Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC MINUTES 08231983 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII III II VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII - 101973 Box: 21 Folder: CC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1983 Document: CC MINUTES 08231983 L, ,r \ CITY OF ST. ANTHONY COUNCIL MINUTES August 23, 1983 The meeting was opened at 7: 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance , led by Mayor Sundland. Present for roll call: Marks, Ranallo, Sundland, Letourneau, and Enrooth. Also present: David Childs , .City Manager; William Soth, City Attorney; and Carol Johnson, Finance Director. The minutes of the August 9th Council meeting were corrected to indicate three temporary 3.2 beer "permits" rather than "licenses" were granted at that meeting. Motion by Councilman -Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Marks to grant heating licenses to Prestige Heating & Air Conditioning; T.G.S . Mechanical; and Midland Heating and to accept the deposit from National Amusement Co. , Inc. (Snyder Brothers) for the next amusement device available, based on the established waiting list. Motion carried unanimously. �1 Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Letourneau to grant temporary 3 .2 beer permits , for consumption, not sale, to Wanda Wagner, 3413 Edward Street N.E. , for a' family reunion to be held in Central Park August 28, 1983, and to Carl B . Branger, 3604 - 33rd Avenue N.E. for the Village Originals picnic to be held in Central Park September 11, 1983. Voting on the motion: Aye: Enrooth, Letourneau, Sundland,. and Ranallo. Nay: Marks . Motion carried. Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Enrooth to approve payments of $745 and $360 to Dorsey & Whitney for legal services during May and June, 1983; $1, 528. 35 to Edward J. Hance for prosecu- tions during July, 1983; and $3 ,000 to Adrian Helgeson and Company for the 1982 audit of financial statements of City funds , as listed in the August 23, 1983 Council agenda. Motion carried unanimously . Judy Makowske, Chairperson of the Planning Commission, presented the - report on recommendations from the Commission as reflected in the ' minutes of the Commission meeting held August 16 , 1983. . -2- She read the .motion recommending Council approval of the variance to \ the City Sign Ordinance which would permit the additional wall sign- 1 age requested -for the west side of _the Zantigo Restaurant at Apache �f Plaza Shopping Center. 'There was no one present to speak either for or against the request and. the Council indicated its concurrence as follows : Motion by Councilman Letourneau and seconded by Councilman Marks to grant a variance to the City Sign Ordinance regulation -(.which permits only one sign on a, commercial building) for the wall sign on the west side of the Zantigo Restaurant. at 311.4 Silver Lake Road, as presented on Exhibit "Z" , finding, as did the Planning Commission, that: (1) Granting the variance would not be ..detrimental or injurious to other property in the same area because the restaurant is located in a commercial shopping center complex and there are great distances between it and the closest residential proper.ty. which could be adversely affected. (2) It would be a hardship for the restaurant owners if the petition for the variance were denied because of the shape of the building and its location on a small site. within the confines of a large shopping -cent'er, with two street frontages and accesses , and, most importantly, hree entrances from the west, south, and east. (3) The conditions upon which the .application. was based are unique to this particular parcel of land .because of the large exposure of the property to the west, wh-ere the primary traffic is generated from the east and south, making signage uniquely difficult for for this building and property. (4) The total signage for the existing signs on the building, as well as the requested sign, . would be lessthan the permitted square footage for this building, .and, in other respects, this property had been developed in accordance with all City and state codes and standards . (5) No one spoke in opposition to the request, either during the Planning Commission hearing, August 16 , 1983 , or the Council meeting held August 23rd. Motion . carried unanimously. - Chair Makowske then -reported the justifications the,"Commission had cited for recommending the additional lettering on the existing TCF illuminated pylon sign at 3899 Silver Lake Road not be granted. Dave Shannon of American Sign and Indicator Corporation,- 18725 Minne- tonka Boulevard, was present and apologized for not attending the August 16th hearing and for .misunderstanding the "double negative" he perceives in the questions :on the variance petition which should have been answered -in the affirmative. He indicated TCF officials believe they need to inform their own customers as well as those from other financial institutions -that a 24 hour .teller machine had been installed for their convenience in the bank building. . The sign company repre sentative said he doesn't believe the 13 additional square feet of -3- %\ lettering which the bank is requesting would add significantly to 1 either .the size or scope of the existing sign and it was his con- tention that the new message could also be considered a public service . Mayor Sundland recalled how hard it had been to get the plans for the bank approved originally, especially for the sign which was non-con- forming even at that time, and, based on the information- which had been made available to the Planning Commission, indicated he concurred with their recommendation for denial . He said he- perceives there should be another means available