HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL AGENDA 09201988 Meeting Sheet
100017
III VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II III
Box: 15
Folder:
Document: PL AGENDA 09201988
• C 2 TY OF S T - ANTHONY
PLANNING C OMM 2 S S 2 ON M=NUTE S
SEPTEMBER 2 0 , 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting opened at 1: 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
2 Chair Wagner.
3 ROLL CALL
4 Present for roll call: Brownell, London, Franzese, Hansen, Wagner,
5 Werenicz, Madden.
6 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
7 Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager
8 AUGUST 16, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
9 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Hansen to approve with the following
10 changes:
11 Page 5, line 20: Insert "activities" between "commercial" and
12 "which operates" .
13 Page 8, line 25: Substitute "112" for 11113".
Motion carried unanimously.
15 Commissioner Franzese Will Represent Planning Commission at 'Council's
16 September 27, 1988 Meeting
17 Commissioner -Werenicz indicated he would go instead if Commissioner
18 Franzese couldn't make that meeting.
19 PUBLIC HEARINGS
20 Concerns About Future Ownership of Osterbauer Building Result in
21 Recommendation for Denial of Request for Zoning Classification Change
22 The hearing on Dr. Robert Osterbauer's above request was opened at 7:35
23 P.M. with the- Chair reading the Notice of Hearing which had been
24 published in the September 7, . 1988 Bulletin and sent to all property
25 owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property. No one
26 present reported failure to receive the Notice or objected to its
27 content.
28 Proposal:
29 *to change the zoning classification for the property at 2525 - 33rd
30 Avenue N..E. from R-1 (single family residential) to B (Service/Office
31 limited business) . No changes to existing uses of the property were
proposed by Dr. Osterbauer, the applicant who has owned the building and
1
1 operated a dental office in it for the last 30 years. His application
only proposed removal of the non-conforming status which was established
for the property when the City Zoning Ordinances were rewritten in 1976.
4 Staff Report•
5 *Childs' reiteration of information in his September 16th memorandum
6 to the Commissioners in the agenda packet, including his recommendation
7 for approval because changing the classification would bring the
8 property into conformance with the City's 1981 Comprehensive Plan, which
9 shows the location as "service/office" and limits its use to those
10 permitted and conditionally permitted under a B (service/office limited
it business) classification which wouldn't allow retail like gas stations,
12 restaurants, etc.
13 *read aloud the listing of uses which could be made of the property
14 under that zoning classification which included those conditionally
15 permitted uses requiring City review and approval before going in at
16 that location;
17 *reiterated that he anticipated those restrictions to provide
18 safeguards against too many problems for the residents of the
19 neighborhood;
20 *indicated he perceived the applicant's request had resulted from
21 questions raised at the time Dr. Osterbauer renewed his property
22 insurance following the 1984 tornado when his building was damaged
somewhat but not to the extent the , two florists operations across the
street were which required their properties to return to their
25 residential zoning classification.
26 The City Manager reported staff had received only one call about the
27 zoning classification change and that had been from Pat Peterson, 3313
28 Edward Street N.E. whose message to him had indicated the caller was
29 not dissatisfied with the current occupant at that location but had the
30 following concerns about the change:
31 *traffic which could be generated in the neighborhood should the
32 existing business change and some other use be established under the
33 new classification;
34 *the reason the applicant had not applied for the change before this
35 time;
36 *that property values in the neighborhood might go down as a result
37 of the type of business which might go into that location in the future.
38 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Franzese there were other instances where
39 the City's Comprehensive Plan anticipated changes in zoning
40 classification citing the Walbon property, which has now gone to the
41 multi-family residential the Plan anticipated, and the non-developed
• 2
I parcels of land off Fordham Drive where the Evergreen Development
40 Company is now proposing to provide townhouses.
3 Proponents
4 Dr. Osterbauer, 3505 Belden Drive, presented a copy of the letter he
5 said he had taken around to 31 of his neighbors to explain why he wanted
6 to have. his dental office building property's zoning classification
7 changed, including his concerns about the delays which would occur in
8 his business operation should the building be demolished more than 75%
9 and he had to go through the time consuming process of getting City
10 approval to rebuild. The dentist told the Commissioners he hadn't
11 asked any of the residents he had found home to sign a petition or to
12 come to the hearing to support his request, perceiving their absence
13 would_ indicate,,., they weren't opposed to the change. Dr.
