Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07201982 { , • i Meeting Sheet f 102075 i i S Box: 21 { Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1982 Document: PL MINUTES 07201982 s n,0 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 20 , 1982 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 7 : 35 P.M. Present for roll call: Zawislak, Bowerman, Jones , Bjorklund and Peterson. Absent: Makowske and Sopcinski . Also present: Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Peterson to approve as submitted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held June 15 , 1982 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Peterson was designated to .represent the Commission at the Council meeting scheduled for July 27 , 1982 . At 7 : 36 P.M. , the Chairman opened the public hearing on the 12 foot land transfer, which will convey by subdivision without platting , property from 3909 Silver Lake Road to the property east of that property, owned by Kenneth Lee at 3904 Penrod Lane . He read the notice • of the hearing which had gone out, as required by .City Ordinance , to all abutting ..property owners of record within 350 feet of the affected property . No one present reported failure to receive this notice or objected to its contents . Mrs . Makowske arrived at 7 : 37 P.M. and participated -in the discussion which followed -related to the fence required by the Hedlund PUD to separate these two properties . . Mr. Lee said he has already made plans to erect a five foot, nine gauge wire fence on the new property line to assure a more durable fence will be put in than that which the proprietor of Craig & Company shop at 3909 Silver Lake Road had planned. He said he wants the additional land because his existing lot is only 100 feet deep and tried, without success , to get another eight feet from Mr. Hedlund, who still owns the property , so his property would be in alignment with the rest of the lot lines along Penrod. Mr. Lee said he wants the additional 12 feet so he can assure the existing oak tree on that site is not cut down-, as he understands might have happened if Mr. P4orris. retained .the land. The application for the land transfer had been signed by only Mr. Lee and Mr. Hedlund and Mr. Berg confirmed that Mr. Hedlund is still the owner of record as far as the City is concerned. In his June 8 , 1982 letter to Mr. Berg, the City Attorney had indicated he foresees no problem with the conveyance in regard to the Hedlund PUD and answered specific questions raised by the Administrative Assistant, including those related to the fence. -2- Neither Mr: Hedlund. nor Mr. Morris were in attendance and no one else appeared to speak either for or against the land transfer. • Mr. Jones questioned whether the fence would not -have to be constructed on Mr. . Hedlund' s property in the manner in which it was specified in the Hedlund PUD. He reminded-'-the Commission that the PUD originally called for an eight. foo.t high redwood. fence which was designed to screen the single family homes on Penrod from the commercial development approved for the Silver Lake Road portion of the site. He said he personally believes the proposed .fence should be built with .slats to assure the 80 percent opacity required by the PUD. The hearing was recessed from 8 :00 P.M.. to 8 : 12 P.M. so Mr. Berg could research previous references tothe fence and whether or' not the fence should be slatted. When the hearing was resumed , Mr. Bowerman indicated .he be.lieved the discussion should be confined to consideration of the land transfer and Mr. Jones agreed that staff should handle the fence matter. The public hearingwas closed at 8:21 P .M. Motion by Por. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Peterson to recommend Council .approval of the subdivision .without platting .of a 12 foot strip of land described as the east 12 feet of Lot 11 , Block 1, Penrod Addi- tion, as requested by Hedlund, Lee, et al, from the .property currently known as 3909 -Si.lver Lake Road to that at 3904 Penrod Lane , as long as the transfer in no way affects the Hedlund PUD requirements , specifically • those related to fencing, landscaping and parking. The Planning Commission bases its recommendation of approval on the findings that: (1) There was no public opposition demonstrated against the transfer. (2) The transfer is not anticipated to have an adverse impact on the abutting properties .and would not be considered to in any way diminish the conditions set by the PUD. (3) The existing large oak tree on the site would probably be saved with the transfer. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Lee told the Commission he is still concerned with the type of fence which may go in between his property and the hair styling shop, if he doesn ' t build it himself. He believes the fence he proposed to build would be far superior to those built north of him on Penrod by Mr. Brickner,, and that the landscaping required by the PUD for the rear of the property at 3909. Silver Lake Road should provide adequate opacity . At 8: 32 P.11. , the public hearing on the _Midland Park Addition plat was opened with the Chairman reading the notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property owners within 350 feet of the site in the • office park. No one appeared to speak either for or against the proposal and it was agreed the discussion should be deferred until later in the meeting when the parties involved in the request might show up. . -3- Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Zawislak to table action on the request for the replatting .of the Midland .Office Building parcel. • Motion carried unanimously . _ n At 8: 34 P.M. , Chairman Jones opened the public hearing on request from Walter C. and Bonnie Parkins for a five foot variance to the City Zoning Ordinance requiring rear. yards in residential districts . to be no less than 25 feet, so they can .double the size of the existing garage on- their property. at 3105 39th Avenue N.E. The notice of the hearing which had gone out to all abutting property owners of record within 200 feet of the Parkins ' property was read. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or, objected to its contents . In his July 15th memorandum, Mr. Berg had indicated he believes the proposed addition would have a minimal impact on the adjoining properties and had recommended approval of the variance. He had informed the -Commission that there is-- a six foot redwood fence around the entire yard which would lessen the. impact of the structure on the homes on Macalaster and Shamrock, both .of which face the opposite direction. Photos of the Parkins ' back yard were distributed showing the above- ground swimming pool located there. Mr. Berg reiterated that the pool is not in conformance -with the City .Ordinance requiring pools . be built no closer than 10 feet from a major structure or frost footings since it is only four feet from the existing garage walls and would .be only three feet from the proposed addition and he reiterated his reasons for recommending the City should waive the distance requirement. • Mr. Parkins told the Commission members he needs a 22 by 48 foot garage expansion so he 'can better provide storage space for four automobiles , four bicycles , a boat motor, mower and snow blower and other equipment his family has managed to accumulate over the years . The construction costs for a 24 foot addition are the same as for 18 feet, and Mr. Par- kins said it would be much more expensive to build the addition on the front of the house because of the roofline. Mr. Scalise , his neighbor to the east, told Mr. Parkins he doesn' t care if he puts on the addi- tion, as long as he doesn' t build it on the front of his house, and cut off his sunlight. Mr. Bjorklund commented that in all the years he has been an estimator, he has never seen, anywhere in the metropolitan area, a garage as long as the one in this proposal : He believes the neighbors must have some concerns about the size of the garage and is personally concerned that a structure of that size might become a temptation for a future owner to utilize for some commercial or residential purpose for which it was not designed. Mr. Parkins presented a copy of the notice of the hearing which he said had been signed by. his .next door neighbors , Lowell and Lois Gearhart , 3909 Macalaster Drive, and Linda and William Scalise , 3900 Shamrock Drive, as an indication of their approval of the request. Mrs . Parkins said another neighbor,- John Snider, 3908 Shamrock Drive ,. had received the notice but he and Mrs . Snider had left for Europe before she had an opportunity to contact them for a written indication that they not • oppose the project. -4- Mr. Parkins disputed Mr. Bjorklund's assumptions saying he couldn ' t • see how five additional feet on the garage would increease the potential for illegal use of the building which the City could easily prevent in the first place. He insisted the only reason he wanted to expand the garage was to get needed storage space and not to increase the value of his property. Mr. Zawislak believed the fact that. the Parkins were not going to build on the front of their home because of the adverse effect it might have on their neighbors should justify let- ting them build to the rear of the property, to which Mr. Bjorklund responded that he doubted this was the main reason the addition is proposed for the rear of. the existing garage since, if the addition were built in front, two windows on the house would have to be removed, and as Mr. Parkins had indicated, the project would cost much more. Noone else .appeared to speak for .or against the variance and the hearing was closed at 8: 57 P .M. M.r. Peterson said he can sympathize with the Parkins ' need for additional. garage space. Mr. Bowerman views this as a relatively minor request compared to some others which have been granted recently . He believes the Commission might ,be causing a hardship for the applicants if they are not permit- ted to provide the space they need at a minimal cost. He pointed out that no opposition from the neighbors had been demonstrated during the hearing and is certain any potential illegal uses of the