The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPL MINUTES 06171980 r Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII - 102162 BOX: 21 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1980 Document: PL MINUTES 06171980 • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 17 , 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Bjorklund. Present for roll call: Peterson., Jones, Sopcinski, Bjorklund, Bowerman and Enrooth. Absent: Makowske .Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant The following changes were made in the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting held May 20, 1980 : Page 2 , para. 5 : In line #3 omit "had" and substitute "reported" for "attended" . Page 3, para. 1: Omit the word "and" in line #7 and substitute "lower" for "low" . Page 3 , para. 5 : Substitute "off the west" for 'bff the east" in line #4 . Page 3, para. 5: Substitute "may" for "will" in line V . Page 5, para. 6 : Omit "eliminate" in line #13 . Page 7, para. 2 : Substitute "360" for "300" square feet in line #7 . Page 7 , para. 3: Correct spelling of "berm" . Page 8, para. 1: Substitute "R-3" for 'P,-1" in line #2 . Page 9 , last para. : The following addition as the last para- graph was made by -Mr. Bjorklund: "Significant additional discussion ensued- The direction of the discussion by nearly all of the Commission members was to courteously direct Mr. Saliterman to understand the community' s concern for the decayed condition of the property and hopes that it be either razed, remodeled significantly or added to. The several alternatives in the City' s Com- prehensive Plan as proposed were mentioned as was the effect of previous attempts to do something with the property and the owner' s lack of concern or response. Mr. Saliterman and his father were invited, and almost demanded, to • return. " -2- Motion, by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. .Peterson to approve as amended the minutes for the May 20, 1980. Planning. Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bowerman will represent the Commission at the .Council meeting to be held June 24th. At 7 : 40 P.M. the Chairman opened the public hearing on the Blanske vacation petitionby reading the notice which had been published twice, as required. Mr.. Berg reported no mailings -were necessary since Mr. Blanske owns 100 percent of the abutting property and he presented the survey of Sunset .Lane .on which had been i.ndicated .the portion which Mr. Blanske is proposing be vacated and attached to his existing .property, Lot 20, Block 12.. The Administrative Assistant suggested any motion recommending approval should-include the find- ing that the vacation "will be in the best interest of the City" . He .then reiterated the basis staff had found for recommending approval of the proposal which had been detailed in his memorandum of June 13 . Chairman _Bjorklund asked Mr. Berg to read aloud the conclusions of the Commission December 13, 1979, which withheld approval of the vacation at that time. Mr. . Bjorklund also pointed.-out the inconsis- tencies, as he saw them, in the opinion of the City Attorney, which Mr. Berg had reported in-his memo, regarding the City' s chances of winning a favorable decision if an attempt to rezone the property to residential were challenged in court and Mr. Soth' s general assessment of downzoning rendered in his July 6 , 1978 , memorandum. The Chairman. also pointed to the Comprehensive Plan' s concluding there is "a conflict of uses". in this area. Mr. Sopcinski responded that though the. Comprehensive -Plan acknowledged the conflict of uses it did not specifically recommend rezoning this particular property to conform to the existing residential development and said all communities live with a similar conflict of, usage mix side by side. Mr. , Berg answered his queries regarding whether specific lines between uses had been drawn for the City by saying no such specific definitions have been accepted to date. Ed Hance, Mr. Blanske' s attorney, told .the Commission that, since the City is not using the southerly portion of Sunset Lane, .which is in reality only a hill with a slope of 600,- and there can be no value to the City to retain it in its present .form, it might be better to put it on the tax. rolls. by having Mr. Blanske develop it. He also suggested that the recommendation of- approval should include the directionthat the vacated portion should be attached to Mr. Blanske' s property. Mr. Blanske then said he intended to .build a new concrete or blacktop road on Sunset Lane, according to. the specifications of the City and • was willing to sign a developer' s agreement to that effect contingent on approval of the vacation.. Since he owns all the property which -3- • will. be benefited by the road, he saw it as cheaper for him to build it himself. than. to have the City. build. it and assess him for his benefit. He discussed snow removal and storage plans. "No matter what happens; that .hill will,-have to come down" he told .the Commission and he saw it as an advantage for the City to- have him remove it. Mr. Blanske was unable to. give the .Chairman an estimate of the value of the parcel which will be vacated saying "price of land changes momentarily like the stock market" . It was agreed the economic value was- not germane to- the vacation _as. it might be to the granting of a .variance. None of the half a dozen. .residents present expressed . opposition. to. the proposal and the hearing was closed at 8 :23 P.M. for consideration by the .Commission. Mr. Bjorklund said he agreed. that .whenever a .street has. no value to the City it either has .to. serve- the City or be vacated.