HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL AGENDA 03151988 (2) Meeting Sheet
100022
I IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII III
Box: 15
Folder:
Document: VL AGENDA 03151988
-,a
• C I TY OF' ST . ANTHONY
P L ANN 2 NG C OMM 2 S S 2 ON M 2 NUT E S
MARCH 1 5 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Pro Tem Hansen.
3 Present for roll call: London, Brownell, Hansen, Werenicz.
4 Absent: Wagner, Franzese, Madden.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 FEBRUARY 16 , 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Werenicz to approve with the following
8 changes:
9 Page 13 , line 25: Correct typo "or" between "side" and "whether" .
�10 Page .17 , line 15 : Correct typo "her" between "with" and "was" .
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12 HANSEN TO REPRESENT COMMISSION AT MARCH 29TH COUNCIL MEETING
13 Commissioner Brownell indicated he would like to also be present when
14 the Chair Pro Tem made his report at the meeting which had been
15 rescheduled from March 22nd when the Councilmembers would be in
16 Washington, D.C.
17 PUBLIC HEARINGS
18 Kenzie Terrace Signal and Sidewalk Signal and Sidewalk Projects As
19 Well As Senior Programs Given Go-Ahead for CDBG Funding
20— At 7 : 35 P.M. , Chair Pro Tem Hansen opened the hearing on St. Anthony' s
21 proposed use of - its Year XIV Urban Hennepin County Community
22 Development Block Grant planning allocation of $25 , 222 by reading the
23 notice of the hearing which had been published in the February 24th
24 Bulletin. No one present objected to its content or suggested
25 projects for funding other than the Hennepin County activities
26 proposed by staff. The Manager told the Ramsey County residents
27 present to discuss the TCF application, that county handles its CDBG
28 allocations in a different manner and suggested they drop in to see
29 him at City Hall to discuss activities carried out in the northern
0 30 sections of the- City.
1 Mr. Childs . indicated the $15 ,000 allocated towards the pedestrian
• 2 signal project would complete that program. The brochure Mr. Childs
3 had distributed outlined the senior social programs for which the City
4 had historically allocated 15% of each year ' s CDBG funds as well as
5 the budget for Community Services who run these programs.
6 Staff had recommended the Commission either allocate the remaining
7 $6 , 442 towards the construction of a concrete sidewalk on Kenzie
8 Terrace which could be tied in with the senior developments in that
9 area and would make getting to the bank and church much easier and
10 safer for those residents or to set those funds aside until $10, 000
11 can be raised to pay the costs of recodifying the 1973 Code of
12 Ordinances, as proposed during the planning and goal setting retreat
13 the previous weekend.
14 The Commissioners were generally agreed that it would be better to use
15 the funds this year to finish off the Kenzie project rather than to
16 hold the funds over for a project which couldn't even be started until,
17 next fall. However, they also concurred that serious consideration
18 should be given to using next year ' s allocation to bring the City
19 codes into compliance with revisions in state standards and to
20 eliminate some of the redundancies and conflicts related to election
21 laws, licensing, etc. which have occurred in the City ordinances over
22 the past 15 years.
