HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AGENDA 02161988 Meeting Sheet
100023
VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II II
BOK: 15
Folder:
Document: CC AGENDA 02161988
C 2 TY O F S T . ANTHONY
P LAWN=W G C OMM 2 S S 2 ON M 2 NUT IF—:S
F E BRUARY 1 6 , 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Franzese.
3 Present for roll call: London, Brownell, Hansen, Wagner, Franzese,
4 Werenicz , Madden.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 OATH OF OFFICE
7 Secretary Helen Crowe administered oaths of office individually to
8 Edward W. Brownell III , 3205 Skycroft Drive, to fill in John Wingard' s
9 unexpired two year term as well as to John Madden and Steve London,
10 who the Council had reappointed to serve three year terms on the
11 Planning Commission.
12 Blizzard Causes Cancellation of January 19th Commission Meeting
13 The three terms of office were scheduled to commence at the above
14 meeting which had been cancelled when Apache Squares Shopping Center,
15 whose application for signage was the only business requiring
16 Commission action that evening, requested postponement.
17 NOVEMBER 30 , 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
018 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to approve with the following
19 changes: -
20 Page 2, line 20: Substitute "was" for "were" .
21 Page 3 , line 9: Substitute "with" for "within" .
22 Page 3 , line 18: Correct typo "and" before "said" .
23 Page 3 , line 28: Insert "and" between 1117th" and "who" .
24 Page 12 , line 33 : Delete "and one" between "and one-half" .
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26 WERENICZ TO REPRESENT COMMISSION AT FEBRUARY 24TH COUNCIL MEETING
27 When Mr. Childs confirmed that the Council' s February 23rd meeting had
28 been rescheduled to the next evening, Commissioner Hansen said he
29 would have liked to have served as Commission representative at that
30 meeting, but would be unable to do so because there was an important
31 District #282 School Board public hearing scheduled the same evening
32 - which he would not want to miss.
33 WAGNER AND HANSEN TO HEAD COMMISSION IN 1988
34 The above indicated their willingness to serve as Commission Chair
35 with the latter deferring to Commissioner Wagner during the discus-
036 sions which preceded the following:
37 Commission Action
1
1 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to nominate George Wagner to
2 serve as Chair and Ron Hansen as Chair Pro Tem for the remainder of
3 1988 .
4 Commissioner Brownell moved to close nominations.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 The newly elected Chair proposed that Rosemary Franzese continue to
7 conduct the meeting that evening.
8 NEW BUSINESS
9 New Shopping Center Management Congratulated for Well Designed Signage
10 Which Complies With City Ordinances
11 Mr. Childs reiterated his January 14th memo advice to the Commission
12 including that:
13 *neither a variance nor a public hearing, but only Council
14 approval, was required for the 80 square foot free standing
15 pylon sign which would identify the new retail center just
16 .west of Apache Plaza since the City sign code allowed 300
1.7 square feet of sign surface area for a shopping center;
018 *the 28 square foot of signage each proposed for the four busi-
19 nesses in the first building would be well under what the Sign
20 Ordinance would allow eight entities ;
21 *EFH Company owned the center but, as indicated in the appli-
22 cation for approval which he had included in the cancelled
23 Commission meeting agenda packet, Gene Happe of Apache Proper-
24 ties., 1601 East Highway 13 , Burnsville, MN had made the appli-
25 cation.
26 The City Manager had agreed with Commissioner Wagner' s calculations
27 that the rectangle encompassing the proposed logo and lettering for
28 each of the' wall signs identifying the four businesses_ in the building
29 would be 14 feet by 2 *feet, or 28 square feet of sign surface area,
30 where the Sign Ordinance allowed 88 square feet for the 44 foot
31 frontage each space had.
32 Gene Happe, representing the center owners , told the Commissioners:
33 *the pylon sign would identify this the first of three separate
34 commercial properties owned by Apache Properties with the other
35 two being located north and south of the Firestone building on
36 39th Avenue N.E. ;
37 *the sign was planned to be color coded according to the color
38 theme for each building;
2
1 *the blue panel would identify the existing building with other
2 colors identifying the buildings planned for the other loca-
3 tions;
4 *the sign would be back lit but could easily be turned off
5 whenever the City wanted because security for the area would be
6 provided by lighting indicated on the site plan in the agenda
7 packet.
