Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 10211980 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII iozisa Box: 21 Folder. PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1980 Document: PL MINUTES 10211980 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 21, 1980 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bjorklund at 7 :30 P.M. Present for roll. call : Peterson, .Jones , Bowerman, Bjorklund, Sopcinski, Enrooth and Makowske. Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant (Jim Fornell, City Manager, was present intermittently part of the evening) . Motion by Chairman Bjorklund and seconded by' Mr. Sopcinski to amend the September.. 16th Planning Commission meeting minutes to add the following as the third paragraph of Page 6 : "Individual Planning Commission members commented upon their initial concepts of the proposal. " Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mrs. Makowske to approve as amended the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting held September 16 , 1980 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson will represent the Commission at the next Council meeting October 28th. . At 7 : 38 P.M. Chairman Bjorklund opened the public hearing for con- sideration of a Detailed Plan for the property at 3909 Silver Lake Road as part of the Development Concept Plan for the Hedlund PUD. He read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property owners within 350 feet of the property (PUD) being considered. Nc one present reported failure. .to receive such a notice nor objected to its contents. Mr. Berg outlined briefly the history of the PUD and told the 40 or more persons present the purpose of the hearing was to consider whether or not the existing structure at 3909 Silver Lake Road could be remodeled by Craig Morris of Stacy, Minnesota for a .barber-beauty shop under the Planned Unit Development plan which has been adopted for the Hudlund property along Silver Lake Road. He said the barber- beauty shop is permitted as a "B" Service Office use under the PUD but agreed with the City Attorney' s letter of October 14th that it is up to the discretion of the Planning Commission whether or not they wish to recommend the Council consider this proposal singly, as part of the staging of the PUD or only as part of the entire remaining PUD. He reported the developer who had proposed a townhouse • -3- eyesore and location. of many -fires and drug busts in the past" . They reiterated that '.'You could wait forever for the PUD" . Join- ing them in their expressions of approval were Bruce Kattelstad, 2604 31st Avenue N.E. , a self-employed carpenter-contractor who insisted the structure could be easily- remodeled to meet all state barber shop .codes and James .Trait, a 25 year: resident who lives on Highway 88 who said there is a residence on County Road D which has been made over for a barber shop. They. were both customers . of Mr. Morris in his New Brighton location. Also speaking for the proposal were Mary Ann Burmis, 4044 6th Avenue N.E. , Columbia Heights and T. F. and April Peterson 3244 89th Drive, Blaine, who felt the City should "do something with the property to add to the tax revenues" . Kenneth Lee who plans to build a home for- himself on the abutting property to the east of the subject dwelling, related the troubled history of the Hedlund property and the surrounding area including the Twin City Federal location. He was in favor of the proposed project which he saw .as "providing a residential profile for the undeveloped lots" as well as producing no annoyance for the neighbors in the forms of heavy traffic or parking,. noise, odors , etc.. He said he would "rather live next to this well landscaped project than to have the property revert to miscellaneous tenancies with serious fires and drugs on the premises" . When questioned about whether Mr. Morris should attest in writing to his improvement • plans, he said he hoped Mr. Morris "would fulfill his promises but didn' t think. he should be legally held to them" . Marland Johnson, 4008 Penrod Lane, who is one of the new residents on that street, said he is "in favor of the project from what he sees of it, believing the concept conforms to the PUD requirements" . He later got, from Mr. Morris , a commitment that he would be willing to put .into writing all the improvements he had promised. Speaking in opposition to the proposal was Delano J. Martinson, 1830 29th Avenue N.W. , New Brighton, an- Apache Sty.list�:.barber, who believed the house could not be remodeled for a barber shop due to its residential nature and lack of available. parking. However, he could provide no statistics for his claim when questioned by Mr. Sopcinski. Ruth Thompson, 3015 39th Avenue N.E. and Ruth Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, said their opposition to the. proposal was only because it was not part of a specific plan for the rest of the undeveloped- property. They told of the- years they have fought to keep this property from being developed for "a hodgepodge of businesses under strip zoning" including joining legal action against