14 Osterbauer indicated he had left copies of his letter on the doorsteps
15 * of any residents who weren't home and gave the Secretary a copy of the
16 letter which he had received back with the notation "You have our
17 approval" from John and Edith Peyla, 3320 Edward Street N.E. The
18 applicant said a couple of the residents he talked to had expressed
19 some concerns about the type of business which might succeed him in
20 that location but indicated he had assured them that he understood a
21 "B" zoning meant only similar service office businesses like other
22 dental , or offices for doctors, realtors, or attorneys, would be
23 allowed under that classification, and nothing like "a McDonalds" could
24 be built on that corner.
QDr. Osterbauer indicated conversations with his insurance agent and the
owner of one of the florists companies, who had to discontinue their
27 business operations, had made him aware of "all the hassles" he would
28 probably have to go through if his zoning weren't changed and a
29 calamity similar to what happened to his neighbors happened to him. He
30 said he began to wonder where his patients would go if something
31 happened to his building and he had to wait for the usual City
32 processes to get his non-conforming zoning reinstated.
33 Commissioner Werenicz asked the dentist whether, in view of the fact
34 that he had been in the dental business for 30 years, he might not be
35 thinking of retiring pretty soon. Dr. Osterbauer told him he was only
36 58 years old and still very much involved in his practice which he
37 enjoyed. He also said he hoped his son, who will be graduating from
38 dental school in two years, would be joining his practice, although he
39 had no firm commitment from him yet.
40 He discussed his insurance concerns with Commissioner Franzese, telling
41 her the way he understood it was that if the zoning classification
42 weren't changed, he would have to pay an additional $800.00 a year in
43 "demolition rates" if his building were completely destroyed by another
44 storm or a fire or explosion and resulted in the insurance company
45 having to pay to restore the property to its single family residential
46 zoning status.
3
1 Commissioner Franzese told the dentist she thought he had a very
attractive residential appearing building and she could see no reason
why the City wouldn't allow him to rebuild it if it were destroyed.
4 However, she was concerned that if the zoning on the building were
5 changed, and the building were then destroyed, the structure which
6 might be erected in its place for one of the other permitted uses, like
7 a realty office, etc. , might not have the same residential appearance
8 and might cause tensions with the neighbors. She added that the
9 existing zoning provided safeguards against that happening. Dr.
10 Osterbauer responded by telling her his property had been zoned
11 "Commercial" when he built there 30 years ago and he had gone around
12 the neighborhood at that time to get the approval of the neighbors. He
13 said he had not only gotten their approval, but also had quite a few of
14 them who became patients, just as he hoped would happen now after he
15 had talked to so many of the neighbors about this change. The dentist
16 indicated he had found out that zoning had changed through a letter
17 from the City about ten years ago which had informed him that, under
18 the Zoning Code, which had just been adopted, his location zoning had
19 been changed to residential, making his business a non-conforming use.
20 ORRgnents
21 Alice Brown, 2702 - 33rd Avenue N.E. indicated she thought the existing
22 building across 33rd from her home was "a fine looking building" , but
23 said she and her husband, Ed Brown, who was with her, were concerned
24 that a Planning Commission and Council ten years down the line might
25 also change the zoning for the other two vacant corners to service
office to match the change in zoning on this corner.
27 Tom Lutgen, 3313 Roosevelt Court, indicated he was also concerned about
28 what type of "other allowable commercial uses could come in" if the
29 zoning was changed. He said the thought any change should be made for
30 "the right reason" and didn't think a decision should be made based only
31 on the personal position that Dr. Osterbauer's rebuilding might be
32 delayed under the current zoning. The resident questioned whether
33 rezoning would be the prudent thing to do in the context of there being
34 other non-conforming businesses across the street not being allowed to
35 rebuild because they had . been 75% destroyed.