- Mr. Enrooth saw -a potential tax revenue increase' for the City through the vacation. Mr.. Jones questioned -whether.- the DNR might prohibit the dumping of snow in the holding pond and whether a 30 foot street would..be. ample enough for trucks of utility companies or the county to turn- around. Mr.- Berg said the Director of Public Works had seen- no reason- for any- trucks, other than the City's, to go into the pond area periodically. .-Mr..- Sopcinski disagreed with other Com- mission members that .-no stipulation should- be made to .include the • offer of the builder to rebuild .the street as a condition of the vacation since .he saw this.. as a "unique case" . Motion' by Mr. Jones and seconded. by Mr.. Peterson to recommend .Council approvalof the- June 17, 1980- request of Bernard Blanske that the southerly half of. Sunset Lane, lying between the northerly extension of the east and west lines of Lot 20, Block 12 , Mounds View Acres Second Addition be vacated and attached .to said lot 20, Block 12 , finding that. (_1) the. City has no need: either for a ..roadway nor a utility easement on that parcel since all utility lines lay within a workable area of. the new Sunset Lane.; (2) the vacation may increase the taxable property in St. Anthony.- and . (3) the potential for public risk .will. be diminished when the need to maintain the hill adjacent to Lot 20 is eliminated. Voting on the motion: Aye: Peterson., Jones, Sopcinski, Bowerman. and Enrooth. Abstention: Bjorklund. Motion carried. - The meeting was recessed at -8 :50 P.M. and resumed at: 9 : 00 P.M. for the public hearing on the variances. necessary for the development of the newly created parcel for :. mini-storage .building.s-. The notice • of the hearing was ,read and Mr. Berg reported it had. been sent to all -4- property owners within 20.0. feet... None. of. the. residents present indicated failure to receive. the. notice nor. objected. to .its contents but Mr. Jones questioned why it was not sent to the- Mirror Lake homeowners .association as had been. suggested and agreed should be: the policy for future mailings..at -the Council 's May 13th meeting. The notice. had been sent to the Eberhardt Company; the. management company, for the association. :, Mr. Bjorklund. also questioned whether the notice should have included. ,in the description..of the lan_d'..the vacated portion of the roadway. Mr. Berg responded by stating the hearing may still be valid .and read from the City ordinance the. section. which states "An error in the notice does not negate the hearing" and "Failure to receive the notice does not nullify the hearing" . However,, in.,;checking the- tax rolls, it was determined each of the Mirror- Lake unit owners has an . 885 interest in the common area., some .of which-As within 200 feet of the Blanske parcel. and each .-owner perhaps should- have therefore. been notified individually. Several. of the Commission-Members were in agreement that the hearing should,.be continued ,to -the .July meeting to allow notification of these property- owners but Mr.. Bowerman and Mr. Enrooth felt continuing the. discussion of thevariances that evening would only result in duplicating their efforts the following month. The rest of the Commission members saw the..value of giving a preliminary consideration to the proposal for the benefit of the • residents present. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded.. by Mr. Bjorklund to continue the hearing on the- Blanske variance request which will in turn be continued to. the July 15th Commission meeting so proper notification can be made of all property owners within 200 feet. of' the property in question. Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones, Bjorklund, Peterson and Sopcinski. Nay: Bowerman and Enrooth. Motion carried. The revised site plans were presented by .Mr.. Blanske: and Mr. Berg reiterated his memo assessments_ of. the .variances which will now be necessary for the mini-storage facility as proposed. The substantial changes made by Mr. Blanske to accommodate the townhouse owners to the south, especially building the structure into the hill where only two feet of building will exceed the ground level at the point visible to those residents, were pointed out by Mr. Hance who saw this as the most unobtrusive use possible under the existing. Light Industrial zoning. He then addressed what he saw as the only., remaining issue; the question of whether industrial or -residential is better for the • area, insisting Mr.. Blanske has the right. to retain. his property as --5- Light Industrial because of its zoning and his stated intention of • developing that use which has been consistent over the years he has owned the property. .' He also 'stated the plans for- developing the project .have cost the owner a great deal of money'. Though the attorney conceded the City' s right to .downzone property, he did not believe they could do so. without comp.ensation, -a. point he was not prepared to argue that evening. When- Mr. Bjorklund later presented a specific legal term and question regarding the point for .Mr. Hance' s reaction, he declined to answer saying he did not know the answer but - believed each case .has to .be_j-udged .on-d is own merits. The Comprehensive Plan and its reference to this area has not