HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL AGENDA 10181988 (2) Meeting Sheet
100016
I IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII I II III
Box: 1s
Folder:
Document: PL AGENDA 10181988
• C 2 TY O F S T . ANTHONY
P LANN 2 NG C OMM= S S 2 ON
M 31 NUTS S
O C TOB ER 1 8 , 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting was opened at 7: 35 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Wagner.
3 ROLL CALL
4 Present for roll call: London, Brownell , Franzese, Wagner, Werenicz.
5 Absent: Hansen, Madden.
6 Also present: David Childs, City Manager
7 Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager
8 SEPTEMBER 20 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
9 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Werenicz to approve the September 20th
10 Commission minutes with the following changes:
11 Page 1, line 21: Substitute "Recommendation for" for "Recommended" .
12 Page 2 , line 9: Substitute "location" for 'llocations".
13 Page 3 , line 13: Delete "only" and substitute "indicate" for "in-
d10 icated" .
Page 3 , line 31: Substitute "usual" for "usually" .
16 Page 9, line 22: Correct typo to "changed in" .
17 Page 9, line 29: Substitute 11three14 for "two" and "raised" for
18 "spoke" .
19 Page 9 , line 30: Substitute "concerns" for "against" .
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 Commissioner Brownell to Represent Planning Commission at Council's
22 October 25th Meeting
23 It was noted that it had been Chair Wagner who represented the Commis-
24 sion at the Council's September 27th meeting.
25 PUBLIC HEARINGS
26 Recommendation That Preliminary Plat for Evergreen Townhome Project be
27 Approved Subject to Resiting of Building #1 and Screening Railroad
28 Tracks
29 At 7:40 P.M. Chair Wagner opened the public hearing on the above by
30 reading aloud the Notice of Hearing which had been published in.. the
31 October 5th Bulletin and sent to all property owners of -record within
1
1 350 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to
• receive the notice or objected to its content.
3 Staff Report
4 *Mr. Childs' October 10th memorandum advising that the preliminary
5 plat still showed a 10 foot sideyard setback between Unit #1 and its
6 west property line where an increase to 15 feet had been established as
7 one of the conditions under which the property would be rezoned from
8 single family .to townhome for this project;
9 *added that this condition could still be provided in the final plat
10 which cannot be approved until the final Redevelopment Agreement with
11 Evergreen Development can be completed, which he estimated would
12 probably be sometime in November;
13 *reiterated that he perceived the new platting addressed most of the
14 other Commission and Council concerns related to storm water storage and
15 the provision of an access easement to be negotiated with the owner of.
16 the landlocked Lot 5 in the Villella Subdivision if Mr. Nordahl can
17 work out similar easements with the owners of the three other lots
18 between his lot and the project property;
19 *indicated the developers had- redrawn their original plans to
20 establish a roadway next to the railroad tracks over which access
21 easements for those four properties could be negotiated between the
developer and the property owners;
40
*reported Mr. Hoium of Evergreen had indicated he perceived units 1,
24 2, 3 , and 4 could be pushed at least five feet further from the west
25 property line than shown on the Preliminary Plat;
26 *told Commissioner Franzese there would still be 37 units in the
27 development but they had been distributed throughout 10 rather than 8
28 buildings to accommodate the number of prospective buyers who wanted
29 end units.
30 Plat Proponents
31 Vern Hoium, Evergreen President, and Vice President Ursula Sheehy, who
32 handles marketing, confirmed that there might be more reshuffling of
33 building siting to include pushing the building closest to western most
34 neighbor farther away from the dividing property lines;
35 *indicated the provision of a 32 foot roadway next to the railroad
36 tracks provided 100 foot building setback from the tracks which would
37 be necessary to get mortgage financing for the buildings closest to
38 the tracks.