36 Mr. Lutgen said his business caused him to know a great deal about
37 planning issues for other communities and commented that he had
38 concluded by looking at the zoning map on the Chamber's wall that other
39 than up around Apache or near the St. Anthony Shopping Center, the City
40 had made a real effort to keep commercial uses away from residential
41 areas which are located away from the major streets. He considered
42 allowing this change might be opening the City to further deviations
43 from that policy and said he thought "a real bad precedent for doing
44 that would be established if the City granted Dr. Osterbauer's request.
45 The resident also perceived that the City's Comprehensive Plan might
46 not be consistent with the City's policy pointing to the fact that the
7 City had forced the owners of the commercial businesses across to
4
1 rebuild them as residential homes but the Plan seemed to be saying
another non-conforming business on the same intersection could be
rebuilt to commercial rather than reverting to its R-1 status. rl r-
4 Lutgen said he thought the City "was giving out a mixed signal of what
5 we really want to do in St. Anthony" . The zoning change opponent
6 said he would also be concerned about the owners of the vacant property
7 on the other corners coming in to request the same treatment for those
8 locations.
9 Later in the discussions, Mr. Lutgen indicated he thought the" 75%"
10 figure for damage was far too liberal considering that the average
11 figure used by other communities was only 1150%11 .
12 Chair Wagner pointed out to Mr. Lutgen that the florist businesses
13 which had been destroyed were "Commercial" while the zoning
14 classification for this parcel was "Limited Service Office" .
15 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Hansen the two florists were not allowed
16 to rebuild because they had been specifically signalled out in the
17 ordinance as non-conforming uses which could not be either expanded or
18 rebuilt. He added that the vacant corners are already designated as
19 "single family residential" on the same Comprehensive Plan which
20 denotes Dr. Osterbauer's location as "service-office" . The Manager told
21 Commissioner Werenicz that Dr. Osterbauer would have to apply for a
22 zoning change before he could put any type of "commercial" on that
23 corner and said there are no "use variances" allowed by the City
24 Ordinance.
Douglas Bulthaus 3309 Edward Street N.E. , "almost across the street from
26 the dentist office" , told the Commissioners he had "absolutely no
27 objections with the present facility" , which he "would much prefer to
28 a vacant lot. " His concern was also with the precedent which was going
29 to be set and what was going to happen in that neighborhood ten or
30 twenty years from now. His fear was that . if the zoning were changed
31 someone could either rebuild the structure after a disaster or just tear
32 the existing building down and alter it to the extent it could "change
33 the context of at least that part of the neighborhood." The neighbor
34 indicated he would be only "too glad" to testify in favor of Dr.
35 Osterbauer's rebuilding after a fire as long as the building didn't
36 change drastically but his concern was with retaining the same type of
37 neighborhood farther down the lane because "I don't plan on moving or
38 building another house. " He termed his statement as more of a "concern
39 about architectural changes" than an "objection" . The resident said
40 he lived next door to Pat Peterson and had the same type of concerns
41 as had been stated to the office staff. Mr. Bulthaus then agreed with
42 Chair Wagner's observation that there could also be architectural
43 changes in a single family residence he might not like, but said his
44 concerns were more related to a change in use. He said he perceived
45 realty offices and attorneys offices might be built to look more
46 "commercial" than the existing building. He reiterated that he didn't
47 think there was a single resident on that street who wouldn't want the
i 5
1 City to let Dr. Osterbauer rebuild if he had to but a blank check for
a different type of use was what he was concerned about.
3 After Dr. Osterbauer had reminded the objectors that if his son joined
4 him, their family practice would have a history of 32 years on that
5 corner, and no further comments from the public were offered, Chair
6 Wagner closed the hearing at 8:12 P.M. for Commission comments and a
7 decision on the issue.
8 Commission Reactions to Testimony
9 Brownell
10 *said he was very sympathetic to both the "Doctor's position" and "the
11 concerns of the neighbors" ;
12 *perceived a decision to rezone would in a sense be forever and the
13 City would lose the ability, to control what happens on that piece of
14 property as long as it is rezoned;
15 *was concerned that as long as a successor was a permitted use the
16 City would be unable to require them to bring in a site plan and would
17 therefore have no architectural control over the structure to be erected
18 except when it came to setbacks and signage.
