HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 05201980 Meeting Sheet
I IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
102165
Box: 21, .
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1980
Document: PL MINUTES 05201980
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 20, 1980
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bjorklund at 7 :35 P.M.
Present for roll call: Peterson, Jones, Bjorklund, Sopcinski,
Enrooth, and Makowske.
Absent: Bowerman.
Also present: Jim Fornell, City Manager and Ron Berg, Administrative
Assistant
Motion by* Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. Peterson to approve as
submitted the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting held
April 15 , 1980 .
Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bjorklund will represent the Commission at the Council meeting
scheduled for May 27th.
Mr. Bjorklund opened the public hearing on a rezoning petition by
• David Ames for Lot 12 of the parcel commonly referred to as the
Hedlund PUD at 7 : 45 P.M.
The Manager confirmed that all notification, application, fees, and
publication requirements for such a hearing had been met and Mr.
Djorklund read the. notice. Of the five residents present, no one
reported failure to receive the notice nor objected to its content.
This notice of hearing, as that notice sent in February, included
Lot 11 on which there is an existing vacated, residential dwelling.
Mr. Fornell, however, stated that Lot 11 should not be considered
for rezoning as the developer no' longer intends to develop that
lot for a community building. The Manager saw no legal ramifications
for the inclusion of Lot 11 in the notice especially since the
inclusion of Lot 11, in effect, made the notices more comprehensive
than required.
The repetition of the notice of publication had been necessitated
when the first hearing was tabled at the- request of the petitioner.
because of uncertaintities about the use of tax increment financing.
This type of financing was made necessary when economic conditions
improved to the point where FHA funding became more available.
In an alternative, if Mr. Ames proceeds with Sec. 235 housing, he
will need write down assistance of the land costs of $10 ,000 per
unit for each of the eight assisted owner 235 funded units he pro-
poses. This figure was later verified by the Manager with HUD . and
• the Metropolitan Council as an accurate "ballpark figure" .
-2-
The developer pointed out the advantages to the City with a townhouse
development as contrasted *to rental duplexes permited under City
ordinance. These include closer control of the maintenance of the
whole area through a homeowners ' association; only one driveway for
all the units; and more landscaped area resulting from better place-
ment of the units than would be possible with duplexes. He pointed
out he could have placed three more units on the site under the
ordinance without seeking a variance but had decided to leave a
36-1/2 'foot backyard setback rather than the 30 feet minimum as
required by ordinance between the buildings and the property line.
This was a concession he was- making after meeting with the residents
on Penrod Lane. It would also permit a better screening of the
parking areas in the rear.
Mr. Fornell told Kathy Cooper, 3908 Macalaster, the PUD will remain
in effect for Lot 11 which can only be developed as R-2 because of
its zoning or "B" service office usage as stipulated in the PUD
agreement, provided the Commission does not recommend its rezoning
at this time. Under the Sec. 235 plan, eight- of the twenty-two `
townhouse units would be "subsidized" or "owner assisted" under
Section 235 funding. ' How this property is developed will probably
determine what type of usage will be permitted on the properties to
the north of this site, he. told Chester Nelson-, 3916 Macalaster
. Drive.
The zoning to R-3 of the site would apply to any owner of the
property other than Mr. Ames.
Mr. Peterson reported receiving a telephone call from Ruth Thompson,.
who related that she was unable to attend the meeting but wanted to
express her opposition and that of some of her neighbors to the
proposal: She offered no specific reasons for such opposition,
however.
Mr. bjorklund also heard from a resident on Penrod who was adamantly
oppo::aa to changing the PUD or the R-2 zoning nor the property. - -How-
ever, he had also attended a neighborhood gathering at the home of
Dick and Marie Hanson., 4009 Penrod Lane , where the majority of the
persons in attendance liked the idea of "using the land for people
rather than businesses" and only a minority expressed opposition. -
Drol:ping the community building from the plans will probably not be
a major factor since similar facilities are available in the Apache
Mali just across Silver Lake Road, Mrs. Makowske surmised. Mr.
Bjorklund added, present economic conditions are not very favorable
for commercial development as evidenced at Apache.
