HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL AGENDA 11151988 (2) Meeting Sheet
100015
II I VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II II
BOM: 15
Folder:
Document: VL AGENDA 11151988
C=TY O F S T _ ANTHONY
P LAWN 2 NG C OMM 2 S S 2 ON M=NUTE S
0
WOVEMB ER 1 S , 1 9 8 8
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 31 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Wagner.
3 ROLL CALL
4 Present for roll call: Brownell , Hansen, Wagner,. Werenicz, Madden.
5 Absent: London, Franzese.
6 Also present: Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager
7 William Soth, City Attorney
8 OCTOBER 18, 1988 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
9 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to approve with the following
10 changes:
11 Page 1 , line 12: Close quotes on "locations" .
12 Page 4, line 36: Substitute "maintenance free" for "rough cedar appear-
13 ingot .
WPage 4, line 37: Add "siding" after "vinyl" .
15 Page 6, line 25: Correct typo "been" .
16 Page 6, line 28: Capitalize "April" .
17 Page 7, line 36: Capitalize "Chandler" .
18 Page 8, line 3: Capitalize "August" .
19 Page 8, line 38: Substitute "firm" for "form" .
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 COMMISSIONER WERENICZ WILL REPRESENT PLANNING COMMISSION AT THE CITY
22 COUNCIL'S NOVEMBER 22, 1988 MEETING
23 Commissioner Hansen Wants Residents'. Ability to Use Silver Lake Camp
24 Pursued Further
25 The Commissioner indicted he had not been at the October 18th meeting
26 and therefore had not been able to express his opinion on the above.
27 He reported he and his children had been chased away from fishing off
2
1 the Kiwanis Island bridge and he anticipated many other St. Anthony
residents might have had the same experience. Commissioner Hansen said
3 he had noted that there were many times throughout the week when no one
4 was using the campgrounds and he perceived that because "St. Anthony
5 taxpayers are paying for fire and police department services without
6 reimbursement in the form of taxes from the non-profit Salvation Army" ,
7 they should be allowed to use the campgrounds during periods when there
8 would be no conflict with camp planned activities. It was his
9 contention that the City provided "valuable. resources to the camp" which
10 he perceived should be compensated in turn by allowing the City
11 residents to use that lake which "is one of the City's most valuable
12 resources. "
13 Mr. Soth told Commissioner Madden that, although the lake itself is
14 "public domain" , the shoreline is not. Chair Wagner indicated the camp
15 officials had said they allowed school activities at the camp now and
16 planned to encourage more activities for St. Anthony schools in the
17 future. He said he had talked to School District #282 and had been
18 told more school activities by St. Anthony students would be promoted
19 by the School District. In addition, . Chair Wagner indicated that the
20 Salvation Army would hold an open house following the improvements to
21 the Salvation Army Camp. Commissioner Hansen indicated he did not
22 perceive an open house when the new buildings go up would meet what he
23 perceived were the camp owners' responsibilities to the City and said
24 he would like to see a formal plan from them regarding what they
25 planned in that respect.
aPUBLIC HEARINGS
27 Applicants Unwillingness to Compromise on Size of Sign at 3055 Old
28 Highway 8 Causes Commission to Lay Request Over for a Month
29 At 7: 45 P.M. Chair Wagner opened the hearing to consider a request from
30 R. L. Johnson Investment Co. for a variance from the sign regulations
31 of the City Code to allow installation of a free standing sign at the
32 above address (former Medtronic building) which would be 86 square feet
33 larger and 6.9 feet taller than the City Code allowed for that building
34 without landscaping.
35 The Chair read the notice of the hearing which had been published in the
36 November 2, 1988 Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record
37 within 250 feet of the subject property, none of whom was present at
38 the hearing.
39 Application from R. L. Investment Co. , 701 Decatur, Golden Valley, and
40 Nordquist Sign Company, 312 West Lake Street:
41 *for a variance from the City Code requirements which would allow them
42 to erect an 118 square foot, 2 sided ground sign with overall height
43 of 11.9 feet in the southernmost corner of the parking lot south of the
44 former Medtronic building. The sign would be internally illuminated as
49 illustrated by the sign company in the Commission agenda packet.
3
Staff Report
2 In his November 9th memorandum, Mr. Childs had reported the City's
3 policy of allowing a square footage bonus if the sign is shorter than
4 five feet, which was not true in this case. He had also indicated that
5 the ordinance allowed a sign to be as tall as 8 feet if it is landscaped
6 but said this would not allow the sign copy to be larger than 32
7 square feet. The City Manager had also given arguments both for and
8 against the variance saying there might be justification for granting
9 the variance because of the building's location and size, which could
10 potentially result in several tenants needing identification. The City
11 Manager could perceive no hardship because the ordinance allows one
12 wall sign up to 150 square feet for each tenant and the height of the
13 building and its configuration would make such wall signs very visible.
14 The memorandum suggested a compromise variance might be worked out with
15 the applicants whereby a smaller ground sign could be granted in lieu
16 of wall signs of the size permitted each tenant.
