Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07211981 Meeting Sheet 100225 IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII I II III Box: ss Folder: Document: DL MINUTES 07311981 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 21., 1981 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Bjorklund at 7 :30 P.M. Present for roll call: Peterson., Jones , . Bjorklund, Sopcinski and Enrooth. Absent: Makowske and Bowerman. Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant. The Chairman reported that when Mrs. Makowske had called him to inform him she. would- be unable to attend the meeting, she had requested the minutes for the June 16th meeting be amended to add as Paragraph 7 on Page 5 the following: "Mrs. Makowske questioned Mr. Berg regarding. the right-of-way setbacks on other county streets and asked how many other variances could possibly be sought by other property owners on such streets. Mr. , Berg replied that there is no uniformity for county street right-of-ways throughout the City" . Motion by Mr. Peterson and seconded by Mr. Jones to approve the minutes as amended for the Planning Commission .meeting held June 16 , 1981. • Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Enrooth agreed .to represent the Commission at the next Council meeting which is scheduled for July 28th. At 7 : 35 P.M. , the . Chairman opened the public .hearing on the request from Duane .M. Fisher, 3329. Stinson. Boulevard N.E. , for the rezoning of the former. Clark station property at 3301 Stinson from C, com- mercial, to R-2 , two family residential, for the 100 feet. by 165 feet lot on which he proposes to construct a double bungalow for his own use. The Chairman read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to approximately 6.5 property owners within 350 feet of the subject site and Mr.. Berg reported the $10.0 application fee had been paid. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its contents. In his memorandum of July 17th, Mr.. Berg had indicated he saw the rezoning of the property to residential as in the best interests of the community, especially since that existing commercial zoning had been identified in the City Comprehensive .Plan as a planning issue because of the conflict between commercial and residential in that particular area. The Administrative Assistant reiterated he sees no • problem with the size of the site or conformance with setback require- ments for the building proposed by Mr. Fisher. He also doubted the -,2- property to the north had .been sold since Mr. Amerman, the owner, had called him to indicate . he did not wish to have. the existing C zoning for that property -changed to reflect . its residential. usage because he may wish to retain that zoning for a small legal office for his own use sometime in the future. Mr. Fisher, who at present resides . in a double- bungalow in the same block, said .he . has purchase agreements, contingent .upon. rezoning this property to residential, with both the Clark company and Dave Mikkelson, who owns the outlot strip to the .east. He told .the Commission members the 1,500 square foot split level structure he proposes to construct will be 30 feet wide with a garage on both Stinson and 33rd Avenue which should leave adequate side yard and rear yard setbacks, and .a 30 foot front yard setback on Stinson. He told Mr. Jones the only landscaping he contemplates will be grass and shrubbery next to the building which should not interfere with the vision of drivers on 33rd Avenue. The only curb cuts he will need will be for the driveways in front of the garages. Jerry Scavo,, who said he is the owner of Jerry' s Bakeshop in Apache, was the only person present to speak about the proposal. He said he had been- negotiating- with Clark for the property for a .bake shop but had not been .-able to. come. up with financing to fund the purchase. He will not .oppose the proposal , .as _made, as long as he is certain the property will be developed immediately- for the-.proposed use. Mr. Sopcinski said the City has. no. jurisdiction over the development after it is rezoned as long as -the . project meets all ordinance requirements for that zoning.. Mr. Fisher - indicated he could see no reason for not proceeding at once with the construction. • Mr.. Scavo declined further comment and the hearing was closed at 8 :00 P.M. Mr. Berg was requested- to ascertain, before Council - consideration, whether the City can demand proof .of .how.-the property will be de- veloped if the .property' is downzoned. The Chairman indicated he believed this proposal will .fulfill .a preference by the City that this isolated commercial site should be redeveloped to retain the residential .character of that .neighborhood. He recommended Mr. Fisher get writtenverification that the neighbors do not oppose the downzoning before . the Council meeting. Suggestions that the approval be made subject to removal of the existing commercial building on the site or that ° a time frame be established for the development were not accepted in..the following: Motion .by- 'Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to recommend Council approval of the request from Duane Fisherto rezone from .C, commercial, to R-2 , two family residential, the parcel of land legally described as the south. 