Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07191983 ,4 Meeting Sheet 101996 1 BOX: 21 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1983 Document: PL MINUTES 07191983 ;1 r { • � J • r4 i { '1 - •i CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 19 , 1983 The meeting was called to order by Chair Makowske at 7: 35 P.M. Present for roll- call: Zawislak, Bowerman, Makowske , Bjorklund and Franzese. Wagner arrived a few minutes later. Also present: David Childs, City Manager. The following amendments were made to the minutes of the June 21st Commission meeting: Page 1, para. 7: Substitute "shorter than originally proposed for a total of 43 feet" for "shorter than the 43 foot tall building originally proposed" . Page 2 , para. 1: Substitute "equal distance from" for "would be close to" in line 8. Page 2 , para. 2 : Substitute "could" for "would" in line 4 . Page 4, para. 1: Substitute "northeast" for "northwest" in line 3. • Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Franzese / to approve as amended the minutes for the Planning Commission meet- ing held June 21, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Bowerman will report the minutes of the meeting at the Council meeting July 26th. At 7: 40 P.M. the Chair opened the public hearing to consider a condi- tional use permit which would allow the Elmwood Lutheran Church to add on to the existing church building located at 3615 Chelmsford Road by reading the notice which had gone out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and had been. published in the Bulletin July 7, 1983. No one present reported failure to receive this notice or objected to its content. Mr. Childs reported that traditionally churches have to meet the same setback requirements as are set .for residential dwellings , and this proposed addition of 4300 square feet to the east of the existing_ church structure conforms to all parking setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He told Commissioner Bjorklund he does not believe guidelines have been established- in the City Ordinance dealing with ( • '� set standards of height as related to setback. The -Manager also confirmed that the existing church structure location was approved after the 1962 Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The application for the -2- permit had .been made- by Dick- Jones , 5157 - -6th Street N.E. , a trustee for the church and a member of- the Building Committee .and Mr. Jones Oi was present .to answer questions about the proposal. ' He reiterated that the addition would increase .the existing sanctuary seating capacity to 300 , would provide l0 new classrooms , a kitchen and an assembly (Fellowship) room with a_ split level structure to be con- structed immediately behind the sanctuary. The -church trustee told of the rapid growth of the Elmwood congregation under the leadership of Pastor Valtinson and the desperate need for additional Sunday School classrooms which would..be met temporarily by renting six rooms in the Wilshire- building this winter .while the expansion is being constructed. Mr. Jones assured the Commissioners that it would not be necessary to remove any of -the evergreens or bushes which provide a buffer for theadjoining properties from the existing parking lot when that lot is enlarged five feet to provide parking for 148 cars. The Manager confirmed .that the City Ordinance only requires 1.20 parking spaces for an expansion of. the size proposed. He also reported the applicant had notified him that 'he had misunderstood the meaning of Condition #2 in the application and .had mistakenly- answered that question in the negative . Mr. Jones' also confirmed that the architect who had drawn the site plans had inadvertantly omitted the existing garage from the drawings . When Commissioner Bowerman inquiredwhy an addition would not be built across the back of the existing structure, making a square building which would not so adversely affect the properties immediately • to the south, whose lot lines would be. only 15 feet from the structure, the church trustee indicated the .building committee had considered other alternatives but had concluded the expansion of the roof line to the east would be more logical since the sanctuary had been built with a stud wall and -not concrete, so such an expansion could be made, and sous not to -foreclose the possibility of adding another sanctuary on the west when the congregation could afford that improvement. There was a discussion of the drop .in grade elevations between the church'. property and the adjoining lots to the east and the possibility of adverse effect of water runoff from the new structure on those properties . The retention of the opaque windows in the Fellowship Hall to provide privacy for the neighbors , .provision of accessibility for the handicapped, and buffering to prevent headlights from shining on the neighbors ' homes .when night services are held were also explored. Erling M. Weiberg, 3409 — .36th Avenue N.E. said his property would not be adversely affected by the expansion but he was present to support the concerns of his neighbors about the expansion. Don Esau who owns the property at 3505= 36th Avenue N.E. , just south of the church, reiterated the points made in the letter to the Plan- ning Commission which he gave the- secretary for