17 Proponent - Charles Youngquist of R. L. Johnson Co.
18 The management company representative responded to the staff memorandum
19 by saying there were almost two separate buildings in that structure
20 with a medical administrative services -company, StrategiCare, Inc.
21 utilizing all the space in the tower section and his firm expecting
22 to lease the south wing to possibly four other companies which made
medical devices in the labs Medtronics left behind. He argued that a
sign as large as his company had proposed would be necessary to carry
25 copy identifying StrategiCare, Inc. and the four tenants as well as the
26 building name and the name of his firm with its telephone number. Mr.
27 Youngquist said he doubted the 4 X 4 foot sign the City allowed could
28 ever carry all that copy and still be read at speeds of 55 miles an hour
29 from Highway 88, which is at least 40 feet away from the building. He
30 also:
31 *conceded that Commissioner Hansen had been right when he said were
32 not "drive-by businesses like McDonald's, etc. " , but rather that the
33 primary amount of traffic would be either clients or delivery truck
34 drivers, who although they might never have been there before, knew
35 pretty much the location and type of building they were looking for;
36 *told Commissioner Hansen the size of the sign had been based on the
37 sign company's previous experience with the size required for this much
38 copy and the speeds of drivers expected to be looking for the building.
39 He indicated the StrategiCare logo dictated some of the size and said
40 because his company is located in Golden Valley, they perceived a
41 need for the manager's name and phone number on the copy;
42 *indicated Johnson Investment had concluded it was better to carry all
43 the names on the sign rather than to have them plastered all over the
44 building;
0
4
1 *also pointed out that the main entrance to the building was located
•2 away from Highway 88 and said the tenants' names would probably also
3 appear on the sidelights of that doorway with internal signage
4 designating the units as well .
5 When Commissioner Hansen asked whether the management company had given
6 any thought to landscaping around the sign to "reduce the imposition
7 of the sign on the surrounding area" , Mr. Youngquist indicated he
8 perceived there were probably things which could be done to soften and
9 hide the base. The Assistant to the City Manager said she had figured
10 that if the sign were allowed to be 8 feet tall, 177 feet of
11 landscaping would be required by the ordinance.
12 When Chair Wagner asked Mr. Youngquist whether he had considered cutting
13 down the size of the sign, which far exceeded the City Ordinance, he
14 responded by saying "I just don't think it's going to be worth doing at
15 all if we do it any smaller. " He said the sign he was proposing was
16 only average when it came to the signs his firm used in other locations.
17 He questioned whether the sign base should be counted in the overall
18 sign, size because he perceived it was only "an attempt to get the sign
19 high enough to be seen from the road. " When he suggested removing the
20 base and putting the sign on a pole, he was told that would be a pylon
21 sign which the Ordinance doesn't allow.
22 Commissioner Hansen reported getting a call from a resident who lived
23 almost directly behind where the sign was planned and wanting to know
why it couldn't be located further north on the property. Mr.
Youngquist indicated the drivers who want to turn into that site have
26 to see the sign in time to utilize the left hand turning lane and mature
27 spruce trees between the building and the highway would obscure the view
28 of drivers coming from the north. He said he couldn't see any gain in
29 eliminating the trees.
30 Mr. Youngquist said he thought his company might be willing to berm up
31 the area under the sign base and, although StrategiCare ran a night
32 shift, to turn off the sign after regular business hours because the
33 company was probably not receiving clients or deliveries at night.
34 Commissioner Werenicz told the management representative that there was
35 a problem for him with both the height and sign size included in the
36 same variance because together they represented "an awful lot for you
37 to be asking" . He said even with berming, the sign would be 3 . 9 feet
38 taller than the Ordinance allowed and asked if Mr. Youngquist would be
39 willing to make any compromise. Mr. Youngquist argued that this was a
40 very large building for St. Anthony and he perceived they needed a
41 sign big enough to be easily read from Highway 88. He said he could
42 go back to the drawing board but thought his firm had exhausted a lot
43 of the potential because a free standing sign seemed to be the best
44 solution for the building. He contended that if a sign identifying
45 all the tenants and the building itself were put up on the tower wall,
46 it might be more confusing than to just identify the major tenant in
4Fthat space. He reiterated that there were actually two buildings in
5
Ithat structure and the four other tenants would also need
identification. The proponent told the Commissioner he agreed with a
3 32 square foot sign to identify buildings on a side street but thought
4 it would be very difficult to identify that building with a sign that
5 size from Highway 88 "going 55 miles an hour."
6 Mr. Youngquist said he had not talked to any of the neighbors in that
7 area, assuming they had been notified by the City of the hearing and
8 would be present if they had any serious concerns. He also said berming
9 the sign to the extent which would be necessary for it to be seen from
10 the highway would probably place the berming out in the City's right-
11 of-way.