8 Hansen Commends Applicant for Seeking Approval of Signage Before
9 Erection
10 The Commissioner noted that the center owner had gone without signage
11 even though the building was up and the first tenant, Domino' s Pizza,
12 had been in operation for quite a while. He said he was happy to see
13 signage delayed for City approval which had not always been the case
14 with businesses in the past. The Commissioner said he perceived the
15 signage had been well represented and -told Mr. Happe he considered
16 his proposed center to be a welcome addition to that shopping area.
17 Commission Action
18 Motion by Hansen, seconded by London to recommend the Council approve
19 the request for signage under Section 430: 40 Subdivision 8b ( 3) of the
20 City Sign Code as presented for the Apache Squares Shopping Center ,
21 2504-2524-39th Avenue N.E. , finding that:
�22 1. Staff had indicated the proposed free-standing center identifi-
23 cation sign and the comprehensive plan for individual business
24 signage would meet all the Sign Ordinance requirements and would
25 provide the type of signage St. Anthony desires for the comm-
26 unity.
27 2 . No public opposition was expressed during the Commission consi-
28 deration of the application.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 PUBLIC HEARINGS
31 Reluctant Approval Given Signage on Dairy Queen
32 At 7 : 55 P.M. Chair Franzese read the notice of the hearing to consider
33 the request from Albert Plaisted, owner of the St. Anthony Dairy
34 Queen, 2612 Highway 88 , for a sign variance to allow the business to
35 retain the existing signage on that building identified in the notice.
36 No one present reported failure to receive the notice which had been
37 published in the February 3rd Bulletin and mailed to all property
38 owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property and no one
39 objected to its content.
3
1 Agenda Copy of February 3rd notice and list of mailings;
2 Documenta- pertinent pages of Commission' s October 21 , 1986
3 tion minutes;
4 rough draft of Secretary' s attempt at near verbatim
5 transcript of that meeting;
6 pertinent sections of the July 21 , 1987 Commission min-
7 utes airing the Commission' s concerns about the non-
8 conforming signage which was erected on the store after
9 it was completely rebuilt;
10 copies of the September 2 , 1986 elevations for the
11 remodeled Dairy Queen submitted to staff at the time
12 of construction;
13 City Manager ' s February 12th memorandum where he
14 attempted to, summarize the issues which had arisen
15 since the Council had first approved the drive-through
16 facility for the store, which to the City' s surprise
17 had been completely leveled and rebuilt with signage
18 far in excess of what the Commission or Council expect-
19 ed or the Ordinance allowed;
20 report in -the same memorandum of the applicant' s fail-
21 ure to come in for a variance to allow that excess , in
22 spite of numerous letters explaining the necessity for
023 doing so;
24 January 4 , 1988 Petition for Sign Variance.
25 Staff report: Childs recalled it had been during the July 21 , 1987
26 Commission discussion with Mr. Plaisted that the
27 Dairy Queen owner had been told a variance was neces-
28 sary for him to keep the signage he had put up on his
29 building but he could expect the Commissioners to look
30 favorably on that variance when he applied for it;
31 reported that in spite of several letters from the City
32 urging application for the variance, the application in
33 the agenda packet that evening was finally the response
34 to those letters;
35 explained that technically the signage on the build-
36 ing might also be considered to be 5 separate signs
37 because of the 5 foot separation between the Dairy
38 Queen logos and the name lettering;
39 said the Commission could interpret that there were
40 only 2 signs on the north and south side of the build-
41 ing which, with the 48 square foot rotating roof sign,
42
• 4
1 exceeds the ordinance allowance of 100 square feet of
2 surface sign area for that store by 92 square feet;
3 agreed with the Chair ' s statement that "there was no
4 point in revisiting the differences in recol-
5 lections held by the City and the applicant which had
6 been fully explored during the July, 1987 meeting with
7 the applicant and at many Commission meetings in the
8 meantime. " ;
9 reiterated that he perceived it was now up to the
10 Commission to make an interpretation related to the
11 number of signs involved and to decide whether or not
12 to recommend the Council grant the necessary variance
13 to allow the signage to remain on the building.
14 Proponents: Albert Plaisted conceded that the scale on the blue
15 prints could have been wrong but reiterated he had told
16 staff from the very beginning that the logos and let-
17 tering in the mansard roof had to be ordered as is from
18 the parent Dairy Queen office and that he could not
19 have that particular roof style without that standard
20 company identification; but
21 insisted that signage had been accurately depicted on
22 the blue prints even if the scale might have been off ;
�23 said he was not denying that the misunderstandings had
24 resulted from his not giving more specific and accurate
25 information related to his plans to level the building
26 and the extent of the signage he was proposing to
27 erect on the building after it was rebuilt;
28 indicated the signs on the north and south side of the
29 building consisted of a 3 by 5 foot Dairy Queen logo
30 attached to the same panel as the 22 and 18 inch neon
31 Dairy Queen letters (each side would have 72 square
32 feet of signage if Commission interprets logo and let-
33 tering as one sign. ) .
