Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07151980 Meeting Sheet 102160 BOX: 21 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1980 Document:' PL MINUTES 07151980 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 15 , 1980 The meeting was called to order at 7 :30 P.M. by -Chairman Bjorklund. Present for roll call : Peterson, Bowerman, Bjorklund, Sopcinski and Enrooth. Absent: Makowske and Jones. Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to approve -as submitted the minutes for the Commission meeting June 17 , 1980 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Enrooth will represent the Commission at the next Council meet- ing to be held July 22 , 1980 . Mr. Bowerman announced he will be unable to attend the Commission' s August 19th meeting. At 7 : 32 P.M. the public hearing on the Chandler Addition preliminary platting was opened by Chairman Bjorklund. • Mr.- Berg reported application, notification and publication require- ments for such a hearing had been met with all property owners within 350 feet of the site in question notified. No one present reported failure to receive or objected to the contents of the notice. The requirement for a public hearing was detailed for Mr. Bowerman by the Administrative Assistant who suggested since the plat had been revised, approval should be subject to a final review by the City Attorney as well as Ramsey County. Larry Hamer had, in his July 10th memorandum, addressed the questions previously raised concerning the soil conditions and drainage for the property and Mr. Berg reiterated the City .Attorney ' s recommendation that since this project will be developed with zero lot lines for the seven town- ,,-- houses , the foundation permits may be granted prior to submission of the final platting after the lot lines have been determined. Mrs. Makowske arrived at the meeting at 7 :45 P.M. immediately follow- ing the closing of the public hearing.. Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to recommend Council approval of the preliminary platting for the Chandler addition as per drawing No. 8079 as revised July 14 , 1980 , subject to review by the City Attorney and the Ramsey County Public Works Department, finding that the said platting has met all the require- ments of the City ordinance as well as those voiced in previous . discussions about the project. Motion carried unanimously. -2- The meeting was recessed from 7 :58 P.M: to 8 : 09 P.M. when Mr. Berg told Commission members he hopes to have further revisions of the proposed Sign Ordinance in their hands for consideration during the next Commission meeting. The Chairman .distributed his copy of a letter from Abe Rosenthal suggesting all cables for the proposed City cable T.V. system should be placed underground. Mr. Berg believes the American Monarch and National Bank of St. Anthony are substantially in conformance with their landscaping plans but several Commission members expressed concern that the bushes provided by the bank along Lowry Avenue may not actually provide the opacity which was agreed to (4 feet in 3 years) and whether the wood chip foundations are being kept weed free. Staff will contact the bank to ascertain what final landscaping can be anticipated for the auxiliary parking lot. The public hearing on the Blanske variance petition for a mini storage construction at 39th Avenue N.E. and Foss Road, which had been continued because of questions raised regarding the notification procedures, was reopened by Chairman Bjorklund at 8 :18 P.M. All property owners of record within 200 feet of the Blanske property have • been notified of the hearing continuance, Mr. Berg reported.. He said he had received a letter from Russell A. Teske, who recently moved ' to California, who complained of never receiving such notices from the City, specifically the water billings. Mr. Berg, however, had checked and found the property owner of record for 3821 Foss Road was being sent all such notices at that address . Included in the July 15th agenda were copies of the July 10th memorandum from Mr. Berg and Mr. Hamer as well as Mr. Berg 's original assessment of the proposal dated June 13th and Mr. Blanske ' s variance application. The developer and his attorney, Ed Hance, reiterated their justifications for allowing a mini storage facility on the property Mr. Blanske owns at approximately 3829 Foss Road provided the City vacates the southern portion of Sunset Lane as recommended by the Commission June 17th. Mr. Blanske indicated, on the site plans, where he would be able to stripe seven or eight parking stalls parallel to Sunset Lane which he saw as more than adequate since only his own vehicles. and perhaps that of a caretaker resident in the facility will be allowed to park on the site. He specified the use of one unit for an office for himself and the other which will be located approximately where there is now a residence , used either for a _rental office space -or a caretaker's residence to provide both supervision and security for the area. He also outlined the use of construction materials to discourage children from climbing on the roof of the building. • Doug Jones arrived at 8 : 35 P.M. -3- The President and Treasurer of the Mirror Lake Manor homeowners association, Betty Jo Points and Alvina Law who indicated they are spokespersons for the 148 homeowners at Mirror Lake, said they had been appointed by the association board the previous evening to express that group's approval of the proposal as it had been presented to them by Mr. Blanske. 'The board had especially been pleased with the provision of landscaping which they saw as an improvement of. the. existing condition of the property_. The association had also felt that the mini storage facilities might fulfill the need of some Mirror Lake residents for auxiliary storage space. The hearing was closed at 8: 48 P.M. Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and- seconded by Mrs. Makowske to recommend Council approval of the variances necessary for the development of a mini storage facility, as proposed by Bernard Blanske, with no heat- ing and plumbing (except for office space) as per survey certificate No. 5332 for Lot 20 , Block 12 , Mounds View Acres Second Addition subject to: (a) Council approval of the vacation of the southerly half of Sunset Lane for the project, (b) A developer's agreement from Mr. Blanske assuring construction • to the City' s specifications of a road and sidewalk along the portion of Sunset Lane which remains after. the vacation, (c) Provision of marked parking for any or all office spaces (max- imum of two offices) which meet the requirements of the City ordinance, and (d) Submission of landscaping plans detailing those indicated on his proposal, which meet the approval of City staff. The variances recommended by the Commission are: (1) A variance of 7 feet for front yard setback (Sunset Lane) . (2) A variance of 12 feet for a side ya:zd setback (Foss Road) . (3) Parking space variance of 31 stalls , resulting in a provision for 3 stalls. - The Planning Commission bases this recommendation in consideration of the following: (a) The side yard variance is reasonable in that it conforms to the average setback of adjacent properties. (b) -The City requirements in regard to parking spaces would_ be • considered a hardship as the standards required do not pertain to the mini storage portion of this project. -(i ^(_c) The front yard variance is reasonable because of the uniqueness of the site where the front yard has limited visibility from other structures and there is no demonstrated need for a larger roadway. (d) The side yard variance is also required because the poor soil conditions to the east require the project to be sited further west. To prepare the land to build on that soil is considered to be hardship for the developer rather than a mere inconvenience. Motion carried unanimously. At 9 : 15 P.M. Chairman Bjorklund opened the public hearing on the requests for variances from Happy Potato Chip Co. , 3900 Chandler Drive, which will permit a warehouse addition to the existing build- ing and a parking lot addition to provide an additional 46 spaces . He read the notice which hacl gone out to all property owners of _Precord within 200 feet of the site. Although Mary Bauer of 4000 Foss Road (Mirror Lake Manor) reported she had received the notice directed to her,* she had heard of a number of persons in her building and in 4002 who had reported failure to receive the notice. Mr. Berg was certain a legal mailing had been made to all property owners of record and the two association representatives concurred saying the number of phone calls they had received about the project had con- vinced them the mailing had been very thorough. K. Robert Dunphy, President and General Manager of Happy' s , reiterated his application statements for a 5 foot rear yard setback variance to permit a 60 X 85 foot warehouse addition to be built to the rear • and attached to the existing Happy' s manufacturing plant. No additional dock area will be necessary with the addition nor will the number of employees be expanded beyond the present 46 . He assured Commission members the use of the addition for manufacturing purposes will not be feasible and that its purpose is only for warehousing. Mr. Dunphy said the flow of production within the plant necessitates the siting of the warehouse where requested. The new building will not exceed any of the other buildings in height. Because Happy' s was developed before any residentials across Foss Road, there was no concern reflected in the minutes of the meeting approving the plant regarding parking and the plant president con- cluded the parking was accepted with the total package plan. He said if the continuity of the parking area to the lot line is allowed with the addition, the rough hewn log fence may also be continued and costly maintenance of grass between the fence and the roadway avoided. The extension of the lot, approximately 180 feet by 69 feet, will provide 46 additional parking spaces for total of 79 to accomodate 46 employees and 13 company vehicles . Mr. Dunphy, however, stated these figures are misleading because when the .drivers ' cars are in the lot, the trucks are out on a run. If they have to go back five feet with the parking lot, the steep rise ' in the terrain at that spot will necessitate building a retaining wall as well as extensive excavation which in turn will affect the natural contour flow and drainage flow. There were no objections raised to the warehouse addition but the parking lot plans drew complaints from the Mirror Lake representatives .about tak- Ing down existing trees on the property; no provision for landscaping in the proposal for the area directly across from Foss Road and possible increase in traffic noise and odors for the condominium owners. The 5 residents present questioned why Happy's- couldn't site the parking lot on the other side of the existing building between Happy' s and the Marshall -5- 1 building- where trucks are often parked on the grass now. They were not I! convinced the slope of the terrain of the area was steep enough to pre vent a parking lot being developed there. • Mrs. Points doubted whether the parking -stalls provided would be able to accomodate the trucks. She said the existing trees provide a noise buffer of the Happy operation for the Mirror Lake residents and gave the homeowners facing Foss Road "something to look at besides asphalt" . She questioned why adequate landscaping could not be required for this project the same as the City had required for American Monarch and the bank as discussed earlier in the meeting. As spokespersons for Mirror- Lake, she and Alvina Law had received more than 50 calls opposing the extension of blacktop across from the condominiums. Mr. Dunphy' s response to these objections included his belief that "property owners should be able to do what they want with their own property within the existing ordinance" and he didn't see where "five feet could make that much difference" . He cited problems with maintaining shrubs and grass near the roadway because of salt damage and pointed out that the potato chip plant had been in existance long before the condominiums were permitted through a special use permit in a Light Industrial district across the street, telling the objectors "you had to have a variance, too" . He disputed John Gable ' s hearsay report of Happy' s trucks running all night in the parking lot, saying none of Happy's trucks are diesels . He thought they might be able to save the existing box elder tree on the site but said the cottonwood trees have almost outlived their life expectancy and "won=t be there very much longer no matter what we do" . If Happy' s can't use the 55,000 square foot area for parking, it may become necessary, economically, to sell it to someone else for some other industrial