inclusion in the minutes which stated Mr. Esau' s belief that the proposed addition (\ • 1 would "substantially reduce my quality of life and also reduce the value of my property" and indicated the resident .intends to take legal action if those judgments are confirmed. Mr. Esau invited- the -3- Commission members to sit on the. deck he had. built on his home to improve his view to see how that view and air quality would be blocked by the church addition. He was also .concerned that the run- off from that building would ruin the planted .areas to the back of his property. The resident told of the many ways in which he had supported the church which at first was "very poor" and of his dis- appointment that. church officials hadn' t discussed their expansion plans with him.. He indicated the neighbors had always understood any expansion of the church property would -be to the north where the 150 foot. wall would only face the school. Mr. Esau also contended the addition would not be of benefit to the City if adjoining property values and taxes were decreased. Mr. and Mrs . Lawrence Antczak whose backyard at 3501 - 36th ,Avenue N.E. is about 75% blocked- off by the .existing structure, said, with the expansion, their property would be completely cut off and the pro- blems they now experience with runoff would be intensified. They joined Mr. Esau in saying .they .supported an expansion of .the church in any other direction than proposed and were . disappointed that they had not been consulted about the proposed addition. Mr. Dick Jones indicated he appreciated the neighbors.' comments and apologized for not taking the initiative for talking to them, which had had believed another church. of.ficial had. done. He said the church needs the added space primarily for classrooms and the original plans which had been referred to that evening, calling for �•` an expansion to the north, had .been drawn by a high school student and if followed, would prevent the addition of .a new sanctuary later when the church could afford it.. The trustee said he would talk to the architect to see what could be done to prevent the runoff onto the adjacent properties and would be open to suggestions from the neighbors about the plans . Commissioner Bowerman recalledthe questions raised about the obstruc- tion of sunlight by the elderly housing structure on Kenzie Terrace and wondered what effect 34 feet of obstruction would have across the back of the adjacent properties, even though the church is north of the adjacent properties . Since the church official had indicated the final plans would not be submitted for approval before the annual meeting in January, Commissioner Jones asked him if he would be amenable to tabling the Commission decision for a month in which time the proposal could be presented to the neighbors at a meeting between the groups . Mr. Dick Jones indicated he would welcome an opportunity to invite the neighbors to meet with the building committee and-.the .pastor to try to work out their differences. Mr. Esau then indicated he also was happy to hear the Commission member' s suggestion since he perceives the church .has done a wonderful job of bringing its message to the community and he had not understood why the decision had been made to obstruct his property. -4- At 8: 30 P.M. , the Chair closed the public hearing , for consideration by the Commission. Commissioner. B.jorklund indicated he would oppose tabling the matter if no major change in the proposal were to be made. He recalled previous instances where neighbor opposition had atrophied with time . He believed certain areas of concern about . the proposal had not been addressed, including what he perceives is a departure from traditional practice in the -City - of having at least 150 feet of. backyard between dwellings . Mr. Esau reported his. home is only about 40 feet from the lot line. Commissioner .Bjorklund then indicated he would like to , hear more about what the City ' s liability would be if it permitted a development where. the runoff caused damage to a neighbor 's property. Commissioner Wagner indicated lie believed church officials would have ample time to work out any differences -with their neighbors . in the month between meetings which tabling thematter would provide. Mr. Childs said that all six adjacent property owners closest to the proposed addition would be notified .of the continuation of the hearing . Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to continue the public hearing on the Elmwood- Lutheran .Church expan- sion plans to 7: 30 P.M. during the. Planning Commission meeting August 16, 1983, to give the church building committee an opportunity of working out their mutual concerns about those plans with their neighbors and to report back any adjustments in the plans which resulted from those meetings . Motion carried unanimously., At 8: 45 P.M. the Chair opened the public hearing to consider granting a conditional use permit which would allow for the operation of a ' non-alcoholic bar in a commercial district .for the property previously operated as -Chick's Billiards at 2523 Harding Street N.E. , by reading the notice of the hearing which had been mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and published in the Bulletin July 7th. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content. The. Manager confirmed that he had received no calls or letters related to the proposal from any .of those who had received the notice. He indicated the applicant, Robert Slick, 3400 Buchanan Street N.E. might want video games sometime in. the future but these would not be transferable from Chick' s under the City Ordinance. No permit for music or dancing is required under the City Ordinance, he added. Mr.- Slick said he would be renting directly from Mr. Saliterman, since the shopping center owner considered the property to be abandoned by the Chick' s proprietors . He said his establishment would be named "The Alternative" since it would provide an alternative to alcoholic beverages and atmosphere normally found in other types of bars . He anticipates there is a real need for an establishment of this type \ since none has been provided closer than Blaine and told of the successful operation of a similar facility, the Dry Dock, on Highway 10 . -5- His hours of operation would be from - 4 :00 .P.M. to .Midnight, Sunday through Thursday and .4:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. on Friday and Saturday . His establishment would cater to adults over 18 years of age and beverages would be - almost the same as other bars with the exclusion of alcohol, according to Mr. Slick. . He had attached a copy of the rules he would enforce with his application along-with - an explanation of the type of facility he would run. The two pool tables he would have would not be coin operated and .would require no license and, although A.A. members could be expected to come to the bar, there would be no regularly scheduled meetings. Only sandwiches cooked in the microwave oven and snack food would be served incidentally, Mr. Slick said, since he is not interestedin providing meal service. .He said he would have no objections to having his permit reviewed in a year'stime because his operation would be owner controlled and .he intends to see to it that the establishment doesn't become a nuisance for the neighbors who live so close to the shopping center . He told Jerry Kelly, 2809 Pahl Avenue, who is a merchant in the adjoining center, that he wouldn' t tolerate any disturbances in his parking lot. The hearing closed at 9 : 03 P.M. Commissioner Bowerman indicated he was concerned that telling Mr. Slick his operation would be reviewed in one year might restrict Mr. Slick in his investments and from conducting his business in an orderly fashion. Commissioner Franzese agreed a review did not seem • necessary since the ordinance already provided a .means of handling noise and nuisance transgressions . Commissioner Jones indicated he believed the review stipulation- would provide control the City needs to prevent the neighbors being disturbed. by music coming out an opened back door. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend the Council grant a conditional use permit to Robert Slick for the operation of a non-alcoholic bar "The Alternative" , as proposed, at 2523 Harding Street N.E. , finding that this would appear to be an acceptable use in a commercial district; adequate parking and access would be provided in that location; and that there would be sufficient distance between the facility and the adjoining residential neighborhood, but setting the following conditions for approval : (1) No more than two pool tables , which are not coin operated, would be allowed. (2) Only modest amounts of "snack type" food would be served. (3) The establishment would be open to the public and not become a private club. (4) Noise levels would not be a nuisance. The following friendly amendment by Commissioner Bowerman was accepted: • The Commission further stipulates that the conditional use permit should be reviewed by the City in one year and, in the event the -6- Council elects to not continue the permit, the .burden of responsibility should be on the Council to produce sufficient reason for not continu- ,, . ing the permit and not on the proprietor for justifying the continuance . Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed from 9 : 25 P.M. until 9 :30 P .M. when the public hearing to consider the .request for the necessary rezoning, conditionaluse permit and variances..to allow. the expansion from 765 square feet to 2 ,700 square feet of the Good Luck Cafe at 2700 Coolidge Street N.E. Chair Makowske read .the notice of hearing which had gone out to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and had been published in the Bulletin, July 7th. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content. Mr. Childs explained that because the existing restaurant is currently a non-conforming use because it is .sited on two lots , one commercially and the other R-1 (single family dwelling) zoned, it would be necessary for the City to (,1) rezone the single family lot to com- mercial to permit the expansion; (2) grant a conditional use permit to allow the expansion in a location which is less than 250 feet from a residentially zoned district; and, (3) to grant a variance which would permit -22 parking spaces where 85 are required by Ordinance. He noted the original application had been in error because the 34 parking spaces proposed had included part of the City right- of-way. The Manager reiterated his recommendation in his July 12th cover memorandum. in the