23 The hearing was closed at 7 : 40 P.M.
024 Commission Recommendation
25 Motion by Brownell, seconded by London to recommend the Council
26 allocate St. Anthony' s $25 , 222 Year XIV Community Development Block
27 Grant funds for the following planning activities:
28 Kenzie Terrace Pedestrian Signal Project $15, 000.
29 Kenzie Terrace Sidewalk Project $ 6 , 442
30 Senior Citizens Social Programs $ 3 ,780
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
33 TCF Plan Accepted Despite Neighbor Objections to Bypass Lane
34 The February 16th public hearing on TCF' s plans to expand its existing
35 two lane drive up facility to four banking lanes plus a 12 foot wide
36 bypass and emergency vehicle lane had been tabled for a traffic flow
37 study to demonstrate the new facilities would improve existing parking
38 and traffic congestion conditions both on site and on the side
39 streets. The Commissioners had also suggested the study include
40 consideration of exit and access improvements as well as one way
41 traffic patterns, if that would help. The bank' s proposals were
•42 removed from the table and discussions reopened as to whether the
2
• 1 March 7th Benshoof & Associates traffic engineering study as well as
2 the revised site plans based on those recommendations met the
3 Commission intent.
4 Robert J. Galush, Assistant Vice President and Facilities Manager for
5 Twin -City Banking and Savings had the following to say about the study
6 and the revisions the bank was proposing in their plans because of it:
7 *perceived it supported out TCF' s original contention that a by
8 pass lane was essential to providing a better traffic flow on
9 the site and for keeping customer vehicles off the adjoining
10 streets during busy banking periods;
11 *said the bank would be increasing the existing 29 parking spaces
12 to 40 and three additional spaces would be provided on the east
13 side of the building for short term, probably no more than 5
14 minute ATM banking;
15 *drive-up stacking capacity would be increased.'by five vehicles
16 for each of the two additional lanes and the bypass lane would
17 provide site circulation for drive-up customers when those lanes
18 were full;
19 *the proposed canopy would extend only over three of these lanes
20 with a fourth lane and bypass emergency lane to- accommodate vans
•21 and emergency vehicles which would not .fit under the canopies;
22 *the canopy would extend no farther than 31 feet from the
23 property line;
24 *proposed buffering the additional lanes from the view of the
25 neighbors to the north by berming the grass area along 39th
26 Avenue .about two feet higher which would .require carefully dig-
27 ging up the slow growing sugar maple trees in that location and
28 replanting them on top of the berm;
29 *indicated the bank intended to saturate the area between the
30 trees with shrubbery, and if the City allows them to do so,
31 would plant more shrubbery on the City.' s right-of-way up to the
32 street;
33 *the stop sign suggested by one of the neighbors during the
34 February 16th hearing would be installed at the end of the
35 bank' s driveway exiting on. 39th Avenue N.E.
36 Five residents of the area were present to ask questions and indicate
37 concerns about the proposed expansion.
38 Ruth Thompson, 3015-39th Avenue N.E. , indicated she lived diagonally
39 across 39th Avenue from the bank and said she thought it would be much
40 nicer to have the expansion done on the south side of the bank
•41 building where she knew TCF owned at least 200 feet rather than adding
3
• 1 three lanes on the north which would take the "commercial use almost
2 up to the street. " Mrs. Thompson said she was "strongly opposed to
3 having the fifth bypass lane added, perceiving no necessity for it if
4 TCF had enough tellers to man the drive-up machines and keep the
5 traffic moving. She said she expected there would be a "real traffic
6 pile up" if all the vehicles leaving the five lanes merged into one
7 land exiting on Silver Lake Road.
8 Mrs. Thompson indicated further that:
9 *regardless of how much berming is done, she would expect to be
10 still able to see all that cement and would know it was there;
11 *she liked the trees just where they were and couldn' t see why
12 the neighbors should have to look at all that cement all the
13 time for just a. few hours when the site might be congested each
14 week;
15 *personal observation had caused her to question whether not
16 having enough tellers inside the bank now hadn' t created some
17 of the existing congestion outside and providing better service
18 inside might not remove the necessity for having a bypass lane
19 at all;
20 *she anticipated a real conflict in traffic would result from
21 adding two more banking lanes and another lane for customers
022 to make another pass around the bank if they can' t make into
23 the teller lanes the first time.
24 George Thompson, same address, supported his wife' s perception that a
25 bypass lane was unnecessary and that the expansion should be made on
26 the south rather than the north side of the building because there
27 would be "too much stacking on the north side" where the bank property
28 now complements the residential neighborhood. He said the little bit
29 of traffic which is generated on the adjoining streets a few hours a
30 week didn't bother him at all and he would even be glad to have those
31 drivers turn around in his driveway if that meant not having to move
32 the trees closer to the street and ruining the whole appearance of the
33 north side of the building near his home. Mr Thompson concluded by
34 observing that "people who make traffic studies don' t have to live
35 here and see what we do. "
36 Duane Stanley, 3012-39th Avenue N.E. , indicated his was the home
37 immediately east and the only residence bordering the bank property.