Mr. Lee who had said he at one time owned all . the land around the subject property but has no monetary interest in any of the Hedlund property any longer. They also told of the many proposals which, after hours and hours of meetings 'and City time spent on. them have never materialized. Mrs. Nelson said she thought the latest, the townhouse development, for which the land was rezoned "was far superior to the PUD itself" , and she insisted the City ' s share of tax revenue from commercial is minimal. -- -2= development for the northern portion had indicated he- was no longer • interested in such a development and the City had, to date, received no firm commitment from another developer for developing those lots under their R-3-, multiple dwelling zoning. No one present at the meeting rose to submit a schedule for developing the land following Mr. Bjorklund's invitation to do so. Chairman Bjorklund said he would "hate to- see a recommendation not contingent upon development of the rest of the site" . Mr. Jones disagreed, saying the PUD provides for staging and the proposal should be looked at on its own merits. He saw the Morris proposal as providing an excellent buffer between residential and commercial, the requirement for "B" before "C." use, a good blending with the Cadwalder office and adequate. parking. He believed. the Commission had to be realistic regarding economic conditions, with 200 interest rates, and wasn't surprised Mr.. Hedlund did not have a specific developer for the rest of his property. Mr. Sopcinski questioned whether..this developed lot had ever been included in previous proposals and said even the plans for the three commercial buildings left this building to be remodeled. Mr. Berg reported that this site had at one time been proposed as a community build- ing for the Ames townhouse project, . but was subsequently eliminated. Mr. Sopcinski believed the Commission had an obligation to uphold the PUD or "provide a betterment of. it" and said the Council, at their last meeting, had indicated opposition to "piecemealing the site" . Mr. Enrooth speculated the City Attorney had essentially said "the City could go either way on the decision" . The Chairman believed the Council was seeking the Commission 's own input and "doesn 't direct Commission's actions" . Craig Morris, "the prospective tenant-owner of the property" estimated he will put $50,000 , in addition to the $75,000 purchase price, towards upgrading the site with the neighbors property in mind in regard to buffering, landscaping, etc. which "will make it an asset instead of an eyesore for the community" . He read a letter of endorsement from State Representative Steve Novak and said his employees were out with a petition seeking names of City. residents who approve of his proposal. They had 217 such names at 6 :00 P.M. and he was confident they would have 500 before they were through and which they planned to present at the Council meeting next week. Mr. Morris also gave Mr. Berg a copy of an agreement with Mr. Hedlund providing for his temporary use of the signage allocation until it is necessary to identify whatever goes in north of him. Councilman Marks arrived at 8: 10 P.M. but remained only as an observer. The petitioner's father, Frank Morris, 3350 92nd Curve N.E. , read the petition for which signatureswere being sought and he and another son, Vernon Morris. also of Cambridge, Minnesota, spoke several times in defense of .the proposal, emphasizing that the barber shop would be "an attractive alternative to what has been an -4- The public hearing was. closed at 9 :20 P.M. • Mr. Bowerman said he believes "the ,Commission. should look at the property. apart from the undeveloped lots and disagreed with the assumption that if the developed lot is' allowed, the rest will be "spot developed" . Mrs. Makowske- said she..had come that evening with strong feelings of opposition to the proposal but after the hearing was "leaning towards a recommendation of approvalbecause she saw the possiblity this might be the impetus for a development of the rest of the site" . Mr. Peterson was for a recommendation of approval with a specific provision for fencing "to move the proposal along" . Mr. Jones believes the problem of the undeveloped lots would continue if this portion of the PUD isn' t developed. He saw the proposal'--.as providing the signage, parking, landscaping, and street access which conform to the PUD requirements and believed the. proposal would fit in well with the residential. However,. he .wanted safe- guards built in to assure only a "B" use of the property in the future. The meeting was recessed from 9 :30 to 9 :40 P.M. and when resumed, a motion recommending approval of the project was made and seconded. by Mr. Sopcinski and Mrs. Makowske and amended as follows :. Motion by Mr. Jones. and seconded by. Mrs . Makowske to amend the motion to. specify $3,200 as the amount which will . fulfill_ the requirements • for 'this portion of the PUD for .the unconditional irrevocable Letter of Credit required of the developer. Voting on the motion to amend.: Aye: Jones, Makowske, Peterson., Bowerman, Bjorklund and Enrooth. Nay: Sopcinski. Motion to. amend carried. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded .by .Mr. Bowerman..to amend the motion to include as a condition the ' s.ubmittal of a landscaping plan for staff approval. Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones, Bowerman, Makowske, Peterson and Bjorklund. Nay: Sopcinski and Enrooth (believed covered in site plans) . Motion to amend carried. Beforethe voting on the amended motion, Mr. Bowerman indicated his concern that "the Council understand the Commissionrecognizes that the Detailed Plan as proposed becomes a part of the Concept Develop- ment Plan for the entire PUD" . - -5- Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mrs.. Makowske to recommend Council approval. of that portion of the Hedlund PUD known as 3909 Silver Lake Road, described .as Lot ll,.. Block 1., Penrod. Addition, to be- developed as a barber-beauty shop in accordance. with the, site and elevation -drawings (as recorded by the Chairman):- with the following being accomplished: (1) An agreement that Mr: HedlunW s remaining undeveloped property in the Hedlund PUD cannot be further divided, i,.e.., all remain- ining property must be developed as a unit. This must be done in a legal and recorded document. (.2) All signage, landscaping, parking, street entries, etc.. requirements addressed in the PUD shall remain the, criteria for the undeveloped land and this property (.3909 Silver Lake Road) also in a legal and recorded document. (3) The structure on the property at 3909 Silver Lake Road may be altered, if required, to those standards for the PUD or greater. . (4) Final landscaping must be submitted �.to the City for approval. The Commission.' s recommendation is based upon the following findings : (a) the proposal conforms to the general PUD requirements regarding landscaping, parking, signage, etc. , • (b) the previous inability of the developer to proceed with a feasible plan for this site, and, (c) previous development plans submitted for the undeveloped portion of the Hedlund property have excluded the property at 3909 Silver Lake Road. The Commission further recommends that, since a $24,000 unconditional irrevocable Letter of Credit is required for the entire PUD before a building permit can be issued, and since this property represents 2/15 of the total PUD property, the granting of a building permit for! 3909 Silver Lake Road- shall require .a $3 ,200 Letter of Credit. The amended motion carried unanimously. At 10: 12 P.M. the public hearing- regarding the rezoning petition for the property at 2550 Kenzie Terrace was opened by Chairman Bjorklund who read the notice -of the hearing which had gone out to all property owners within 350 feet of the property petitioned to be rezoned. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its contents . The owner of the property, Max Saliterman, had requested the. City to rezone the parcel from a single family classi- fication to a "C" which better reflects its usage for the last 20 years. Mr. Berg informed the Commission that - property has been used many .years as a "C" use and as such has acquired a legal non- conforming use status. He recommended this status be retained which -6- would then require that all .prospective new tenants be reviewed by • the Commission and Council to ascertain, under provsions. of the non-conforming use ordinance, that the new use is ."equally appropriate or more appropriate use" . He also stated the City will have. more control to assure "safeguards .and provisions of the ordinance" are complied with. In that regard, Mr. Berg-was especially referring to the present unsightly condition-of the site. Ruth Tetzen, 2834 Taylor Street. N.E. , representing Mr. Saliterman, said she is now in charge of the property as well as- the rest of the St. Anthony._. Village Shopping Center, Inc. area owned by Mr. Saliterman, stated she has a prospective tenant, a reupholstery shop, who would like to move in by November lst. When reminded of the unsightly condition of this property, she replied -that she . has contracted to have the- property cleaned up, including behind the store , this weekend. Hobie Swan.,. owner of Lowry Mobile.. Manorf: which. extends from 2501 Lowry Avenue R.E. to across from the subject parcel.,. said he was opposed to rezoning only this portion of the residential along that street but would not be adverse- to making the entire strip commercial . If that is not done, he believes the City will retain .greater control by leaving the property zoned R-1. Lloyd Helm, whose home is just a house away at 2546 .Kenzie Terrace, wanted the zoning to remain the same at. least until the Kenzie Terrace Study. is. completed. However, he did not object to. having the property- declared commercial if that is the decision resulting from the Study. The hearing was closed-at 10 : 38 P.M. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Enrooth to recommend Council denial of the request to rezone the property described as Parcel 8420. of Plat 63507 . (2550 Kenzie Terrace) from R-1, single family residential district, to C, Commercial district, basing its recom- mendation.' of denial. on the following: (1) The property is adjacent to- residential property and the City of St. Anthony would retain greater control. over any commercial usage under its existing non-conforming but permitted use .provision of the City ordinance. (2) The Kenzie Terrace Study will probably be making ; recommendations for the property. (,3) The Commission doesn't want "piece-by-piece" development in that area. Motion carried unanimously. At 10 : 45 P.M. , the Chairman opened the public hearing on the request for four foot front yard setback variance. from Peggy Allguire for the property at 3053 Harding Street N.E. �1. -7- Ms. Allguire was present and reiterated some of .the.. points made in • her letter of explanation..of the events which had led up to her having to remodel her home and the need -for closet space which prompted her plans .to -add an entryway to her remodeling plans . She said the. addition:.will ,provide the "only closet space .she will have downstairs but will also make the .house warmer and more energy efficient" . Discussion with staff and the applicant developed the fact that her existing home is 32 feet from her- front- property line and the adjacent home has a 30 foot front yard .setback as ' required by ordinance as it appears' do. .all- the rest of the homes .in that block. A petition of consent to her proposal- signed- by her neighbors- was given to the Chairman and .Ms. Allguire said. the only opposition could be expected from the next door neighbor. She' said she had. not anticipated the need for more specific .plans .to illustrate her proposal but Ms. -Allguire proposes to "match the. front of the house with the back" . When several Commission members mentioned the size of her house "which is significantly larger than the. rest of the one story homes in that neighborhood, Ms. Allguire told them she has ordered_ brown. colored siding for .the house which should make it appear smallerr;.. Mr. Jones staid. he likes the idea of front yard addition, here, but is concerned there were no plans to show the roofline treatment for the addition. Mrs,. Makowske agreed lack of plans will affect the Commission.'s..decision but suggested they could be drawn up and presented for the Council consideration and might be a contributing factor towards a favorable decision by them. She also reported Mr.. Slattery across the street had. no objections to the addition. The hearing was closed at- 11 :0.7. P.M. Mr. Sopcinski noted there had not been sufficient documentation for satisfying the conditions set for granting the variance and thought the City would be hardpressed to deny .a frontyard addition to anyone else on that street if this request is granted. Mr. Bowerman insisted "this is not a .deck and is an energy-saving proposal" . It bothered him that "a .resident can't even put a 4 foot entry on her home" . When he mentioned several .front- yard setback variances the City had recently approved, he was reminded those- differed from this request. because of -the unique topography of the land in one instance and removal. of a non-conforming garage in the other, with no opposition from -the neighbors. Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and. seconded- by Mr. Jones to recommend Council denial of the request for a four foot front yard setback variance for the property at 3053 Harding Street N.E. ,:.,.finding that the request, as presented, had failed to satisfy the conditions set for such a variance and a lack of documentation to assure compatible aesthetics of the addition to the existing dwelling: Voting on the motion: Aye: Sopcinski, Jones, Makowske, Peterson, and Bjorklund. Nay: Bowerman and Enrooth. Motion for denial -carried. r 1 : o • l . —8 Ms.. Tetzon had. remained :to speak..for the St. Anthony Village Shopping Center, Inc. request fora sign. variance to the City's Sign Ordin- • ance which will allow the continued use by that firm .of the 64 square foot "For Lease" . sign attached to the existing center identification free standing sign. The sign. is one-half the size. permitted by the City ordinance and. the staff had recommended approval because of the size. of. the _commercial area the sign identifies and the depressed condition. of -the center. Mr. Berg had suggested a temporary variance .might be allowed.. Mr. . Saliterman's secretary said she believes the sign had brought in three new tenants for the center, which with the former Sandy' s building leaves only five vacancies in the center to be filled. She . is also dealing with two major prospects for tenants for the space once occupied by Snyder ' s Rexall. Mr. Sopcinski was concerned that the statement attached to the petition by the proposer meant the sign would be put back every time there is a vacancy* in the center.. Mr. Bowerman cautioned that "the Commission could be treading on dangerous ground by permitting this landlord such a sign fearing the tenants would believe they had a right to the same signage" . He thought the landlord could advertize the availability of a store omits door or windows since he already has a major identification of the center. Mr. Peterson saw the need for the sign because of. the depressed condition of the area but. favored putting a limit of .three to six months on the use of the sign each time. Mr. Jones felt the shop- ping center. should contact the sign company who had put up a sign which.