to the bank - to let the public know the cash card machines are in the building, without increasing what is already a non-conforming sign. Councilman Marks remembered that both the proposed size and height of the sign had been cut down and the panel which depected an eagle, the TCF symbol at that time , had been eliminated -in the same sign area where the additional lettering is now requested. Mr. Shannon reiterated the same arguments which had been presented when the sign was first proposed, that the existing sign., in terms of overall size , is one of the smallest of 57 identifying signs TCF has in the metro- politan area and that the bank considers it very important to have uniformity of their sign message. When asked, Mrs . Makowske indicated she perceives a personal appearance by the proponents before the Commission might have been helpful and the Mayor suggested to Mr. Shannon that, if he thought he might have additional information which would help his cause, it might be beneficial for him to attend the next Commission meeting to see if �- he could persuade the Commission members to modify their opposition somewhat. The Manager confirmed that the .Sign Ordinance permits no monument signs in a commercial area such as the bank' s in St. Anthony but the bank is permitted 150 total square footage on the building itself . Motion by Councilman Enrooth and seconded by Councilman Marks to table action on the TCF request for additional signage at 3899 Silver Lake Road pending .the appearance of the sign company representative before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Makowske indicated she appreciated the Council' s concurrence with Commission recommendations regarding the last two signs and hoped they would also find a basis for agreeing with them on the Elmwood Lutheran Church addition request. She. read the Commission motion for denial but indicated she believed the sixth reason for denial , as . stated, should have been withdrawn because , after the vote was taken, it had been disclosed that the sketches and plans submitted by the church trustee July 19th, but which hadnot been available for the August 16th hearing, should have been adequate for the existing stage of development. She indicated she intends to amend the August 16th minutes to reflect discussion on that point which followed the vote. -4- Mayor Sundland indicated that, even considering this oversight, and, after personally visiting the -site, he had concluded that, in light of the massive amount of land available to the church for expansion without a variance, .he would have to concur with the other reasons the Commission had for recommending the variance request be denied. Dick Jones , again speaking as ,a trustee for the church, commented that he sometimes doubted that the Commission members had really heard the reasons the church had expressed oves .and over again, for not expanding on the north side. He reiterated that adding the needed classrooms and other improvements to the north side of the building at this time , would defeat the plan the congregation has had for twenty years to add a new sanctuary . on that side when the church would have sufficient funds and need for such an addition. Mr. Jones said he would not anticipate that would happen for another five or ten years . The church could probably get . by without making the proposed changes in the kitchen, fellowship room or .sanctuary he said, but the additional classrooms are a necessity, as evidenced by the fact that church has to rent six rooms in the Wilshire School this winter until the addi- tion can be constructed. The church representative reiterated that it is essential that all Sunday school classes be held at the same time so the children can attend the church worship with their parents, so adding services would not solve the classroom shortage. Mr. Jones indicated he believes the Commission had misunderstood the comparison of costs for the proposed addition and. the structure to the north because Ming Wang, the architect the church had retained to draw up the expansion plans had .estimated it would cost $750 ,000 , or $75 per square foot, to put in a new sanctuary with a basement under- neath it on 'the north- -side, and Mr. Jones believed the architect would say it' would cost '$250 ,000 to construct the proposed addition on the east at current building prices , . not taking into consideration the fact that a contractor had submitted a bid of $150 ,000. for the job on the condition the church members would do much of the finishing work themselves . To expand to the north at this time would cost the church about a half a million dollars more. than the congregation -can afford, Mr. Jones concluded. He agreed that it would be only fair to exclude- the reference to the lack of plans from the Commission recommendation. When the church trustee told the Council that when the new sanctuary is constructed on the north side, the church plans to convert. the existing sanctuary into a fellowship. hall which can be used for banquets, Councilman Ranallo told him that would concern him even more, perceiving such large affairs could be very disturbing -.for the neighbors, if the build- ing were constructed so close to their lot lines . Mr. Jones responded that he didn't foresee there would be anymore noise generated by a dinner than with regular church services . Mayor Sundland- noted the proposed future expansion for a -sanctuary on the north. side would also be only 15 feet from the- property line and later confirmed .that this addition would also require a conditional use permit before it could be constructed. Councilman Marks indicated on the site plans , which the church officials ~- had brought with them that evening, possible ways -he saw for