39 Questions and Concerns of Neighbors
2
1 Curtis Nordahl, 3513 Skycroft Drive, whose concerns had previously been
presented during the April 26th Council meeting, asked whether the
street Evergreen intended to construct next to the railroad tracks would
4 be a 60 foot dedicated street or a private roadway. When told it
5 would be the latter, Mr. Nordahl said that constituted a basis for a
6 concern for him since he perceived the City had still not provided a
7 permanent remedy for his problem of having no access across the other
8 undeveloped lots between his own landlocked property and the property
9 now being developed. Mr. Nordahl indicated he thought the City should
10 not allow that development unless the street which was proposed was a
11 dedicated street.
1.2 He was told that only the street location and not its status as a
13 private street had been changed between the plan the Council had
14 accepted for a zoning change and the Preliminary Plat being presented
15 that evening primarily because there would not be enough room within the
16 project for a 60 foot street.
17 Mary Jo Points, 3914 Foss Road, Apartment 101, indicated she was present
18 to discuss several points of concern which she and other Mirror Lake
19 residents had about the project. She wanted to know:
20 *whether the Amoco Oil pipeline which ran under Mirror Lake also ran
21 under this property;
22 *if the fact that the developers were leaving a triangular piece of
3 land between the proposed jog in the street and the railroad meant they
might be contemplating an egress onto Foss Road and through their
project;
26 *who had authorized the. dumping of fill on this property which had
27 caused the nesting ducks to cross the road and to build their nests in
28 the Mirror Lake entryways instead;
29 *whether the City or whether the developers would be paying for
30 water, sewer, and fire protection for the townhomes and the streets
31 within the project.
32 Mrs. Points was assured that the Amoco Oil Co. , pipeline ran under the
33 Harstad property north of Silver Lane and east and north of the
34 project. Mr. Childs told her the Rice Creek Watershed District had
35 issued a permit to Ramsey County to dump the materials they had
36 removed from County Road "D" onto this property and said he expected
37 that once the developers remove that fill and provide ponding in that
38 area the wildlife will probably return to nest in the same area. He
39 also assured her and Hal Rogers, 4011 Fordham Drive, that the tax
40 increment financing the City was negotiating with the developers only
41 involved soil corrections and this developer, like any other developer,
42 would have to pay all the costs for any water or sewer line extensions
43 and for any interior streets on the property.
• 3
Mr. Rogers was told copies of the Preliminary Plat would be made
available for any residents who wanted one and Mr. Hoium told him the
3 developers had been able to negotiate soil corrections costs down to
4 about $273,000.00 which was a lot less than first anticipated. The
5 questioner was again assured that the final rezoning of the property
6 would not be done until after the Redevelopers Agreement has been
7 signed and the final platting for the property had been submitted for
8 Planning Commission review. The property would only be rezoned for
9 townhomes after the Council had approved both documents.
10 Richard D. Oertwich, 3408 Silver Lane, was assured that at least a 15
11 foot setback would be left between unit #1 and his property line which,
12 if his own residence was 12 or 13 feet from the lot line, would leave
13 about 30 feet between the two structures. Mr. Oertwich also wanted
14 assurance that some sort of screening would be provided between the two
15 properties.
16 The Chair reiterated that this was one of the conditions which had to
17 be met before the property would be rezoned and that setback would most
18 likely be included in the final plan which the City Manager expects to
19 have back for Commission review in about 30 days.
20 Mr. Childs indicated he would send out notices of not only the
21 Commission review of the final plan but also the meeting where the
22 Council would most likely be giving the third reading for adoption of
23 the ordinance which would rezone his property.
04 There was no response to the Chair's invitation for further comments.
25 Ms. Sheehy reported that many of the prospective buyers of the
26 townhomes had told her they had no objections to trains and since there
27 was a chance that line might be discontinued altogether, she wondered
28 why any screening of the tracks was necessary. She said one of the
29 persons who had reserved a unit had told her the railroad had replaced
30 the short tracks with long ones which left only the noise generated by
31 the engines to make that steep grade. Although the berming was no
32 longer considered necessary with the placement of the street. between the
33 structures and the railroad tracks, the general consensus was that
34 screening should remain a condition for rezoning the property.
