Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09211976 Meeting Sheet 100155 VIII IIIA VIII VIII VIII VIIII III Boa: 15 Folder: Document: PL MINUTES 09311976 • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES September 21, 1976 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bowerman at 7 : 35 P.M. Present for roll call : Cowan, Marks , Rymarchick, Bowerman, Hiebel, Letourneau and Johnson Also present: Harry Lekson The minutes for the Public Hearing conducted by the Board on August 31, 1976 were corrected to indicate Mr. Letourneau was not present. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to approve the minutes of the August 31, 1976 Public Hearing as corrected. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Cowan to approve the minutes for the August 17 , 1976 Board meeting. • Motion carried unanimously. At 7 : 50 P.M. the Public Hearing was opened on the request from Sun- dial Realty, Inc. , 2817 Anthony Lane South that a rear yard variance of 4 feet be granted for Lot 3 , Block 1, Barrett 's Addition so that a 26 x 37 house and garage might be constructed on that corner of Fordham Drive and 39th Avenue N.E. Mr. James Villella of the realty company said this is the second of two almost identical houses being built concurrently adjacent to each other which necessitated a di- versity in positioning the structures on the two lots . An additional foot, than that required for front yard set back , had been allowed so that the house might be in line with others on Fordham Drive . There will however be 40 feet distance between the two houses which have been planned to fit into the fairly wooded lots in a manner designed to provide screening for each. Mr. Villella pointed out the drainage system which had been installed between the two lots and said if the proposed structure was cut in size it would not meet the City ' s re- quirements regarding square footage . No one else appeared to speak for or against the proposal and the Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 55 P.M. Board members indicated they could see nothing unreasonable~about the request and expressed their satisfaction with the retention of trees on the property. • Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Cowan to recommend to the Council that a 4 foot rear yard variance be granted to Sundial Realty, Inc. , to allow the home presented by Mr. Villella to be built on Lot 3 , • Block 1, Barrett' s .Addition, 3900 Fordham Drive. __Motion carried- unanimously. The meeting was recessed from 7 :56 to 8 :00 P.M. Chairman then- opened the Public Hearing on the -rezoning request from Mr. Gordon Hedlund for beauty shop at 3909 Silver Lake Road. Mr. Hedlund presented-his- proposal for remodeling the existing struc- ture to accomodate the Gold .Tiara Beauty Shop by introducing the owner, Mr. Jim Hughes, , whose beauty shop is now located on Old Highway 8 in New Brighton. Major .remodeling of the 864 square foot structure would be- mostly interior with .�some dressing up of the exterior of the build- ing, but a retention .of. the. residential character of the property. There would be 8parking' '9paces provided in front;�of':.the 'building with traffic directed onto Silver Lake Road. Mr. Hedlund discussed with Mr. Hiebel .the manner in, which: the parking lot would be graded and said the signage .would probably be of the monumental type. He then showed a rough draft of .such a sign which is almost identical in appearance and size to the Herfurth Realty Company next door. When Mr. Johnson said hewas not .opposed to the beauty salon per se but felt the request would result in spot zoning which he did oppose, Mr'. Hedlund said it- had not .been• his intention to rezone the property • but' only to seek a special use permit which would restrict the use of the property to only the use he•rwas seeking. When it was pointed out to him that the beauty shop was not a permitted use for RII property under the new; -zoning ordinance, the developer expressed his surprise that the property had. to be rezoned- to..allow the beauty shop and said he would have expressed more opposition,%:ao the new ordinance if he had realized it was ,even more restrictive when applied to his property than the old zoning ordinance. He questioned whether it made sense or was fair to disallow. his proposal..which he felt was so similar to those from Twin �Ci.ty .Federal and Herfurth Realty for -which conditional use permits had -so recently been. granted.. Mr. Hedlund then reiterated:�aall. the difficulties he had encountered in his attempts to develop this and .the otehr property adjoining over the past 16 years, especially citing how .his early efforts to develop the area .for RII had been thwarted. He mentioned how