34 Janet Plaisted in reference to Commissioner Hansen' s
35 comments about "ignored notices" said she had unsuc-
36 cessfully tried to contact Mr. Childs by phone after
37 receiving one of these letters and his absence from
38 the City coupled with the fact that she and her hus-
39 band had been traveling between their stores accounted
40 for some of the response delay.
41 The hearing was closed at 8: 06 P.M. for formulation of a recommenda-
42 tion to the Council.
0
5
1 Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived the major issues were that
2 the Commission, without the knowledge that the building would be
3 leveled which voided the roof sign from being grandfathered in, gave
4 the applicant permission to take down the sign while the building was
5 being reconstructed for a drive-through facility as well as the fact
6 that an additional wall sign was erected without the City' s approval.
7 Mr. Childs responded that was the reason he had specifically described
- 8 all the signage on the building in the February 3rd notice of the
9 hearing on the variance.
10 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he could see no point in rehashing all
11 the grievances the Commission had which had been fully covered at
12 the July 21 , 1987 meeting. He perceived it was up to the Commission
13 to recommend whether the existing signage could remain on the
14 building. The Commissioner said he would be in favor of recommending
15 the Council grant whatever variance is necessary to retain that
16 signage as the applicant had been told to expect if he applied for
17 the variance.
18 Commissioner Hansen responded to the suggestion that the Commission
19 interpret the logo and name lettering as one sign by saying that was
20 not the way the Leslie Paper Company signage had been interpreted.
21 The response was that there had been considerably more distance than
22 5 feet between that logo and the lettering on that building.
23 Commissioner London indicated he was concerned that to interpret this
24 signage any differently might result in an inconsistency with the
025 directions given the owner of Mickey D' s restaurant.
26 Commission Action
27 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Wagner to recommend that the Council
28 grant the necessary- sign variance to Albert Plaisted which would
29 allow him to keep the existing signage on the Dairy Queen at 2612
30 Highway 88 , realizing that by doing so the City would be allowing 92
31 square feet of signage over and above what the Sign Ordinance allows
32 for a building with the frontage this building has. In recommending
33 the variance be granted, the Commission acknowledges the controversy
34 which has surrounded this reconstruction project which has been well
35 documented in Commission and Council minutes since 1986 but finds in
36 its favor that:
37 *the signage is in very good taste;
38 *the building is located on two platted streets and actually
39 has traffic going three ways around it and the City has in the
40 past granted variances for additional signage under similar
41 conditions;
42 *there have been no public expressions of opposition to the sign-
43 age which is on the building and there was no one present at
44 this hearing who opposed granting a variance for its retention.
6
1 Voting on the motion:
2 Aye: Werenicz , Wagner, Brownell, Franzese, Madden.
3
4 Nay: Hansen, London.
5 Motion carried.
6 Following the vote, Commissioner London explained his vote against
7 granting the variance by saying he had concluded after reading the
8 minutes provided in the agenda packet that the issue involved a
9 situation where the applicant had taken advantage of a confusing
10 situation because both Chair Franzese and Commissioner Madden had
11 warned Mr. Plaisted that his roof sign would no longer enjoy a
12 grandfathered in status if more than 70% of the building were
13 removed during reconstruction. The Commissioner said he certainly
14 thought that had happened when the building was leveled. He said he
15 doubted whether the City would have allowed the _pylon- sign to remain
16 on the building if the Commission and Council had been told at the
17 start that the remodeling involved leveling the building. He
18 perceived a similar situation had occurred with the Mickey D' s
19 signage.
20 Commissioner Hansen agreed this was another case where the Commission
21 was being asked to overlook an applicant ' s ignoring the City or-
22_ dinance. He drew a comparison between what had happened in this
•23 instance and the request for shopping center signage heard earlier
24 in the evening where the applicants had worked with staff to provide
25 signage which conformed to the ordinance and had waited to put up that
26 signage until they had gotten official approval.
27 TCF Request for Conditional Use Permit/Setback Variance Tabled for
28 Traffic Study
29 At 8 : 20 P.M. , the Chair read the notice. of the hearing to consider
30 applications from Twin City Banking and Savings for a conditional use
31 permit to allow expansion of the existing drive-in teller facilities
32 and variance to allow extension of the existing canopy over the
33 drive-in on the north side of the building at 3899 Silver Lake Road
34 to within 31 feet of the north property line where a setback of 35
35 feet is required by ordinance.