35 Sketches of ' the individual units were shown to the residents with the
36 proponents indicating the exterior would be maintenance free vinyl
37 siding.
38 The Chair closed the hearing at 8:13 P.M. but reopened it at 8:14 P.M.
39 when Mr. Nordahl requested he be given an opportunity of making a
40 formal statement of his concerns about the project.
41 His presentation included repetition of his position on the issue as
42 stated in his letter to the City Manager, copies of which had been
43 provided the Council before their April 26th meeting. That position
was that by allowing Lot 5 of the Villella addition to be developed
4
1 with a need for access, the City had undertaken the responsibility for
meeting that need.
3 Mr. Nordahl reiterated his opposition to developing the land on Silver
4 Lane without provision of a 60 foot dedicated street through the
5 property to provide access to Silver Lane for his and other landlocked
6 properties within 500 feet of the proposed development. He said he
7 seriously doubted whether access could ever be provided off Fordham
8 Drive and perceived the owners of those other properties should be just
9 as concerned as he is about the issue.
10 He told the Chair the original plot for Lot 5 and Lot 4 on .which he had
11 built had never anticipated access for Lot 5 through Lot 4. He said
12 he purchased Lot 4 in 1971 and built a house right in the center of it.
13 He said he purchased Lot 5 in 1978 as "a separate plotted and surveyed
14 City lot indicating a proposed road easement shown on the lot survey
15 and intended to develop that lot as a separate parcel . " His statement
16 insisted that at no time since 1967 when the lots were plotted as the
17 Villella Addition were lots 4 and 5 ever considered as one or was access
18 for Lot 5 .ever considered through Lot 4 .
19 Mr. Childs indicated the document he had seen for the Nordahl lot had
20 shown what could have been the bottom half of a cul du sac but there
21 were no lots of record north. of . that property which indicated any
22 continuation of that roadway. He reiterated that all of the properties
23 next to any such dedicated street would be assessed for the . costs of
4 the street. Mr. Nordahl said he found it hard to believe that
considering the value of buildable lots in St. Anthony, owners of, the
undeveloped property north of him wouldn't welcome the opportunity of
27 having access opened to them. The Chair pointed out that apparently
28 some of the owners of property on Fordham .Drive were opposing having an
29 access across the back of their property.
30 Mr. Childs summarized their testimony at the Council meeting,
31 indicating the owners of some. of the abutting lots had indicated
32 opposition to a dedicated road across their property.
33 Mr. Hoium interjected at this point that Mr. Nordahl's Lot 5 was at
34 least 500 feet south of the subject property with three intervening lots
35 between. He said when those lots are developed the discussion this
36 evening would be appropriate, but without that, he perceived the
37 question to be "moot" . The Evergreen President indicated that was the
38 reason they were willing to provide an access easement for those
39 intervening lots with, of course, the costs of street maintenance being
40 negotiated with each owner as lots were developed.
41 Ms. Sheehy reiterated that any structure on those lots would have to
42 be built 100 feet away from the tracks to get mortgage financing. Mr.
43 Nordahl said it was possible the owners could finance the construction
44 independently and concluded "I'd gamble on selling a house there very
45 easily" and pointed out that the Evergreen marketing executive had just
indicated the "charm of having a train. " He then read the March 3 , 1967
5
1 letter he had received from Comstock and Davis, the original surveyor
for his property, which referred to the road easement for Lot 5 which
referred to the easement feeding the 11 lots straight north of him in
4 Mounds View Addition as being "accepted by the City of St. Anthony and
5 the Planning Commission, which indicated a clear intent to access
6 Villella Addition, Lot 5 from Silver Lane to the North. "
7 Mr. Holum told Mr. Nordahl that he had spent an hour and a half of the
8 Council's time April 26th giving the same testimony after which the
9 Council had told him that the Evergreen property development would have
10 no effect on his property. Mr. Nordahl indicated he did not agree with
11 that assumption but believed instead that "what's happening now is
12 contrary to what was done in 1967 when my lot was created. " He again
13 conceded that the bottom half of a cul du sac shown on the survey of
14 Lot 5, Villella Addition was not shown on any of Mounds View Acres,
15 Second Addition surveys, but reiterated that the survey language had
16 caused him to assume access would be provided to his property.