-,.did not conform to the City ordinance. He wanted her to understand the Committee doesn 't want to. suppress development but wants to work with the center management to solve a mutual problem with the..-:aesthetics for the whole area. Mr. Enrooth pointed out that all the landlord had to do was remove- one side of the sign and switch the remaining sign around from side to, side to bring it into compliance with City requirements. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to recommend Council denial of the request from St. . Anthony Village Shopping Center, Inc. to retain the 64 square foot sign advertising "For Lease" , finding that an .adequate size sign can be constructed to conform to the City ordinance which will also allow the shopping center adequate exposure. Before voting, the- Chairman said he had .to favor denial because of the intensity of feeling of the people who have spoken to him regarding the rundown condition of the shopping center and the landlord's apparent indifference. Mr. Saliterman' s* se.cretary 'told him the center owner is 74 years old and it is very difficult for him to attend. meetings which .run late into .the evening. Voting aye: Jones , Bowerman., Enrooth, Bjorklund and Makowske. Voting- nay: Peterson. Motion carried. Voting on the motion of denial: . Aye: Jones, Bowerman, Enrooth, Bjorklund and Makowske. Nay: Peterson. Motion of denial carried. -9- . Richard Freiberg, proprietor,. of Dick!'s .S.tandard station, 3700 • Silver Lake. Road, discussed his. request- for a sign variance for a price sign to be hung below the .existing free standing "Standard" sign at his station. He promised to remove the two price signs . totalling 54 square feet of surface signage in exchange for the new price identification and it was estimated this would, result in only an increase of 6 square feet in the total signage for the establish- ment. - Mr. Enrooth commented that. all signage had been: ".grandfathered'? in" for the station when the new sign ordinance was adopted. It was also determined the 2 foot variance to allow a minimum clearance of 12 feet from grade will probably not be necessary when the concrete and stone berm is taken into consideration. The sign will be lit..only , when the station is open. Mr,. Freiberg anticipated having to move: the sign when that intersection. is..rebuilt by the county. Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr. Enrooth- to recommend Council approval of the Petition for Sign Variance for the station at 3.700 Silver Lake Road contingent upon the replacement of all existing price signs with one two-sided 5 X 6. foot price sign located on the existing free standing . "Standard" sign. No considera- tion regarding the height of the sign is considered necessary as. the existing sign is on a rise berm providing the required 12 foot clearance. -':.The Planning Commission. finds the granting of this variance (a) may contribute to the aesthetics of that corner by reducing the various signage scattered around the station, and (b) will allow equality in product price signage for Standard. Motion carried unanimously. The shopping center manager had remained to discuss further the use of the building on the property at 2550 . Kenzie Terrace for a reupholstery shop.- She said a five year lease is being negotiated with Frank' s Upholstery. who was formerly on Central.. Avenue. She reiterated that she had a crew hired for Saturday to. clean up the whole area along Kenzie Terrace and she said she was sure. the suggested maximum of 4.0 square feet for signage would be more than adequate. Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr . Enrooth,. as an aid to promoting the St. Anthony Village Shopping Center area and . as an added business incentive, the Planning Commission recommends the Council approve the legally non-conforming- usage of the property at 2550 Kenzie .Terrace for an upholstery. shop on the following conditions : (1) No parking of trucks or employee vehicles will.. be permitted in front of the building. (2) Fire safety inspections must be performed to the satisfactionrof City staff. (3) A general exterior clean up and maintenance program for the area be implemented. (4) . Signage will be limited to 40 square feet. Motion carried- unanimously. -10- Mrs. Makowske and Mr. Enrooth .agreed to serve as the Commission' s respresentative, with Mr. Peterson as an alternate to- them both, to the Kenzie Terrace. Study Committee.. Also, all Commission members will try to attend as many meetings as possible. Mr. Berg gave the members the,-City Attorney's report on X-rated materials and advised them the matter would be placed. on the November agenda. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by .Mr. Jones,, to adjourn the meeting - at 12 : 35 A.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted Helen Crowe