fit into the neighborhood;
7 *major amount of brick on the building exteriors and 100% sprink
8 ling of the structures;
9 *landscaping which would include the existing buffer of the site .
10 with perhaps money put in escrow for replacement when whatever
11 greenery is there now, dies:
12 There was general recognition that all studies had indicted there was
13 just not a market for an all-elderly project and that general occupancy
14 would probably have to be included. There was also acknowledgement
15 that there was little the- City could do to prevent the Kenzington
16 owners from renting the unsold condominiums in accordance with the
17 purchase agreements they had with the current unit owners.
18 The H.R.A. concurred that the decisions related to individual
19 interviews would not be made until after the H.R.A. had reviewed the ,,
20 initial -proposals, August 11th.
21 ADJOURNMENT
22 Motion by .Enrooth, seconded by Marks to adjourn the St. Anthony Housing
23 and Redevelopment Authority meeting at 10 : 10 P.M.
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25 Respectfully submitted,
26 -Helen Crowe, Secretary
27 :cjk
I
1
1
'� 1
al
t ®
DATE : APPROVAL :
June" 12, 1987
TO : Planning Commission Members
FRONT
David M. Childs, City Manager
=TENT ' VARIANCE REQUEST FROM BILL CAMPBELL FOR CORNER OF 37TH AVENUE N.E.- AND
ROOSEVELT STREET N.E.
This request from Bbill Campbell for a variance to construct a house on the existing
lot of record located at the, corner of 37th Avenue N.E. and Roosevelt Street N.E.
As described in the notice, several variances are required:
Lot size, 5,648 sq. ft. - 11,000 sq. ft. required for single family;
14,000 sq. ft. required for duplex
Minimum house size, 988 sq. ft. - 1,000 sq. ft. required
Setback from 37th, 14 ft. - 30 ft. are required.
If the lot were not a "lot of record", or if it were a full size lot with the owner wanting
to build a larger house, no hardship could be shown. But in this case, as you will
note from the excerpts from the American Law of Zoning, we have a situation for which
variances were originally intended. Strict enforcement of the setback requirements
would allow a house only ten feet in width, which truly represents a- hardship. The
consequences of denying a property owner any use of. his land also has strong legal
implications with the whole issue of "taking".
Application for a variance to build a double bungalow was made in 1979 by Andrew.
Kocisczk and the City denied the-variance. Since the owner still had an option to request
a- single family dwelling, this denial probably did not represent a "taking" by the Ci,ty
but was surely in a grey area and the owner might possibly have been: successful in
court in gaining approval to build had he pursued the matter. The Planning Commission
cited the fact that Mr. Kocisczk was not the original owner of the lot., and thus was- not
eligible for a variance. This argument will not work. The lot of record agreement
goes with the property not the owner. If Mr. Kocisczk owned the adjacent lot, he would
not be entitled to a variance, but this was not the case in this situation.
I recommend approval of the variance with the provision that the driveway come from
Roosevelt so that adequate parking is available to keep the cars off the right-of-way.
One area where the applicant should be questioned is whether a 24 foot wide house
(with a 16 foot setback from- 37th) might work just as well as a 26 foot house.
:cjk6 .16.87
Ua Le
Fee :
R-1 . . . . . . . . . $17.
Other. . . . . . . $25 . 00)
CITY OF ST . ANTHONY
PETITION FOR VARIANCE
Applicant : Phone : 5 - Typ�
_ � J
Address.:/ {tic ` /��U
Status of applicant (owner , buyer, renter, agent , etc. ) :- 1.�'ti, -Z--
Legal description of property petitioned for variance :
L�-r 7�2 _ �?�\a ` 500 l_, �� �L t4�` ►,,
Street address :_ �� � J .t (3637 �,�
Zoning district in which property is located
Request: �-r�4�C� c� -,<,� �� �� c t4
Minnesota Minnesota Statutes and City ordinances require that the following condi-
tions must be satisfied affirmatively. If the answer to a statement is
Yes, please explain , using additional sheets .
Yes No
• 1 . Because of the particular physical surroundings ,
shape, or topographical conditions of the parcel
of land involved, the proposed variance would re-
lieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience should the applicable ordin-
ance be strictly enforced .
2 . The purpose of the proposed variance is not based
exclusively upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land, but would
correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to
this property but not applicable to other property
in the vicinity or zoning district .
N
°'. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by
co City ordinance and has not been created by any
persons presently having an interest in the parcel
of land.
Pursuant to Section 15 , Subd . 5 , of the City of St . Anthony Zoning Ordin-
ance, a variance shall not be granted for any use not permitted in the
zone in which a particular parcel lies .
• N
�
Sig a e of can
0
Signature of w'ner o er
than a-Dplicant)
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
VARIANCE PETITION
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing by the
Planning Commission of the City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, June
16 , 1987 , at. 7: 50 P.M. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast corner) for the purpose:
Consideration of a request from Bill Campbell,
owner of the property described as Lot 32 , Block 1,
Soo Line Addition and located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of 37th Avenue and Roosevelt
Street N.E. for variances from the provisions of the
Zoning 'Ordinance to allow construction of a single
family home on said 45. 4 ' X 124. 41 ' lot. The proposed
house will be 26 ' X 38 ' in size or 988 square feet
( 1 ,000 square feet required) . The lot (which is a pre-
existing lot of record) is 5 ,648 square feet ( 11,000
square feet is required for a corner lot) . Proposed
setback from 37th Avenue N.E. is 14 feet, where 30 feet
are required.
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter
shall be heard at said time and place. Questions regarding this
matter shall be referred to the City Manager, 789-8881.