12 The Chair checked to be sure no residents had come into the hearing
13 during the discussion and when none responded to his request for
14 questions, closed the hearing at 8: 14 P.M. for the development of a
15 Commission recommendation to the Council.
16 Commission Response
17 Commissioner Hansen said there was no way he could vote for the
18 variance request because he perceived that with a height of close to
19 12 feet, the proponents were asking for "more of a billboard than a
20 sign. " The Commissioner said he still wasn't certain where the sign
21 was going to be located and perceived a danger of "obstruction at that
22 exceedingly dangerous intersection". He said he didn't like a sign that
large abutting a residential neighborhood and thought building
identification would be sufficient since it would be in keeping with
25 signage for shopping malls all over the metropolitan area who don't have
26 tenant identification on the outside of their buildings. The
27 Commissioner said in view of the apparent unwillingness of the proponent
28 to compromise at all on the size or location of the sign, he just
29 "generally opposed the request as submitted".
30 Commissioner Brownell stated that he supported the monument type sign
31 but would like to see something done to reduce the size. He said he
32 supported it as an alternative to having facia signs on the building
33 which would be totally uncoordinated. The Commissioner indicted he
34 also wanted to see a complete sign plan for the building before he acted
35 on the request and as "someone who drives by the location every day,
36 said he wanted to see specifically where the sign would be located.
37 Commissioner Werenicz indicated agreement with the other Commissioner's
38 concerns about size, particularly the -height, and preference for a
39 monument type rather than wall signs. He said he would not be opposed
40 to a sign in the general area proposed but considered the height to be
41 the major issue. The Commissioner indicated he could recommend
42 approval of a monument sign which would be lowered, with landscaping
43 to make it attractive appearing, on which the copy would be cut.
44 Without such a compromise, Commissioner Werenicz said, he was totally
45 opposed to the package which had been presented that evening. He
suggested Mr. Youngquist return to his company to see if some other
6
1 options weren't possible and wanted the request tabled until that was
•2 accomplished.
3 Commissioner Madden said he thought the sign which had been proposed was
4 too large and too high. He agreed that the sketch which the proponents
5 had submitted should have indicated the location of the roadway and the
6 right-of-way in relation to the sign, but thought a reasonable
7 compromise would be in order for the City to get monument rather than
8 wall signage. He suggested "a more subtle approach with a reduced
9 size combined with berming would be a better_ way to go" , and suggested
10 the way to accomplish that might be for the Johnson Investment Co.
11 staff to sit down with City staff to try to work out signage which would
12 be more palatable to the rest of the Commissioners.
13 Chair Wagner indicated he also didn't like the size of the sign and
14 thought a compromise should be worked out with staff.
15 Commission Action
16 Motion by Madden, seconded by Brownell to defer action on the Johnson
17 Investment Co. request for a month and to return the proposal to staff
18 for a conference with the applicant to provide additional information
19 and possibly a compromise.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
Commission Votes 4 to 1 to Recommend Extension of Video Update Permit
Subject to Removal of Lights in Store Window
23 At 8:25 P.M. the Chair read aloud the Notice of Hearing to consider the
24 request from Craig Belisle, Video Update, 2510 Kenzie Terrace, for
25 amendment to the conditional use permit granted February 28, 1984, which
26 would approve expansion of the existing video tape sales and rental
27 operation into the adjacent 1 , 200 square feet of retail space vacated
28 by the Popco Cleaners. The permit would bring the video operation into
29 conformance with the Zoning code, since the requested expansion was done
30 without any building permit and without conditional use permit approval
31 by the City.
32 Only the applicant was present to discuss the issue.
33 Staff Report
34 In his November 9th memorandum, Mr. Childs had advised that Video
35 ' Update was in violation of the City's sign code regarding flashing
36 lights and recommended the conditional use permit should be approved
37 with the same conditions as the original permit but with the added
38 condition that the flashing lights be removed. He also recommended the
39 entire conditional use permit be rescinded if the video shop proprietor
40 does not comply.
0
7
1 Ms. VanderHeyden reported the City had within the last few days
�2 determined that no contractor had been used for the expansion project
3 which had been done by the proprietors themselves, which, she said, is
4 also in violation of the City Code. Action on this violation would be
5 delayed until the City Manager returns from vacation. Ms. VanderHeyden
6 told Commissioner Hansen the Public Works Director had inspected the
7 property and she thought, but wasn't certain, had found the work had
8 conformed to the City code.
9 Applicant Pleads Ignorance of City Requirements
10 Mr. Belisle said he was the President and owner of Video Update and told
11 the Commissioners:
12 *he had not realized he needed to apply for an amendment to the
13 conditional use permit to expand his operation into the vacant space
14 next door, for which he apologized;
15 *he thought he only needed a building permit if he were to build
16 support bearing walls and said all he and three of his salesmen did was
17 to remove two free standing walls and repair some drywall;
18 *the work was completed in 36 hours, where hiring a contractor would
19 have forced him to shut down his business and cost a lot more money.