38 He told the Commissioners TCF had been good neighbors ever since they
39 first moved in and he was therefore not certain whether he was
40 protesting or supporting the proposal. However, Mr. Stanley said his
41 preference would have been to have TCF build on property they owned
42 and were trying to sell on the south side. He recalled that the
43 original design and planning had been to leave that portion for
44 expansion purposes rather than going farther north. Mr. Stanley
•45 agreed that the existing traffic flow on the site was rather awkward
4
1 now because most drivers are past any available parking space by the
2 time they realize the drive-up lanes are filled up but said he wasn' t
3 certain the bypass lane would be a real gain towards redirecting the
4 traffic to the parking areas. The resident told the Commissioners
5 people who can't find parking spaces during the busiest time come back
6 out into the street to park way up past his house and on Penrod Lane
7 and he hadn' t been convinced the bypass would correct that situation.
8 He conceded however that providing extra parking spaces might help
9 some by providing extra parking spaces for employees which in turn
10 would leave more space for customer parking.
11 Mr. Stanley concluded by saying he perceived that while the new
12 proposal might help to clean up some of the existing traffic and ,.
13 parking problems, going south would be much better.
14 . Ruth Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive N.E. , said she would also prefer to
15 see the expansion made to the south, perceiving that the bank wouldn' t
16 have much of its own property left on the south side with this
17 proposal. She thought it was important to keep the required setbacks
18 in residential neighborhoods and echoed her neighbor' s preference for
19 grass and trees to look at rather than concrete.
20 Kenneth Lee, said in addition to his home at 3904 Penrod Lane, he
21 also owned the vacant lot across the street where somebody would
22 probably be living one of these days, and he believed it would
23 probably be better for both properties to have the bank expand to the
W4 south. However, he said, he knew from having seen the bond papers
25 for the St. Anthony schools, how important Apache Plaza on the land he
26 once owned, had been to the community. He was, therefore, quite
27 conscious of just how important it was to have flourishing businesses
28 like TCF in St.. Anthony and not to have the City take actions which
29 would prevent them from ' operating successfully. Mr. Lee said he
30 enjoyed looking out the window every morning to find out from TCF;s
31 sign what the weather was, but said he expected some day there would
32 probably have to be a privacy fence erected between the residential to
33 the east and the bank property.
34 Mr. Galush responded to the resident statements by saying:
35 *TCF is sensitive .to the concerns and neighbors and certainly
36 wouldn' t want to create any ill feelings with them;
37 *the bank had been as objective as it could be in planning for
38 the expansion which the addition of checking and customer
39 preference for drive-up services necessitated;
40 *at the time of the tornado, the bank had realized they had made
41 a mistake by not including a bypass for emergency vehicles in_
42 their original construction because the power trucks could not
43 get close enough to the building to service the wires which were
44 exposed as the storm tore off the roof of the building;
5
• 1 *with all the security already built into the north side of the
2 building, there would be no point in putting the extra drive-up
3 lanes on the south side;
4 *the bank couldn' t do that anyway without rezoning to commercial
5 because the property on that side is still zoned residential;
6 *the contractor had found that soil to be unstable when he att-
7 empted to place the building a few feet farther south;
8 *the addition of checking and customer preference for drive-up
9 services forced TCF to see the necessity for updating its
10 services to meet those demands;
11 *with the installation -of the new state of art equipment, includ-
12 ing paper and coin dispensing machines, typical teller trans-
13 action would take about 40 seconds which would enable one teller
14 to serve two and two tellers to serve four lanes at a time;
15 *although all traffic would be funneled into one lane, there
16 would never be more than two cars in that lane at a time;
17 *the traffic study had been made independently without bank input
18 by a very reputable firm of transportation and land use consult-
19 ants with the original being sent directly to the City and only -
0
20 a copy going to TCF;
21 *that report had indicated the necessity for a bypass lane to
22 provide on site circulation for drive up customers when the
23 drive up lanes are filled up and to prevent them from gong back
24 out onto the street;
25 *the stop sign would be installed as shown on the new site plans
26 and the existing monument sign in front of the building would be
27 left in the same location.