The hearing was closed at 8-:32 P.M. and recessed at that time for
development of a motion; which was made when the meeting was resumed
• at 8: 26 P.M.
-3-
Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend the
Council rezone Lot 12 , Block 1, Penrod Addition Ramsey County from.
R-2,- two family residence, to R-3 , townhouse residence, finding that:
the land usage resulting from this rezoning will prove beneficial as
a buffer between the residential and commercial developments; will
allow owner-occupied housing; will improve the ratio of townhouse,
apartment and single famil'e homes in the City; and will provide low
cost housing and an attractive land density between the family homes
and commercial area.
Before. voting on the motion, Mr. Jones moved. and Mr. Bjorklund seconded
the motion to add to the findings: In addition, having only one curb
cut off Silver Lake Roadwill permit a much safer and .more effective
traffic pattern than would be feasible under R-2 zoning; the proposal
conforms to the proposed City Comprehensive Plan; the zoning change
will result in the formation of a homeowner's association which will
likely exercise greater control over the maintenance of all the units;
and under R-3 Zoning, better landscaping planning is required by
ordinance than- might be developed for duplexes.
These additions were accepted unanimously as was the amended motion.
At 8:55 P.M. the Public Hearing to consider the variance necessary .
for siting the build*ings as proposed by Mr. Ames on the rezoned
parcel was opened by the Chairman who read the Notice of. Hearing.
Staff confirmed that all notification and application requirements for
the hearing had .been met and no one present reported failure to
receive the notice nor objected to its contents.
Mr. Ames told those present, only the two side units will encroach
into the required 30 foot front yard setback and require a variance.
This was only necessitated by his desire to accommodate the residents
of the east side of Penrod Lane by moving the entire complex closer
to Silver Lake Road, thereby leaving 36-1j2 feet as a rear yard
setback where only 30 feet is required by c,:cdinance. If the variance
is denied and this is still to be accompli--had, it will be necessary
to eliminate the three bedroom units planneO for the side buildings .
The architectural configuration of the build--*Lng3 was prompted by the
desire for a project which will be more aethestically pleasing than
buildings placed in a row. Mr. Hedman agreed, that moving the building
forward will be definitely appreciated by the Penrod residents.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9 : 12 P.M.
Motion by Mr. 'Sopcinski and seconded by Mrs . Makowske to recommend
the Council grant a front yard setback variance of 8 .5 feet (21.5
proposed vs . required 30 feet) which will permit the construction of
twenty-two townhouses as per Exhibit A, dated May 2, 1980., finding
that the proposal, -as presented, affords a harmonious blending of
commercial with. residential via townhouses. It is further recommended
-4-
the variance approval be subject to: Provision of "(21 tot play areas;
the landscaping required: by R-3 zoning; and a provision for an
easement for sidewalks, not to exceed six feet in width, along Silver
Lake Road, should the City decide .they are necessary for the public
health or safety.
This motion was then amended by the motion of Mr. Jones and seconded
by Mr. Enrooth, to add to the findings that approval is recommended
because- Cl) the particular physical shape of this parcel and the
extent of the right of way required for Silver Lake Road, and that
granting the front yard variance of 8 .5 feet will permit amore
attractive configuration for the grouping of. the 22 units; (2) the
purpose of the variance is not to increase the value of the property
. to -the owner since he proposes to construct only 22 units where 25
could be built on that site under City ordinance, and; (.3) the grant-
ing of this variance is intended to alleviate the hardship for the
owner created by the large roadway easement along Silver Lake Road.
and the general recessionary conditions- of the economy.
Voting on the amendment:
Aye: Makowske, Enrooth,. Bjorklund, Jones and Peterson.
Nay: Sopcinski.
Motionto amend carried.
Mr. Sopcinski ' s vote was propmpted by his questioning whether a
hardship was created for the owner since.. he could have sited the
same buildings on the parcel without a variance opting to move the
buildings closer to Silver Lake Road only as a concession to the
residents on Penrod.
The amended motion carried unanimously.
The Public Hearing on the conditional use permit and variance
petition from Sid Johnson necessary for the construction of seven
townhouses on. the lots located at the northwestern corner of 37th
Avenue 'N.E. and Chandler Drive was opened at 9 :37 P.M.