20 When the video store owner said he still wasn't certain he needed a
0 1 building permit for the work he had done, Chair Wagner told him he had
2 to at least apply for the permit and the determination would be made by
23 the City after finding out just what the extent of the work had been
24 because a project as big as this one could very well have required a
25 licensed electrician or plumber.
26 Ms. VanderHeyden explained that the City wanted to be certain a
27 contractor hadn't done the work without a permit which would have been
28 another violation of the City Code and therefore had not required a
29 permit from the store owner up until now.
30 Chair Wagner then reiterated that the permit extension was ' still
31 dependent upon the removal of the flashing window lights which appeared
32 to be a long standing violation problem with this store. Mr. Belisle
33 confirmed that a while ago he had been notified by the City that he was
34 in violation of the City Code, to which a lawyer from the Video Update
35 franchise had responded with a letter to the City saying the lighting
36 "did meet the City Ordinance because those lights were a symbol of that
37 type of business just the same as the revolving signs in front of barber
38 shops are" . The store owner reported the City had made no response to
39 the lawyer's letter and he had therefore assumed that "things were OK" .
40 Mr. Belisle told the Commissioners that "the flashing lights are no
41 longer flashing and won't be flashing in the future. " He confirmed
42 that he would accept that as a condition for extending his conditional
use permit to allow the store expansion. The store owner said
8
1 difficulty in getting the lights to stop blinking had been part of the
•2 reason for the delay in turning them off. When he told Commissioner
3 Werenicz he only intended to turn off the flashing and didn't want to
4 remove the lights altogether because that would cost him "hundreds of
5 dollars" , and would have them lit only during business hours. The
6 Assistant to the City Manager reported that she had been under the
7 impression that the lights had to be removed as stated in Mr. Childs'
8 memorandum.
9 In regard to the temporary sign he had put out in front of his store,
10 Mr. Belisle told Commissioner Hansen he "probably got permission for
11 that a couple of years ago from Dave Childs" and when the City Manager
12 had told him he could have the sign for up to two weeks every year, he
13 had not realized he had to get the City's permission every time he put
14 the sign out. The store owner attributed his failure to get permission
15 again to ignorance and the fact that he had not gone over to City Hall
16 to read the ordinances. Chair Wagner told him it only took a phone
17 call to the City offices to confirm anything he was not sure of.
18 When Mr. Belisle said he would probably request a variance to the Sign
19 Ordinance to retain the lights in the window, Commissioner Werenicz
20 warned him that in view of his failure to respond to the City's
21 directions in the past, he might have trouble getting that. The store
22 owner reiterated that failure to respond had not all been one sided.
23 Ms. VanderHeyden told the Commissioners she understood Mr. Hamer to
24 say that Mr. Belisle had been informed that the Planning Commission had
already indicated an unwillingness to allow the flashing lights and she
said the City Manager had been in close contact with the store owner the
27 past few months about their removal and had documented his visits and
28 the store's non-compliance after each visit. Several of the
29 Commissioners recalled the removal of the lights as being informal
30 discussion items during several past Planning Commission meetings. The
31 Assistant to the City Manager then reported that in regard to the City
32 giving permission for the temporary sign in front of the video store,
33 she had been told by both Mr. Hamer and Mr. Childs that Video Update
34 had been informed that such permission would not be granted as long as
35 the flashing lights were still operating in the store's window which had
36 been documented as continuing for the next two weeks. This was another
37 instance where Mr. Belisle was supposed to get back to the City but,
38 failed to do so.
39 Mr. Soth said he wasn't certain of the exact Ordinance wording dealing
40 with lights around the perimeters of windows but he perceived the issue
41 before the Commission that evening was whether the Commission wanted to
42 impose the removal of the lights on the conditional use permit
43 regardless of what the Ordinance says, which he said is "within your
4.4 rights to do if you want the lights out of the window. "
45 Before the hearing was closed, Mr. Belisle responded by saying he had
46 talked to Mr. Childs about the lights and had told him "Why can't I just
47 turn off the blinking lights?, but that I needed to get in touch with
4Fthe person who sold the lights to me to help me with that. He said
9
1 when he mentioned that to the City Manager, Mr. Childs never told him
�2 "the lights have to be removed completely and he just led me to believe
3 that all I had to do was to stop the flashing, which the ordinance
4 forbids because they could be a traffic hazard and that sort of thing. "
5 The store owner said Mr. Childs was aware that he was attempting to stop
6 the flashing lights, "but not removing them, and didn't say 'No, Craig,
7 I want you to remove them completely from the store, and that's the
8 bottom line. " He said he had not been told that any time during the
9 couple of times he had talked to Mr. Childs. He reiterated that he had
10 not turned off the lights several years ago because he was waiting for
11 the City's response to the Video Update attorney's letter.
12 No one present provided any further input to the discussion and the
13 Chair closed the hearing at 8 :46 P.M. for the following Commission
14 response:
15 Commissioner Hansen indicated he would be leery of granting a permit
16 extension without assurance that the building was safe after its
17 expansion. He was told the extension could be granted subject to the
18 approval of the Building Inspector. Mr. Soth advised that what the
19 Planning Commission was really doing that evening was recommending that
20 the Council add this condition to the conditional use permit to which
21 the City can add any condition it wants to.