133 feet of the west 198 feet of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of .Section 6 , Township 29 , Range 23 , subject to easement f,or .road purposes over the west 33 feet and the south 33 feet thereof, noting that Mr. Fisher has indicated .his intention of also purchasing the adjoining outlot, resulting in a better utilization of that. vacant Property, and that there was no opposition to the • proposal during the hearing from adjoining property owners . However., the Commission recommends the legal questionsraised about whether the Clark company should have joined Mr. Fisher in the request to rezone should be resolved before a final decision is reached. Z -3- motion -carried unanimously. John Forsberg, 3513 Belden Drive, of Watson and Forsberg, general contractors for the .Hub Manufacturing building under construction in the St. Anthony Office Park, told the Commission the owner of the building, Leon Hubbard, . had . requested he appear. before them to request the variances to the sign ordinance .neces.sary for two ground lit monument signs which will .identify.the two .tenants in that building, Gottwalt Products , Inc. and another yet-to-be-named. Mr. Berg pre- sented the plans for the signs which he had recommended be approved because they are consistent with monument signage previously granted in the City, but suggested the lettering on the unidentified sign be submitted for staff review. He could see no problem for emergency vehicles to gain access to the building .related to the siting of the signs. Mr. Sopcinski noted the .ground lighting for the signs will be 7 feet within the City' s right-of-way. Mr. Forsberg said such lighting must be at' least -10 .feet away from the signs and although the signs could be set further back by 7 feet, the lighting would still have to be located in the right-of-way. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr. Peterson to recommend Council approval of the variances to the sign. ordinance necessary for two ground-lit monument signs with 40 square feet of signage on each, to be constructed as proposed in Exhibit A and as sited .in Exhibit .B, provided the signs are not placed on a berm and ground lighting is provided within the property lines .on the site, finding there have been numerous precedents set for permitting' such monument signage in that subdivision. The approval should be made contingent upon sub- mission of a lettering plan for the sign identifying the to-be-named tenant for staff review to assure its complimenting the other sign. Before voting, Mr. Sopcinski offered an amendment to the motion, which was not accepted, that "The Commission is' unable to come to grips with the siting of - the ground lighting within the public domain. " The motion was carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed at 8: 50 P.M. and reconvened at 8 :55 P.M. for consideration of the request from John A. Domalik., 3336 Roosevelt Street N.E. , for a concept review of the feasibility of constructing a single family residence on the substandard, but platted, 50 feet wide lot Mr. Domalik owns along with the double bungalow to the north in which he now resides , but which is now up for sale. Mr. Domalik indicated he may keep the home for his own use. In his memorandum of :July 17th, Mr. Berg gave the background history of both lots saying, although the construction of the double bungalow at 3336 Roosevelt .had never .been addressed in Planning Commission minutes in 1957 , the building permit for the construction to Belair Corporation had been signed "under protest" by the City Building Inspector. Both lots .were acquired shortly after by Mr. and Mrs. Domalik. Mr. Domalik's proposal will require a 25 feet front yard setback variance to the required 75 feet and a lot size variance of 1;500 square feet from the required 9 ,000 to construct as planned, according a- 1 -4- to 4-to the Administrative Assistant who. gave no recommendation because he could findno precedent upon which to base. sucha recommendation. However, he noted -several points he believed might be considered • favorable for approval, including the limited alternatives the City- has- for increasing its housing stock and the fact- that the Metro Council has. encouraged the relaxing of ordinance building requirements to provide affordable.. and alternative type housing. He also suggested approval of the concept might allow the same consideration for other substandard.. lots in the same :area., including a lot directly across the street from this site. Mr. and Mrs. Domalik answered questions from the Commission members regarding..their proposal. Mr. Berg had submitted- a map. of the area which Mr. Sopcinski noted had not been corrected to reflect the replatting of lots 6 , 7 and 8 to. run . east and west, . with frontages on Roosevelt, .when St. Anthony Road was vacated. It was assumed the replatting was done bymetes and .bounds .and Mr. Sopcinski commented that most of the lots in that. Area, including his own, are 60 feet wide rather than the required 75 feet. Individual reactions to the. proposa•1 were expressed -for .Mr. and Mrs . Domalik' s benefit. The Chairman .-views the proposal, as a good land use and one for. which, there has been_ .ample precedent set but wants the site surveyed to be sure .there will be no problem with the garage in back. He then reported Mrs . Makowske had indicated to him that she could consider the proposal favorably as long as there is documentation .that the neighbors will .not oppose the project. Mr. Sopcinski would not oppose therequest for variances but would • want more specifics regarding the structure to be built, seeing an. oversize dwelling on this size lot would be completely unacceptable. He prefers utilization of the property for a family dwelling to leaving it vacant or used for a parking lot. Mr. Enrooth commented if the variances are granted, and the owner does not build a home for himself, the granting of the variance will obviously appreciate the value of- the property but wasn't sure the City could set sucha restriction on_ the variances . He also was concerned with the size contemplated for the. structure to be built on the .property and the controls the City will have once the variances are granted. He -drew a comparison with this proposal and the Spielman request for their property on 37th Avenue N.E. , but was reminded that concept involved a two family dwelling. Mr. Peterson is favorably disposed towards the concept since the variances will have to be formally considered at- a. public hearing where more _specifics will -be : required. He was also inclined to agree that the . City may have to reduce lot . size .to secure more housing. Mr. Jones believes this will be an excellent use for this property and more benefit to -the community than . a vacant lot. He could approve the variances for a specific proposal which .would provide maximum spacing between this. and adjoining structures but would . consider none other than a single family dwelling on the site. He would also like to see the garage built on the .front of .the house. Mr. Jones agreed • there should .be written indication .that the adjoining neighbors will not oppose the concept and told Mr. Domalik specific house plans will be necessary before any variances can be considered. ".