Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 06161981 Meeting Sheet 100227 II I VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II II Box: 15 Foltler. Document: PL MINUTES 06161981 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 16 , 1981 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bjorklund at 7 : 30 P.M. Present for roll call: Peterson, Enrooth, Bjorklund, Bowerman and Jones. Absent: Sopcinski and Makowske. Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant. The following corrections and amendments were made .to the Commission May 19th minutes : Page 3 , para. 4 : Add "No one was present and therefore, no one reported failure t6. receive the notice nor objected .to its contents" to the end of the last line. Page 4 , para. 4 :: Include as- Para. . 4 , "The concerns regarding traffic safety as well as whether a precedent- for this proposal had been set with the Silver Lake Ter- race variances were also explored" . • para. 10 : Correct the spelling of "prove" in the third line. Page 5, para. 3 : Add "members" following "Commission" in the first line. Motion by Mr. Peterson and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to approve as amended the minutes for the. P.lanning Commission meeting held May 19 , 1981. Motion carried . unanimously. Mr. Peterson agreed to represent the -Commission at the next Council meeting which is scheduled for June 23rd. Mrs. Makowske arrived at 7 : 37 P.M. At 7 : 38 P.M. , the public hearing on the Danelski .variance request, which had been tabled at the .May 19th meeting, was .continued with the Chairman reading the notice which had been sent, as a courtesy, for the second time to fourteen of Mr. Danelski.' s neighbors . None of these was in attendance, although .Mr.. Danelski reported a number had indicated they would be willing to- attend .if he felt their presence would be helpful. . There was., therefore, no one to report failure to receive the notice nor to object to its content. As he had in his June 12th memorandum, Mr. Berg commented that the • utilization of passive solar energy for existing structures as Mr. Danelski' s, is a relatively new but growing concept which necessi- tates establishment of a .policy for solar access alternatives in the ~ -2- City ordinance— He believed. at. this. time. to set a precedent for granting 15 foot. variances whenever solar energy is utilized, would be premature without adequate research.. He did not recommend denial of the Danelski request,. but. rather, delaying a .decision until staff has had an opportunity to research .the manual on solar energy being developed by the State Energy Agency and the League of Minnesota Cities and attend the .workshops. they are planning in the fall. Mr. Jones pointed out that Mr. Danelski ' s. existing home is actually 45 feet from .the curb on 33rd Avenue N.E. , there is a fifteen foot right-of-way, .and there . is very little likelihood of the roadway being widened .since it deadends just over the border in Roseville. The Planning Commission member said he believed Mr. Danelski is being penalized.. for being on the corner of a street which has wider right- of-ways than other roads and for which there is no foreseeable use except, perhaps for sidewalks, which Mr. Danelski has said would pose no problem for him, if installed. - Mr. Berg then. confirmed that, with a 30 foot setback, he believed _.there. should be no visual problem for motorists on either 33rd or Croft Drive. Mr. Danelski .told the Commission .members when he first drew up the specifications for the addition, he .believed the structure would have to be 20 feet, but the architectural firm he had since retained was able to develop a plan whereby the addition will only be 12 feet, reducing the extent of the variance necessary for his project. Loren Berg, President of Berg Associates, anarchitectural firm specializ- ing in environmental technology, said he had made the preliminary sketch presented to the Commission which will utilize a passive solar concept with a woodburning fireplace, whichwill make the addition self sufficient energywise, and may even-produce a surplus . When the Administrative Assistant inquired whether there might be an alternative to placing the addition on the south side of the building, the architect told him there were other ways in which the technology could be applied to this site, but the plans had been developed .with Mr. Danelski 's "human needs" .in mind. He said Mr. Danelski had not wanted the addition to "encompass the back yard for which. he has other plans in the . future" . He then answered specific questions regarding the utilization of solar energy for the house .without mechanical components including methods .of preventing heat loss through the many windows. The consultant then told the Commission members he has sought and received dozens of variances for his clients for the same concept but agreed with the Chairman this is not the only method of utilizing the sun to the utmost for this particular building,- but. rather, * this seemed to be the best way of meeting his client' s needs for space expansion. Mr. Berg told the Chairman his firm is comprised of three others besides himself and is located in Plymouth,_ which in contrast to St. Anthony, is a developing area. Mr. Danelski told Mrs . Makowske he has no plans now for additional landscaping between the addition and the street. The hearing was closed at 8 : 25 P.M. , at which time the meeting was recessed for five minutes . • -3- When he reconvened the meeting at 8:30. P.M. , .Chairman Bjorklund reported that., when Mr. Sopcinski called him to tell him he would be unable to be present for .the .hearing, the Commission member had said he wanted to go on record as opposing the Danelski request because of the magnitude of the variance which would be necessary and because he is not .convinced the project will result in a heat savings during the winter. . Mr. Sopcinski did not believe it had been satisfactorily demonstrated that denial of the variance will result in an undue hardship for Mr. Danelski. Mr. Bowerman .said he had walked around the Danelski property and concluded the requested addition will pose no traffic hazard on either. 