Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08171982 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 102073 BOX: TZ Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1982 Document: PL MINUTES 08171982 • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 17 , 1982 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jones at 7 :35 P .M. Present for roll call : Zawislak, Bowerman, Jones , Bjorklund, Makowske, . and Sopcinski . Absent: Peterson. Also present: Ron Berg; Administrative Assistant. Mr. Jones noted that in the July 20 , 1982 Planning. Commission minutes , page 3, paragraph 5 , line 11, Mr. Bjorklund was incorrectly referred to as an "estimator" . This should be changed to "-appraiser" . Motion by Mr. Bowerman and .seconded .by Mrs . Makowske to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 20 , 1982 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bowerman was designated to represent the Planning Commission at the Council meeting scheduled for August 24 , 1982 . • Mr. Jones opened the hearing on the Elmwood Lutheran sign variance request. Mr. Berg gave an .overview of the request, stating the proposal was a fencelike free standing sign; treated stained brown lumber; yellow letters ; 5 feet high by 8 feet long. The lettering, or message, would simply state Elmwood Lutheran and be placed on two 2" X 8" X 8 ' boards , two sided. He also stated the proposer, Rev. Joseph Valtinson, had al:teredr2 his original proposal wherein he requested two .signs that would have been located one off the northernly driveway and one off the southernly driveway , to, one sign to be located ..on that area between the driveways . In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Berg stated the reason for the variance is that free standing signs are presently not allowed; that he intends to propose that this type of signage would be allowable under the new sign ordinance ; and that the only other signage at the site was another free standing monument sign located near the church. Rev. Valtinson spoke next stating the reason for the request was simply that he needed it for identification because the church is - set back so far from - the roadways and consequently many people are missing the turnoffs . He further stated the present sign is set back way too far to be of any use as identification. • Chairman Jones closed the hearing at 7 :55 P .M. and discussion among the Commission members commenced. t -2- Mr. Bowerman. .stated his concern of setting a precedent that would allow two freestanding signs on a property. Mr. Bjorklund shared that • concern but also felt that because of the church 's siting, the distance from the residential neighbors , and the screening of the residential area to the north, there is enough uniqueness to warrant another sign. Mr. Sopcinski voiced his concern about this type of free standing sign, noting that in the past year the Commission had discussed and allowed only monument--type free standing' signs . ' - Further discussion ensued among the members on the types of. free standing signs allowed in the past with agreement reached that monument-type signs are preferred and variances granted .for these in the past. In response to an inquiry by the Commission, .Rev. Valtinson_ said he would be agreeable to modify his plan to -a monument-type structure. - Discussion-.ensued ' among .the members with particularly Mr. Bowerman questioning the reasonableness of . requiring the proposer to build a more expensive, =•monument-type sign when other type signs are in existence in the City and noting the. proposed sign is akin to the signs erected by the City. Mr. Sopcinski noted and with the consensus of the Commission, that the .monument-type sign has been the requirement for acceptance for everyone else in the past couple years . Motion. by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mrs . Makowske . to recommend approval of a two-sided monument sign and that said monument sign . conform to the definition proposed of .a monument sign-which definition • is : a sign mounted on a full scale base with no visibility between the bottom of the sign and the base on which it isattached, because - granting of the .variance will not be detrimental to the public wel- fare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood or City. - a particular hardship to the . applicant would result if the strict letter of the regulations were adhered to as the existing signage is inadequate for proper identification of the site. - the conditions upon which the application for a variance is . based. are unique to the parcel of. land for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same land-use classification, noting: a. the signage will have no appreciable visual impact on neighboring_ residential properties and also noting the end, part of the sign faces the closest residential property. b. the existing signage - is. extremely distant- from the . road and does not provide adequate identification. c. there is no signage on the building. d. no . lighting is proposed. • e. the sign would adequately identify the church which is a semi- public entity. f. the proposed .monument sign would be allowable under the new proposed sign ordinance. -3- Mr. Bjorklund offered an amendment to the recommendation which was • accepted by the seconder, Mrs . Makowske, that: the sign is to be no more than 5 feet in height and is to be placed between the driveways , on private property. Voting on the motion: Aye: Bowerman, Makow.ske, Jones , Bj.orklund, Sopcinski . Nay : Zawislak. Motion