28 Mr. Childs pointed out that the St. Anthony National Bank had six or
29 seven drive-up lanes which all funnel into one lane with 90% of the
30 traffic using the lane to go south rather than exiting onto Stinson.
31 Chair Pro Tem Hansen indicated he knew some of the residents had
32 already viewed the traffic study supporting the bypass and pointed out
33 that the First State Bank on Stinson had the same traffic flow system.
34 When no further resident input was provided, the Chair Pro Tem closed
35 the hearing at 8 : 25 P.M. for Commission discussion and development of
36 recommendations to the Council.
37 Werenicz: said he was quite pleased with TCF' s explanation of their
38 proposal, perceiving they were correct in contending the way
• 39
6
• 1 the bank building is constructed made it almost impossible
2 for them to expand to the south;
3 perceived TCF and the traffic study did an excellent job of
4 addressing all the major issues raised by the neighbors at
5 the' February 16th hearing;
6
7 indicated he liked the plan overall, especially the pro-
8 visions for more parking spaces, including the three short
9 term parking spots which he personally believed would go far
10 towards correcting most of the traffic flow problems experi-
11 enced on the site now;
12 agreed the tornado emergency would, hopefully, be a tone
13 time event, but wondered with the elderly clientele.of that
14 particular bank, if the necessity for ambulances which are
15 hard to maneuver in cramped spaces had been overlooked as
16 one of the reasons for having to have a bypass lane;
17 said he would expect that with the berming, more landscaping
18 and the bank official' s promise to save the sugar maples on
19 the north side of the building, the expansion would not
20 become unsightly for the neighbors.
21 Brownell: indicated he had at first thought may be the fourth lane
22 could be widened out to serve as a -bypass lane, which would
03 have cut down some of the _space needed for the proposed ex-
24 pansion, but after driving through the site -a couple of
25 times , had come to believe that to have an identified by-
26 pass would solve more problems that it would create;
27 said he had found out that customers coming into the fac-
28 ility northbound ,from Silver Lake Road and driving around
29 the corner of the building would find it very difficult- to
30 tell until they'.re right up to them which lanes are open and
31 which are already occupied;
32 perceived the bypass lane would then give those customers
33 the option of going around the building again and parking
34 rather than using . the drive-up facilities;
35 agreed the new plans should eliminate, the on-street parking
36 the neighbors objected to since there would now be enough
37 spaces to handle on site parking;
38 stated that with proper landscaping to better cut off the
39 neighbors' view, the new plan was one he liked and thought
40 would work.
41 London: generally agreed with what the other Commissioners had said
42 about this being the most workable plan anyone. could come up
�3 with for the existing facility where the drive up lanes on
7
• 1 the north are major structural parts of the building which
2 can' t be changed;
3 said he had personally observed customers driving around the
4 facility three times looking for a parking space;
5 concurred the bypass lane was very critical to the success
6 of the whole plan basing that perception on what he had seen
7 at similar bank operations where without such a lane the
8 vehicles had all gotten stacked up defeating their entire
9 traffic flow system;
10 indicated he ,was sympathetic with the neighbors ' concerns
11 but expected that in the long run, the plan proposed that
12 evening would be an improvement rather than a detriment for
13 them.
