HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 02211984 1
'1
Meeting Sheet
101935 '
• ,3
Box: 21
Folder-..PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1984
Document: PL MINUTES 02211984
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 21, 1984
1 The meeting was opened by Chair Pro Tem Zawis-lak at 7 : 32 P .M.
2
3 Present for roll call : Wagner, Bowerman, Zawislak, Bjorklund, and
4 Franzese.
5
6 Absent: Jones (arrived at 7: 40 P.M. ) .
7
8 Also present: David Childs , City Manager.
9
10 Por. Childs administered the oath of office to Ron Hansen, who had been
11 appointed by the Council to serve on the Commission, who then answered
12 the roll call .
13
14 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman
15 to approve as submitted the minutes of the Planning Commission meet-
16 ing held November 15 , 1983 .
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
• 19
20 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman
21 to approve as submitted the minutes of the special Planning Commis-
22 sion meeting held January 3 , 1984 .
23
24 Motion carried unanimously.
25
26 Commissioner Bowerman agreed to present the minutes during the Feb-
27 ruary 28th Council meeting.
28
29 Mr. Childs had addressed the request from the Minneapolis Park Board
30 for City approval of the new clubhouse they propose to construct on
31 the Gross Golf Course property on the St. Anthony Boulevard Parkway
32 and indicated staff would recommend approval of that proposal because
33 he perceived the project met the various Zoning Ordinance requirements
34 for a Recreational Open Space District for which the Commission and
35 Council must determine , only , that, "all structures shall be con-
36 structed of a material and design which is compatible with the natural
37 environment" . The Manager had attached to his memorandum reproductions
38 of the site plans for the parking and drop off areas to the west of
39 the proposed building and a sketch of the interior walkway and two
40 levels , as well as the southern and eastern elevation renderings of
41 the proposed building.
42
43 Commissioner Bjorklund recalled there had been much more stringent
44 conditions set for construction on the Salvation Army campgrounds but
• 45 Commissioner Bowerman reminded him that the proposal had been for an
46 additional single family dwelling in an area where only one was
47 allowed by the ordinance , thus additional consideration was necessary.
-2-
1 Paul Madsen, of Arvid Elness Architects, Inc. , 510 First Avenue North ,
2 Minneapolis , indicated he was representing the Minneapolis Park
3 Board and because he had just returned from out of town, had failed
4 to bring the site boards with him. He told the Commission members
5 the park board intends to replace the existing clubhouse with a two
6 story building which he estimated would cost approximately $550 ,000
7 and the architect indicated the plans were to start construction in
8 April with the construction anticipated to be finished in October.
9 He indicated the exterior and roof would be constructed of cedar
10 shakes and glass to. match and take advantage of the natural beauty
11 of the area. In reference to the parking area, Mr. Madsen indicated
12 the drop off area was proposed to facilitate traffic on the grounds
13 and he indicated a curb cut would be required in that area for that
14 purpose. The old clubhouse would be razed and that area utilized
15 for landscaping and walkways . Mr. Madsen indicated the north ele-
16 vation which had not been reproduced in the agenda packet, would
17 match that shown in the southern elevation drawing and the highest
18 point of the building would be the ridge which was shown which would
19 be 28 feet high. Additional parking might later be developed in the
20 area where the driving range is now, he said.
21
22 Commissioner Bjorklund perceived the plans which they had been pro-
23 vided to be very deficient in that there were no landscaping plans
24 or specifics related to the exterior finish which would indicate
25 the building would be vandal proof and not require more police and
26 fire protection, which the City has to provide , than the masonry
S27 block type of building normally found in parks and on school grounds .
28 Mr. Madsen responded that he did not perceive this building would
29 get. -. the '- same - abuse a park or school building would and that he
30 was certain the park board had taken the security question into account
31 when they had approved the exterior design for the building. He
32 said the City Building Inspector had been working with his firm from
33 the very beginning on this building and he was not aware that there
34 had been a history of vandalism for the existing clubhouse. He also
35 told the Commissioners that the park board is considering more winter
36 type recreational options for the building and he believed the build-
37 ing would be open at least on. weekends all winter.
38
39 Commissioner Jones , who had arrived at the beginning of the discussion ,
40 indicated he perceived this might be an opportunity for the City to
41 negotiate with the City of Minneapolis for better cooperation towards
42 improving the condition of the .St. Anthony Parkway (Boulevard) in
43 front of the golf course , since he believes the new facility would
44 require an upgraded roadway in front. Mr. Madsen indicated he was
45 certain a park board representative would have.. come to the meeting
46 if they had known this was to be considered a public hearing and not
47 just a discussion of the concept of the new clubhouse.