36 The notice had been published in the February 3rd Bulletin and mailed
37 to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject
38 property. Four of these were present to express concerns that the
39 new facilities might exacerbate the traffic congestion at that
40 location.
41 No one present reported failure to receive the notice of the hearing
42 or objected to its content.
�43 Staff report: Childs reiterated information in his February 12th
7
1 memorandum related to the facilities expansion and
• 2 traffic congestion;
3 reported that as of Friday night staff had received
4 no calls either for or against this request;
5 told Commissioner Brownell the applicant, Robert
6 Galush had indicated that the sketch in the agenda
7 packet was only a rough drawing and had failed to show
8 the 12 feet of blacktop which would extend beyond the
9 fourth drive-in lane to the parking lot to accommodate
10 the passage of emergency vehicles;
11 told Commissioner Hansen the parking requirements were
12 based on the square footage of the building and maybe
13 the City' s codes weren' t tough enough for banks;
14 indicated he had not been with the City when the bank
15 was constructed and wasn' t aware of any variances
16 granted for that construction.
17 Proponents: Mr. Jonessaid he was appearing for Mr. Galush who
18 could not be there that evening and had more complete
19 site plans to show the Commissioners and neighbors;
20 reported that since bank deregulation, TCF had expanded
21 its savings and loan services, which had
.22 increased their - customers, most of whom preferred using
23 the drive-in facilities;
24 indicated other TCF locations were making similar
25 improvements to better serve this increase in
26 customers;
27 told Commissioner Brownell that rather than adding more
28 tellers, most of the banks were installing $20 ,000
29 automated cash dispensing machines which would increase
30 the productivity of the four lanes to a five lane dis-
31 pensing capability;
32 indicated the idea of adding an emergency lane had
33 originated with the 1984 tornado;
34 admitted the site often experienced parking problems
35 which were often the result of not having enough
36 drive-in facilities;
37 responded to the suggestion that the bank might have to
38 acquire more land to accommodate the increased business
39 by saying that was being looked at and although it was
40 not part of the request that night, bank planners were
41 also looking at available land on the site perceiving
8
1 8 or 10 cars could be provided on the grassy areas on
2 the south side of the property and parking for four on
3 the little grassy island on the east side;
4 told Commissioner Hansen they would be contacting
5 the City to ascertain the procedures for making these
6 additions and providing better traffic flow both on and
7 off the site;
8 told the new Commission Chair the bank had not had an
9 outside traffic study done and the expansion plans had
10 only resulted from internal bank planning;
11 told Commissioner Werenicz although the bank had not
12 planned any further landscaping on the north to buffer
13 the residents across 39th from the sight of cars
14 piling up but was certain the bank would be willing
15 to add shrubbery or hedges or anything else the City
16 deemed necessary;
17 responded to Commissioner Werenicz ' s suggestion that
18 the existing structure might have to be changed to
19 alleviate the parking and traffic problems by telling
20 him it was for security reasons , based on a couple of
21 holdups at this bank and others that .all the tellers ,
22 vaults and cash dispensing facilities have to be
.23 located in the same secured area of the facility, mak-
24 ing it essential to have the drive-in facilities where
25 cash is constantly being passed from the tellers in
26 the same area.
27 Jean Keller, who manages the Apache bank indicated the
28 heaviest traffic days are paydays and days Social
29 Security checks are cashed and the heaviest traffic
30 backups occur at her facility Thursday afternoons, all
31 day Friday and Saturday mornings.
32 Concerned Ruth Thompson, 3015 - 39th Avenue N.E. said she had
33 neighbors: been remiss in not contacting Mr. Childs about her
34 concerns before the hearing;
35 indicated she hadn' t realized how many new drive-in
36 lanes were involved in the proposal;
37 stated she "deeply regretted" the loss of grass on the
38 north side which would make the site "more commercial
39 than residential looking. " ; -
40 said the neighbors had opposed the drive-ins being
41 located on that side from the very beginning but in
42 spite of these and other concerns about the facility
•43 before it was built, TCF had turned out to be a satis-
9
• 1 factory neighbor when it came to upkeep of their
2 property;
3 doubted whether adding more drive-up lanes could cor-
4 rect the traffic congestion near her home which is
5 diagonal from the bank because traffic on 39th is like
6 "a zoo or state fair with cars constantly turning
7 around in the neighbors' driveways and occasionally
8 having accidents in front of our homes" ;
9 observed that there are never enough parking places to
10 accommodate TCF customers;
11 "strongly" advocated the bank buy more property to
12 expand the parking facilities;
13 wondered with traffic already backed up all the way
14 down the street to get into the existing two drive-in
15 lanes whether traffic conditions might get worse in-
16 stead of better with four lanes;
17 was concerned all the lawn on her side of the bank
18 would be torn up with people parking all over the site.