17 Mr. Childs indicated he perceived Evergreen's willingness to provide an
18 access easement across their project was only the first step towards
19 providing that access with the rest to follow with the development of
20 the intervening lots between Mr. Nordahl's Lot 5 and the project.
21 Mr. Nordahl said he didn't perceive "access off Fordham Drive would ever
22 be in the cards" and that was why he perceived "there had to be a
23 dedicated street in the plat plan for the townhome project or,
4 otherwise, end up with landlocked property. " Chair Wagner disputed this
assertion that there would never be an access off Fordham, telling Mr.
Nordahl he believed "things could change. " He told the protestor that
27 all of the same statements of his position had been clearly reported in
28 the kpril 26th minutes and although the Planning Commission had concern
29 about his property being buildable, they agreed with the Council that
30 since it was not even adjacent to the townhome project, his problems
31 were not germane to the plat before them that evening.
32 Commissioner Franzese indicated she perceived it was now up to Mr.
33 Nordahl to communicate with his neighbors to the north who could. give
34 him an easement if they wanted. She felt his success in getting access
35 was dependent on that rather than on the City's course of action on
36 property 500 feet away from him. She pointed out that by allowing
37 the townhome project the City was not creating his problem.
38 Mr. Nordahl said he talked to Mr. Reid who was willing to develop his
39 property in the manner which was discussed with access from the north,
40 but the other property owner "is not approachable. "
41 Chair Wagner indicated the minutes would reflect Mr. Nordahl's request
42 for a dedicated street as well as the fact that Evergreen has offered
43 to negotiate an access easement across their property when the
44 intervening lots are developed.
46 The hearing was closed at 8: 38 P.M.
6
Commission Recommendation
2 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Brownell to recommend the Council
3 approve the Preliminary Plat dated September 9, 1988, for the 37 unit
4 townhome project proposed to be constructed by the Evergreen Development
5 corporation on the parcel legally described as Lots 1 , 2, and 3 , Block
6 4, Mounds View Acres, Ramsey County, MN and Block 2, Mounds View Acres,
7 Ramsey County, MN generally described as a vacant parcel 4.85 acres in
8 size located east of Fordham Drive, south of Silver Lane and west of
9 the Soo Line Railroad tracks. The Commission recommends approval be
10 conditioned upon:
11 1. Detailed plans from the developer to include screening rather than
12 berming along the railroad track; provision of no less than a 15 foot
13 sideyard setback along the west property line adjacent to Building #1
14 with trees and shrubbery to be provided in that same area.
15 2. Drainage subject to City engineering approval.
16 In recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat, it is noted that the
17 developer offered to negotiate a shared cost access easement over the
18 street closest to the railroad tracks for the future development of Lot
19 5, Villella Subdivision.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Brownell stated that he perceived the motion was fair to
Mr. Nordahl because the City would still be able to have something to
23 say about how the intervening lots would be developed.
24 Commission Concurs with Extension of Minnesota Scientific's Permit
25 Deadline Until April, 1989
26 At 8:48 P.M. the Chair opened the public hearing on the above request
-27 by reading the notice of the hearing which had been published in the
28 October 5th Bulletin and sent to all property owners of record within
29 350 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to
30 receive the notice or objected to its content.
31 Request:
32 *from Minnesota Scientific conveyed by the September 19th letter from
33 Donatelle Properties, 401 County Road E-2 West, New Brighton;
34 *for an extension of the deadline of October 31, 1988 which had
35 been imposed by the Council when they granted a conditional use permit
36 for a temporary office trailer at 3839 Chandler Drive.