carried. Chairman Jones re-opened the hearing on the Parkins variance request at 8 : 30 -P.M. Mr. Berg related the City Council had referred . the matter back to the Planning Commission. for the purpose- of further clarifying the condi- tion of hardship. He also confirmed the Parkins were unable to attend the July 27th City Council meeting when their matter was heard by that body. Mr. Walter C. Parkins , 3105 - 39th Avenue N.E.' spoke on his request for the 5 foot rear .yard-= variance for the purpose of constructing a 22 ' X 24 ' garage addition. Mr. Parkins presented to the Commission signed letters from three of his adjoining neighbors which letters stated therein they had no objections to the proposed addition. • Specifically, Mr. Parkins directed the. attention- of the Commission to the letter signed by the .Scalise ' s who live immediately to the east of the Parkins .. Therein is stated that if the Parkins were required to build 5 feet toward 39th Avenue N.E. to compensate for the variance sought, this .would infringe on the sunlight which their backyard presently enjoys . Mr. Parkins further noted it would also infringe on the sunlight which they presently receive in their home. He continued by stating that: City ordinances do not prohibit 48 foot long garages ; - the house has a substantial front yard setback; that technically he could build a. 48 foot garage without the need for a variance but this would require also building on the front of the garage which would result in a monetary hardship for him and again, cause an infringement and hardship for .his neighbors . Mr. Jones stated he had reviewed the subject site and agreed with Mr. Parkins ' statement that to build forward would infringe on the sunlight in the house of the neighbors to the east. Mr. Bjorklund reiterated his objections as stated in the July meeting to the proposal .specifically . stating his feeling that a 43 foot garage is of sufficient size; -he sees denying the request would 'be more an inconvenience than hardship; and that the size of the proposed structure .might invite its use for manufacturing or light industrial purposes ; the storage of more than -permitted amounts of petroleum products ; or for some type of living arrangement. Mrs . Mak-owske . indicated her objection to a new motion by stating that no new .information had been presented - that the Commission knew all these facts a month ago. -4- Mr. Jones stated the reason the issue was before the Commission_ was that the City Council requested them to- strengthen the motion.. • Motion by Mr. Jones and .seconded by Mr. Bowerman. to recommend the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission motion of July 20 , 1982 for the additional following, reasons :- the - structure could be built without a. variance, but it would create the hardship to the proposer of closing off.* a living room window and .if built 5 feet forward, it would block the neighbors to the east patio and deck area .from. the late afternoon sun. Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones Bowerman, Zawislak. Nay : Makowske, Bjorklund. Abstain: Sopcinski . Motion carried. Mr. Jones called for a..recess at 9 :10 P .M. The Planning Commission reconvened ' at 9 :15 P.M. The Planning Commission_ reviewed a .portion of the redraft of the new proposed sign ordinance presented by -Mr. Berg. It was agreed further • review would be conducted in September when the remaining redraft is presented. Mr. Zawislak requested staff view .a property located on Roosevelt Court for possible violation of - the City Ordinance regarding abandoned cars . Mr. Berg agreed this would be done. The Planning. Commission members agreed on the -date-.of September 7 , 1982 to hold a special Planning Commission- meeting for the purpose of holding public hearings to. review. proposed ordinance amendments relating to entertainment establishments . Mr. Berg reported the. City had received a request for a motorcycle parts store and which. would also include installation and some repair work. He further related that ,staff , on the advice of the City Attorney had told the proposer such use was not allowed under the City Zoning Ordinance and he would have to..request an ordinance amendment if he wished to pursue the matter. Mr. Jones reported he had attended the last H.R.A. meeting and believed many of the upcoming issues will be matters of Planning Commission concern. He suggested .and the other members concurred - that a representative of the Planning Commission attend .future meetings and then report back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jones stated he will attend H.R.A. meetings in August; -Mr. Zawislak stated he will • attend the September meetings ; Mrs . Makowske stated she will attend the October meetings . Mr. Jones then gave a brief report on the H.R.A. meeting -he had attended. -5- Mr. Berg reported_ .th at. Mr.. Kenny Lee had discussed the Craig Morris • fence issue with him and that Mr. Lee has now agreed with. Gordon Hedlund to install the entire fence required for: that property. Mr. Berg further reported he is scheduled . to. meet with, DIr. Lee and the Sears fence salesman the next morning. Mr. Berg also reported the senior: highrise proposal had been reviewed by Metro Council .and forwarded to the local HUD office with the high ranking of third. Motion by Mrs . -Makowske and seconded by 'Mr. Sopcinski to "adjourn. Motion. carkied unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9 : 54 P .M. Respectfully submitted, Ronald O. Berg . Administrative Assistant