33rd or Croft Drive. He said he agreed with Mr. Sopcinski ' s concern with the extent of the variance requested, but questioned why there should be a 30 foot setback required where -there is already. a 15 foot right-of-way along- 33rd. He said he had gone- away from the last meeting perceiving this was "nothing more than a request for an addition with solar energy thrown' in." , .but now had become con- vinced, "after viewing the actual rendering of the plan on the architect' s sketch and learning the technology which will be utilized to accomplish solar concept" , that he could .vote in favor of the proposal. Mr. Jones agreed a 45 foot setback did not seem necessary and cited the fact that there were no indications of opposition to the pro- posal from Mr. Danelski ' s neighbors and indicated he believed the addition, as proposed', would be aethestically pleasing where Mr. Danelski "couldn' t tie an addition on the back of this house because • it would look terrible" . He further contended that the conditions set in the City ordinance for granting this type of variance had been developed in a period of low .energy costs when energy conserva- tion was not a consideration. and believes , "the Planning Commission must now consider the needs of the community to utilize existing floor space and, .at the same time, the technology .necessary for energy efficiency" . Mrs. Makowske said she was "wavering in her first opposition to the proposal" , but was still concerned that the conditions set in the ordinance had not been met'. She said she would "like to be convinced because I 'm very much in favor of improvements being made to existing structures in the City" . Mr. Bowerman replied that he perceives the solar concept applied- to ppliedto this home as a "natural step after all the other .improvements and landscaping Mr. Danelski has done on his home" . He felt the ordin- ance was "imposing a hardship on Mr. Danelski by interfering with his attempts to improve the value of his home" . Mr. Enrooth characterized himself as "somewhat of a futurist" . He did not believe the consideration,-of whether the Berg firm operated in Plymouth or St. Anthony was relative because he perceives "Jim to be a pioneer in the utilization of a new concept in St. Anthony-" , and wanted the Commission, "to address the questions raised and -move into the 80 ' s with its ordinance He speculated • the conditions set for granting variances had been formulated ten or twenty years ago, at a time when "there was no anyone could have considered solar utilization as a determining criteria" . He did not believe the conditions should serve as a criteria for judging a proposal but, rather, as only a factor in the decision process. -4- Mr. B.jorklund did not perceive ".a .real .hardship had been demonstrated through the architect' s testimony" and cautioned the Commission members that the second condition .for .granting a variance under the ordinance was that such a variance "not .be based exclusively on a • desire. to*..increase the value -or income potential of the parcel of sand. . . . " . He. said he believes..the City will face many requests with solar as a reason for an addition and urged the decision be delayed, as recommended by staff. He said hewill vote against the request because he sees no hardship whatsoever demonstrated. Mr-. Jones disagreed, saying he believes the Chairman ds interpreting the second condition incorrectly, perceiving instead, that it refers to the development of vacant land. . "Mr. Danelski -will probably never recover the entire- costs.- of the improvement" , Mr. Jones insisted, and "he could add 500 square feet to the back of his house which . would .not .be nearly as aethestically pleasing as this proposal which does an excellent job of providing the .needed living space expansion in contrast to many other remodelling jobs approved by the City which have been poorly done" . Mr. Peterson said he was not opposed to the proposal per se, but rather, urged the decision be delayed until the City. has had an opportunity to develop technical language which can be utilized to explain why the variance was granted, when other requests of this nature come in. He doesn' t believe., "the knowledge the Commission has at the present is adequate for governmental action" , and wants a firm policy developed before a decision is reached on this request, "so the City .won't' have to allow every 30 or 40 foot addi- tion which comes in just because it will have solar energy devices" . • Mrs.. Makowske took issue with the reference . to .the conditions which have to be satisfied before variances to the City ordinance can be granted, saying, "they have served the community well. over the years" and "the Village has grown the way it has because. of these conditions" . Mr. Bowerman perceived the developing of a firm policy regarding solar systems will be a long and complicated procedure and would "hazard a guess that a year from- now, we still won' t .have a policy and. will have to make these .decisions on the input we receive re- garding each variance, just as we do now" . Chairman Bjorklund said, "the policy will be established by the variances we grant,. if we don' t wait" . The Administrative Assistant stated .there is nothing wrong with necessary conditions applied to variances but that, as always , it is a matter of what each member. perceives to benecessary to satisfy the conditions. He reiterated his .earlier concern of the City having no policy at this time to govern future requests- of this nature. Mr. Bowerman .saw the hardship involved in this case as being the rising utility costs to the homeowner and the inability to make his home more livable through solar energy and concluded, "Mr. Danelski is seeking relief from these costs through this action" . He later • added, "he could build a 30 foot deck out there and we couldn't do a thing about it under the existing ordinance" . He "assumed the neighbors across the street would prefer looking at this well designed addition to roof panels or solar panels on the lawn" . Before making a motion, Mr. Jones said his. .opinions regarding the utilization of front yards are well known and, "other communities have recognized there is more value in using back yards for re- creation, etc. , than for buildings" , but also pointed out, that Mr.. Danelski' s addition "will still be more than 30 feet from the roadway, and, even if the sidewalk were constructed, would be 25 feet from the edge of that sidewalk" . Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to recommend the City Council grant a 12 foot sideyard setback variance to James Danelski to permit him to remodel his existing home at 3301 Croft Drive, as proposed in Site Plan A, finding that granting this variance will : 1) Relieve an undue hardship caused by the very wide setback held for right-of-way- along -33rd Avenue N.E. , which will probably never be used, and must be maintained by the homeowner; 2) The proposed .addition is the best possible way for the homeowner to provide additional living space for his family and, at the same time, maintain the high quality of construction of this neighborhood and the existing dwelling; 3) Low energy. costs when the City ordin- ances were drafted .and this property was developed, did not take into consideration that energy conservation would become a necessity and that this proposal, using passive solar energy, would best meet the needs of the homeowner, the neighborhood and the City; and 4) A petition of support has been signed by Mr. Danelski' s neighbors and no opposition was demonstrated at either of two hearings. Before voting, the Chairman commented that he viewed the divergence of opinion on the Commission as indicating all sectors of the City ' s population are represented on that body. He added that he personally • agrees with an opinion expressed by Mr. Sopcinski at another meeting, that "many of the early residents had moved to St.. Anthony because they wanted elbow room" . He questioned whether such "elbow room" will be provided if front yards are built up. Mr. Bowerman said he believed this proposal "leaves plenty of elbow room".. Mr. Peterson called the question, but only the Chairman voted to close off the discussion. Mr. Enrooth said his home on 33rd .Avenue is closer to the street than Mr. Danelski ' s will be with the addition. Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones, Bowerman and Enrooth. Nay: Peterson, Bjorklund and Makowske. Motion not carried. Motion by Mr. Enrooth and seconded by Mr. Bjorklund to continue the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. • In his June 12th report to the Commission, Mr. Berg reported results of research he had done regarding several Commission members ' con- cerns about signage on Silver Lake Road and the Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman said he did not agree with the • -6- City Attorney' s opinion that the signage for the Craig & Company shop at 3909 Silver Lake Road will be permitted to remain if the Hedlund PUD is revoked when the St. Anthony Court development final platting is approved. When questioned about the revolving barber sign on the site, Mr. Berg read the portion of the City ordinance which disallows such signage. There followed a discussion of vari- ances which had been granted to that restriction. Motion by Mrs. Makowske and seconded by Mr. Jones to request staff to write Craig & Company and any other owners of barber shops with exterior signs which rotate, other than those permitted by variance, to request removal of such signage since it does not comply with the City ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded -by Mr. Jones to indicate to the Council the Planning Commission has reviewed Columbia Height' s Comprehensive Plan and with Commission concerns addressed satisfactorily by the staff, have no objections to the Plan as presented , and there- fore, recommend the Council make the appropriate response regarding .the Plan to Columbia Heights. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Peterson and seconded by Mr. Jones to request staff to develop a workable, reasonable and serviceable Certificate of Occupancy, as suggested by the Acting .City Manager , for Council • consideration. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Enrooth and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn the meeting at 10 :00 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully ,submitted, Helen Crowe