14 Hansen: concurred that the traffic study recommendations would pro-
15 vide a great improvement over what is happening on the site
16 today;
17 said he thought having the study done spoke well for TCF' s
18 intent to make improvements at their facility;
19 also expected a marked improvement in the traffic - flow
20 around the building if the consultant ' s recommendations are
•21 followed;
22 disputed the impression that there would be a constant flow
23 of traffic around the bypass lane, perceiving instead that
24 it would probably only be the 60 of drivers who had found it
25 necessary to go out on 39th Avenue who would need to use
26 that lane;
27 emphasized that he shared the concerns of the neighbors
28 that TCF do everything they could to handle the berming and
29 landscaping on the south side in such a manner as to keep
30 the trees in their present location and to retain the
31 existing residential appearance for their property;
32 told Mr. Thompson the Commission had to accept the con-
33 sultant firm' s conclusion that the new plan would alleviate
34 the problems experienced by both the drivers coming into
35 the site from 39th Avenue or entering from Silver Lake Road
36 on the south;
37 concluded by reminding the neighbors that the Planning Com-
38 mission is only an. advisory body to the Council and they
39 were free to repeat their concerns to the Council who would
40 be making the final decision on the proposal, March 29th.
41
•
8
• 1 Commission Recommendations
2 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Brownell to recommend the Council
3 grant a conditional use permit to Twin City Banking and Savings to
4 allow the proposed expansion of their existing drive-up facilities on
5 the north side of the property at 3899 Silver Lake Road from two to
6 four lanes with the addition of the proposed bypass lane subject to:
7 1 . . TCF following through with all the landscaping shown on the
8 revised site plans presented at the commission' s March 15 , 1988
9 meeting by:
10 a. making every effort to save the existing maple trees on the
11 north side;
12 b. berming that area- up by at least two feet and
13 C. providing whatever additional landscaping _ is needed to
14 - buffer the new facilities from the neighboring residential
15 areas north of TCF' s property.
16 2 . - A stop sign being installed at the end of TCF' s driveway exiting
17 on 39th Avenue. In recommending the conditional use be granted,
18 the Planning Commission finds that:
19 a. TCF has responded in the affirmative to all ,three questions
20 related to. conditions which must be satisfied before a con-
•21 ditional use may be authorized; and
22 b. Bank officials had addressed all major issues raised by the
23 neighbors at the February 16th public hearing on their
24 request and the traffic study the Commission had requested
25 at that hearing appears to have produced a plan which should
26 work well for this site.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Brownell, to recommend the council
29 grant the necessary variance to _ allow extension of the existing
30 . canopy on the north side of the TCF property at 3899 Silver Lake Road
31 to within 31 feet of the north property line where the City ordinance
32 requires a setback of 35 feet finding that:
33 1. TCF has .responded in the affirmative to all three questions re-
34 lated to the conditions required by statutes to be satisfied
35 affirmatively before such a variance can be granted.
36 2 . The traffic study of the site satisfactorily addressed all the
37 major issues raised by the neighbors at the February 15 , 1988
38 public hearing and the Planning. Commission' s further discussions
39 of the revised plans March 15 , 1988 .
40 Motion carried unanimously.
9
1 The maker of the motions then commented for the benefit of the
2 neighbors who were present that he perceived the Commission had been
3 very sympathetic to their concerns which had resulted in TCF' s
4 proposal being tabled for a month so a traffic study could be done to
5 address those issues. He told them the Commission was not
6 disregarding the concerns they raised that evening, but perceived
7 those questions had been satisfactorily answered in the study which he
8 perceived had resulted in. a very good plan. .
9 Commission Establishes Massage Therapy Standards with Approval
10 Recommendation for Rehab Dynamics
11 At- 8 : 45 P.M. , the Chair Pro Tem opened the public hearing to consider
12 a request from Rehab Dynamics, Inc. in the Apache Medical Center for a
13 conditional use permit to allow office and therapy treatment space,
14 including occupational, physical, and speech therapy, . therapeutic
15 massage, etc. in a "C" Commercial zone. He read the notice of the
16 hearing which had been published in the March 2nd Bulletin and sent to
17 all property owners of record within 350 feet of *the subject property.
18 No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to
1.9 its content.