48
49 The Manager said the City Building Inspector had been provided a
50 detailed set of plans for the project, and since the Commission and
51 Council review were limited to the compatibility with the environment ,
• 52 he had perceived that the four pages of plans submitted to the Com-
53 mission were adequate.
54
55
-3-
1
3-
1 Commissioner- Jones indicated he agreed with Commissioner Bjorklund
2 that there were many landscaping and security concerns which could
3 not be addressed without the full set of plans . ' Commissioner Franzese
4 indicated she wanted to wait until she had an opportunity to see just
5 how the western side of the building which faces the parkway would
6 be treated and Commissioner Hansen indicated he shared her concerns
7 about the view of the building from the front and the concerns of
8 the other Commissioners related to the provision of security and
9 fire protection for the building.
10
11 Mr. Madsen said he knew there was an elaborate alarm system planned
12 for the building which would be paid for by the park board and indi-
13 cated a delay of a month could pose real problems for the park board
14 since they planned to advertise for bids the next day and to :apply for
15 a building. permit right away.
16
17 Commissioner Jones indicated he wanted specific concerns about the
18 proposal addressed beforea recommendation was made to the Council
19 and wanted the curb cut tied into the Minneapolis ' intentions re-
20 garding the maintenance of the roadway. Commissioner Bowerman indi-
21 cated he did not think that should be the Commission' s concern at
22 that time since no formal request for a curb cut had been made and
23 the only matter before them was actually the determination of whether
24 or not the- proposed building was to be constructed in such a manner
25 as to be compatible with the natural environment and -reminded them
26 that the Manager had indicated the proposed construction would meet
27 all the Zoning Ordinance requirements and "merely needs Commission
28 and Council approval as a matter of formality" unless the Commission
29 perceives the material or design would have a detrimental environ-
30 mental effect. The Commissioner said the Building Inspector has
31 .been working with the planner all along and he questioned whether
32 the Commission would be acting in a legal manner to enter into the
33 planning. process at this stage by questioning how the security would
34 be provided ,and whether or not the glass or interior finish was
35 vandal proof. He said "how can you trade off a curb cut which hasn' t
36 even been requested yet, for a building which is being constructed
37 by the park board on their own property?" .
38
39 Commissioner Wagner indicated he believed the Commission was acting
40 properly when, they wanted to know about the security which would be
41 provided, since that is the City ' s responsibility and agreed that they
42 had a right to see all specific plans for the proposal before acting
43 on the request.
44
45 Commissioner Bjorklund reiterated that he believed the connection ,
46 betweenthe provision of a quality road for a .quality building was
47 a valid one and he believed the City of Minneapolis should be willing
48 to negotiate in good faith on the matter. He did not see them as
49 acting in a fair manner and said he didn' t want to see his tax moneys
50 spent for a road they would benefit most from.
51
• 52 The Manager commented that if when they first saw the agenda packet,
53 the Commissioners had called him to let him know they wanted to dis-
54 cuss the matter directly with the Minneapolis officials , he could
55 have had them come to the meeting and would have made certain all
-4-
1 the plans were available if he had known what their specific concerns
2 would be.
3
4 Commissioner Jones reiterated that he believed the Commission had
5 the right to see the missing plans for the landscaping and visual
6 view of the building from the front and that the Minneapolis Park
7 Board should have had a representative at the meeting to discuss any
8 concerns the Commission might have .
9
10 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Franzese
11 to table the request for the new Gross Golf Course clubhouse because
12 of. the absence of specific plans for front visual appearance land-
13 scaping, provision of a vandal proof structure and curb cut and
14 signage for the proposed building.
15
16 Voting on the motion:
17
18 Aye : Bjorklund, Franzese, Zawislak, Hansen and Jones .
19
20 Nay: Bowerman and Wagner.
21
22 Motion to table carried.
23
24 Following the vote , the Manager told the Commissioners he would not
25 anticipate =.any change in the City of Minneapolis ' attitude towards a
26 major overlay or sealcoating job at this time, even though the
27 improved street would be a benefit to their property. He also told
28 Commissioner Bjorklund that when the roadway is upgraded, it is
29 anticipated there would be no direct assessments to City taxpayers
30 since the costs of the improvement would be paid from state and federal
31 funds and assessment to the abutting proper.ty _owners .