19 Ruth -Nelson, 3916 ,Macalaster Drive, recounted the near
20 misses she,, her husband, and other neighbors had ex-
•21 perienced trying to drive or walk down 39th Avenue;
22 requested a stop sign be installed at the end of the
23 bank' s driveway exiting on 39th.
24 Jake Cadwallader, 3901 Silver Lake Road, recalled that
25 it had been one. of the major concerns when the bank was
26 constructed that bank traffic would not go through the
27 adjoining neighbors;
28 said preventing a right hand turn out of the site
29 might direct the traffic back onto Silver Lake Road and
30 prevent the constant flow of TCF customers through the
31 residential areas to avoid the semaphore at the Silver
32 Lane and Silver Lake Road intersection.
33 Kenneth Lee said he lived and had a lot just north of
34 the bank;
35 echoed Mrs. Thompson' s suggestion that with the in-
36 creased business and better economic outlook the time
37 might have come for TCF to expand its banking fac-
38 ilities and take care of its own traffic control which
39 can' t help but become more difficult to handle as its
40 business improves.
10
• 1 Commission almost all said they were customers of TCF and could
2 comments: attest to the traffic and parking congestion.
3 Hansen: noted that Mr. Galush in his application letter had
4 mentioned a "tremendous increase in volume" in business
5 as the reason for expanding the drive-in. facilities;
6 indicated he was not opposed to the expansion but
7 testimony that evening and his own experience as a
8 bank customer and convinced him that traffic and park-
9 ing had become a real problem for both the neighbors
10 and customers;
11 said he believed the neighbors' had legitimate com-
12 plaints;
13 indicated he would like to see a traffic control and
14 flow study done to see whether curb cuts .or relocation
15 of the drive-in windows would be necessary to protect
16 the residential areas to the north and east from the
17 traffic problems on 39th Avenue and on their own
18 streets which are bank generated;
19 expressed concern that without the study, the City, by
20 allowing the additional drive-in lanes rather than
21 alleviating the existing traffic problems might be
•22 encouraging an increase in customers and greater con-
23 gestion on the site.
24 Madden: said he lived close to TCF but did most of his banking
25 through the mail to avoid the parking and traffic pro-
26 blems around the bank;
27 agreed with Commissioner Hansen that before the City
28 allows the expansion of the banking facilities, there
29 should be a study made of both traffic flow and con-
30 trol.
31 London: concurred that the Commission did not have enough
32 information to make a decision at this time;
33 said he knew from working on other banking facility
34 construction that all such facilities are experienc-
35 ing parking and traffic flow problems as they expand;
36 wanted to be certain that the drive-in expansion
37 would alleviate the traffic problems and not just
38 create new ones.
39 Werenicz: . said he hadn' t perceived the neighbors were actually
40 expressing opposition to the expansion per se, but had
11
• 1 come to tell the Commissioners their concerns about the
2 current and potential problems at TCF.
3 Wagner: perceived the study might help solve the stacking
4 problems all over the site.
5 Franzese: expected economic pressures if customers are lost
6 because of the congested condition on the site might
7 force the bank to make the necessary changes on its
8 own.
9 Commission Action
10 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Madden to table action on the TCF
11 request until the applicant has returned with a satisfactory traffic
12 study to _ demonstrate the proposed new facilities would improve
13 conditions for both parking on the site and traffic congestion on the
14 site and on the side streets, with both exits and . accesses to be
15 considered and provision of one way traffic patterns, if that would
16 help.
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19 Commission Agrees With Neighbors That Lot at 3657 Silver Lake Road
20 Should Not Be Rezoned R-2
•21 At 8 : 50 P.M. the Chair read the notice of hearing to consider a
22 request from Reliable Builders, Inc. 2575 Fairview Road North,
23 Roseville, to rezone the above lot on the southeast corner of Silver
24 Lake Road and 37th Avenue N.E. from R-1 , single family residential, to
25 R-2 , two family residential, for the double bungalow the applicant
26 proposes constructing on that corner which was cut down for the
27 reconstruction of 37th Avenue N.E. by Ramsey County.