David M. Childs
City Manager
Publish: June 3 , 1987
0
y+�
C-7
In
1�1� rK
MAILING LIST, . CORNE- OF ROOSEVELT AND 37TH. 6/87 _ ;
Twin City Apt. Developers
Roger Montgomery Herbert Bergstrom _ 710.0_Wayzata .Blvd.
3628 Roosevelt Street 3632 Roosevelt Street Minneapolis, MN 55426
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Re: 3640 Roosevelt St. N.E.
Kenneth Hoxmeier William ToWalt Ed Helfrey
3657 Roosevelt Street 3653 Roosevelt Street 3645 Roosevelt Street: '
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
William Hartman Mico Oil Marjorie Shaddrick
3637 Roosevelt Street 2400-37th Avenue N.E. 2508-37th Avenue N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418
Duane Haas Kathy Gilson W. F. Bauer
2516-18-37th Ave. N.E. 3644 Silver Lake Road 4324 Lakepoint Ct.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55418 Shoreview, MN 55125
Re: 3640-44 Silver Lk. Rd.
Meyer Bolnick Lester Eckhardt Apache Animal Hospital
3636 Silver Lake Road 3632 Silver Lake Road 2501-37th Avenue N.E.
St. Anthony, MN 55418 St. . Anthony, MN 55418 St. Anthony, MN 55421
_ .
§ 18.53 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
The problem of
ment to permit construction of an additional room on his home. Special provisions
His practical difficulty was the addition of a mother-in-law to his chapter. This secf
family. A denial by the board of zoning appeals was reversed by chap
the court, which held that the increase in the applicant's family the owners of subsl
;u
was a practical difficulty authorizing the board to grant relief. special concessions
Litigation did not terminate at this point. The board denied a problems which re;
variance to permit the construction of a 20-foot room, because a coverage restrictioi
16-foot room could be constructed without any offense to existing Where the sett
+ regulations. The court agreed, holding that no practical difficulty applied to the app
was shown where a room of reasonable size could be built within of reasonable size,
the zoning restrictions.21 use of the land is
§ 18.54. —Variance to relieve difficulties due to shape or size foot setback
of lot. whose land waas s sr
r
land was denied
Where an applicant for a variance can demonstrate that
application of se
owing to the size or hi shape of his land he cannot make any
^ limited the usabl
reasonable use of it unless the literal application of the zoning practical difficult'
regulations is varied, he is entitled to a variance. Such an
permit constructi
applicant can satisfy the standard for an area variance in states
which require only proof of practical difficulties,22 and he usually regulations were
can satisfy those courts which require that unnecessary hard- limited to 10 per
ship be proved.23
ground.2N
A rear-yard re
21. Quaglio v La Freniere, 211 warrant the granting of an area vari- an addition to a
j6 NYS2d 239 (1960, Sup). ance where (1) an 80-foot difference in
' The owner of a dwelling containing grade between front and rear render the reduced yar(
a single bedroom, and situated on a site preparation more expensive, (2) imposes a pracl
i substandard lot in a minimum 2-acre the topographical problem will add
requirement
district, is entitled to a variance to $225,000 to the cost of construction, re
construct a second bedroom to accom- and (3) a literal application of the under a vari wh
ance
modate a 14-year-old child. Lippe v zoning regulations would deprive the result in a pra(
Cisternino, 44 Misc 2d 510, 254 landowner of a reasonable return on
j NYS2d 273(1964). his land. Wilcox v Zoning Board of
A landowner sought an area vari- Appeals, 17 NY2d 249, 270 NYS2d requirements of the
g 569, 217 NE2d 633(1966). when literal applic
i ante to permit expansion of his house
to accommodate his son's family. The Where a lot split by a zone bound- fiance deprived an
second family was needed to maintain ary lies 75% in one zone where tom ficial use of his Ian
sho
i the dwelling due to the ill health of pliance is possible, but 25% in a dis- hardship was nin
the owner. The court held that the trict with greater area requirements Constr. Co. v Zonin
t 102 RI 442, 231 A24
owner had demonstrated practical dif- which cannot be met, the situation
ficulty. Zebrowski v Herdman, 72 involves a practical difficulty which 24, §9.49, supra.
Misc 2d 973, 339 NYS2d 989(1972). justifies the granting of an area vari
i ante. Christian v Laufer, 24 App Div 25. Peterson v V
l 22. See Crosby v Board of Appeals, 2d 624, 262 NYS2d 359 (1965). 76 NW2d 420(195(
1975 Adv Sheets 321, 323 NE2d 772
y` (1975, Mass App). 23. Board improperly denied pe 26. Kane v Zonis
196 A2d 421 (1964;
Practical difficulties exist which titioner a variance from the lot area
288
. a3
- a
F2[
VARIANCES § 15.54
4;
The problem of substandard lots, especially with regard to
special provisions for relief, has been considered in an earlier
chapter." This section is concerned with administrative relief for
the owners of substandard lots under ordinances which make no
special concessions to such owners, and with the miscellany f ���� ��,
problems which result from the application of setback y .zr
, yard, and
coverage restrictions to lots of various sizes and shapes.