siting the r -5- proposed addition in a manner whichmight be more acceptable to the neighbors . He assured the proponents that it was not his intention to redesign the addition, but that he was rather seeking ways of avoiding a "win/lose" solution to the impasse. The Councilman indicated he perceives the church' s relationship with its neighbors had become the crux of the problem. Mr. Jones responded by saying he believed some of the Commission reaction to the proposal had been exaggerated and .cited the statement that"the church wall would be 38 feet high," where in reality , "the addition would have only a ten foot wall with a sloping roof which could be constructed on a grade no more than 7 or 8 feet higher than the neighbor' s property" . The .church official said that during the August 4th meeting with the residents -along 36th -Avenue, he had sensed some of them would oppose any expansion of the. existing church building whatsoever, -which "wou'ld be the same as .telling us we can't build on our own property at all" . He then drew the Council 's attention to Commissioner Bowerman ' s admission in the minutes that even shorter sideyard setbacks , including those for his own .home, are not uncommon in, the City. Councilman Enrooth told- him the City Ordinance deals with church buildings as conditionally permitted uses in a residential district because it is the . accepted philosophy that rights of residents must be considered to take precedent over non-.residential structures in the same district and the permit gives the City some leeway in setting conditions for approval which makethe non-residential buildings more acceptable to the adjoining home owners . . The Councilman wondered �.,. , whether the church. officials . had listened carefully to what Commission members and the residents- were telling them were their concerns about possible harmful effects the proposed building might have on their neighbors ' use of their backyards and property values . Mayor Sundland indicated he agreed .with Councilman Marks that a "push and shove" . situation should be avoided, if possible, and asked the proponents if they could see any .poss.ible alternatives for constructing the building which could be negotiated with their neighbors , . with, of course, some compromise on both- sides . Reverend Joseph O. Valtinson, pastor of Elmwood, told him the neighborhood .opposition to .the addi- tion had not been expected and he reiterated that some of the partici- pants in the August. 4th meeting had even opposed the suggestion for expanding to the front of the church. The minister said the church's position is a difficult one because the rapid growth of the congrega- tion the last few years had made the proposed .addition necessary and indicated he could foresee no other way of constructing it, perceiving the 15 foot sideyard setback to be essential to .the plan.. He asked, "who will decide the issue, the City orthe residents?" . However, "as a Christian minister" , Reverend Valtinson indicated he wanted to be reconciled with his neighbors and said he would be happy to follow any directions the City could. give him as long as they would "achieve the church' s objectives without developing 15 different costly plans to get there" . -6- Councilman Ranallo commented that he had. observed that large committees \ rarely accomplish anything and., suggested two or three persons re- presenting each side might result in a more effective negotiation. Councilman Enrooth suggested a mediator service- might be utilized. There was general agreement that Mr. Childs ' workload is too heavy for him to undertake the task of acting as mediator and secretary in this problem. Erling Weiberg, who lives at 3409 - 36th Avenue N.E. , the street just behind . the church property , reiterated that he had served as spokes- person for both the six families on 36th, whose property would be most affected by the -proposed- addition, and the 23 persons in that neighbor- hood who had signed the petition of -opposition to its construction in the location proposed.. Because the notice of the July 19th hearing had not specifically stated where the church expansion would be made, and, believing the addition-would be made to the north, -as had been assumed by the neighbors over the years , Mr. Weiberg said he and his wife came to the hearing fully expecting to support the church' s request. However, when- they learned the addition would instead be built directly behind two of the neighbors , who vehemently opposed its construction, .Mr. and Mrs . Weiberg concluded they had no choice but to support their neighbors . When the Planning Commission tabled their recommendation on the church proposal to .give the church an opportunity of coming up with a more acceptable plan, the neighbors came to the August 4th meeting with the church officials anticipating that would be the case, according to Mr. Weiberg. Instead, he said, the church officials indicated. they could not change their plans and the only suggestions for other ways of constructing the addition came from the neighbors themselves , and all those were rejected by Mr. Jones - at the August 16th Commission hearing: The fact that one resident had expressed opposition to one of these suggestions was certainly not representative ofthe whole neighborhood, Mr. Weiberg said. Because there had been complaints about the church's maintenance of their property in the past, and in order .that these problems should not become a source of major disagreements between the church and the neighbors , or issues in which the City would .have to be involved, as this one -had, the spokesperson suggested the 'establishment of a neighbor- hood committee .which 'could meet on a yearly basis with church officials to