28 The notice of the hearing was published in the February 3rd Bulletin
29 and mailed to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the
30 subject property. No one present reported failure to receive the
31 notice or objected to its content. Three of the property owners
32 listed on the back of the petition for rezoning in the agenda packet
33 were present to express opposition to the proposal.
34 Staff report: Childs reiterated a portion of the comments he had made
35 in his February 12th memorandum related to the factors
36 involved in the proposal;
37 reported there had been a single family residence on
38 the property before Hennepin County took it by con-
39 demnation for the reconstruction of the 37th Avenue
40 and Silver Lake Road intersection;
.41 indicated there might be some question whether the 26
12
1 by 40 foot structure depicted in Reliable Builder' s
2 drawing in the agenda packet would meet the minimum
3 requirements for two family dwelling first floor areas
4 which he read aloud;
5 added that there was certainly adequate lot size for a
6 conforming double bungalow dwelling to be constructed;
7 reported a call had come into the City offices that day
8 from Gerald Smith, 3629 Silver Lake Road, who, though
9 he did not specifically oppose the rezoning, questioned
10 what this type of development might do to property
11 values;
12 said he understood Mr. Hamer had also gotten a call
13 from the property owner to the east which questioned
14 the rezoning;
15 reiterated that the City' s Comprehensive Plan had con-
16 sidered single family zoning for this parcel, probably
17 because that was what was on the property when the Plan
18 was written;
19 pointed out on the zoning map that all property on 37th
20 Avenue west of Silver Lake Road is R-2 and all property
•?1 on the east side, except a parcel near Wilshire Park
22 School, is classified with an R-1 zoning;
23 told Commissioner Wagner he wasn' t certain the Silver
24 Lake Road median wouldn' t interfere with the proposed
25 driveway on that side of whether there were utility
26 boxes and transformers buried in that location.
27 Opponents.: Bruce Anderson, 3640 Penrod Lane, said he had moved to
28 St. Anthony to avoid living in an area full of double
29 bungalows with transient inhabitants who moved every
30 six months or a year;
31 perceived there were enough double bungalows on 37th
32 not to add another to the area;
33 reported Marilee Higgins who had lived in the single
34 family dwelling on that corner before it was acquired
35 by Hennepin County had intended to attend this meeting
36 to testify that the County "had practically guaranteed"
37 that the zoning would remain single family but a strep
38 throat and a temperature of 104 deg. prevented her
39 attendance;
40 stated he didn' t want the property behind him to be
�1 zoned double bungalow;
13
• 1 said "It' s zoned single family now, why mess it up?" ;
2 indicated that if he had not been on vacation, he
3 would probably have been able to get "almost every one
4 of my neighbors up here to protest the zoning change" ;
5 considered the road to be a hazard and reported he had
6 just built a $30 , 000 garage on Penrod just to get away
7 from exiting onto 37th where his family had been hit
8 four times.
9 Roger Rafferty, 3630 Penrod Lane, said his property
10 would border the southeast corner of the lot in
11 question;
12 indicated he was "totally opposed" to a double
13 bungalow on that lot;
14 questioned whether a double bungalow with a double
15 garage would meet the site requirements;
16 asked "why create any more rental property when what
17 the City needs is young families who own their homes
18 in the City?" ;
*9 said a double bungalow meant two families had to con-
20 tend with the hazards on 37th.
21 Mike Solz , who Mr. Anderson said owned the property at
22 3636 Penrod Lane, was present and nodded his head when
23 his neighbor said he opposed the property.
24 Mr. Lee indicated he had been a St. Anthony resident
25 and owned property there since 1929 and he had serious
26 doubts whether any type of residential development
27 should be allowed on that busy corner;
28 wondered if the City couldn' t make some use of the
29 property and build something to facilitate traffic,
30 like perhaps another turning lane for that corner;
31 was told by the Chair that she perceived the City
32 wanted to put the property to use to get some tax
33 dollars from it.