,a
Where the setback provisions of the zoning ordinance, as
applied to the applicant's lot, prevent the erection of a dwelling '
of reasonable size, denial of a variance to permit some beneficial
use of the land is arbitrary and capricious. Thus, where a 100-
....
ti,.e r
foot setback from the public way was required of an owner
� k ,"?
whose land was smaller than the setback required, all use of the '
land was denied and he was entitled to a variance.26 Where the " }
application of setback regulations to the owner's corner lot '
limited the usable portion of the land to 11 feet, he suffered '
practical difficulty and was entitled to a variance which would
permit construction of a building of reasonable size.' Setback
regulations were said to impose practical difficulties where they w
limited to 10 percent the usable portion of a triangular plot of
ILI-
ground.2
r u=
A rear-yard requirement which prevents the construction of
an addition to a warehouse in an industrial district, although
the reduced yard will abut land owned by the warehouseman a'
imposes a practical difficulty upon the owner.2' A side-yard
requirement which prevents the use of a house constructed
under a variance which was subsequently annulled was held to 9:
result in a practical difficulty which warranted an area vari- ��
requirements of the zoning ordinance 27. Richards v Zoning Board of Ap- T llF_
when literal application of the ordi- ro" �
Hance deprived petitioner of all bene- peals, 285 App Div 287, 137 NYS2d
603 (1955); Mandalay Constr., Inc. v
k ficial use of his land and unnecessary Zimmer, 22 Misc 2d 543, 194 NYS2d
hardship was shown. Saravo Bros. a
Constr. Co. v Zoning Board of Review 404 (1959) (literal enforcement of set-
;; 102 RI 442, 231 A2d 9 (1967). back would result in 9-foot structure).
- 24. §9.49, supra.
28. Re Fein, 67 NYS2d 218 (1946,
25. Peterson v Vasak, 162 Neb 498, Sup), affd 272 App Div 819, 72 NYS2d
76 NW2d 420(1956). 264•
' 26. Kane v Zoning Board of Review, 29. Wuttke v Kramer, 140 NYS2d
196 A2d 421 (1964, RI). 214 (1955, Sup). 4
' 289
;f
r; �e o ..r
a _
§ 18.54 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING
ance.30 An area variance permitting deviation from yard and lot- which falls short c
area requirements was sustained where the application of such cannot be success
restrictions to a lot of irregular shape and size had discouraged maximum-height r
its development for a quarter of a century." An area variance Administrative ;
was warranted where the submachinegun shape of the lot made contiguous substan
it "wholly impractical to build any kind of substantial struc- bining them to mE
ture."s= regulations. In suc
The clearest case of hardship due to the literal application of be revised, and hE
zoning regulations is that of the substandard lot which cannot profit from his trai
be used for any purpose without relief from the restrictions. of his land.39
Whether the standard is practical difficulties or unnecessary (1963) (applicant's lot
hardship, the applicant for a variance can satisfy it in a case of the ordinance requit
this kind.-33 If the zoning regulations as applied to the land in Kryscnski v Shenkin,
issue result in sterilization of the land, there is a taking without 590, 148 A2d 58 (19;
frontage was substand
due process of law. Not only may a board of zoning appeals v Silberstein, 6 NY2d E
grant an area variance to relieve the applicant, but it is required 194, 159 NE2d 684 (19
to do so.34 lot lacked one foot o.
frontage); Fina Homes,
An applicant who shows that his land falls short of the son, 226 NYS2d 613 (:
minimum-frontage requirement of the zoning ordinance satisfies plicant's lot was 25
the requirement of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship regulations required
and is entitled to a variance.-15 Corp. of An
Similarly, the owner of a lot wald, 20 Misc 2d 175,
(1959) (applicant's lot v
30. Fulton v Board of Appeals, 158 33. Chater v Board of Appeals, 348 regulations required 70
NYS2d 434 (1956, Sup). Mass 237, 202 NE2d 805 (1964); Feld- A board of zoning
Where the zoning ordinance would man v Nassau Shores Estates, Inc., 12 grant a variance fron
impose 5-foot side yard requirements Misc 2d 607, 172 NYS2d 769 (1958), quirements where areE
on plaintiff's 25-foot wide lot, and the affd 7 App Div 2d 757, 181 NYS2d 79. are satisfied and wher,
neighborhood was composed of many It is an abuse of discretion to deny be made to conform on
lots with homes providing for side- an area variance to the owner of a tion of irregularly shap
yards ranging from one to sixteen substandard lot where permits have v Schoepflin, 46 Misc
feet, and there was testimony that a been granted, with and without vari- NYS2d 294 (1964), affd
fifteen foot wide home would have an ances, to a large number of lots in the 868, 259 NYS2d 297.
adverse effect on the adjacent proper- same subdivision, notwithstanding the An owner of a lot w.
ties, the ordinance was arbitrary as to fact that the hardship was created by 40 feet is entitled to a
plaintiff's land and she would be al- the applicant's grantor. Ozolins v the terms of an ordin
lowed to build with three foot side- Horn, 26 App Div 2d 555, 270 NYS2d frontage of 70 feet, ev
yards in addition to other conditions. 1001 (1966). owner, subsequent to 1
Ziman v Glencoe, 1 Ill App 3d 912, the ordinance, acquire
275 NE2d 168(1971). 34. Peters & Whalen, Inc. v Schnet- strip with frontage of
zer, 194 NYS2d 333 (1959, Sup); Linc- chetti v Zoning Board
31. Carlyle-Lowell, Inc. v Ennis, 330 ourt v Zoning Board of Review, 201 RI 532, 231 A2d 783(19
SW2d 164 (1959, Mo App); Gougeon v A2d 482 (1964, RI); Denton v Zoning
Board of Adjustment, 54 NJ 138, 253 Board of Review, 86 RI 219, 133 A2d 36. Mandalay Constr.
A2d 806(1969). 718(1957). ston, 9 App Div 2d 918,
(1959); Poster Advertisi
32. Haas v Zoning Board of Adjust- 35. Lessner v Zoning Board of Ap- ing Board of Adjustmer
ment, 403 Pa 155, 169 A2d 287 (1961). peals, 151 Conn 165, 195 A2d 437 182 A2d 521 (1962).