the Nason Wehrman Chapman study of the area had re- commended -that .a strip .be devoted to service office usage and felt it was too late -to prevent such .a development now that approval had been given .to Herfurth and Twin City Federal. He expressed bitterness that the City had now made ,it even more complicated for him to develop his property profitably than it had been under the old zoning ordinance. Mr. Cowan felt the logical approach was for Mr'. Hedlund to .present 'a • plan for the development of the entire tract rather than approach its disposal in a piecemeal manner and suggested the developer ask the City. for a planned concept for all the property. -2- • Mr. Johnson said he -was personally disappointed that under the new zoning ordinance . "we no longer have' the conditional use vehicle, which might allow the use requested- by the developer" . He also said the new zoning ordinance had not beentailored to arbitrarily require a more restrictive use of the property but to establish a coherent buffer between the residential neighborhood to the east of the pro- perty in question and the heavy commercial across Silver Lake Road. He said -he would favor any means of .allowing the use requested by Mr. Hedlund short of -rezoning the property. He however felt it was up to the owner rather than .the City .to come' up with a comprehensive plan for the development of .the property. Mr'. Johnson reminded Mr. Hedlund that the City had' offered a great deal of cooperation :to him when he had- presented a PUD for this particular tract of land even to the point of actively lobbying for financing of the retirement apartments which had been a part of that plan. He then expressed the Board's disappointment when the financing failed to materialize. Mr. Hedlund then requested -.that an indication be made to the Council of- the Board's approval of the concept of thebeauty salon. Kenneth: Lee inquired whether the property for which conditional use permits had been granted to Twin City Federal and Herfurth had been rezoned to the new "B classification under the new zoning ordinance. He was told rezoning could only be -effected through petition of the land- owner. Several, of less than a dozen, residents who were present • then spoke to the issue. George Thompson, 3015 39thAvenue' N.E. , was opposed to rezoning for this purpose - feeling it would open the whole tract of undeveloped land to similar rezoning. Joan Petti•john,- 391.3 ,Penrod Lane .N.,F:. , cited the difficulties of moving traffic from the American Monarch Company on 37th and foresaw similar difficulties with traffic .congestion -along Silver Lake Road if the adjoining land .is developed by a number of small businesses. Mrs. Chester, Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, felt the new home building in this, 'her;�area, shown its viability as a good residential neighbor- hood and .felt there could still be townhouses built on the undeveloped land. She opposed the proposed. proj.ect as "strip zoning" and said she anticipated that only "nickel and dime ' businesses would be inter- ested in locating' :on the Hedlund property since larger successful businesses, were .willing to .pay ,the high rent required to locate in the Apache Shopping Center. Ruth.- Thompson, 3015 39th Avenue N.E..., said that. at one time she had felt small businesses which were compatible to the neighborhood would be all right. She now feels , in:�;view of the 9 or 10 new houses which had recently been built in -the neighborhood, that this land should be similarly developed: Mrs . Thompson said there didn't seem to be a • method of enforcing- the landscaping agreements made by owners of com- mercial properties which are intended to provide a buffer for the re- sidential neighborhood and indicated she felt the inadequate landscaping done by the Herfur.th Realty Company substantiated her claim. -3- { i • Mr. Richard Cooper, 3908 Macalaster Drive, indicated he too was against the Hedlund proposal. The Public Hearing was closed at 8 :55 P.M. Motion .by Mr. Cowan and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to recommend to the Council denial of the request to rezone the west 187 feet of Lot 10, Block 6 , Mounds' 'V°iew Acres for the '.Gold Tiara Beauty Shop because it would result in spot .zoning from -the present residential to service office usage. Mr. Marks wanted the motion amended to reflect the - Board' s feeling that the entire undeveloped property owned by Mr. Hedlund should be planned for -on a unit basis to provide a .proper buffer between the residential area to the east and the commercial development across Silver Lake. Road. Mr. Cowan said< he would not accept that amendment to his motion since .he .did- not. feel it was up to the