property • are controllable under existing City ordinance. Mr. Bjorklund indicated he would oppose- granting a variance he con- siders would be only an inconvenience , and not a hardship for the Parkins., if not granted. He pointed out that the proposed garage will be the same size as the house and said he could see no reason to grant a variance when the addition could be built five feet shorter without a variance. He was still concerned that the size of the structure might invite its use for manufacturing or light industrial purposes; the storage of -more than the permitted amount of petroleum products ; or for some type of living arrangement. Mrs. Makowske said with automobiles downgraded to 18 - foot lengths , she believes a four car garage could easily be provided in a 43 foot long addition and she has failed to see where the conditions set for grant- ing a variance of this type had been satisfied for this request. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and .seconded by Mr. Peterson to recommend Council approval of a five foot variance to the City Zoning Ordinance rear yard setback requirements which would allow the construction of a 22 foot wide by 24 foot long garage addition, as proposed by Mr. and Mrs . Walter Parkins , 20 feet from the rear lot line of the property described' as Lot 11 , Block 5 , Moundsview Acres Second Addition, find- ing that: (.l) five feet is a relatively minor variance to be granted in the light of the need that has been demonstrated; (2) the variance • would not appear to create a hardship or have an adverse impact on abutting properties ; but, (3). would instead permit an economically better method of construction for the addition. -5- In response to Mr. Berg's recommendation that the Commission address • the non-conformance of" the existing swimming pool , . the Chairman offered the following friendly amendment which was accepted by both the maker and the second: The Commission also believes the City - ordinance requirement that- there must be at least ten feet between a swimming pool and a major structure should be waived in this case because the garage is not the major structure on the Parkins property and the topography- of the site would appear to eliminate any possibility of damage from leakage . Voting on theamended motion: Ayer Bowerman, Peterson, and Zawislak. Nay: Bjorklund and Makowske. Abstention : Jones . Motion carried. The Chairman then reopened the public hearing which had been tabled during the June 15th Commission meeting so accurate measurements could be taken .of the front yard setbacks for Orville Thompson ' s property at 3302 Belden Drive. In his July 13th memorandum, Mr. Berg confirmed that the existing garage on the Thompson property is 39 feet from the front lot line and with a. 16 foot garage addition will require • only a seven foot. front yard setback variance to the City Zoning Ordinance as requested. Mr. Berg confirmed that Mr. Thompson's neighbor' s home on the corner of Belden is set five feet forward from the existing structure on the . Thompson property and the impact of the garage addi- tion on the home at 3304 'Belden can be expected to be lessened by the curvature of. Belden at that- point. Only Mr. Thompson was present and he did not speak.. The hearing was closed at 9 : 30 P.M. Motion by Mr. Zawislak. and seconded by Mrs . Makowske to recommend Council approval. of the seven foot variance to the City Zoning Ordinance requirement that front yards have setbacks of 30 feet, which would permit the construction of a garage addition proposed by Orville Thompson which would be 23 feet from the property line of Lot 13 , Block 1, Belden Terrace Second Addition, finding that: (.1). On a curvature--of the nature of this street, the effect of a pro- truding addition is less detrimental to- the adjacent property than on a .straight street. (2) The .addition would not appear to have an- adverse impact on their properties or interfere with the sightline for Mr. Thompson 's neighbors. (3) No neighbor opposition to the variance was demonstrated during any of the hearings on the proposal. • Motion carried unanimously. -6- Motion by Mr. Zawislak and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to move up on the agenda the presentation by Karin and Dale Nelson of their plans for an • earth home to be constructed on the Herlitz property across 33rd Avenue N.E. from the City Hall . Motion carried unanimously.