290
O
VARIANCES § 18.54
which falls short of the minimum-area requirements,36 or which 1
cannot be successfully developed within the lot-coverage" or
maximum-height requirements,38 is entitled to a variance. 1
Administrative relief is not warranted where the owner of
contiguous substandard lots can solve his own problem by com-
bining them to meet the minimum requirements of the zoning
regulations. In such a case, his development plans may have to
{� be revised, and he may not be able to extract the maximum
profit from his tract, but he has not been denied reasonable use
of his land.39
(1963) (applicant's lot was 100 feet; 37. Weeks v Koehler, 134 NYS2d
the ordinance required 120 feet); 796 (1954, Sup).
Kryscnski v Shenkin, 53 NJ Super
590, 148 A2d 58 (1959) (applicant's 38. Hartsdale Station Shopping
frontage was substandard); Chasanoff Center, Inc. v Liberman, 11 App Div
v Silberstein, 6 NY2d 807, 188 NYS2d 2d 1073, 206 NYS2d 699 (1960), revg
194, 159 NE2d 684 (1959) (applicant's 25 Misc 2d 684, 216 NYS2d 255.
lot lacked one foot of the required
frontage); Fina Homes, Inc. v Thomp- 39. Rodee v Lee,'14 NJ Super 188,
son, 226 NYS2d 613 (1962, Sup) (ap- 81 A2d 517 (1951).
plicant's lot was 25 feet wide; the Where plaintiff owned a single "lot"
regulations required 40 feet); Land according to the provisions of the ap-
Purchasing Corp. of America v Grune- plicable city code, and was denied a
wald, 20 Misc 2d 175, 195 NYS2d 69 lot-split variance that would establish
(1959) (applicant's lot was 40 feet; the two separate adjoining building sites
regulations required 70 feet). of about 5,300 square feet apiece, it
A board of zoning appeals may was not an abuse of discretion by the
grant a variance from frontage re- city council since the comprehensive
quirements where area requirements zoning ordinance provided for a mini-
are satisfied and where two lots can mum single lot area of 7,500 square
be made to conform only by the crea- feet. Hill v Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal
tion of irregularly shaped lots. Willits 3d 279, 98 Cal Rptr 785, 491 P2d 369
v Schoepflin, 46 Misc 2d 292, 259 (1971).
NYS2d 294 (1964), affd 23 App Div 2d
868, 259 NYS2d 297. Where the record indicated that
An owner of a lot with frontage of landowner acquired a tract consisting
40 feet is entitled to a variance from of .303 acres and a second adjoining
the terms of an ordinance requiring tract of .585 acres and there was an
frontage of 70 feet, even though the indication that construction of a
dwelling on the first tract would ag-
owner, subsequent to the passage of
the ordinance, acquired an adjacent w an existing drainage problem
which
strip with frontage of 20 feet. Mos- Which would tend to be injurious to
the neighborhood, landowners request
chetti v Zoning Board of Review, 102 for a variance to permit such con-
RI 532, 231 A2d 783(1967).
struction on the undersized lot was
36. Mandalay Constr., Inc. v Eccle- properly denied by the zoning board
ston, 9 App Div 2d 918, 195 NYS2d 84 of appeals. Jenkins v Zoning Board of
(1959); Poster Advertising Co. v Zon- Appeals, 162 Conn 621, 295 A2d 556
ing Board of Adjustment, 408 Pa 248, (1972).
182 A2d 521 (1962). Where substandard lot came under
291 � '
TYPES OF ZONING REGULATION § 9.62
1
control.' Accordingly, they create many substandard lots which > '
cannot be used unless relief is provided through variance proce-
dures' or by exceptions.' Relief for substandard lots is considered
in the next section. '
§9.62. Substandard lots.
Before the subdivision of land was subjected to municipal
control, a great deal of municipal land had been divided into
small lots, many with less than 30 feet of frontage and less than
f 3,000 square feet of space. When greater frontage and area
requirements were superimposed upon this pattern, many own-
ers were left with substandard lots. Strict and literal enforce-
ment of the more stringent regulations would have made such
lots useless to their owners and to the community. In addition,
the regulations which destroyed the use value of such substan-
dard lots would have been held confiscatory.'
6. See, for example, Korby v Red- destroyed, and that the benefit to the
ford Tp. 348 Mich 193, 82 NW2d 441 public would be minimal. Hyndiuk v
(1957). Chicago, 14 Ill App 3d 1057, 304
• 7.Terra Homes, Inc. v Michaelis, 30
NE2d 6 (1973).
Misc 2d 862, 219 NYS2d 345 (1961); Provisions in a zoning ordinance
State ex rel. Rice v Woodmere, 172 saving clause establishing minimum
Ohio St 359, 16 Ohio Ops 2d 214, 176 lot areas and minimum width and
NE2d 421 (1961). frontage of lots upon which dwellings
An owner of a lot with frontage of may be erected have generally been
40 feet is entitled to a variance from upheld, but such provisions are in-
the terms of an ordinance requiring valid as to lots which at the time of
frontage of 70 feet, even though the enactment of such requirements were
owner, subsequent to the passage of substandard, i.e., having a smaller
the ordinance, acquired an adjacent size or having a lesser frontage than
strip with frontage of 20 feet. Mos- the required minimum, if such lots
chetti v Zoning Board of Review, 102 would thereby be rendered completely
RI 532, 231 A2d 783(1967). valueless. R. A. Vachon & Son, Inc. v
Concord, 112 NH 107, 289 A2d 646
8. Flanagan v Zoning Board of Ap- (1972); citing 2 Anderson, American
peals, 2 Misc 2d 922, 149 NYS2d 666 Law of Zoning §8.49 (1968); Morris v
(1956), affd 1 App Div 2d 979, 151 Los Angeles, 116 Cal App 2d 856, 254
NYS2d 618. P2d 935 (1953); Robyns v Dearborn,
341 Mich 495, 67 NW2d 718 (1954);
8. A minimum lot requirement of K
5,000 square feet was held invalid levan v Volz, 67 Misc 2d 196, 323
when applied to a lot of 3,120 square NYS2d 866 (1971); Samuels v Harri-
feet upon which the owner wanted to son, 195 NYS2d 882(1959, Sup).