Board to prede- termine the disposal of Mr. Hedlund' s property. Mr. Letourneau agreed that a denial of .this specific request was all that was necessary. Mr. Johnson felt there should -be some stipulation made to indicate the City.'s willingness to work with Mr. Hedlund to develop that particular parcel in a manner which will' be `to the advantage of both the City and the developer. He wanted the .City staff to make themselves avail- able to work with .Mr. Hedlund on such planning. • Mr. Cowan then called for a vote on the motion. Voting whether to vote on the motion: Aye:. Johnson, Letourneau.,: ;H.iebel, Bowerman and Cowan. Nay: Marks and Rymarchick. Motion carried. The- motion. to deny Mr. Hedlund' s request then carried unanimously. A debate on whether it is proper to involve .the City staff in the de- velopment of private property and whether such services are not -normal- ly available to any resident who needs help .in formulating a request dealing with the development of such property resulted in the following motion: Motion by Mr. Johnson and seconded, by Mr. Marks to recommend to the Council that the City staff be madeavailable to Mr'. Hedlund, at his convenience, to provide reasonable City input into the comprehensive development of .hi's property -consistent with existing zoning ordinances and responsible land use. Voting on the motion: • Aye:. Johnson, Bowerman, Rymarchick, Cowan and Marks Nay: Hiebel and Letourneau -4- • Motion carried. Mr. Hedlund then wondered if -another lood at the Nason Wehrman Chapman ,, study of the area in question would not be advisable. Mr. Jack Lawrance -of .Signcrafters, Inc. presented a detailed drawing of the .pylon sign which Pizza Hut .is asking for a variance to the sign ordinance to place -in front of their restaurant at 3801 Stinson Boule- vard. He explained that the 6 foot high, 4 foot wide sign would be mounted on a rough cedar standard and the entire sign would be 9 feet above ground and would replacethe existing signage with only a small- identifying- logo placed near the front entrance. The sign would- be back lighted but not flashing and would- be set back 10 feet from Stinson where it would not be a traffic hazard and would directly line up with the new sign in front of Poppin Fresh. Pizza Hut feels they need the sign for better .identification.- Mr. Rymarchick said the Council-had just directed the Board to prepare specific guidelines for monumental signs and this sign certainly did not agree with this concept of the. type of sign which should eventually be allowed in .the sign ordinance.. It was his contention that monumental signs should ,always be -wider than they are tall. with standards no more than one foot high to minimize visual inpact. He also felt such signs -should be of .compatible,.construction to the buildings they advertise • and said the plastic appearance of the sign Mr. Lawrance proposed did not in his opinion-:meet these standards. He also would like such signs to stand no higher than`.5 feet above grade. Mr. Lawrance said a 5 foot sign in this climate is not productive and felt his client could not afford to invest $2,200 in a sigh which might be covered with snow for three months of the year. T Mr. Letourneau felt it was the responsibility of the owner to see the snow is removed if he wants the sign to be seen. Mr. Rymarchick felt a shorter sign- cou-ld be easily. recognized by anyone who might want to patronize the restaurant. Mr. Johnson pointed out there is no high. speed factor in that area which .might justify a larger, higher sign and .it was his belief that the duty of the. Board was to guard against the roadways in the City taking. on .the appearance of .a Roberts Street .in - St. Paul. Mr.- Hiebel then made a motion to table action on the request for a variation to the sign ordinance until such time as the Board is able to make a detailed recommendation as to requirements for monumental signs as an addendum .to the present sign ordinance. Mr. Lawrance indicated his client would prefer to have an immediate in- dication of approval or :denial of his -request rather than to wait the period of time .it might take to reach an agreement on these guidelines . Mr. Hiebel 's motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded .by Mr. Hiebel to recommend to the Council approval of the .request for a variance to the sign ordinance -5- • to allow the -sign proposed by Pizza Hut as long as the sign does not exceed 5 feet above the existing grade at :the point of installation. Before voting on the motion, Mr. Marks said he- was in opposition be- cause he felt- all the Board was accomplishing was to lop 4 feet from the height of' the sign with -no changes in the appearance of the sign itself which