20 Mr. Childs had advised in his March 9th memorandum to the Commission
21 that a conditional use permit would be necessary because the zoning
22 ordinance requires conditional approval for all "physical , culture, or
•l23 health gyms, spas, or clubs" and massage treatments in the past had
4 been interpreted to- fall within * that classification. He had also
25 suggested the Commission recommend conditions which would limit the
26 applicants to exactly what they propose so future applicants for such
27 services would have to overcome a medically related precedent.
28 The Manager said he perceived this to be a straight forward request
29 but in view of past Council concerns about allowing questionable
30 services into the City had consulted the City Attorney. Mr. Soth had
31 suggested that by running the application through the usual
32 conditional use 'permit process, the City would be able to find out
33 from the applicants just how those treatments would be provided and
34 would then be able to apply relevance in applicable conditions to the
35 approval.
36 Mr. Childs reiterated that staff had received no calls either for or
. 37 against the proposal since the notice of the hearing had gone out.
38 Beth Kessler and David Nechas, co-owners of Rehab Dynamics, Inc. , were
39 present and Ms. Kessler indicated hers was a Medicare certified agency
40 which had assumed the office space in the Apache Medical Center, which
41 had previously -. _been occupied by another rehab agency who had been
42 bought out by a national firm.
43 The agency owners, one of whom is a registered occupational therapist
44 and the other a registered physical therapist, explained to the
•45 Commissioners that:
10
• 1 *the massage therapy would be a natural adjunct to the occupational,
2 physical, and speech therapy as well as social, psychological and
3 audiology services the rehab agency provides their clients under
4 Medicare monitoring in their Apache outpatient clinic as well as in
5 the satellite clinics attached to the 16 long care facilities Rehab
6 Dynamics contracts with throughout the state;
7 *although the massage industry itself is not regulated at all, treat-
8 ments in these clinics would be incorporated within a strictly regu-
9 lated "medical modeled" rehabilitation agency where the same documen-
10 tation would be required for massage patients as are required by
11 prescription from a doctor for the other services provided;
12 *because the major source _of their reimbursements come from either
13 state or federal funding, the Rehab Dynamics owners perceived a need
14 to diversify with preventive and wellness programs to include a "med-
15 ically modeled" therapeutic massage for stress management to be paid
16 for by the clients themselves unless ordered by a physician. and the
17 costs covered by an insurance company;
18 *any acute type of problem would have_ to be evaluated and referred to
19 the agency by a physician but in most cases their clients would be
20 people who seek their services for stress management or because they
21 have had muscular problems which they perceive need rehab interven-
22 tion;
�3 *any massage client would be handled in the same way as any other
24 medical patient with a file set up and the same safety, infection,
25 etc. standards applied to the treatment;
26 *because the massage giver would be working out of a medical model and
27 out of a medical building, there should be little connection with the
28 undesirable connotation attached to some types of massage.
29 Ms. Fessler discussed the procedure for getting a massage in her
30 clinic with .Commissioner Werenicz , telling him that since a therapist
31 would only be. present to take care of appointments, he would have to
32 make an appointment before he could get a massage in her clinic. She
33 said many of the therapists who had responded to their ad in the paper
34 had told them they preferred working in a Medicare certified clinic to
35 providing the same service in their own homes where they _ never knew
36 who might be coming into their home for those services. The 'rehab
37 owner said they had a medical director and their services were
38 overseen by a group of professionals with degrees on a quarterly
39 basis. Ms. Fessler indicated the American Massage Therapy
40 Association did have a code of ethics and had established a definition
41 of massage therapy which might be helpful in setting standards for
42 future massage permits.