19 Wagner
*reiterated that the same would be true of any single family home
which replaced another in the area;
22 *said the neighbors stood the chance of having a home they considered
23 to be "an eyesore" built next to them if the existing house burned down
24 or was demolished in a storm.
25 Franzese
26 *told Dr. Osterbauer she hoped he continued his practice in that
27 location for the next 30 years as well, but said she felt compelled to
28 vote against the change in zoning because what went in there next might
29 be beyond his control and did want to keep that area 'residential.
30 Hansen
31 *indicated in the interest of himself and the Commission that he would
32 be abstaining from voting on the issue because he and his family had
33 been patients of Dr. Osterbauer for more than 22 years and his wife had
34 worked in that building at one time.
35 Werenicz
36 *concurred with Commissioner franzese's reservation about taking a
7 drastic, step like rezoning-
6
*indicated that if the dentist were 30 years old he might not see this
as such a gamble, but in light of the "waning work years" and no firm
3 commitment on his son's part to take over his practice, he could see no
4 convincing reason for voting for the change;
5 *said he had not been convinced that the insurance company was
6 pressuring for the change and instead felt this involved only a "purely
7 economic motivation" on the dentist's part.
8 Madden
9 *didn't agree there could be any drastic change in type of business
10 for that location because the Ordinance specifically stated the kinds
11 of businesses which could operate from that location and he perceived
12 them all to be "non retail" businesses which would not operate late in
13 the evenings or early in the mornings;
14 *said the Ordinance guarded against the character of the business
15 changing;
16 *reminded the Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan, which is a
17 document into which a lot of thought and study had gone, designated that
18 location as "B" ;
19 *commented that he considered it "a strategic blunder" on Dr.
20 Osterbauer's part not to get the 30 residents who agreed with his
4Aproposal to sign a petition leaving the Commission to hear from only two
neighbors who opposed it and whose arguments "seem to be carrying a
23 great deal of weight" with the other Commissioners.
24 Wagner
25 *agreed, saying he also thought there had been too much weight placed
26 on the possibility of another tornado demolishing that area and
27 perceived that the Ordinance pretty much restricted the type of
28 business which could go in after Dr. Osterbauer leaves;
29 *thought most of the types of business which the Ordinance allows with
30 the "B" zoning would most likely want to construct the same type of
31 building as a business incentive;
32 *pointed out that the City control signage anyway..
33 Franzese
34 *took exception to Commissioner Madden's characterization of the other
35 Commissioner's acceptance of only the views of the neighbors who came
36 to the hearing and not considering the approval of the many who weren't
37 at the meeting;
• 7
1 *perceived most of that approval was based on Dr. Osterbauer's
operation continuing and she thought if the business were to change,
they would all be voicing the same kind of concerns some of the
4 Commissioners had related to the type of business which was going in
5 their neighborhood;
6 *continued to think that even though the Ordinance might somewhat
7 restrict the type of business which could operate from that location,
8 she still perceived there was a chance of the "whole texture of the
9 business changing drastically" ;
10 *wondered if the next business owner who might not be a resident, as
11 Dr. Osterbauer is, would be as interested in maintaining a "residential
12 look for the building";
13 *didn't think the Ordinance provided any guarantees or safeguards for
14 the neighbors who had recently moved into that residential neighborhood
15 that the area would retain a residential character;
16 *thought it was the responsibility of the. Commission to provide those
17 safeguards.
18 London
19 *at first had said he was really "straddling the fence" on the issue
20 and indicated he basically agreed with Commissioners Madden and Wagner
21 that the "B" zoning is such that it only allowed businesses like
4Aengineering, legal , etc. services which are the types of services which
require only one or two people to run the office;
24 *perceived the types of services which would be allowed were not the
25 types of businesses with large volumes of people or traffic;
26 *said he wouldn't expect to see a large increase in traffic from any
27 type of business which went in there after Dr. Osterbauer and perceived
28 any of 'those services would fit in well with the rest of the
29 neighborhood.
30 Franzese
31 *perceived the Commission wanted to accommodate Dr. Osterbauer who
32 had been "a good businessman and resident of St. Anthony" for so many
33 years, but questioned whether the City had the same obligation to the
34 next businessmen whether they're attorneys, realtors, or accountants,
35 who want to. open an office in that neighborhood when there are plenty
36 of other office spaces available in other St. Anthony locations.