construct a single family residence. An ordinance which renders a lot
Evidence showed that seven homes on useless takes property without due
the same block were nonconforming process of law. Peters & Whalen, Inc.
with regard to the area requirement, v Schnetzer, 194 NYS2d 333 (1959,
the value of the lot would be totally Sup).
241
Y
91.'
5
•
§ 9.62 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING Ty
To avoid this result, most ordinances provide some relief for discretion which
the owner of a substandard lot. The zoning ordinance of the City relief, but more co
of New Orleans, Louisiana, provides that where a lot has less which construction
area than the minimum requirements for the district within Where an ordii
which the lot is located and has continuously been a lot of shown on a record
record, in separate ownership from adjacent property, prior to lot not clearly s
and since the passage of the Ordinance, the lot may be used only exception." Even
for single family dwelling purposes or for any non-dwelling
purpose permitted in the district within which the lot is lo- condemnation of
sated.'° Under such an ordinance, the owner of a substandard lot shown on a reco
which was of record prior to the adoption of the restrictive Evidence, that the
ordinance need not seek administrative relief." He is entitled as was too small to meet
of right to develop his lot within the limits of the exception. His zoning requirements,
right to such relief may be lost where he treats a number of lots grant of a 30 foot v
as a single unit for the purpose of constructing a condominium.12 struct a home. Hodge peals, 122 Ga App 23
If the determination of his qualification for an exception is (1970)•
committed to an administrative board, as is true under some A zoning ordinance
ordinances,13 the task of the board is simply to determine greater width and to
spect to lots with con
i whether the lot was one of record on the effective date of the in single ownership r
ordinance. The board is without discretion to deny a permit if essary hardship to a
4 the specific requirements of the ordinance are met."
been e been b no
Some ordinances afford relief to the owners of substandard existing in July, but
lots by authorizing special permits, or by committing the adjust- December following t
one of the contiguou
ment of rights to an administrative board with power to grant
Adjustment v Ruble,
variances.15 These procedures involve a degree of administrative (1972, Iowa).
Denial of an art a
10. New Orleans, Comprehensive field, 117 NJ Super 130, 283 A2d 768 mit use of a substan
Zoning Ordinance Art 10§7(1970). (1971). by applicant's sale of
12. Parks v Board of Count
11.The owner of a lot which cannot Y was improper where
Comrs., 11 Or A 177, 501 P2d 85, merous lots in th
meet frontage and area standards is pp which were as small
entitled to use it without seeking a 68 ALR3d 138 (1972); citing 2 Ander- lot, and where denial
variance. Mandalay Constr., Inc. v son, American Law of Zoning §8.49
(1968) would result in great
.
Eccleston, 9 App Div 2d 918, 195 applicant. Krueger v
NYS2d 84 (1959). 13. Charlotte, N C, Zoning Ordi- Appeals, 48 App
b When a municipal legislative body nance §23.98(1973). NYS2d 63(1975).
divides a town into districts and pro- Denial of an area
14. Vassalotti v Board of Appeals,
vides the minimum land dimensions 348 Mass 658, 204 NE2d 924 (1965); proper where the
for particular uses in such districts, it that the parcel was
Macchia v Board of Appeals, 7 Mist
does so with at least constructive no- 2d 763, 164 NYS2d 463 (1957); Wood v of the required on
tice of the existence therein of every North Salt Lake, 15 Utah 2d 245, 390 mum, that she own
substandard parcel of land held in P2d 858(1964). parcel until her hut
single, separate ownership and is un- years after her origi
der a duty to make adequate provi- 15. See Mandalay Constr., Inc. v the subject propert
sions for such parcels so as not to Eccleston, 9 App Div 2d 918, 195 would receive only
e
render them useless. Grate v Spring- NYS2d 84 (1959). than $16,000 for the
242
.J G.
V
4�
i
S�
TYPES OF ZONING REGULATION § 9.62
discretion which may be less satisfactory to landowners seeking
relief, but more conducive to protection of the neighborhoods in
which construction on substandard lots is proposed.18
Where an ordinance excepts substandard lots which were
g shown on a recorded plat prior to the adoption of a regulation, a
lot not clearly shown on such a plat is not entitled to an
exception." Even where the lot was rendered substandard by
condemnation of a part, it need not be excepted if it was not
P shown on a recorded plat.1' An ordinance which provides an
a j Evidence, that the lot in question ance were denied. Hatfield v Kemp- i
was too small to meet the residential ner, 33 NY2d 875, 352 NYS2d 443,
zoning requirements, supported the 307 NE2d 560(1973).