22 Commissioner Brownell was told they would only be extending the
23 conditional use permit to the expanded space and that the same
�4 conditions which applied to the original February 28, 1984 permit would
5 apply along with any other new conditions the Commissioners chose to
26 recommend the Council impose on that permit. When Commissioner Brownell
27 indicated he perceived the Commissioners didn't really know the intent
28 of staff, Chair Wagner told him he would recommend the Commission
29 include the removal of the lights as a condition for approving the
30 extension in their motion, with the understanding that the Council could
31 modify that condition based on further information of staff.
32 Commissioner Werenicz agreed, indicating he didn't think there was a
33 reason for allowing this store to have the flashing lights when compared
34 to other Twin Cities video stores who don't have them. He said he found
35 that "application to be actually quite unusual when compared to the
36 norm. "
37 Commission Recommendation
38 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Hansen to recommend to the City Council
39 that they grant an amendment to the conditional use permit granted
40 originally on February 28, 1984, to Video Update, 2510 Kenzie Terrace
41 N.E. to include the expansion of the video store's retail space into the
42 adjoining space, which had recently been vacated by Popco Cleaners.
43 The Planning Commission further recommends that the original conditions
44 the Council imposed on the permit be again made conditions for the
45 extension along with two more which the Commission perceives necessary
ofat this time, as follows:
10
•1 1. There would be no viewing of tapes in the store, except for bona fide
2 demonstrations of tapes and no viewing would be visible from outside the
3 store.
4 2. The proprietors must comply with all state laws relating to obscenity
5 and to any ordinance of the City of St. Anthony thereafter relating to
6 obscenity.
7 3. Conviction of the owner or any of the employees of the owner for
8 violation of obscenity laws in the operation of the store would be
9 grounds for revocation of this permit by the City Council.
10 4. The flashing lights in the front window of the store must be removed
11 by December 1, 1988.
12 5. The expansion construction must meet all building codes.
13 Voting on the motion:
14 Aye: Werenicz, Hansen, Wagner, and Madden.
15 Nay: Brownell.
16 Motion carried.
0 7 At 8:55 P.M. the Chair read aloud the Notice of Hearing to consider the
8 request from Edward Hance for a variance to allow a front yard setback
19 of 13 feet (ordinance requires 30 feet) for a garage to be constructed
20 in conjunction with construction of a single family dwelling at 2813
21 Silver Lane. The notice had been published in the November 2nd Bulletin
22 and sent to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject
23 property. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or
24 objected to its content.
25 Staff Report
26 As stated in the City Manager's November 9th memorandum to the
27 Commissioners related to the request, Ms. VanderHeyden drew the
28 Commissioners' attention to the fact that the previous garage on that
29 parcel had been located only about 10 feet behind the property line, so
30 the new structure, which would have a 13 foot setback, will be more in
31 compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. She also pointed out that the
32 applicant had waited to pour the section of footings which -would be in
33 non-conformance until after he had gotten City approval. The Assistant
34 to the City Manager reiterated that staff had perceived one of the
35 hardships on which approval could be based was the substantial setback
36 from the lake which was required by the Rice Creek Watershed District
37 of all properties abutting Silver Lake. Another was the shortness and
38 narrowness of the lot coupled with its steepness.
11
1 Ms. VanderHeyden indicated she and Mr. Childs had visited the site
•2 several times before he left on vacation and seen for themselves that
3 there are many homes and garages on the lake with less setbacks from the
4 road than the requested 13 feet. Chair Wagner said he had also noted
5 the very irregular patterns of setbacks along that street.
6 - Applicant - Edward Hance, 2401 Lowry Avenue N.E.
7 *reiterated many of the points in favor of the variance he had stated
8 in his October 27th letter, copies of which had been included in the
9 Commission's agenda packet along with copies of the Rice Creek Watershed
10 District permit; letters from homeowners on both sides of the property
11 indicating they had no objections to the proposed garage addition; list
12 of neighbors who had been sent notices of the hearing; and a picture of
13 a van parked in the garage area. Site and elevation sketches of the
14 house and garage had also been provided.