Mr. Enrooth left the meeting temporarily at this time.
Mr. Berg confirmed that all necessary fees, publication, mailings and
notices had been accomplished, and there was no one present -who
stated they failed to receive the notice or objected to its contents.
Mr. Berg presented the site plans for the proposal and .reiterated the
recommendation made in his May 16th memorandum that the City would
have greater control of the use of the property if a conditional use
permit were issued under the present R-4 , zoning, instead of rezoning
the property to- R-3 for-the-townhouses.
-5-
Mr. Fornell left the meeting at 9 :40 P.M.
The proposal had beengiven concept approval in February before it
had been definitely determined that Ramsey County had acquired an
additional right of way of ten feet for its rebuilding program for
that road. Mr. Johnson had modified the size of- the buildings to
accommodate this acquisition but now requires a three foot setback
variance along 37th. It was also noted -by Mr.. Berg, because .a
survey has not been submitted, the risk and responsibility as to the
accuracy of the plans as submitted rests with• the. developer whose
permit could be voided if a 'survey later shows inaccuracies in the
plans.
Mr. Johnson assured Mr_:- Bjorklund that "adequate drainage will be
provided 'so neighboring properties will not be adversely affected
and he promised- a determination will be made by soil borings as
to how much fill will be necessary to make the site buildable.
The Public Hearing was closed at 9 :51 P.M.
Mr. Enrooth returned at 9 :52 P.M.
Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by..Mr. Peterson to recommend
Council approval of a three foot side yard setback variance (from
30 foot required to 27 feet proposedl at the 37th -Avenue frontage of .
• Lots 61, 62 , 63 and 65, Block 9 , Moundsview Acres Second Addition.
This variance is necessitated by the ten foot right of way. recently
acquired by Ramsey County for their proposed roadway. Also, the
variance request is not prompted by desire to increase the value of
the property since the developer has reduced the number of units to
be developed from the possible permitted eight to seven. The
developer agrees to provide- adequate .drainage for the property so
the development will not have an. adverse effect on the adjoining
property and further agrees to provide a survey- of the site which
will address any existing utility easements as well as possible
encroachment of a building to the west. As a condition for granting
the variance, the developer further .agrees to prepare the subsoil
so as to prevent settlement in the future and will submit a land-
scaping plan that conforms to the R-3 zoning .requirements of the City
ordinance. In addition to the variance, the Commission recommends
a conditional use permit be granted to the petitioner which will permit
the construction of seven unit townhouses as proposed finding that
under such a permit, individual home ownership may be allowed and
as such, a permit meets the guidelines established for the property
in the proposed City Comprehensive Plan and for the same reasons
heretofor stipulated for granting the variance petition.
Motion carried unanimously.
•
-6-
The meeting was recessed from 10:15 P.M. to 10 :25 P.M. Thereafter,
consideration was given to the request from Red Owl for. an additional
280 square feet of signage to the 304 square feet they now have on the
Country Store at the Apache site. Bruce McKeever, 6800 Zenith
Avenue .South, representing Red Owl, told the Commission his firm felt
they needed identification of the store on the south side for traffic
traveling east on 37th Avenue. However, .he is in the construction
department and the sign request had originated with the retail
department and he-was-not able to say whether traffic._studies had been
made to justify the signage-. He also stated, the size of the sign
is dictated by the size of .the letters which are uniformly used in
Red Owl signage. - When construction of the loading dock is completed,
the painting of the exterior of the building will be coordinated with
that for the Sibley store which is in the same building, Mr. McKeever
said. He was not able to give further- specifics.- as to.:the ,agreement
with Sibley, however.