37 Childs said he had forgotten to tell the Commissioners that should Dr.
38 Osterbauer leave that location, its non-conforming status could always
39 be transferred to another dental office because the use does go .with the
40 land and not the owner. However, if the building is destroyed, the
8
1 property can only be rebuilt as a single family residence without the
.2 City rezoning it.
3 When Commissioner London commented that he perceived there were really
4 no strong reasons to either grant or deny the request, Commissioner
5 Franzese disagreed, saying she perceived the Commission had a
6 responsibility to protect the residential character of the neighborhood.
7 Commissioner Werenicz said he perceived this was "a drastic step"
8 because to him going to anything less than an 11R-1" would be "down
9 zoning which requires some strong arguments for changing", which, he
10 added, he had not heard that evening. He didn't think admiration for
11 the dentist was a good justification for rezoning. He, agreed with
12 Commissioner Madden's observation that the "whole City couldn't be R-1"
13 but perceived .that was not really the issue because the zoning of this
14 property was 11R-1" now.
15 Commission Recommendation
16 Motion by Madden, seconded by Wagner to recommend the Council grant the
17 request from Robert F. Osterbauer for a change in zoning classification
18 from R-1 (single family residential) to B (service/office limited
19 business) for the property at 2525 - 33rd Avenue N.E. and described as
20 Tract E, Registered Land Survey 211. In making this recommendation, the
21 Planning Commission finds that:
22 1,-The usage of the property can't really be changed in the future
23 because the Ordinance requires it to remain service oriented and not
commercial.
25 2. The City's 1981 Comprehensive Plan classified this location as a B
26 (service/office) zone which was developed by prior governmental bodies
27 after much study and consideration.
28 3. Many of the neighbors apparently are in favor of a zoning change and
29 three of them indicated their approval in writing, while only two raised
30 concerns about the zoning change at the hearing.
31 Voting on the motion:
32 Aye: Madden, Wagner.
33 Nay: Franzese, Werenicz, Brownell, London.
34 Abstention: Hansen.
35 Motion not carried. .
36 No Problems Perceived From Allowing More Amusement Devices in the
37 Bonaventura Malt Shop at Apache
38 At 8:34 P.M. the Chair opened the public hearing on the request from
39 the proprietor of the above business to amend the Conditional Use Permit
0 9
I he had been granted when his business was first approved to increase the
number of amusement devices he would be allowed from 34 to 45 as those
licenses became available. Chair Wagner read aloud the Notice of the
4 Hearing which had been published in the September 8, 1988 Bulletin and
5 sent to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject
6 property.
7 Michael Bonaventura the applicant and owner of the malt shop at 3800
8 Silver Lake Road, was the only person present for the Commission
9 consideration.
10 Staff Regort•
11 Childs' September 16th memorandum to the Commissioners reporting there
12 were several amusement devices available in the City right now. The
13 City Manager also advised in his memorandum that Mr. Bonaventura was
14 the only arcade operator in St. Anthony with a conditional use permit
15 which limits the number of licenses he can have. Mr Childs had also
16 noted that the City Ordinance only allows 106 amusement devices in St.
17 Anthony and this request would only counterbalance decreases in other
18 locations.
19 Proponent:
20 Mr. Bonaventura told the Commissioners:
21 *his request was based on the necessity to compete with other video
arcades in the area like Circus Circus who are able to offer from 40 to
3 50 games for their customers to play;
24 *he has the space for more machines and it would be beneficial to
25 be able to offer the kids what's the latest in machines;
26 *after the basketball season is over, he'd be removing the big
27 basketball hoop in his shop which would leave at least 12 feet of space
28 open for 4 or 5 different games, if he had the licenses for them;
29 *he could probably squeeze more than 45 machines into his shop, but
30 wouldn't want to do that because he'd have to block the walkways to the
31 malt counter to get that many in;
1
32 *there are four licenses he knows of which are available now.
33 Mr. Childs indicated that if the Alternative doesn't relocate within
34 the City, there would probably be two licenses available to Mr.