15 *said houses in the area which have garages much closer to the street
16 are primarily on Silver Lake Terrace and Silver Lake Court, the two
17 streets on either side of his property;
18 *indicated the site of the proposed garage is 13 feet from the right-
19 of-way at its east corner and 17 feet from the right-of-way at its west
20 corner, but the garage structure would be 31 feet from the roadway;
21 *pointed out that his next door neighbor, Ken Solie, 2817 Silver Lane,
02 also got a variance from the City to build within 20 feet of the right-
3 of-way;
24 *said because the lake in front of his home has a bay area, his lot
25 is one of the shortest in an area of very irregular sized lots which
26 provided quite unusual circumstances for building a home because the
27 houses face the lake, but the Ordinance considers their front yards to
28 be next to the road;
29 *indicated that if he had provided the required setback along Silver
30 Lane, his home would have been substantially out of alignment with all
31 the homes next to him on the lake, which would have spoiled his
32 neighbors' view of the lake;
33 *told the Commissioners if he had been allowed to use the normal rear
34 yard setback rule, which is 25% of the total lot length, i.e. , 37 feet
35 for the garage, he wouldn't have had to apply for a variance from the
36 roadside;
37 *added that in measuring the roadside setbacks of other homes in the
38 same area, he had found five homes on Silver Lake Terrace with
39 structures less than 20 feet from the roadbed itself;
40 *told Commissioner Brownell that if the variance weren't granted, he
41 would have to construct the garage substantially shorter and would
40 probably not be able to house his cars because the non-conforming
12
1 garage, which was there before, had apparently been grandfathered in to
•2 the current City Ordinance;
3 *told Commissioner Madden the roadbed at that point is almost 33 feet
4 across and there's about 16-1/2 feet on either side of the right-of-way
5 and the Commissioner's calculations that the distance from the edge of
6 the bituminous might be 29-1/2 feet rather than the 31 feet he had
7 calculated were probably correct.
8 Neighbor Asks Questions
9 Andrew Szurek whose home at 2809 Silver Lane was identified as the
10 first property west of the subject property and whose signed indication
11 that he had no objections to the proposed addition had been included in
12 the agenda packet;
13 *wanted to know how Mr. Hance's garage would line up with Mr. Solie's
14 on the west side and whether the City would inspect the project before
15 the garage was constructed;
16 *indicated Mr. Hance was coming in with some "surprises" about which
17 he said he had talked to the lawyer before the meeting, including the
18 fact that the structure would be built three feet higher than he had
19 first anticipated, which caused him some concern about drainage;
20 *said he was concerned that the adjoining land might be landscaped
1Whigher than his property where the land between the two parcels had
been level before and he would like to see assurances in writing that
23 it wouldn't create a drainage problem for him.
24 Mr. Hance addressed what he said he perceived were two concerns of Mr.
25 Szurek, drainage and access to his property. He said he and the
26 Building Inspector, Larry Hamer, had both assured that adequate
27 provisions for drainage would be made when the Hance lot is raised to
28 street level, leaving Mr. Szurek's lot lower. The applicant told the
29 Commissioners that the swales which are now only primitively constructed
30 on both sides of his property would ultimately be finished to guarantee
31 no drainage on either neighbors' properties (which, of course, would
32 also be a City requirement) .
33 Mr. Hance said the other issue which bothered Mr. Szurek was how the
34 Hance driveway would be constructed, which the attorney said was still
35 not resolved. He explained that four of the homes had 10 foot easements
36 along side and parallel to Silver Lane, but on their own respective
37 properties, which had served as a sort of service road. Although his
38 driveway wouldn't encroach on any of his neighbors' easements, Mr. Hance
39 said he wanted to get that eliminated but hadn't quite worked out the
40 agreements which would provide egress and ingress to their lots. He
41 said he was trying to negotiate an agreement with the Szurek's whereby
42 he would construct a new driveway for them in exchange for their
43 releasing the agreement, but the neighbor on the other side had to agree
40 to. that as well.
13
• 1 No one else spoke to the issue and the Chair closed the hearing at 9:04
2 P.M. for development of the following motion:
3 Commission Recommendation
4 Motion by Brownell, seconded by Hansen to recommend the City Council
5 grant the variance requested by Edward Hance which would allow garage
6 construction at 2813 Silver Lane within a minimum of 13 feet from the
7 front property line in accordance with the architect's October 11, 1988
8 site and elevation drawings in the Planning Commission's November 15th
9 agenda packet. In recommending the variance be granted, the Commission
10 finds that the applicant had satisfactorily addressed the three
11 requirements for granting a variance and a hardship had been created
12 for the applicant by the strict regulations of the Rice Creek Watershed
13 District requiring a substantial (57 feet according to Mr. Hance)
14 setback from Silver Lake.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 Junk Yard Appearance of Property in Same Area Concerns Commissioner
17 Madden
18 The Commissioner wondered if the owner of- property just down from Mr.
19 Hance might not be operating a junk yard from his home because he had
20seen car batteries piled high in the yard which he assumed was in
01 . violation of not only the City Ordinances but also environmental
22 pollution regulations. The Assistant to the City Manager told him she
23 knew this was a problem staff was working on already, but promised to
24 make a note to find out more about it from Mr. Hamer.
25 Commission Doesn't Like Extra Driveway or Less Exterior Brick
26 At 9:10 P.M. the Chair opened the public hearings scheduled to consider
27 revisions in the Development Concept Plan and Detail Plan for approval
28 under the Planned Unit Development for the construction of a 201 unit
29 apartment complex on the former St. Anthony Village Shopping Center
30 property which the developers have now named Kenzington Apartments of
31 St. Anthony. The developers, LaNel Financial Group, Inc. had also
32 requested a waiver of the Preliminary Plat and approval of the Final
33 Plat of the project property. Because of its length, as well as the
34 fact that the Commissioners would be acting on the information covered
35 in the Notices of the Hearings which had been published in the
36 November 2, 1988- Bulletin, the Chair , with the concurrence of the rest
37 of the Commissioners, did not read the documents aloud.