- Mr. Berg had included in the agenda packet information dealing with zoning for earth sheltered buildings and confirmed the proposed structure appears to require no variances to the City Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Nelson said he has an option to buy contingent upon no major opposition from the City to the proposal. He showed a color brochure of an earth home which closely resembles the one he proposes to con- struct and indicated passive solar energy- would not be necessary because the home itself is so energy efficient, he estimates it would take only a cord and a half of wood to heat it for a cold season. Mr. Nelson said the heights of the homes around him would not be of major concern to him. Mr. Bjorklund told him the turnaround he proposes for the Silver Lake Road side of the property would eliminate any problem he might have exiting onto that busy thoroughfare. Commission members indicated they were very pleased with the plans and thanked the Nelsons for bringing their plans to them. Mr. Berg informed the Commission members that the rewriting-6f-the proposed sign ordinance is essentially completed .and the document should be in their hands so they would have a few weeks to review it before the next Commission meeting. The fact that the •signs on the property at 3909 Silver Lake Road are lit all day was not considered a .concern of the City. However, the report that the lights were still on at 10 : 30 Saturday night prompted the following action: Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded .by Mr. Zawislak to recommend that Council direct staff to issue a citation for violation of the agree- ment related to lighting the Craig & Company property after business hours . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Zawislak indicated he believes that, as soon as the Public Works Department can do so, they should .erect a fence to the rear of the same property , according to PUD specifications , with the proceeds of the Letter of Credit , so the desired screening of the commercial from the residential on Penrod can be accomplished. Mr. Berg noted that plantings will be utilized to provide the required opacity for the townhomes being constructed immediately to the north of this property . Motion by Mr. Zawislak and seconded by Mr. Bjorklund to recommend to the Council that the fence on the property at 3909 Silver Lake Road • be constructed .within the next 30 days and that it conform to the Hedlund PUD requirements that it be six feet tall and provide 80 percent opacity and to suggest that any deviation from these requirements -7- should be addressed at a p.ublic .hearing. Mr... Berg, however, felt that issue had been discussed at the City. Council meeting of April 27th and that the consensus then was slatting of the fence was not required. Motion carried unanimously. Robert J. Klukas , Terry Schuster and Gary P4yre, representing Group "W" (Westinghouse)_ Cable T.V.. who .had bought out Teleprompter., were present to introduce themselves .to the Commission members and to discuss the system construction schedule with them. Mr... Schuster, General Operating Manager of the company, answered Mr. Bjorklund' s questions related to placement of the trunk lines by telling him the cable lines will be attached to 'existing utility poles and in. all cases, the cable .lines will be at least 12 inches above telephone lines . -Mr. P2yre , Construction . Coordinator, said the plans call for putting cable lines . underground only where other utility lines are underground or in new developments . The Chairman advised himthis would be in conflict with the City 's Comprehensive Plan which requires any new utility lines to be put underground and suggested ' he confer with Mr. Berg about the differences since the Administrative Assistant is very knowledgeable about cable , having served on the City 's Cable Committee . Mr. Bjorklund left the meeting at 10 : 21 P.M. Mr. Schuster told Mr. Zawis.lak .any- owner. of a television set which has • Channel 3 on it would be ab.le ..to. pick up any of the 80 channels which would be available when the service is in. He also told how the cable company would handle access to. apartmen.t complexes and property which does not have utility lines . He gave a short history of himself and his family telling the Commission members he has bought a home in New Brighton .and would always be available to discuss any questions they might have related to the new system. Although no one.-had appeared to provide input into the consideration of the Midland Park Addition platting, it was agreed that .Mr. Berg had provided adequate background material for a recommendation , and the public hearing was reopened at 10 : 34 P.M. Mr. Berg explained the replatting is a continuation of a process which was apparently dropped .two years. ago by the proponents without final platting being accomplished. He. said the 60 foot land transfer is from a part of -the T. K. Gray parking lot to- the Midland Office Building property and. the platting is necessary to correct the legal inconvenience of having a lot line running through the office building and for tax purposes . The hearing was closed at 10 : 35 P.M. Motion by Mr. Zawislak and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to recommend Council approval of the preliminary platting of Lots 3 and 4 , Block 2 , St. • Anthony Office Park Addition: (also identified as 2817 Anthony Lane South) as the Midland Park Addition which would combine two lots and officially transfer a 60 foot 7. 212 . 46 foot tract of land to the westerly abutting property. �8• , Motion carried unanimously. • Motion by Mrs . Makowske and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn the meeting at 10 : 37 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Helen Crowe , Secretary