32
33 At 8: 15 P.M. , the Chair Pro Tem opened the public hearing to consider
34 a petition for a variance for a 6 ft. -.wood fence -at . 2912=32nd Avenue N.F.
35 Which had been mistakenly erected without a permit by the contractor
36 retained by the owner, Philip Hoversten, when he constructed another
37 addition to the property. The variance would allow the fence, which
38 is two feet taller than permitted by ordinance , to remain as :constructed.
39
40 The Notice of Hearing, which had gone out to twenty-one property
41 owners within 200 feet of the subject property was read by Chair Pro
42 Tem Zawislak.- No one present indicated failure to receive the notice
43 or objected to its content. The Manager reported receiving no calls
44 about the request and reiterated the points he had made in his
45 February 1st memorandum that he perceives that fence had not been
46 erected without the permit in an attempt to circumvent the ordinance
47 and since neither traffic nor visibility would be obstructed by the
48 fence, it would not appear the intent of the ordinance would be
49 greatly damaged by permitting the fence to remain.
50
51 Mr. Hoversten told the Commissioner the fence, which only partially
• 52 protrudes into his front yard, had been constructed at the same time
53 another addition was made to his home and failure to include that
54 Particular permit when the application was made for the other building
55 permits had been an oversight on the part of the builder which had
56 since been corrected when the Public Works Director called it to his
57 attention.
-5-
1 No one else spoke either for or against the variance request and the
2 hearing was closed at 8 : 22 P.M. for Commission consideration.
3
4 Commissioner Bjorklund reported he had visited the site and noted
- _5 the unique topography of the land in that area made the fence seem
6 much shorter than six feet and the protrusion into the front yard
7 minimal. _
.9 Motion by Commissioner. B.jorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman
10 to recommend the .Co.uncil grant a variance to the City Fence Ordinance
11 requirement that front yard fences should be no higher than 4 ft. which
12 would allow Philip Hoversten to retain, but not add to, the 6 ft.
13 fence which partially extends out into his front yard at 2912-32nd
14 Avenue N.E. , finding that:
15 1. It appears that the erection of -the fence without a permit was an
16 inadvertent omission when another addition was being constructed
17 on the property.
18
19 2. The fence would not .appear to have a detrimental effect on the
20 property and the unique topography of that particular area would
21 seem to indicate there would be no adverse effect on the neighbors '
22 properties and" that no ,precedent for a. -similar variance in---another
23 area would be set.
24
25 3. No opposition to the variance had been indicated by adjacent or
26 abutting property owners .
. 27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 At 8 : 27 P.M. , the Chair' Pro Tem opened the public hearing to consider
31 the request from the new owners of the Anthony Court Townhomes that
32 they be permitted to retain the two identification signs which have
33 been erected on their property across Silver Lake Road from Apache
34 Plaza, for which only one sign is permitted by ordinance. He read
35 the Notice of the Hearing which had gone out to all property owners
36 within 200 feet of the subject property and had been published
37 February 9th in the Bulletin. No one present indicated failure to
38 receive the notice or objected to its content.
39
40 Mr. Childs reported the two signs, which had been erected without
41 permit by the developer-of the townhomes , Sid Johnson, just before
42 he sold that property, did not meet the requirement of the Planned
43 Unit Development that only one sign was permitted for the area governed
44 by that PUD. Fie confirmed that the townhomes were still under the PUD
45 even though they had been rezoned for multiple dwelling use and said
46 there was also the matter of the signage for Craig Morris ' hair
47 styling shop .which was on a temporary basis permitted under the
48 same PUD to be considered. The Manager had indicated in his February
49 13th memorandum that the townhome signs would probably not meet any
50 of the criteria for a variance and he had included in the agenda
51 packet excerpts of the Commission and Council minutes he believed
' • 52 were applicable to the Morris sign.
53
54 Mr. Bjorklund indicated he believed there were more minutes which
55 referred to the discussions of the Morris signage, which, in every
-6-
1 case, referred .to that signage as only "temporary" . Commissioner
2 Jones indicated he saw the need for proper identification of the
3 townhomes now that they were completely built and said the City had
4 constant problems with Mr. Morris ' sign since it was installed.