38 Copies of the notices had been mailed to all property owners of record
39 within 350 feet of the subject property along with copies of the most
40 current plans. No one present reported failure to receive this
41 documentation or objected to its content.
42 Staff Report
14
1 Mr. Childs' November 9th memorandum addressing the two requests from the
• 2 developers which had been reported in the Notices of Hearings and
3 explained the proposed amendments to the Development Concept Plan and
4 Detail Plan approved in August, 1988, which, he said:
5 *allow parking around the perimeter of the site rather than in the
6 center;
7 *provide separation in parking between the individual buildings to
8 give each building more of its own identity;
9 *move the buildings away from the site perimeter which would decrease
10 the "mass" of buildings adjacent to the abutting property owners;
11 *add an additional driveway entrance to Kenzie Terrace on the west
12 side of the property to give separate identity to the individual
13 buildings;
14 *provide villa-type units on the ends of each building which would be
15 dropped down to two stories high with separate entrances for these units
16 designed to get away from the long hallways and to reduce overall
17 building mass on the site;
18 *provide a more efficient pathway system for the project.
19The City Manager had suggested the Commissioners question the developers
00 about the lessening of brick on the buildings.
21 Ms. VanderHeyden indicated staff had been very pleased with the changes
22 perceiving they were all positive and recommended adoption of the
23 Final Plan. She told Chair Wagner the only call the City had gotten in
24 response to the Notice of Hearings mailed to the neighbors had been from
25 one women who expressed disappointment that the pools weren't to be
26 inside so she could do lap swimming.
27 Design and Site Changes Explained by Developers
28' Greg Bronk, Gene Nelson, Frank Lang of Lang/Nelson Associates, and Carl
29 Frederickson of Leonard Lampert Architects discussed the changes in the
30 project since August with the Commissioners.
31 Mr. Bronk:
32 *reiterated that his firm had closed on the bonds in September and
33 the City had negotiated the purchase of the land with his firm's
34 acquisition anticipated sometime in December, after which demolition
35 would start and construction would get underway;
36 *explained that LaNel had consulted five different architects before
37 deciding on the villa-type structures which produce a type of multi-
38 family housing closer to a single family environment which appears to
be very attractive today;
15
• 1 *indicated that by making each building three stories high in the
2 middle and two stories high on each side, the project could retain the
3 dormitory effect in the middle but provide separate entrances for the
4 units on the end. This would get away from the long hallway and still
5 maintain the number of units on the site necessary to provide enough tax
6 base to retire the tax increment;
7 *said they had also been able to move the mass of the buildings away
8 from the boundaries of the property which with two of the buildings
9 dropping down to two stories at the ends, would make the project more
10 pleasing to the eye from a distance;
11 *told Chair Wagner the 50 unit senior building would remain a three
12 story structure. The other senior building would have the dropped roof
13 effect and would have 75 units. The third building with the same
14 configuration would be 76 units of high quality general rental;
15 *indicated the new proposal provided one to one underground heated
16 parking in the buildings and matching 201 spaces of surface proof of
17 parking outdoors with perhaps only 144 constructed initially.
18 The Lang/Nelson representative told the Commissioners his firm perceived
19 the all and all sense of this plan was really designed with the
20 community in mind and would be a better appearing project than the one
21 they had presented before with interior parking.
102 Commission Reaction
23 Chair Wagner was concerned that the new plan hadn't provided for an
24 emergency vehicle access which the City had included in their original
25 project requirements. He was assured that would be worked into the
26 plan. The Chair also noted the interior walkway did not appear on the
27 plans.
28 Commissioner Hansen expressed what appeared to be a common Commission
29 concern, that the plan included another curb cut off Kenzie Terrace
30 which they perceived would intensify . what are already traffic flow
31 problems on that street in that particular area. The Commissioner
32 told the LaNel officials the City had already spent thousands of dollars
33 to provide a traffic signal in front of the Kenzington which was
34 designed to control traffic from this development and it was feared the
35 new entrance would only encourage drivers to make a U-turn to get into
36 the senior building. Commissioner Hansen pointed to the Nativity
37 Lutheran Church parking lot traffic as a prime example of drivers
38 ignoring traffic signs and said the same problems were being experienced
39 in front of Kentucky Fried Chicken farther south on Kenzie Terrace.
40 Chair Wagner said he was afraid another driveway in that area would
41 just create the need for another traffic light three hundred feet from
42 the one in front of the Kenzington. He said he considered this to be
"a real problem."
16
• 1 Mr. Bronk told Commissioner Werenicz the ponding could be placed
2 anywhere on the site to take care of drainage and it appeared to be more .