35 Bonaventura. He perceived it was going to take some time before the
36 malt shop proprietor would be able to use all the licenses he was now
37 requesting because of the limitation on the number of licenses in the
38 Ordinance. He also pointed out businesses like C. G. Rein have in the
39 past deposited certified checks with the City to cover the license fees
40 for more devices when they become available.
10
I When questioned about whether the Police Department had any major
complaints about this operation, Mr. Childs said there had been one
that he knew about with the exception of the suspicion expressed by
4 the owner of the Tires Plus Store that the window in his store, which
,5 was broken in the middle of the night, might have been broken by one of
6 the kids who frequent the malt shop.
7 Mr. Bonaventura told the Commissioners that there are a good-sized
8 group of young people who he has forbidden to come into his
9 establishment, who hang around and smoke in the unlighted patio area
10 of the Zantigo restaurant and harass the kids going into the malt shop.
11 He said the restaurant closes at 5:00 P.M. and he has been trying to
12 get Apache to provide better lighting and security for that area after
13 dark. The shop proprietor indicated the only other thing he can do
14 about that problem is to call the Police when that happens.
15 The Commissioners agreed with the City Manager's assessment that his
16 actions in that regard were probably a "positive" for the operation.
17 After Mr. Childs had reported receiving no calls either for or against
18 the request, the Chair closed the hearing at 8:43 P.M. for the
19 following:
20 Commission Recommendation
21 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Brownell to recommend the Council amend
22 the Conditional Use Permit #88-08 which allows the establishment of a
4malt shop at 3800 Silver Lake Road and specifies. only 34 amusement
devices licenses for that location to increase the number of permitted
25 licenses to 45, finding that:
26 1. The request satisfies all three conditions which are required by
27 statute to be satisfied before a, conditional use may be authorized.
28 2. There was no opposition to the license increase.
29 3. The Commission perceives the malt shop to be an asset to the
30 community.
31 lotion carried unanimously.
32 MISCELLANEOUS
33 Manager Asks Commissioners Whose Terms Expire in December to Submit
34 Written Confirmations of Their Willingness to. Continue or Indication of
35 Inability to Serve
36 Mr. Childs told Commissioners Franzese, Wagner, and Werenicz their three
37 year terms of office were almost up and it would Help the Council to
38 know now whether they wanted their names put into consideration for
39 reappointment. He said the vacancies would probably also be advertised
60
as in the past.
6
11
City Closed on the Bonds for the St. Anthony LaNel Housing Project
2 Mr. Childs announced the above and reported an agreement had been
3 negotiated with the unsuccessful developers which eliminated them from
4 the project altogether. He said it wa's now up to staff to get Kraus
5 Anderson and Mr. Saliterman to sell the necessary land for the
6 project for a reasonable price within the 30 days waiting period before
7 the bond proceeds would be made available to make the purchase. He
8 added that a simultaneous transfer of the land to the LaNel company
9 should reduce the City's liabilities.
10 Evergreen Townhome Project Contract Being Developed
11 Mr. Ch. ildg indicated changes in the Tax Increment Law had required
12 renegotiation with the Evergreen Development Company for a reduction
13 of soil correction subsidies to between $180,000 to $200,000 rather than
14 the $327,000 originally contemplated. However, he said he expected
15 those negotiations to be successful and the developer to present the
16 required platting of the land to the Commission at their next meeting.
17 The City Manager reported the developer already had 14 out of a possible
18 37 unit reservations for the project and their financing appears to be
19 in place, causing them to be very excited about doing the project. He
20 explained the different approach the City was taking regarding the
21 financing of this project, which would eliminate the necessity for a
22 bond issuance.
0 Manager Introduces His New Assistant to the Commissioners
24 Mr. Childs indicated he expected Sue VanderHeyden to take over a portion
25 of his work, including that with the Planning Commission, just as soon
26 as she completes the Comparable Worth project she's working on now.
27 ADJOURNMENT
28 Motion by Brownell, seconded by London to adjourn the Planning
29 Commission meeting at 8:52 P.M.
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31 Respectfully submitted,.
32 Helen Crowe, Secretary
33 :cjk
34
12