34 Proponent: Scott A. Holm, President of Reliable Builders, identi-
35 fied himself as the builder and said he probably should
36 have talked to the neighbors before the hearing;
37
•
14
1 indicated he didn' t usually buy property without coun-
t sel and said in this case he had gotten that from Henn-
a epin County who told him "this would be a beautiful
4 spot for a double bungalow" ;
5 said he had also talked to builders around the City and
6 Mr. Childs about the property;
7 told the owners he understood their concerns about
8 rental property but the prospective owner-buyer would
9 be occupying a unit himself and would be most likely to
10 carefully scrutinize anyone who lived next door;
11 said actual plans for the house are "beautiful" and not
12 at all similar to his own rough drawings which were not
13 intended for approval at this point;
14 indicated the plans for the dwelling he had with him
15 were for a structure which would sell for $152 ,000 and
16 would be much nicer than the double across the street;
17 did not perceive it would be very desirable for a fam-
18 ily to have a single dwelling on the lot where it would
19 be better suited for a double bungalow;
•20 debated the point raised by Mr: Smith saying a well
21 designed double bungalow on that corner would not
22 diminish the surrounding property values;
23 told Commissioner Wagner he was planning a four car
24 garage with access off both Silver Lake Road and 37th
25 Avenue, although "that might be hoping for too much. " ;
26 told the Chair the back of the house would be tucked in
27 with only a little over one story exposed and he would
28 not be removing any dirt from the rest of the lot;
29 was told by Commissioner Hansen that seeing his plan
30 would be irrelevant at this stage since the Commission
31 decision whether or not the lot should be rezoned
32 would not be based on any plan for the property.
33 Commission Reaction
34 Franzese: told Mr. Anderson the county had cut down that lot
35 which greatly improved the visibility on that corner;
36 noted that the sketch in the agenda packet showed the
37 building set back far enough not to obstruct the view
38 no matter how high it might be;
•39
15
• 1 commented that before the double bungalow across the
2 street had gone up, she had a hard time visualizing
3 anyone living there or trying to exit from the pro-
4 perty - now there are people coming and going from
5 that property all the time.
6 Madden: indicated his first impression had been that the lot
7 certainly had the footprint for a single family dwell-
8 ing but not a double bungalow; however
9 he wasn' t ready to make a final decision yet.
10 Werenicz: said he didn' t doubt Mr. Anderson could have mustered
11 more support for his position if he had more time,
12 "having seen that happen many times before. " ;
13 said the fact that the neighbors who would be the
14 most impacted by the project were so strongly opposed
15 to rezoning the property should have some bearing on
16 the decision since the Commission has always been
17 sensitive to the neighborhood reaction;
18 did not believe that by denying the change in zoning
19 the property would be unmarketable because he per-
20 ceived "there' s always a buyer out there somewhere. " ;
61 concluded that if the property remained R-1 , the City
22 would still benefit from the taxes .
23 Wagner: said he also opposed rezoning the property because the
24 neighbors don' t want it;
25 also indicated he didn' t perceive it would be wise to
26 add traffic from a two family dwelling onto that busy
27 intersection which is already very congested.
28 Hansen: pointed out that a large single family home could pose
29 just as much visual obstruction as a double bungalow
30 because it could be built just as big or bigger than a
31 double;
32 said he could show the opponents single family homes
33 with eight cars in the driveway and rental properties
34 with only two;
35 indicated there were many double bungalows he'd rather
36 live next door to than singles;
37 perceived the neighbors would really rather see nothing
38 built there and cautioned there could be "worse
39 things than doubles. " ;
•
16
• 1 however, agreed with the neighbors that it wasn' t a
2 good location for a double family dwelling and was
3 inclined to say "keep it single family. " .
4 London: indicated he was "strongly sympathetic" with the
5 neighbors because he didn' t see a compelling reason
6 to change the zoning to R-2 ;
7 said he thought the neighbors had every reason to
8 expect their neighborhood to stay single family.
9 Brownell: perceived that would be a difficult corner to put any-
10 thing on because of its location and landscaping;
11 agreed with the neighbors that the City should con-
12 tinue to maintain the integrity of that tract of land
13 rather than changing it.
14 Franzese: said the bottom line with he was to ,keep the property
15 R-1 avoiding the inclination to "equate less desirable
16 property to R-2" ;
17 perceived adding to the congestion problems would only
18 make it all , the more difficult for the neighbors_ to
•19 exit from their homes.
20 The hearing closed at 9: 15 P.M.
21 Commission Recommendation
22 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council deny
23 the request to have the property at 3657 Silver Lake Road rezoned from
24 R-1 ; single family residential to R-2 , two family residential,
25 primarily because the neighbors object to it and to rezone the
26 property now, when they have purchased their homes under the
27 existing ! condition, would probably not be fair to them without their
28 approval. The Commission sees no benefit to be derived from making
29 the property R-2 at this time.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 The Chair reminded those present that the Council makes the final
32 decision and strongly advised all who were interested to attend the
33 February 24th meeting where the proposal would be given another
34 hearing. She commended the neighbors for keeping aware of the
35 notices and coming to the hearing to have their concerns heard.