3 aesthetically pleasing in the new location.
4 When Commissioner Hansen asked whether Lowry Avenue could serve as an
5 alternative to another Kenzie Terrace curb cut, he was reminded that the
6 room would probably be filled with opponents from the Minneapolis
7 Stinson Triangle if that word ever got out. The Commissioner said he
8 would expect the same kind of reaction when residents learn about the
9 additional driveway.
10 The exterior finishes were discussed with the architect. Mr.
11 Frederickson indicated the senior Building A would have an exterior
12 entirely of brick and Buildings B and C would have brick around their
13 main entrances with textured siding around the porches and the two story
14 entrances. The third floor on Buildings B and C would be'entirely wood
15 finish with an exclusively brick face on the two story portions.
16 Elevators would be provided to the three story portions but the villa-
17 type units would have separate entrances with stairwells to the second
18 stories. The architect pointed out that the concept was very unique
19 because very few buildings incorporated both the center hall as well
20 as the villa walkup concept in the same structure. He also drew
21 attention to. the canopy above the entrances, a new feature, which had
22 proved to be very popular with their new Coon Rapids project.
403 The Chair was shown the elevations and car hood high berming which had
4 been designed to block the view of the project from Kenzie Terrace.
25 The architect also explained the spillway next to the pond had been
26 designed to take care of any ten year cycle storm runoff the City sewer
27 system in that area couldn't handle. The security systems were also
28 explored in depth.
29 Commissioner Brownell quoted from the Commission's August 16th minutes
30 that "brick exteriors are required by the Redevelopers Agreement but
31 wood accents would be allowed to highlight the balcony or extended
32 living room areas" and asked whether what the developers were presenting
33 that evening complied with that requirement. Mr. Nelson confirmed that
34 wood was less expensive than brick, but pointed out that dropping the
35 roofs to try to make the buildings look like villas had been very
36 expensive and the developers had to cut the costs someplace. He said
37 he still thought that any one walking up to Building B or C would still
38 see a brick building.
39 Mr. Soth indicated that the change required more than a Commission
40 interpretation that less brick would be acceptable, but also a
41 modification of the wording of the Redevelopment Agreement which had
42 been quite specific about the amount of brick required in the
43 exteriors.
44 There was also agreement that the access off Lowry Avenue had been
specifically forbidden previously.
17
401 When it was pointed out to the developers that there was unanimous
2 opposition on the Commission to another curb cut on Kenzie Terrace, Nr.
3 Nelson said he certainly didn't want any traffic problems to affect his
4 rentals and wouldn't want another traffic light in the area.
5 Mr. Soth suggested that there was a real timing problem involved and
6 recommended that the Commission make their recommendations to the
7 Council approving any of the changes they felt they could so they
8 could work out some alternatives to access with the developers if
9 possible at their November 22nd meeting.
10 Several alternatives for resiting the structures to provide access to
11 both Building A and C without increasing the traffic around the senior
12 buildings were explored with the architect. Mr. Frederickson suggested
13 traffic studies could be done and perhaps by eliminating the extra
14 driveway area, the developers might be able to rotate Building A to gain
15 more land between buildings. Commissioner Hansen suggested the City
16 might even be willing to grant a setback variance to get that
17 accomplished.
18 When Commissioner Hansen asked the City Attorney whether the Planning
19 Commission would get another look at the Final Plan before it's
20 approved, Mr. Soth told him the Ordinance contemplated the Final Plan
21 as being virtually the same as the Detail Plan, so although the Final
22 Plan would be shown to the Planning Commission, it would more or less
0 3 be set, so to speak, by that time. He said the only purpose of the
4 Final Plan is for the City to have something permanent on file.
25 Chair Wagner indicated he could foresee even a joint Council/Planning
26 Commission to give final approval to the revisions.
27 Commission Recommendations
28 Motion by Madden, seconded by Hansen to recommend the Council waive the
29 Preliminary Plat and approve the Final Plat which combined all the
30 parcels of the Kenzie Development Project into a single lot.
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 Motion by Madden, seconded by Brownell to recommend to the Council that
33 the Development Concept Plan and Detail Plan be amended as presented in
34 the Site Plan dated November 4, 1988, presented at the November 15th
35 Planning Commission hearing with the exception that the westernmost
36 curb cut be eliminated and the placement of Building A be adjusted to
37 accommodate access to Building C and that changes in the Redevelopment
38 Agreement be made as needed. The Planning Commission also recommends
39 the Detail Plan provide for an access for emergency vehicles only
40 through the adjoining shopping center area.
41 Motion carried unanimously.
•
18
1 Commissioner Werenicz was instructed to emphasize the Commission
02 objections to the additional curb cuts and concerns about the amount of
3 brick on the buildings.
4 Ms. VanderHeyden urged anyone who wanted to go to the planning seminar
5 in January to get in touch with her as soon as possible.
6 ADJOURNMENT
7 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to adjourn the meeting at 10:10
8 P.M.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 Helen Crowe, Secretary
12
13