Mr. Berg had provided the City's action regarding the original
signage at the site and the .Chairman asked Mr. McKeever whether
he was aware that when the existing sign was approved by the City
April 25, 1978; the Red Owl representative had assured the City the
sign on the east side of the building "will be the only signage
required" and a large concession had been made then not to include
the facade of the sign in the variance granted which would have made
• that figure excessive. Mr. McKeever :acknowledged Mr. Berg had
informed him of that action. Mr. Bjorklund then told of the complaints
he has personally made, as a neighbor of the Country Store, about -
the ,"deplorable condition" of the area to the south of the store
where bakery pallets, paper, bottles and other trash are left laying
about the loading dock with no attempt Trade to screen the area from
the residential area to the south. He then' stepped down as Chairman
relinquishing the Chair to Mr. Sopcinski so he could more fully
involve himself in the discussion. Mr. McKeever said a written
complaint rather than a verbal''chastisement would probably have been
more effective towards getting action but assured Mr. Bjorkli..nd his
complaints would be referred to a source where they would recei,;,e
immediate action. Some of the debris mentioned, however, is con-
struction material which will be removed as soon as the loading dock
is completed. Mr. Jones assured Mr. McKeever that the City is very,
pleased with their presence in that spot but he questioned whether
the sign location would really be effective for Red Owl and whether
signage on the west side might identify the store for. more drivers
on Stinson and 37th than positioned as it would be in the dock ?irea.
He suggested Red Owl might want to do.:further research to determi��e the
location which will be best for signage.
Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Bjorklund to recommend Council
denial of the- variance for 280 square feet of additional signage
for the Country Store at 2508 38th Avenue N.E. at this time, because
this would greatly increase the total signage on this building;
-7-
the poor location and possible -interference with the sign from the .
loading dock .structure on the south side raise a question as to its
effectiveness; no proof has been given that the store has suffered
economically from poor identification on that side; and such signage
would tend to further;identify the loading dock area which has an
undesirable history of poor maintenance. The Commission further
draws the Council attention to the fact that when the signage on the .
east side of the Country Store was granted, Red Owl representatives
had indicated they foresaw no further- need for signage for the
building.
Motion carried unanimously.
Plans for the two free standing signs granted Hobie Swan by the
Council last October were modified to bring them into closer con-
formance with the Ci
ty' s ' signage guidelines. The new signage for
the barber shop and Lowry Grove offices will replace the prolifera-
tion of signage once in the- area. Mr. Bjorklund commented the new
signage of 140 square feet was a significant reduction from the more
than 300 square .feet which previously identified the barber shop and
Lowry Grove offices and is an indication to him that Mr. Swan is
trying to comply with the guidelines for signage the City is
developing.
Motion by Mr. Peterson and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend Council
approval of the final plans, as modified, for the barber pole at
2413 Lowry Avenue, because it represents a substantial reduction of
previous barber shop .signage and Mr. Swan agrees that a bern shall
be placed around the foundation of the pole which pole shall not be
built higher than 8 feet nine inches above grade level.
Approval is also recommended for the monument type signage which
identifies the mobile home park as long as it meets the definition of
a "monument" sign proposed in the City' s new sign ordinance. The
proposed definition for a monument sign is, a sign mounted on a full
scale base with no- visibility between the bottom of the sign and the
base on which it is anchored.
The Commission bases its recommendation of approval for the two
signs on the belief that the reduction of signage and location of the
new signs shall be an improvement to that area.
Motion carried unanimously.
Commission members next heard from Bernard Blanske and attorney,
Edward F. Hance regarding plans for a mini-storage facility which
Mr. Blanske is resubmitting for his property at 3829 Foss Road.
Before such a facility can be built there are several variances to
the City ordinance which must be granted and he also requested the
City to vacate all or part of Sunset Lane for the project.
-8-
This site,' zoned light industrial, has been proposed for development
as R-1 in the Comprehensive Plan,. which plan also states a conflict
between industrial and residential use exists in this area because ,.
of its location near the holding pond which is known as Mirror Lake
around which there- are apartments, condominiums, townhouses and single
family residences. However,' Mr. .Blanske and Mr. Hance both stated
that there :is more intense industrial usage than Mr. Blanske is
proposing such as Happy' s Potato Chips, St. Anthony Millwork, the
"metal building" and Berger Transfer close by the mini-storage
facility in the area. Mr. Hance insisted "Mr. Blanske's property
would not be a good location for townhouses" and saw the facility,.
as proposed,as .being a good.-buffer between the other- industrial
development and multiple family dwellings in the area.. ' He told the
Commission "Bernie has spent years protecting the industrial character
of his land", agreeing to townhouse development, at the same time he
has always verbally reminded the City that he had bought this
particular parcel intending to develop itas it is zoned for- light
__industrial" . He said Mr. Blanske could leave the hill at the site
- as it is, so the existing building will be shielded from the
residential dwelling, if the City consents to vacate the unused
roadway.