use. When a compromise was suggested by Mr. Jones whereby the fence would be set back enough to allow a green area between the parking lot and the road, the Chairman ruled the Commission should not be planning the property for the -applicant. Mr. Bjorklund wondered if the question of whether the - number of parking spaces provided meets City requirements could be settled without another hearing which Mr. Dunphy said would be unacceptable because it would delay con- struction. Mr. Berg said consideration of the parking stalls was included as .an item of discussion in the hearing notice but also saw an interpretation by staff possible that the City ordinance will be satisfied as long as no addition to the number of employees f-- or trucks are included in the proposal. Mr. Gable who was present to speak for his mother, a Mirror Lake resident, said he was somewhat embarassed for repeating hearsay which Mr. Dunphy had refuted and he believed the parking lot was probably a better use of the land than some other light industrial which might be developed there. - However, he felt the parking lot could be built in such a manner as to conform to the City ordinance. The hearing was closed at 10 :51 P.M. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to recommend Council • approval of a five foot rear yard setback variance to the City ordinance which will permit the Happy Potato Chip Company to con- struct, as proposed, the 5100 square foot warehouse (60 X 85). to the -6- • rear and attached to the existing building on Happy's Industrial Lot 3, Block 1, Mounds View Acres Second Addition finding that; (a) the proposal will allow a more orderly flow of products within the proposed and existing operation, (b) the large railroad right- of-way (50 feet) will provide an adequate buffer of the building to the rear, and (c) it appears the entire property will be developed to meet all pertinent City ordinances. On the other hand, the Commission recommends Council denial of Happy' s request for a five foot side yard variance for Happy's Industrial #2 , Lot 1, Block 2 , along Foss Road, finding that the request presentation did not demonstrate a sufficient hardship for Happy' s if the variance were not granted, and if granted, would probably deny sufficient allowance for landscaping on the Mirror Lake Manor side of the project. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission next considered Mr. Berg 's July 9th suggestion that they might want to consider whether the City ordinance should be amended to specifically permit use in a Light Industrial district, a caretaker' s residence at a mini storage facility. The concept was explored with Mr. Blanske who indicated that if such a residence were permitted it would have to be constructed to residential standards. • All agreed that such an amendment would have to be phrased so as to only be applicable to the mini storage properties. Mr. Jones ex- pressed his belief that "a property owner has the right to protect and provide security for his property and this would be an economical way for the City to assist the property owner in establishing this security for the entire area" . Mr. Bowerman agreed the City ordin- ance should not deny the property owner the right to provide security for his tenants but wondered about whether other light industrial plants might make similar requests . Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to recommend to the Council that they consider amending that portion of the City Zoning Ordinance defining permitted uses for a Light Industrial .--district to specifically allow as a permiZtted use the construction of mini storage facilities and then give consideration to including a caretaker' s residence in mini storage facilities . Motion carried unanimously. The pertinent documents pertaining to the Blanske vacation request for the sourtherly portion of Sunset Lane , which the Commission had recommended the Council approve at their June 17th meeting, had been included in the agenda packet and the Commission concurred with the Administrative Assistant' s recommendation in the following: Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to direct the minutes of the Planning Commission' s considerations and actions taken towards the vacation of Sunset Lane be included in the agenda -7- packet' for the Council' s July 22nd meeting where they will review and make a decision on that vacation. Motion carried unanimously. The Chairman then pointed out what he considers to be the most important aspects of the proposed Metropolitan Council guidelines for review of proposed amendments to the local comprehensive plans . He saw the City' s plan as well written since it sets down the provision of alternatives for redeveloping - the St. Anthony Shopping Center area which may prevent the City' s rezoning efforts being challenged by other municipalities and at the same time allow the City to react to any large rezoning in another municipality which might adversely affect the community. Motion by Councilman Jones and seconded by Councilman Bowerman to adjourn the meeting at 11: 50 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, • Helen Crowe -2- r 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 petition by 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 indicated 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" . a 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 i 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 u side. Mr . Berg answered his queries regarding whether specific lines between uses had been drawn for the City by saving no such I specific definitions have been accepted to date . Ed Hance, fir. Blanske ' s attorney , told the Commission that , since the City is not using the southerly portion of Sunset Lane, 4which is i 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 direction that the vacated portion should be attached to Mr . Blanske ' s f property. i 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 r: �7 11� r.': ;f 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 i 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 [corks 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 approval of 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 II Utility easement on that parcel since all utility lines lay within f 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 buildings . The notice iof the hearing was read and Mr . Berg reported it had been sent to all i