37 Staff Report
7
1 *Mr. Childs' October 14th memorandum giving the background history
of the permit to which he had attached copies of the pertinent August
18 , 1987 Planning Commission and august 25, 1987 Council minutes;
4 *reiterated that the Council had imposed an earlier deadline than
5 the Commission had recommended, perceiving that the actual lease date
6 at that time was more an appropriate deadline and anticipating that
7 Minnesota Scientific could always come back for an extension if they
8 were not able to move before the end of October;
9 *reported the company would be moving into Donatelle office space in
10 New Brighton, but because the current lease held by someone else on that
it space doesn't terminate until the end of December, and it appears
12 renovation and remodeling would delay Minnesota Scientific's moving
13 until at least the end of March, the city is now being requested to
14 extend the deadline until that time;
15 *recalled that only one of all the residents who had been notified of
16 the August, 1987, Commission hearing had attended that meeting. The
17 primary concern of William G. Graff., 3824 Foss Road, at that hearing
18 had been that "when Minnesota Scientific moved out of St. Anthony, the
19 trailer be removed at the same time and the ground underneath be
20 returned to its original state" ;
21 *said he hadn't heard from any of the neighbors since the October 4th
22 notice (Chair Wagner reported Commissioner Madden had talked to Mr. and
23 Mrs. Graff and reported the neighbors had no objections to extending
the deadline. The applicant had also talked to them with the same
response. )
26 Proponents•
27 Bruce LeVahn, President of Minnesota Scientific', said his request had
28 been accurately reported in the Donatelle letter and it had only been
29 because of the press of business at this time, that the October 31st
30 deadline date had been overlooked.
31 Mr. LeVahn reported further that:
32 *there are 'seven people working in the detached facility now and it
33 would be a great inconvenience for them not to be allowed to keep the
34 facility until they moved;
35 *reported Minnesota Scientific had been negotiating a lease with
36 Donatelle Properties for the last six months and couldn't move when
37 their lease with that company ran out;
38 *his f jrm had been negotiating with Donatelle Properties for the last
39 six months to lease space in one of their New Brighton buildings and.
40 uncertainty whether the space they wanted would be available had
41 prevented them from signing a lease before this time;
8
1 *he was now certain that space would be available by April.
Chuck Donatelle, 4008 Macalaster Drive, was present to affirm the
3 statements he and his brother, Michael, who was also present, had made
4 in their letter applying for the extension.
5 No one else spoke to the issue and the Chair closed the hearing at 8:52
6 P.M.
7 Commission Recommendation:
8 Motion by Brownell , seconded by Werenicz to recommend that the City
9 Council grant the request from Minnesota Scientific, Inc. , 3839
10 Chandler Drive, for an extension of the existing special use permit #14-
11 87 which would allow the company to retain the existing temporary
12 mobile office on the east side of the building at that location until
13 April 1, 1989 or upon the date the company vacates the property , if
14 that is sooner. The conditions which the Council had imposed on the use
15 of this facility with their motion of approval August 25, 1987 would
16 remain in effect with this extension.
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18 NEW BUSINESS
19 Commissioners Impressed with Master Plan for the Future of the Silver
0 Lake Camp
Copies of the Plan had been duplicated in the Commission agenda packet
22 and provided reference points for the discussion of a 20 year plan for
23 the camp by Dale Westberg, Director of the Salvation Army Camp, and Lt.
24 Colonel Harry Smith, Divisional Commander of the Northern Division of
25 the Salvation Army, both of whom reside on the camp grounds at 2950
26 West County Road E in St. Anthony.
27 Staff Report:
28 *Mr. Childs'. October 14th memorandum reporting on the immediate plans
29 of the proposal and the St. Anthony Recreation Open Space Ordinance,
30 which requires that "all structures be constructed of a material and of
31 a design which is compatible with the natural environment as determined
32 by the Planning Commission and Council and which conforms with
33 applicable codes. "
34 Mr. Westberg told the Commissioners the Salvation Army plans:
35 *to reopen the stone pillared northwest entrance to the camp which
36 has remained an historic landmark in St. Anthony since the camp opened
37 in 1921;
38 *to repave the road coming into the camp and add a new parking area
which would accommodate about 80 cars;
9
*to construct a new administration building at the crown of the hill
just south of that area so access to the camp can be controlled and
3 guests greeted from the office;
4 *to relocate the work area to the camp perimeter where it would be
5 less visible to the guests and would provide greater safety for the
6 camp. This would require the construction of a new vehicle/construc-
7 tion/maintenance building to replace the existing building.