Mr. Blanske replied to Mr. Sopcinski ' s question of whether he knew
the City ordinance does not permit a residence in a light industrial
district, by saying, he would not insist on this portion .of his
proposal although he felt having a caretaker living in the building
would provide security for the area and be a benefit to the City
in that regard. When Mr. Bjorklund .stated recent court cases
suggesting the City might win its case for rezoning the parcel for
townhouses because Mr. Blanske has not improved his property for
industrial usage, the attorney replied he did not agree with that
assumption but would need to research the matter further before
giving an official opinion.
Questions were then raised whether the facility could-be considered
under warehousing or storage classification and whether some .other
owner might .remove ti,e moveable partitions to develop a large ware-
house there which migi.,.L generate more traffic than the usage proposed
at this time.
In providing Mr. Blanske with a consensus of the concept, -the follow-
ing comments were made by Commission members:
Mr. Sopcinski saw the facility as being surrounded by similar light
industrial developments on adjacent properties - felt the plan might
increase the serenity of the adjacent .land which has private residences
viewed this as -an .industrial usage with minimum traffic and the
addition of the resident caretaker .apartment -as providing security.
to the area. Mrs. Makowske .saw -the-advocating of "-singl-e ' family dwellings
on this property as a feasible land use as not being realistic and
-thought -the mini-storage facility could be amenable to the townhouses
adjacent to it. She Said Mr.. Blanske has always protected the concept
-9-
of his property as being industrial by verbalizing as much to the
City and the neighbors at every opportunity he had. The fact it
has always been industrial will probably result in it being considered
just that by a court of law.
Mr. Enrooth thought that considering the heavy industrial uses of
that area, Mr. Blanske' s proposal - that his property become a buffer,
"is probably the most reasonable land use we have to consider
He drew a comparison with this question and . the problems of air-
ports where families build around the airport and then complain about
its noise.
Mr. Peterson agreed with this assessment.
Although he conceded the mini-storage facility might be a reasonable
use, Mr. Jones suggested the City might cooperate with Mr. Blanske
regarding the vacation of the road and work with him to develop
townhouses on that site on Mirror Lake which is an ideal use location
for townhouses. He personally views mini-storage facilities as
vehicles for bad soil locations mostly near freeways or railroads
where apartments are not feasible.
Mr. Bjorklund saw the proposal as a "gross conflict of land uses" .
• The use should fit in with the lakeshore and shoulc be for residential
development.
Eliot Saliterman, 25 University Avenue S.E. and Wayne R. Whitehill,
Jr. , 3528 Roosevelt Street N.E. ,. appeared to seek concept reaction
of the Commission as to the feasibility of rezoning 2548 Kenzie
Terrace for a retail or service office building. Mr. Saliterman
said his father also has a contract deed from Gainsley for the
adjoining triangular piece of land. He confirmed the residence in
question, had just been remodeled by Mike Mezzenga at a cost of
between $15,000* and $20,000 for residential use.
Mr. Jones told -Mr. Saliterman the Commission would need .more
specifics than offered to--give- an opinion and that parking for that
type of development on that site would almost certainly be a problem,
he added, but agreed this was not an ideal site for a residence. He
and the other Commission members then told Mr. Saliterman. the condi-
tion of the adjoining shopping Center he owns will be a contributing
factor in their consideration of a request for further commercial
development in the area. His father has not been responsive to attempts _
of the City to sit down with him and other interested parties to
try to find some solution for- the- steadily decaying condition of the
area. Mr. Saliterman denied ever receiving notices of meetings and
promised to contact Jim Fornell soon.
_10-
Because the meeting had. run on so long, the Commission members agreed
consideration of -the City's proposed Comprehensive . Plan would be
very difficult that evening and scheduled a. special. meeting for
7:30, June 3, 1980.
Motion' by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to adjourn the
meeting at 12:55 A.M.
Motion carried. unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Helen J. Crowe
•