5
6 Chester Krumm, 4005 Silver Lake Road, indicated he was present on
7 behalf of the St. Anthony Court Homeowners Association and that the
8 Association believed they needed the two 22 inch by 5 foot long
9 signs on both sides of the main entrance to the townhomes because
10 there are no street signs on Silver, Lake Road between 39th Avenue
11 N.E. and Silver Lane and visitors keep getting their roadway confused
12 with the road around Midwest Federal and Apache. Mr. Krumm told
13 Commissioner Bjorklund that the Association members had not been
14 told by Mr. Johnson there were any special sign restrictions on their
15 property.
16
17 Craig Morris of Craig & Co. Hair Designers , whose shop is just south
18 of the townhouses , recalled the difficulties he had getting the
19 signage under the PUD and conceded that "from the very first, the
20 sign had always been considered 'temporary ' , except at the very end
21 when my fencing went in, I was granted a variance for the sign in
22 front of my shop and for the front of the building" . Mr. Morris said
23 when this came for final approval to the Council , "Bob Sundland kept
24 mentioning ' temporary, temporary ' . How can he do business on a
25 temporary basis? He knew at the time I was going in there , the rest
26 of the PUD was planned, and the Council knew the townhomes were coming
• 27 in and ---- they could request a variance on their own" .
_ 28 _
29 � Mr. Morris indicated :that he had . just left a meeting with his attorney
30 where they -were trying to.locate the- minutes which supported the re-
31 - collection that "it had- been Bob Sundland.' s recommendation that the
32 � sign be made permanent, since the townhomes would need their own vari-
33 ' ance for signage" . The hair design shop owner's recollection of the
34 date of that meeting conflicted with the dates of the meetings Mr.
35 . Childs had included in the agenda packet and he was requested to get
36 back to the Manager with the correct date.
37 The hearing was closed at 8: 45 P .M.38
39 Motion by Commissioner Franzese and seconded by Commissioner Wagner
40 to table action on the St. Anthony Court sign variance request to
41 give staff time to research further for Commission and Council
42 minutes which made reference to the PUD signage requirements as they
43 related to Craig Morris ' sign and future signage for the townhomes .
44
45 Before the vote was taken, Commissioner Bjorklund observed that the
46 two signs on the front of the townhomes, "which are just double pylon
47 signs on legs" would never meet the standards established "over years
48 and years of hard labor" to assure quality signage for the City and
49 he made an amendment to the motion to table , which would request staff
50 to meet with the homeowners association representatives to make them
51 aware of the standards which would be expected for any identification
• 52 of their property. He added that a recent poll of residents found
53 most of them are looking for "quality" in St. Anthony.
54
55
-7-
• 1 The motion to amend was seconded by Commissioner Jones and passed
2 unanimously-.
3
4 The amended motion- to table carried unanimously.
5
6 Mr. Krumm was advised that the signs were illegal , but could remain
7 until the Commission- had made a final determination which would have
8 to be acted upon by the Council.
9
10 At 8 : 55 P.M. , the public hearing was opened to consider a petition from
11 William Flaherty for a variance which would allow construction of a
12 22 X 22 foot attached .garage on the west side of -his home at 3208
13 Rankin Road, which would come within. seven feet of the west property
14 line .
15.
16 The Chair Pro 'Tem read the notice which had gone out to all property
17 owners within 200 feet of the subject property and had been published
18 February 9th in the Bulletin. No one . reported failure to receive the
19 notice or objected to its content. Mr. Childs reported receiving no
20 calls related to the request.
21
22 In his February 13th memorandum to the Commission, the Manager. had
23 indicated that the west property line has been considered the rear
24 yard and therefore a setback of 25 feet is required. Other cities he
25 has worked for had a different interpretation for setbacks on corner
26 lots which would make this variance unnecessary, Mr. Childs said, and
• 27 he reiterated the wording of that policy statement , which he recom-
28 mended for St. Anthony as follows : "On a corner lot , the narrow side
29 shall be defined as the front yard and said front yard, for Zoning
30 Ordinance interpretation .purposes , should not be based on the place-
31 ment of the front door of the house or street address" .
32
33 Commissioner Bowerman said he couldn't recall that concept ever coming
34 up before and indicated he would rather continue to consider the front
35 door and. number of the house as designating the front of the house
36 so as to avoid creating a whole new set of problems . Commissioner
37 Jones agreed, saying since St. Anthony is almost completely built up,
38 it would be easier to keep the variance process for requests like
39 this one. Commissioner Bjorklund questioned how the fencing ordinance
40 would relate to the new policy .