`. -5- Mr. Berg. had included in the agenda Packetallpertinent documentation related -to the adoption of :Resolution. 81-081 approving the barber- beauty .shop usage for 3909 Silver: Lake .Road .under the Hedlund PUD. • Included with copies of minutes of- meetings where the approval was developed, .was the November 12 , 1980 , letter from. W. R. Burlingame of the First State Bank of New Brighton extending the -maturity date for the Irrevocable Letter of Credit to November .30 , 1981. Mr. Berg said the owner of the shop, Craig Morris., had recently assured him all conditions set for approval of the plan will be- fulfilled before the deadline in October. The Administrative-' Assistant was requested to write a letter sometime in August to Mr. Morris , Gordon Hedlund and Mr. Burlingame telling them of the Commission' s concerns , es- pecial'ly regarding compliance with landscaping and parking conditions set by the Council when this usage was approved under the PUD and to remind them that the existing signage for the shop was intended only as a temporary measure and .that it.will. very . likely have to be removed. The Chairman then thanked Mr. . Berg for the maps and minute documenta- tion he had submitted for -this meeting as well as .all .the research he does in advance of each Commission meeting, which Mr. Bjorklund personally finds invaluable. The new sign ordinance may possibly be returned for Commission consideration- in August, the Chairman reported. Mr. Sopcinski said he foresees the City entering the same type of quagmire with the approval of the Danelski solar addition as with the sign ordinance. He believes the City was "hoodwinked" into dis- . regarding ordinance requirements for setbacks for an addition for which testimony was drastically -altered between hearings. As an example, he recalled the first claim.-made by .Mr. D.anelski that the larger addition he first proposed would reduce his heating costs by 30% which was reduced- by the architect .at -the --next hearing to the claim that the smaller addition .would . "be self sufficient with perhaps a surplus to serve the rest of the house' The Planning Commission member indicated he saw the many cautions. published to make people aware of unfounded claims for solar systems- were ignored in the decision to approve. the variances . In the same context, the question of whether the Commission has it in its power to accept a vote by. proxy. was fully explored. Mr. Sopcinski believes in instances where data has- been provided at a previous hearing at which a member is present, that member' s vote. should be recognized if. he or she is unable ,to attend the meeting at which a final vote is taken. Mr. Enrooth. disagreed, saying the input provided during each meeting has . to be utilized for an informed decision and Mr. Peterson indicated .he doubted whether Roberts Rules of Order permit proxy votes . Mr. Jones insisted the Chairman goes out of his way to include any testimony given him by an absent member entered into each discussion and to assure their opinions are con sidered in .the decision making. The general consensus was that Mr. Berg should pursue the issue to a. limited degree and report ,back to the Commission at a later date regarding proxy .votes for the Commission. He was also requested to bring any further data regarding solar concepts he receives to the attention of the Commission members . =6- The Council's decision to fund a research of the redevelopment options for the Walbon property on Highway 8 was then reported by Mr. Berg. The possibilities for continuing the commercial development on the site were then explored .with Mr. Enrooth commenting "there isn't an awful lot ,of residential- in that area along the highway" . Mr. Jones wondered whether it might not be better for the City, rather than to get involved in large development costs , to pursue the possibilities of issuing municipal bonds to provide mortgage money for the property. The Council hopes the study may provide an impetus for development of that underutilized property by the private. sector, according to Mr. Berg, who 'also reported the Council had indicated the presentation of the study will be fully publicized and residents invited to participate in the discussions. Chairman Bjorklund requested the new City Manager be .invited to attend the first Planning Commission meeting he can -and said he had already suggested he be made aware of the importance of continuing the excellent staff support given the Commission in the past. He also cautioned Commission members against hesitating to differ with the Council decisions whether or not precedents are set. He went on to say it is the responsibility of the Commission members to consider each proposal which comes before them independently. Motion by Chairman Bjorklund -and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to adjourn the meeting at 10 :05 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. • Respectfully submitted , Helen J. Crowe Secretary