grant of a 30 foot variance to con- Where owner of a triangular piece
( struct a home. Hodge v Board of Ap- of industrial zoned property using his
peals, 122 Ga App 235, 176 SE2d 539 land in a profitable manner sought a
ii (1970). variance from a side-yard zoning re-
A zoning ordinance which required quirement for the sole reason of eco-
greater width and lot area with re- nomic consideration, the zoning board
spect to lots with continuous frontage did not commit error in-law or abuse
j in single ownership resulted in unnec- its discretion in denying the applica-
• essary hardship to a builder who had tion. Altemose Constr. Co. v East Nor-
' been granted a variance, and should riton Zoning Hearing Board, 3 Pa
have been based not on conditions Cmwlth 328, 281 A2d 781 (1971).
existing in July, but those existing in s
December following the conveyance of 16. Discretion to grant or deny a
i! one of the contiguous lots. Board of special exception to permit use of a
Adjustment v Ruble, 193 NW2d 497, substandard lot is not abused by de-
(1972, Iowa). nial of a permit to build, although
substantial preliminary work was
Denial of an area variance to per-
mit use of a substandard lot created done prior to enactment of the restric-
(
iby applicant's sale of an adjoining lot tion. Caruthers v Board of Adjust- G
y ment, 290 SW2d 340 (1956, Tex Civ
was improper where there were nu-
merous lots in the neighborhood App)'
which were as small as the subject 17. Galpin v River Forest, 26 Ill 2d
lot, and where denial of the variance 515, 187 NE2d 233 (1962); Wehrmeis-
would result in great hardship to the ter v Carlman, 17 Ill App 2d 171, 149
applicant. Krueger v Zoning Board of NE2d 453 (1958). Ji
Appeals, 48 App Div 2d 734, 368 See also Robinson v Lintz 101 Ariz
NYS2d 63 (1975). 448, 420 P2d 923 (1966).
? Denial of an area variance was im-
proper where the applicant showed 18. Builders Supply & Lumber Co. v
ii that the parcel was only 2,500 short Hillside, 26 Ill App 2d 458, 168 NE2d
f i of the required one-third acre mini- 801 (1960). a
mum, that she owned no contiguous No exception of a substandard lot is
parcel until her husbands death 25 warranted where the lot became sub-
! years after her original acquisition of standard because two-thirds of it was
the subject property, and that she condemned by the state which paid
would receive only $12,000 rather the owner an amount that included.
than $16,000 for the land if the vari- both the value of the land taken and
243
•
§ 9.62 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING TYPES
exception for lots of substandard area does not authorize an § 9.63. —Common o
exception of lots with deficient frontage.1' The common except
Relief for the owners of substandard lots sometimes has been the effective date of
supported by the general provisions which preserve nonconform- which were in single
ing uses. Thus, an owner was permitted to improve lots which he Under such a provisi
had enlarged after adoption of a restrictive ordinance, but which only if his lot is isolate
remained substandard, on the ground that the lots were platted, lot adjacent to it, he i
and the plat approved, before the minimum lot area standards must combine the two
were enacted.20 However, no such right accrued to an owner closely approximate, t
whose map was filed but never officially approved, and where no ordinance. Where, for
further action was taken, prior to enactment of the restrictive ous lots which each ha
regulations.21 owning 80 feet of front
Where construction had taken place on a substandard lot, the consistent with the z
owner was held entitled to continue use of the dwellings, but not held reasonable as it
to subdivide further.22 land.A The same resul
the consequential loss or value of the real estate in 1957, and who did not containing 5,000 sqt-a
substandard part which remained. actually use the property or spend width requirements.
Acierno v Barr, 28 App Div 2d 541, money in physically changing it, did Schoepflin, 28 App D'v 2d
279 NYS2d 601 (1967). not possess a vested right to continue NYS2d 950(1967).
19. Publico v Building Inspector of as a nonconforming use upon enact-
Quincy, 336 Mass 152, 142 NE2d 767 ment of new subdivision regulations 23. See generally Comm
(1957). in 1963. Sherman-Colonial Realty standard Lots and the
Property owner's suit to enjoin the Corp' v Goldsmith, 155 Conn 175, 230 Clause—"Checkerboardin
y A2d 568(1967). Means of Circumvention, 16
enforcement against his property of L Rev p 612(1965).
minimum frontage and area require- 22. Clemons v Los Angeles, 36 Cal Zoning ordinance which
ments was dismissed since the evi- 2d 95, 222 P2d 439 (1950); Howland v
dence reflected the uniform develop- Acting Superintendent of Bldgs. & prior uld be sold lastwo eorl city
ment of minimum frontage and area Inspector of Bldgs. 328 Mass 155, 102 was constitutional and did
restrictions. In addition, evidence in- NE2d 423(1951). landowner who had purcN
dicated that plaintiff had engaged in 5,200 foot
the purchase and sale of real estate The ordinance provided that "No adoption sq ua a re foot parcels parcel cl
specializing in the purchase and sale improved zoning lot shall hereafter be
of undersized lots and had admitted divided into two or more zoning lots minimum lot size as 7,500 sqi
that he had received a bargain price • • •" Under this provision, a land- thus precluding split lot sale
for the subject lot because of the zon- owner whose three 25-foot lots are owner because the two par(.