he did not find acceptable. Mr. Johnson contended this was just another case of spot signage and could not accept -the motion without some more definite guidelines on which he could base his decision. Mr. Hiebel called for a vote on the motion and there was unanimous agreement to do so. Voting on- the .Rymarchick motion: Aye: Rymarchick and Hiebel. Nay: Cowan, Marks, Bowerman, Letourneau and Johnson. Motion -not. carried. Motion .by Mr. Cowan and seconded by Mr. Marks to recommend to the Council denial of the request from Pizza. Hut, 3801 Stinson Boulevard, • for the -sign as.. presented because there is no provision for pylon signs in the City's existing sign ordinance. Motion carried unanimously.. Me. Lawrance then said he .-would be willing to provide some input into the formulation !of. .guidelines for -monumental signs. He also said he felt- there- was a -need .for better .identification of City Hall. /James Moriarity did not appear- to present his ..request fora Public Hearing on his proposal to rezone Lot 7 , Block 3, Harstad Second Addi tion from .Rl.I (4104-06 Silver Lake -Road) .. There seemed to be a lack .of enthusiasm for the concept from the Board when. Mr. Lekson said the applicant was .interestedlin knowing their first reaction to the idea. Mr. Bowerman was -absent from the meeting from 10 :00 to 10 :02 P.M. Mr... Lekson then relayed the .proposal as given him by the proprietor of Sroga'smStandard Station, 3201 . Stinson Boulevard, to erect a fence which would shield the storage of cars at the station -but Board',;members indicated a preference for more specific plans for the fence as well as an informal meeting with .Mr. Sroga to discuss other proposals he might have for upgrading, the appearance of the station. The meeting was recessed -from' 10 :05 to 10 : 10 P.M. Ile � Duck Gay of Horizons Development Company was present with Mr. Thomas Hitchcock, 3415 Maplewood Drive of Auto Refinishers Warehouse, Inc. and Mr:.:_Hakry Schroeder of Distribution Systems Inc. to present -6- �'_� I • Mr. Hitchcock's request for a- building permit-:which will enable him to construct a .warehouse building on Lot 8, Block 3 of. the St. Anthony Office Park. -Mr. Schroeder, builder and architect for the 15,000 .square feet, all concrete building, said the structure will provide warehouse storage, display and office space for the auto body refinish- ing supply business. Mr.. Hitchcock said he specializes in wholesale products distribution to automotive parts jobbers and the materials stored and displayed :in the building are mostly body repair parts and equipment. These include some flammable materials such as laquer thinners of which .there .will. only be storage but no processing but which will require a building -of Type 1 construction. Plans for the building include a parking area in front of the building which will accomodate 18 vehicles. When the question arose as to whether the parking would be adequate to serve the 10 or 11 employees and what Mr. Hitchcock estimated would- never be more than 8 customers at. a time, Mr. -Schroeder pointed out the parcel which was to be land- scaped at. this time but could easily be used as an expansion of the parking space if necessary. He also told the Board that his business would require only a limited identification on the building which would not be illuminated. Motion by Mr. Hiebel and seconded .by Mr. Johnson to recommend to the Council that a building permit be granted for the- Hitchcock building • as presented on Lot 8 , Block 3 , St. Anthony Office Park, subject to -final approval by- -the Board -of the landscaping, lighting and signage plans. -_-Motion carried unanimously. The applicants were advised that the next Council meeting where their request would be presented had been changed from September 28th to October 5th. Mr. -Lekson was to -inform others whose applications had been considered that evening of the same fact. The Board then indicated .they would appreciate staff .input>=and recom- mendations regarding the -guidelines to be considered for monumental signage and 'a working committee who will prepare formal recommendations for the consider-atIon of the rest of the Board was formed, with Ken Hiebel, Rick Rymarchick and Wm. Bowerman to serve on that committee. Mr. Johnson then gave the reasons he .is not optimistic about progress being made in his committee 's efforts to work with the merchants and property owners towards the upgrading of the St. Anthony Shopping Center area because of the difficulty of contacting the absentee landlords of much of the property involved. Motion 'by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Cowan to adjourn the meeting at 10: 50 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. -7-