8 The Camp Director indicated these projects were estimated to cost the
9 Salvation Army about $350,000 and would be started as soon as City
10 approval is given. He then went over the portions of the Master Plan
11 which would be undertaken as soon as funding is available to "move the
12 camp into the 21st Century. " He said all improvements were planned to
13 get the best use of the land which is available; not to damage the
14 environment; and to maintain what is almost a "wilderness type setting
15 in a metropolitan area where the type of services the Salvation Army
16 provides are very much in demand. "
17 Mr. Westberg indicated the Master Plan was the third plan which had
18 been presented over the years. The first was drawn in 1970 to
19 revitalize the camp and bring it up to the current standards of that
20 time. In 1980 another plan to re-affirm that the camp was going in the
21 direction the Salvation Army wanted it to go, was presented for City
22 approval. Now in the midst of the Salvation Army's capital campaign,
23 the camp officials wanted to take a fresh look at the changes in
camping trends and they wanted to be ready to respond to those changes
to meet the needs of the campers 65% of whom are now adults. They also
26 wanted to increase the efficiencies of the camp so. as to rely less on
27 outside subsidies to offer the facilities and services for the camp's
28 guests.
29 The Camp Director reported the majority of their weekend guests stayed
30 only from Friday to Saturday night and only about a third stayed over
31 until Sunday. Use of the camp by children is mainly during the summer.
32 From September to May or June, 95% of the guests are adult groups from
33 around the metropolitan area and even from around the nation.
34 Mr. Westberg gave a rapid run through of the plans he had submitted for
35 Commission review. He told the Chair the camp officials had been
36 turning St. Anthony children away from fishing from the bridge between
37 the main camp and Kiwanis Island because of the difficulties involved
38 in distinguishing who are campers and who aren't. . Colonel Smith
39 recounted several incidents which had .occurred which resulted in more
40 stringent regulations necessary to meet the camp's responsibility for
41 the safety of the children entrusted to their care. He said he liked
42 the idea of having a special open house day for St. Anthony residents
43 to visit the camp as well as school sponsored visits throughout the
44 year, especially during the week when other groups aren't using the
45 camp facilities.
10
1 Mr. Westberg pointed out that there were several groups of parochial
school children who participated in planned day activities in the camp
now and he perceived the staff would welcome the same type of activities
4 for school children in the St. Anthony/New Brighton School District as
5 well.
6 The Camp Director told Commissioner Brownell the new buildings would
7 have wood construction with rough cedar siding. The administration
8 building would also have natural rock trim. The architect had even
9 changed the construction of the maintenance building from steel to wood
10 frame to better fit into the natural environment of the camp. The goal
11 is to put all utilities underground to provide better visuals of the
12 camp. He promised to bring the plans to staff as soon as they are
13 available from the architect.
14 Commission Recommendation
15 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Franzese to recommend Council approval
16 of the long range building plans for land use and facilities development
17 contained in the Salvation Army's Master Plan for the Silver Lake Camp
18 in St. Anthony. The Commission has reviewed the building materials to
19 be used in the facilities and found them to be in keeping with the
20 natural environment of the camp and recommends that each project be
21 reviewed by City staff to assure that they meet all current building
22 codes and regulations.
Oi
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
25 An informal progress update on various City projects was given by Mr.
26 Childs before the following:
27 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Franzese to adjourn the meeting at
28 9:50 P.M.
-29 1 Motion carried unanimously.
30 Respectfully submitted,
31 Helen Crowe, Secretary
32 :cjk
11