ing restrictions involved. Szeliga v occupied by a single family dwelling adjoining and constituted (
Des Plaines, 4 Ill App 3d 257, 280 may not remove the dwelling and "lot" under the zoning ordina
NE2d 767 (1972). construct single family homes on each v Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal 31 Cal Rptr 785, 491 P2d 369(19
of the substandard 25-foot lots. Gan-
20. State ex rel. La Voie v Building ley v Chicago, 18 Ill App 3d 248, 309 The fact that subject prop
Com. of Trumbull, 135 Conn 415, 65 NE2d 653(1974). divided into 35 foot lots pri
A2d 165(1949). annexation by city and prig
Where substandard lot came under passage by the city of zoning
21. Corsino v Grover, 148 Conn 299, common ownership with adjoining went requiring minimum
170 A2d 267,95 ALR2d 751 (1961). landowner, it was improper to grant and area, did not give lai
A landowner who filed ma show- an area variance upon the subsequent p
Ps Po �q right to exceed the ordinano
ing proposed subdivisions under the unlawful subdivision of the parcel in tions as the lots owned by d
method acceptable for subdividing a manner which violated area and tiff were contiguous and c
244
•
-4- 7�('!(1-�vY�.rtl� "7�
At 8 : 21 P.M. the Chairman Pro Tem opened the public hearing to
consider a petition for a- variance to permit construction of a
duplex- on a. vacant lot at approximately 2.500 37th Avenue N.E.
Mr. Berg- confirmed that all notification requirements had been
met for such a hearing and no property owner reported failure to
receive same. The $25 application fee had been paid. In his
June 13 memorandum to the Board, Mr. Berg had advised them that
before the duplex could be built on that corner lot, it would be
necessary for the City to grant a lot area variance of 8 , 352 square
feet; . a front yard setback variance of 15 . 6 feet, and a- rear
yard setback variance of 20 feet, had indicated on a plat of the
site how the proposed building will be out of alignment with other
buildings along the block and informed them that the City staff
felt the lot is substandard and unsuitable for buildinc.
The applicant,- Andrew P. Kociscak, 5131 3rd Street N.E. , was not
in attendance and the Chairman wondered if it would be fair to hold
the hearing without him, but Mr. Bowerman felt the petition 'and the
written statement he had given constituted Mr . Kociscak-' s position
and the hearing should proceed on them.
Spokesman for the opponents of the proposal was Kenneth J. Hoxmeier,
3657 Roosevelt Street N.E . , who said the reason the lot has been
vacant for 15 years is• that it is too small ,- and objected to placing
a duplex on a lot that ' s too small for a single residence. The
building will be 13 feet by 80 -feet, with a 26 foot wide building
and a garage . 20 more feet wide. He said the duplex will not fit
into the neighborhood, it will destroy the neighbor ' s view of the
landscape, and its height will cut down on the sunlight for the
neighboring structures . He felt the structure would affect the
re-sale value of his property, as well as that of his neighbors
and he cited the water problems in the area which drains into that
lot; and said if the grade were changed, all the water would end
up in his yard. He told how the snow is all piled on that lot and
felt the salt would ruin any*-shrubbery in the front yard because
it would be planted so close to the street, and this distance could
be cut down even further if 37th is, ever upgraded. He also saw
traffic vision being blocked by this high structure an said all
his neighbors shared his opposition to the proposal. 1-1-hen Mr.
Bjorklund asked if he had ever considered buying the land himself
since it had recently gone for tax forfeiture, he said he had in-
quired when he built his home about it, but had been told the City
owned it and it was too small to build on. He later mentioned
that power lines are joined ,at that corner and might prove hazardous
to the building, and said he believed there must be .a utility ease-
ment on the property because he had recently gotten a notice..that
the power line is four feet within his property line .
The hearing - was closed at 8 : 44 p.m.
F The Manager .said they had tried to discourage Mr. Kociscak ' s
1 applying for the .variances . He agreed that . the . snow plowing on •
37th will put snow . righ:t on the duplex front step and there will
be difficulty opening the backdoor without banging the fence .
He felt the lot was unbuildable..
Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded. by Mr . Bowerman to recommend
Council denial of . the- variances necessary. .to build a duplex on
Lot 32 , Block 1 , Soo Line Addition, because of the. gross incon-
sistencies with the requirements set by the zoning code finding
that: no hardship can 'be .shown to have resulted from, City action
since 1) the applicant :was not :the owner of record when the lot .
was plotted our, and 2) there are no extraordinary circumstances
applicable to this property but not applicable to other property
in the vicinity or zoning district.
Mr. Bjorklund saw the next step an attempt to build a single family
dwelling and wanted the Board' s objections strengthened to include
the adverse drainage conditions which are possible with development
of this property, increased hazards on .37th -Avenue and probable
conflicts with the property setbacks and easements for utilities on
37th. The maker disagreed that "you can' t tell someone he can' t
develop his land because he ' s going to block traffic" , and Mr.
Sopcinski suggested it ' s conceivable that in the future, when space
becomes scarce, this proposal might be allowed and therefore did
not want to interfere with the owner' s right to at least request •
variances for any proposal . Mr . Bjorklund disagreed he was addres-
sing anything more than the requested variances with his suggested
amendments..
Voting on the motion:
Aye : Jones , Bowerman, Sopcinski and Rymarchick
Nay: Bjorklund
Motion carried.
Following this action , Dan Shaddrick , 2510 37th Avenue N .E . , who
with James Matu, 2508 37th Avenue N.E . , and another unidentified
property owner were present, commented that it _"would have been
better business sense for the contractor who bought this tax for-
feited property to have checked the City ' s building codes before
he bought" :
Mr. Jones suggested to staff that if the property owner should
contact them. again regarding- the .development of this lot, he should
be asked to comment on the objections' to- ihe' lot' s development
raised at this hearing. :
Mr . Hoxmeier described the flooding problems the neighborhood had
experienced last July,.:- and Mr. .Fornell told him' the City is well
aware of the drainage problems of the area since water had to be
trenched through the back yards onto the vacant lot during the
crisis .