agenda packet that he perceives only a minor expansion might be acceptable .on that ,particular lot, and that only if the applicant is able to provide adequate parking and buffering of his property from the adjoining residential neighborhood. Itis staff's recommendation that if the applicant is not willing to adjust his plans in this manner, the Commission should recommend Council denial. of the request. There was a general concurrence that the drawings which had been submitted with the application were inadequate and Commissioner Bjorklund attempted to draw with chalk a rough sketch of what. he perceived the proposal would be. Commissioner Bowerman protested this effort saying he believed the Commission could not make an educated decision on the proposal unless they had acceptable site plans including parking and landscaping drawn to scale. However, since there were about a dozen persons present to discuss the pro- posal, the Commissioner conceded the hearing should proceed so they could provide input to the consideration. The points of opposition to the proposal expressed in the July 13th letter from Dr. Preston and Sharon Williams were echoed -by residents who live near .the restaurant, including Jerry Kelly, John J. Jadinak, 2805 - 27th Avenue N.E. , who lives across the alley; . Donald Drusch and Bernadette Loahr who live at 2804 and 2800 Pahl Avenue N.E. , who agreed the expansion would have an adverse effect on their neighborhood. -7- Commissioner Jones summarized their opposition by telling the appli- cant, Kin Lun Kwong,. 5001. Clearview Avenue N.E. in Fridley, and his •' interpreter, Simon Kwong., that he perceived that Mr.. Kwong 's neighbors believe that in the two or three years he has been in business , his method of handling garbage and weeds have resulted in difficulties for them as well as the poorly maintained appearance of his property since he took over the cafe ,after the .Three Circles restaurant closed. He said the neighbors agree with Dr. Williams that his present level of business would not seem to justify such a large expansion and are concerned that if he..were ever to have 88 persons seated in his cafe, the 22 parking spaces he proposes to provide would be grossly inadequate andhis customers would end .up parking on the .adjacent residential streets, which are overutilized now. Simon .Kwong, who had written the letter of application which accompanied the requests , served as translator for Kin Lun Kwong 's responses in Chinese to these objections .. He said .the 'restaurant proprietor would erect a six foot wood fence to buffer his property from the neighbors on the one .side and a brickwall around the garbage area. He had no solution for the on-street parking potential. but indicated all . truck deliveries would be made from the front of the restaurant to avoid damage to Mr. .Jadinak' s cyclone fence along the alley. Mr. Kwon was unable to give an explanation of why he had not maintained his property in a better fashion in the past, but promised to "do better" in the future. Although his present clientele could not justify the expansion he proposes , Mr. .Kwon indicated through his interpreter that many potential Chinese customers had told him they would patronize his place of business if it weren't so small . Mr. Jadinak indicated he would hate to see the traffic problems the neighbors had experienced in the past with the previous drive-in, repeated with this business and said it cost him $275 to keep his dandelions cut, which he attributed to the lack of weed control on the restaurant property. Mr. Drusch indicated he believes the quality of life- in that neighbor- hood would be devalued if the expansion were permitted and traffic and parking on adjacent street increased to the point it had been with the Three Circles . He suggested there was adequate space for a cafe of this size in the adjoining St. Anthony Shopping Center and suggested the City work with Mr. Kwon to make such- a move feasible so the lot which is now zoned commercial could be rezoned to R-1 to match the surrounding district zoning. Mrs. Loahr indicated she would rather see a "growing fence" like a growing hedge provided as a buffer, saying, "The last thing we need in this neighborhood is another large wooden fence. " The hearing was closed at 10 : 25 P .M. Mr. Childs indicated he perceives the owners insistance that he would need only the two employees -to run the expanded business was �' ✓ not realistic and there should be some provision in the plan for • employee parking. He emphasized to the Commission members that there had been no evidence submitted which proved the City Ordinance or unique topographyof this particular parcel of land caused a hardship -8- —� which would justify granting either a conditional use permit or the \ requested variance for parking. He perceives the only hardship the restaurant proprietor would- experience was not being able to squeeze a larger cafe on an inadequately sized lot. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend Council denial of requests from Kin Lun Kwong for a conditional use permit, a parking space variance and rezoning of Lot 2, Block 6,. Murray Heights Addition (2700 Coolidge Street N.E. ) which would permit the expansion of the Good Luck Cafe from a 765 square foot structure to 2700 square feet as proposed, finding that the three conditions which must be satisfied for the conditional use permit and the variance had not been met in the proposal, and for the following .additional reasons: (1) The City Comprehensive Plan indicated- there -is a conflict of land use in this particular area of. the City and recommended that future land use should not be commercial. (2) Existing businesses in the same neighborhood are overutilizing on-street parking now. (3) The Metropolitan Transit Commission also overutilizes all available street parking in the immediate vicinity of the cafe . (4) Adequate snow storage was not addressed in the proposal. (.5) Adequate screening or adequacy of existing screening was not addressed in the proposal . (6) There is a strong possibility that the property values of homes to the southwest, northwest and north side of the subject property might be adversely affected by the proposal. (7) There was a strong indication that the traffic in the adjoining alley would be dangerously increased. (8) Onsite loading, employee parking, and storage of garbage had not .been adequately addressed. in the proposal. (9) The applicant had not provided .adequate site .plans including landscaping plans . (10) There was a significant departure from the standards which have been established in the community for commercial usage with the proposed pvosision of 22 parking spaces where 85 are required by City Ordinance. (11) Almost all available parking spaces provided on the site are required for the existing building. (12). Testimony from the neighbors indicated a poor history of building ;` • and land maintenance and weed and odor control with the existing business. -9- Motion carried. unanimously. , ,• Commissioner Bjorklund ,registered his complaint "as a resident" to the continuance of the advertising for the sale of leeches at 2817 Stinson Boulevard, even though the sign had been moved back off the City right-of-way, perceiving that type of signage is inappropriate in ' that neighborhood. He was concerned a precedent was being set for residential signs advertising Avon and Amway products , etc. When he brought up the subject of the poorly maintained Apache . Shopping Center sign on Stinson, Mr. Childs told him that sign is grandfathered in the Sign Ordinance and his conversations with the Apache management had indicated that sign would be included with an overall improvement program for the center proposed for the near future. When the proposal for a. sign identifying the services being provided in the Parkview facility which had been -submitted through the Community Services was considered, it was the general consensus of the Commission that only 'a monument type sign identifying only the school and the City would be acceptable . The Chair mentioned she could not recall the sign for the Apache Medical Center which the Council had approved over a Commission recommendation for denial being included in the listing of variances by staff . Mr. Childs agreed to check the matter out. In his July 13th memorandum, Mr. Childs had reported the Council 's inclination to have signage which would indicate the merchants in the St. Anthony Village Shopping Center were still in operation during the redevelopment period and he had attached a possible sign which listed those merchants. Commissioner Franzese wondered whether the "Now Leasing" sign attached to the center identification sign would not serve the same purpose. Several points of opposition werevoiced by Commission members , including the disbelief that a sign would do much to improve the business climate of the center, possible traffic hazards resulting 'from the small lettering on the proposed sign, and the possibility that the merchants in the other half of the commercial area might demand similar. temporary signage because of damage to business perceived from the redevelopment project. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he .would rather see such signage permitted under a political decision by the Council rather than a precedent-setting decision by the Planning Commission, which they might have to live with for a long time. Commissioner Bowerman questioned why the request had originated with the Council and .tenants and not the center owner (Mr. Saliterman) . There was also concern that, historically, such temporary signage has been almost impossible to get removed or to keep maintained. _10- Chair Makowske recalled some problem withthe size of the existing sign but Mr. Childs told her under the Sign Ordinance the center would be permitted 300. total square footage of . signage when they only have 120 square feet now. Motion by Commissioner Zawislak and seconded by. Commissioner Wagner to recommend the Council permit the.' temporary signage as proposed by the City Manager. for the St. . Anthony Village Shopping Center for a 12 month period. Voting on the motion: Aye: None. Nay: Unanimous . Motion not carried. The concluding consensus appeared to be that a message sign might be acceptable, but a vote was not taken on that concept. Six of the seven Commissioners indicated they would be able to attend the Capital Improvement Program Workshop on August 2nd.. Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Bjork- lund to adjourn the meeting at 11: 25 P.M. rMotion carried unanimously. . Respectfully submitted, Helen Crowe, Secretary