43 Mr. Childs assured her that he didn' t for a minute want to leave the
44 impression that he thought this request was anything less than
�5 legitimate. However, he perceived that to not address the penalties
11
• 1 which would be attached to the approval if the operation did not
2 conform to all applicable .City and State regulations and codes related
3 to sexual conduct might leave the City open to having to consider
4 requests for operations which might not be as clearly therapeutic as
5 this in the future. The Manager said the City Attorney had not
6 recommended specific language for conditions to be attached to the
7 approval, but was concerned that the City establish standards with
8 this approval which could be consistently applied to any other massage
9 operation which came up later. He also said he saw no problems for
10 Rehab Dynamics complying with these conditions.
11 Mr. Nechas said he certainly understood the City Manager' s concerns
12 and suggested the approval be conditioned upon an operation being a
13 rehabilitative agency regulated by both state and federal standards.
14 Commissioner Brownell commented that he perceived the City' s intent
15 would be protected in this case as long as the rehab center remained
16 Medicare certified.
17 Commissioner Hansen indicated he thought the Commission should try to
18 put the City' s intent into language which, although it might not be
19 as polished as it .could be, could be straightened out by the Council
20 and City Attorney when the Council makes its decision on the proposal.
21
22 Commission Recommendation
023 Motion by*Browne11, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council
24 grant Rehab Dynamics, Inc. a conditional use permit for its facilities
25 located in Suite 220 of the Apache Medical Center, 4001 Stinson
26 Boulevard N.E. , for the purposes of providing a therapeutic massage
27 service as part of its rehabilitative occupational/physical therapy
28 program. The Commission further recommends the following conditions
29 ' be attached to approval of Rehab Dynamic ' s permit:
30 1. The massage therapy should be restricted to Medical approved
31 hours of operation.
32 2 . The permit would be automatically revoked if there is any viola-
33 tion of applicable City or state statutes related to criminal
34 sexual conduct by any person associated with the operation.
35 3 . The massage therapy offered in this rehab center must comply with
36 the code of ethics and definition of massage therapy established
37 by the American Massage Therapy Association which had been pro-
38 vided by the applicant.
39 Motion carried unanimously.
40 Cahill Garage Request Tabled ,so Neighbors - Can Try to Work Out Their
41 Differences
12
1 At 9 : 15 P.M. Chair Pro Tem Hansen opened the public hearing to
2 consider a request from Kevin M. Cahill, 2524 Murray Avenue N.E. , for
3 a variance from the Zoning Ordinance setback requirements to allow
4 replacement of the existing legal non-conforming 20 foot X 22 foot
5 garage with a new 34 foot X 24 foot garage to be located with no
6 setbacks from the west property line where the ordinance requires a 3
7 foot setback from the eaves.
8 No one present reported failure to receive the notice of the hearing
9 which had been published in the March 2nd Bulletin and sent to all
10 property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property or
11 objected to its content.
12 In his March 9th memorandum to the Planning Commission, the City
13 Manager had advised them that the new structure would have adequate
14 setback on the alley side but would need a 3 foot variance on the- west
15 side where there would be zero setback. to the eaves. Mr. Childs had
16 also advised that since an entirely new structure ..was being proposed,
17 the garage' s non-conforming (grandfather) rights would be lost. He
18 had also commented that apparently years ago most of the garages in
19 this area were built with similar setbacks which are now grandfathered
20 in.
21 A copy of a drawing of the proposed garage and Mr. Cahill' s February,
22 19th letter explaining what he wanted . to do had been included in the
23 Commission' s agenda packet and Mr. Childs told the Commissioners a
04 drive through that particular alley would show that all the lots are
25 quite small and 'many of the garages don' t comply with the current
26 zoning code because there is little or no distance at all between
27 individual garage structures. However, in this case, Mr. Cahill' s
28 neighbors' garages are all appropriately located on opposite sides of
29 the property, requiring no setback between structures.
30 The Manager reported staff had received no calls either for or against
31 the proposal per se but had provided further information to one of
32 Mr. Cahill' s neighbors, John Dorr.
33 As he had stated in his letter, Mr. Cahill told the Commissioners
34 his present garage sits lower than the lot itself. and constantly has
35 water in it, which rusts out the cars and the building foundation all
36 the way around. The new garage would be elevated on a six inch
37 block,, high enough so seepage won' t be a problem. Mr. Cahill said he
38 had let his car sit outside most of the time except during periods of
39 bad weather.