been adopted and no proposal for rezoning this site formally made to date and Mr. Hance saw the Commission' s duty as' considering the best use for its existing zoning. Lighting will be similar to- that on the storage facility next door with low level lighting necessary for .that. isolated area. Mr. Blanske hopes to have an office in the building and perhaps a T.V. monitoring system to provide- security. He also. addressed .the problems of keeping children off the low level roofs which will be only two or three feet high at some points as well as snow removal and storage, especially if the DNR should prohibit dumping snow: in the holding pond, as suggested by Mr. Jones. He hopes to control through the leases the hours of access to the property by the tenants. The tallest storage unit will only be .12 or 13 feet high, just tall enough to accommodate 'a mobile .home. The average setback of build- ings along .Sunset was 28 feet. Dr. Leo Zaworski representing the townhouse residents suggested that since his complex has similar joint ownership of the common areas; as at Mirror Lake, all owners may also need to be notified if the hearing is continued. However, he was authorized to state that all the townhouse residents were satisfied with the revised plans and "could live with them" . Mr. Thesis, who is purchasing the property, with the existing residence next to the site in question, said he liked the proposal. He answered questions regarding his plans for developing that parcel by saying, except for solving a drainage problem he "would make no changes at this time" . The public hearing was closed at 10 :05 P.M. Mr. Hance suggested, if the Commission- should make a formal recom- mendation conditioned upon a .continuance of the hearing, he and Mr. Blanske mightbe able to determine whether their presence is necessary for the next hearing. He will work with staff to include the caretaker' s. residence in the proposal since there seems to be no opposition from the Commission to that proposal. Mr. Sopcinski .saw the proposed structure as blending well with the topographical area and the townhouse .development to the south. Mr.. Jones. saw no .conflict with this use and' the manufacturing opera- tion at the St. Anthony Millwork across Sunset. Lane . and felt instead • it might provide a good buffer between that usage .and .the residential. He felt, in view of the Council 's reluctance in the. past to even consider rezoning for certain duplex developments or to eliminate -6- • other problems of usage in the. City' s zoning map, the Commission might as well go along with this proposal which he saw as a good usage . for the existing zoning. Mr. Peterson agreed with both of the above assessments. The Chairman. liked the changes made in the plans especially the provision. of landscaping and. continued the hearing to the Commission's July 15th meeting. ADDENDUM Motion by .Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. . Bjorklund to approve as submitted the minutes -for .the Special Meeting June -3 , 1980 where the Commission adopted the City' s Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried unanimously. The Chairman commented on the letter written by Mr . Fornell to Max Saliterman which he saw as an excellent and strong response to the request for .rezoning 2548 Kenzie Terrace which accurately represented the probable reaction to be expected from -the: Planning Commission and Council to the request. He also complimented Mr". Peterson on- his informative reporting of his • attendance at the seminar on working effectively with private developers. Staff was requested to contact both American Monarch and St. Anthony National Bank regarding the landscaping agreed to when their remodel- ing plans and .acquisition of parking areas were approved. Mr. Jones wanted the acknowledgement, that this might not be the -best time of the year for landscaping made, if the letter is written to American Monarch and at the same time to let them know the intense lighting of their manufacturingareas within the plant at night may be a concern for some of their neighbors and. opaque shading of the windows might alleviate the problem. Mr. Sopcinski reiterated the suggestion he had espoused earlier, that all landscaping plans agreed to when a project is. approved, should be documented on the plans for ready reference by. staff if the landscaping is not completed in an accept- able manner. He wanted uniform explicit�°, wording used in these descriptions. Each Commission member then received a partial copy of the new sign ordinance which will be considered at the next meeting. Mr. Jones then reacted to the comments from the Red Owl officials about the Commission' s concerns about the signage proposed for the south side of the Country Store building and also wanted a clarifi- cation on the Commission action on the signage for Sibley on that side of the building. • -7- Motion-by Mr.'. Jones and . seconded-.by Mr.. .,Bjorklund ,to- request staff clarification .of- the signage for. the Sibley. Showrooms,which .had been t recommended for Council approval. and to reques .that: any new signage proposal..from Red Owl be referred .to the Commission for their consideration. as well as the Council ' s. Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones, Bjorklund, Sopcinski,...Bowerman and Enrooth. Abstention: Peterson. Motion. by, Mr... Peterson, and seconded by. Mr.. . Bowerman.,.to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Helen J. Crowe Secretary •