work out any problems regarding weed control , snow removal, etc. which might come up during the year. When Mayor Sundland asked Mr. Weiberg if he believed it would be possible for the neighbors to come up with an alternative to -the church 's proposal which would be satisfactory to both parties , the spokesperson responded that he believes, "it should be up to the church to develop a plan which the residents could live with" . Reverend Valtinson . then asked what assurances the church would have that, if a plan could be agreed upon by both the church and neighbors , it would be given. City approval. Councilman Enrooth told him he is certain any plan which had the tacit approval of the. neighbors would have no problem getting the approval of both the Planning Commission and the Council. �. Councilman Marks told the church representatives he is concerned that any decision by the Council that evening would surely interrupt the negotiation process and, therefore, was making the motion to table action on the permit request on the assumption some .accommodation of both positions could be worked out through further negotiations . Councilman Enrooth seconded that motion, agreeing it might be wiser to defer the .matter to another Council meeting, perceiving that, "with all the land the church has available for expansion,. there should certainly be an opportunity for differences between the parties to be worked out satisfactorily" . However, before the vote on the motion was taken, he withdrew his second to give Donald Esau, 3505 - 36th Avenue N. E. , an opportunity to comment on the issue. Mr. Esau identified himself as the .owner of one of .the two homes directly behind the existing church. and the proposed addition. He referred to. the extensive. testimony on the harm he believes he would suffer if the addit-ion is permitted, but said he wanted to. go on record as , "supporting the church over the years because they have been good neighbors and have provided a necessary service for the community" . Mr. Esau indicated he perceives the neighbors don't want the situation to. deteriorate - into a "win/lose" proposition either . He therefore suggested another meeting between the residents and church officials be scheduled. and, in order. that any misunderstanding of positions could be avoided, that each side arrange to take their own minutes of the proceedings . He could certainly understand the church' s need for additional class- rooms, Mr. Esau said, and he wondered if it would. be possible for the City to let the church use the six classrooms in .the Wilshire School i. building without charging them rent, at least until there is some - agreement reached .about the siting of the proposed addition. The Mayor told Mr. Esau he would be happy to transmit that suggestion to the School Board, who are responsible for the school buildings . He _ also said that, although he wouldn' t..want to impose any more projects on the City staff, at this time, he personally would be happy to do anything in his power to get the parties together.. The suggestion that separate minutes should be- kept by both sides appealed to the Mayor as a means of preventing further polarization of positions . Among those present whodid not speak were Larry and Sandy Antczak, who live directly behind the church, Mrs. Esau, and Elmwood members , Mrs . Jones , Dennis Olson and Paul Stewart. Councilman Enrooth again seconded the motion to table action on the Elmwood addition request which passed unanimously. Chair Makowske concluded the Commission report by telling the Council she understood the LePepiniere school officials would be returning with a proposal for wall signage for the center. Councilman Enrooth indicated he had noticed two incidents of homes in the City which had been left only partially constructed for long periods of time. The Manager indicated he had been able to persuade one of the owners to complete the job but wasn' t certain the same procedures would awork in the second instance. . -8- Both Councilman Marks and Enrooth. reported being away from the City for some time and said they were glad to be back to Minnesota where the weather has been more moderate. Mr. Childs had included the Helgeson audit in the Council agenda packet and he summarized actions which have already been taken or would be taken when staff time .is available to comply with the audit sug- gestions for -improving- the City ' s system of internal controls . The Manager also reported he would be attending some of the sessions of the Minnesota Waste Management Board meetings August 24th and 25th to state the City 's positions on issues which might adversely effect its residents . Mr. Weiberg had remained to reemphasize the importance he perceives for making .future hearing notices .more specific. He speculated that there might have been better communication between .the church and the residents prior to the first hearing if the notice of the hearing had indicated where the Elmwood 'Church-, addition was proposed to be con- structed. Mr. Childs told him it is. his intention to revise the hearing notice and to include pertinent maps and sketches in the notices to affected neighbors and this would motivate him to initiate that pro- cedure right away. Referring to the August 16th staff notes , reference to .seal coating the streets , Mr. Childs . told the Council that project is almost completed and Mr. Hamer should .be congratulated for saving the City money by recycling the sand .mixture on each street and storing it for reuse -on the icy streets this winter. Motion by Councilman Ranallo and seconded by Councilman Marks to adjourn the meeting at 8 :50 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted-;i. le Crowe , Secretary a or ATTEST: City Clerk