40 John D. and Helen Dorr, 2520 Murray N.E. , and their son, John J. Dorr,
41 875 Able Road, Shoreview, MN spoke in opposition to the variance.
42 John D. : perceived the variance might be a detriment to his property
43 and to his ability to sell;
•4 4
13
• 1 said he could see' no reason for requiring setbacks if they
2 were only to be ignored;
.3 expected other requests for similar variances would follow.
4 Mrs. stated that the Cahills were "wonderful people and neigh-
5 Dorr: bors" ;
6 reported they had a double garage on the southwest corner of
7 their property and their neighbor to the west had built
8 their garage right next to theirs;
9 indicated the people who previously lived in Cahill' s
10 house had planned to build a garage on the east side of
11 their property but instead built the existing double
12 garage on her side of the property and "now Mr. Cahill plans
13 to build a triple garage" ;
14 suggested the appearance of the whole neighborhood would
15 benefit if Mr. Cahill would build his garage on the other
16 side of this property next to his neighbor ' s garage to the
17 east;
18 contended Mr. Cahill would get a better view of the neigh-
19 borhood and his property would be better balanced if he
�0 did that;
21 said Mr. Cahill would also have better access to his garage
22 by having it built on the other side.
23 John J. : said he considered the proposed garage size would be in-
24 appropriate to that neighborhood and hadn' t seen other
25 garages like it anywhere else in the City;
26 pointed out 'that at 60 X 133 feet and less than 8,,000 square
27 feet .most of the lots in his parents ' neighborhood are
28 _legal but substandard according to the City ordinance re-
29 quirement for 75 foot wide lots of at least 9 ,000 square
30 .feet;
31 perceived that before the variance request was considered,
32 the City had to consider its effect on the neighbors ' view
33 and appropriateness of the location;
34 stated he perceived there was clearly no hardship which was
35 not a part of the property itself because the hardship in
36 this case results from. Mr. Cahill increasing the size of his
37 garage which, if it weren' t constructed so large, could meet
38 the City's setback requirements;
39 insisted the exact property line should be determined before
040 any new structure is erected.
14
• 1 Mr. Cahill then withdrew his variance request saying when he had
2 talked to the neighbors he had been unaware there was such strong
3 opposition to his proposal and didn' t want to proceed until there was
4 a mutual understanding which would prevent his good relations with the
5 Dorrs from being ruined.
6 Commission Recommendation
7 Motion by Brownell, seconded by London to table action on the Cahill
8 request for a setback variance until the next regularly scheduled
9 Planning Commission meeting to give the neighbors an opportunity of
10 working out their differences.
11 Motion carried unanimously.
12 Commission to Study Ordinance Changes to Bring Planning Fees in Line
13 with Those Charged by Other Communities
14 Copies of the Coon Rapids analysis of these fees had been provided in
15 the agenda packet and following a brief overview by the City Manager,
16 it was decided to lay the issue over until another agenda.
17 Commission Recommends Moratorium on Pylon Shopping Center Signs
18 It had been suggested during the Council ' s February 24th consideration
�19 of signage for Apache Squares that the Commission spend some time
20 researching the above. The aeneral concurrence was that no further
21 signage of this type be considered until the research is completed.
22 Commission Recommendation
23 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council
24 declare a moratorium on new .applications for pylon shopping center
25 signage until such time as the Planning Commission can provide for
26 Council consideration a recommendation related to definition of
27 "shopping center as it is used in the City Zoning Ordinance. The
28 Planning Commission expects to take at least 60 days to come in with a
29 definition which could mean not until after the Commission' s May
30 meeting.
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 ADJOURNMENT
33 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Werenicz to adjourn the meeting at
34 9: 50 P.M.
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36 Respectfully submitted,
4 37 Helen Crowe, Secretary
15