-2-
-9,;e,�4L_e )
• Motion -by Councilman Sauer and seconded by Councilman Letourneau
to ,deny, the .r.equest for a variance to the' Zoning'-Ordinance for a
ten foot front yard setback,. which would allow the garage and deck
additions -to the residence at .3416 Belden Drive to be constructed
as proposed, . finding that, as did the Planning Board:
1 . . The .physical surroundings, shape and topographical
-conditions. of the parcel of land involved does permit
the garage front to be in line with the house, the only
hardship being added foundation expense over that if
.the lot were level .
.2 . The adjoining properties have similar topographical
conditions with garages attached to the house.
3. The City Ordinance does not create an unusual hard-
ship.
4 . Homes on either side of Belden between 33rd and 34th
Avenues are within the prescribed front yard setbacks.
Motion carried unanimously.
JThere was also clear opposition on the part of the Board and neighbors
lto the duplex proposed to be built by Andrew P. Kocisak on the vacant
• ,/ lot at approximately 2500 37th Avenue N.E. , Mr. Bjorklund said, be-
cause of the proposal ' s gross inconsistencies with the City Zoning
(. Ordinance. He said Board members were in agreement with the neighbors
and staff that the lot is substandard and unsuitable for building,
though a majority declined to 'go into the question of its develop-
ment for a single family dwelling before such a proposal is made.
The applicant was not present to address his request.
Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Sauer to
follow the recommendations of the Planning Board to deny the variances
which would permit the construction of a duplex on Lot 32, Block 1 ,
Soo Line Addition, because of the gross inconsistencies in the pro-
posal with the requirements set by the City Zoning Ordinance, finding
as did the Planning Board that: no hardship can be shown to. have
resulted from- City Action since 1) the applicant was not the owner
of record when the lot was platted; and 2) there are no extenuating
circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to
other property in the same vicinity or zoning district.
Motion carried unanimously.
;The Board representative then reported that body had seen the Penne
Realty Company proposal to remodel the existing structure on the
western portion of the Hedlund property on Silver Lake Road as con-
forming to the conditions of the PUD under which it is zoned and
had recommended: a public hearing be scheduled as soon as the condi-
. tions for its-*development are met. Mr. Soth saw no problem with
• 4r-
�k _..... .._ --
�o 1(io'err.) Sin
- -- 1. IL NAS�Ht�ti I II I ILI
(lo WQc�:Yfi% 11 IWet Srb\IF16
jil
LAP
— - 12 .;! ;i,fC�' - .•t,.`:ar d"�-4_P-�--�- ',ice ,ou1,- t. -� "r1.:' - .a:.� • Z
—__ 1•r,Y;y.•a��'_q' _41:_ ..'.r:, _ _r,ri'.�:�....1•.: - SU1`;�',• � 1 _ __— - _ —
.. -
-
- -
.� -___ - -•fir r
•r �.s ` ..-:,ac yf r �t.�•�if � r fir. .r .���'-
Mal,
0
0
,mr
Ae
- � - ALI
J
I'
,r
� G- � 3--el ��
v
A
X11 e DATE : APPROVAL. :
June 12, 1987
T O -
Planning Commission Members
Fg2OM :
David M. Childs, City Manager
I T ENY : SALVATION ARMY REQUEST FOR PICNIC SHELTER
Section 11, Subd. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding Recreational/Open Space (R.O.S. )
zones states that
"All structures shal`1' be constructed of a=material and of a design_whic_h
is compatible with the natural environment as determined by the
Planning Board and Council and conforms with all applicable codes."
This picnic shelter is a minor project and conforms with codes, but still requires
your review. I recommend approval .
The Salvation Army has ongoing plans for construction and remodeling and prior to other
approvals of additions at the Camp, I recommend that we ask them to go over their
master development plan with us to make sure we aren't making piecemeal approvals.
I see no reason to hold up this single request, but suggest that prior to their next
request we have a meeting with them.
:cjk6.16.87
- IZ
--(4
JQ t poi RlM et�:12D cry i:�xNPt 13ziM \ Ix�j FAA
To P�%t
t
I
i I (p"SAMV5 FILA- - -- - I I �-
I
®
Td-*g-d tor:379 �14z D AU. =izy1����, �r.4�w p4m t�ga& 7eq nm.amb,aim.C 413
'mc;T ?ea s amn by
d 'I�
t
II ,'•, 1* I
I i "-�
g A—T 7:7
f i �
I I
14-o ----- - - -- - -14 �' ---- y
• I�eslrtls w.0 mt\w ss���wntsNw afar wo s rpwavew. atre.cw sma rre r r tu,stn•
Kt wtOw[+L r tW wIM �.
tl atlwefw rK aian qtr Kr wltw"r wa.t+o.wrtirm.rsr aes+nrt wtraW wr!r sllw
tea stre r tKla tw r alw r rIt ww werwt w usvo�wlu rro w.twwewa o o l n•-.Iw
wsnsf Il.
w ao srtt o art trrnma apart n lit p1'wt�wivt��•�rRSno tts as stems elan
tauaa tar!�� .rrrlm.r�r�
U rw
f r 0 6 m O sast"109 n w►�,=M w"w1r11 I".PM lr es•am�t�r.r/tllwa r RNI K 11f.
tls tKaitlY rIw wrl.
t1 two Ot aN'0T tsx"- Tw 1 wr"It two rK.tdOt.afA.atc•I a1a
11 FKt wanes a so"M NRtwiwlr w OMIT some to""So f"lttal Cn w r M.twill.
01 r wrrmww�ri+l.tw°+ w a Rrawlw ssau4 r w wwno.
tl rws at�ew�w w++lwrF.!low wow.