36 Later in the evening Mr. Childs advised the Commissioners that the
37 applicant did not contact him until after he had already purchased the
38 property. The Manager said he had also advised the builder to
•39 contact the neighbors , which he had obviously not done.
17
• 1 HRA Still Looking for a Firm Bid on Kenzie Project
2 The Manager then reported on the "Catch 22" situation the H.R.A.
3 found itself in regarding developing the final phases of the Kenzie
4 Terrace Redevelopment Project with no firm commitment from either
5 Gaughan or Lang Nelson and the danger that the interest rates would
6 jump again. He said both developers are earnestly looking for
7 financing, with Lang Nelson working with Juran Moody as Commissioner
8 Brownell, who works for the investment company probably already knows.
9 Mr. Krier is working with both developers to see who has the best
10 financial potential on which to make a choice and should have someth-
11 ing to report soon.
12 Decision on Parkview Up to School
13 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Hansen even though the Council scheduled
14 their meeting on the same night as the school board meeting, the
15 Council felt that the decision needed to be made by the school anyway.
16 The Manager told Commissioner London the use of the gymnasium for a
17 fire station was not a negotiable item in discussions with the school.
18 No Further Word Related to the Proposed Medical Building Next to the
19 Kenzington
20 Mr. Childs reported Waco Scaffolding is using the back Berger Transfer
4021 building and there are no further .developments he .knew about related
22 to the development of the lot on Kenzie Terrace which is part of
23 the Kenzie project.
24 Hansen Unhappy With Council ' s Ignoring Commission' s Unanimous recom-
25 mendation to Deny the Mickey D' s Restaurant Signage
26 The Commissioner asked what the major consideration was which in-
27 fluenced the Council not to follow the Commission' s findings and
28 wondered if the Commission representative' s report had any bearing on
29 the outcome. Commissioner Madden said he perceived the photographs
30 the applicants brought with them demonstrating the poor exposure the
31 restaurant had from the east appeared to change a couple of Council-
32 members ' minds.
33 Commissioner London said he was also quite upset by the decision,
34 perceiving the applicant knew exactly what he was doing when he came
35 up with all the "phony" sign measurements. He said he didn' t recall
36 the Commission giving 'Mr. Farrell "a bad time" or being "hostile" to
37 him as he reported to the Council. He said the restaurant could
38 easily have been in compliance with the ordinance by having two
39 smaller signs which more clearly identified the business.
40 Commissioner Hansen commented that he perceived the roof sign to be
41 the "ugliest in town" and certainly didn' t tell the public anything
�42 about what the business was. The Commissioner said he perceived the
18
• 1 City was getting to be a soft touch "giving into applicants who
2 ignore the ordinance; put up their non-conforming signage; and then,
3 come in for approval, which is never denied. "
4 Commissioner Werenicz perceived it had been the same thing with the
5 Dairy Queen, but he who had gone at tooth and nail with the applicant
6 at the July meeting finally was hesitant to be the one to say tear
7 your $5 ,000-$6 , 000 sign down.
8 Mr. Childs asked if they had noted the New York appeals case where in
9 spite of a New York Planning staff goof in the beginning, the builder
10 was ordered by an appeals court to tear the top twelve floors off his
11 building to the tune of over 20 million dollars because the court
12 held "reasonable diligence" by a "good faith inquirer" would have
13 uncovered the true zoning rules. In the case of Mickey D' s sign, Tim
14 Gow should have known better, did know better, and wasn' t truthful
15 about other municipalities measuring signage the way he did.
16 Commissioner Hansen indicated he believed the Council owed the
17 Commission some explanation about that decision.
18 Mr. Childs reported the latest developments on the temporary shelter
19 erected in front of Mickey D' s to keep the windows from falling in
20 where the contractor failed to prove bonding, ' and the shelter - is still
21 up. He concluded by saying staff puts forth' a real effort to work
22 with business people and to give them the benefit of a doubt and 99
023 out of 100 - times it works out fine - but every so often the City gets
24 taken advantage of, as discussed.
25 Legislative Changes Related to Planning Being Proposed
26 Chair Franzese sent around copies of potential changes in planning
27 which might impact on the Commission' s future decisions.
28 Franzese Commended for the Fine Service to the Commission
29 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to thank Rosemary Franzese for
30 the three years of fine service she had rendered the City on the
31 Planning Commission.
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33 ADJOURNMENT
34 Motion by Madden, seconded by London to adjourn the meeting at 9 : 50
35 P.M.
36 Motion carried unanimously.
37 Respectfully submitted,
• 38 Helen Crowe, Secretary
19