41
42 Mr. Flaherty; his contractor, Tim Jawor, 781 - 123rd Avenue N.W. ; and
43 Jim Koski , 3308 Hilldale, Mr. Flaherty ' s closest neighbor on the west ,
44 were present to discuss the variance request. The applicant had
45 written a letter which was attached to the petition application stat-
46 ing the need for more space for family gatherings had prompted him
47 to propose to convert what is now garage and laundry space to a family
48 room and move the garage over on the Hilldale side where it could be
49 made to look like the front of the house , with brick and aluminum
50 siding. Mr. Jawor indicated the existing garage doors would be
51 replaced with gridded windows and would continue the colonial type of
. 52 architecture for the rest of the house.
53
54 Mr. Koski termed the Flaherty proposal as "a great idea which would
55 give Mr. Flaherty the living space he needed" . He indicated his house
-8-
1
8-
1 and garage are at least four feet higher than the Flaherty home and
2 even though the new garage is 11 feet high at the roof crest, it would
3 still be lower than his own which. would be next to it on Hilldale side
4 and therewould be at least 15 feet between the two.
5
6 Commissioner .Jones wanted any motion to state that it was only for the
7 garage the variance was granted so the Commission would have the
8 opportunity to at least look at any further expansion of the family
9 room.
10
11 The hearing closed at 9 : 08 P:M.
12
13 Commissioner B.jorklund commented that when he first read the proposal
14 he had thought it would result, "in an. .awful lot of house filling up
15 that corner" , but, after visiting the site., he became aware of the
16 number of very large homes in that neighborhood, which is of quite
17 a unique spot in the City.
18
19 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to
20 recommend the Council grant a variance to William Flaherty to construct
21 the garage he proposes on his Hilldale frontage within seven feet of
22 the adjacent property line , finding that:
23
24 1. The Flaherty house would have been built facing Hilldale if that
25 street had been in when the residence was constructed.
26
27 2. The variance is not based exclusively upon the desire of the pro-
28 perty owner to increase the value or income potential of the parcel
29 of land because it would probably cost him more than the property
30 would appreciate .
31
32 3. There .is a hardship created for Mr. Flaherty because he is on a
33 corner lot and therefore front yard setbacks for a rear yard set-
34 back ar.e required on three sides of the lot.
35
36 4 . There was no opposition demonstrated against this proposal and the
37 abutting neighbor to the west indicated he favored the granting
38 of the variance.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously.
41
42 The meeting was recessed at 9 : 16 P.M. and when it was reconvened at
43 9 :27 P.M. , the public hearing was opened to consider the request for
44 the subdivision without platting by Irving Walbon of the property
45 located at the southwest corner of 33rd Avenue N.E . and Old Highway 8
46 which would result in two single family residential lots from a single
47 vacant, unplatted parcel containing about 20 , 000 square feet.
48
49 Chair Pro .Tem Zawislak read the notice of the hearing which had gone
50 out to all adjacent property owners within 350 feet of the subject
51 property and had been published February 9th in the Bulletin. No one
. 52 reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
53
54 Mr. Childs had advised in his February 13th memorandum that the lot
55 split would result in a single family interior lot of 9 , 600 square
i
I -9-
1 feet and a corner lot of 11,000 + square feet for which no variances
• 2 would be needed, unless Violet_ Dorumsgaard, the property owner to the
3 west, can come to some agreement with the Walbons to straighten out
4 the lot line on the east side of her property. In which case, a
I 5 variance would be required because the resultant lot would not be
6 wide enough at the setback line. The Manager said the survey had
7 been completed with the tentative lot split.
8
9 Robert E. Halva, 3948 Central Avenue N.E. , representing Mr. Walbon,
10 indicated his client would have no problem with Mrs . Dorumsgaard
11 acquiring the triangular parcel of the property which is in front of
12 her picture window, but he perceived negotiations between the two had
13 been unsuccessful to date because Mrs . Dorumsgaard had failed to
14 realize the costs involved in splitting Torrance property, including
r
15
attorney fees and having a registered land survey done would be
16 incurred if the property is split into three parcels . He indicated
17 he had advised his client .that a reasonable renumeration for the
18 469 . 29 square foot triangular piece would be $2 ,000 and she had
19 offered one dollar instead. He later inferred the $2 ,000 was not
20 the final price which his - client would accept.
21
22 Commissioner Zawislak wanted something done now about the variance
23 which would be necessary should the negotiations become successful
24 and said, if the lot becomes undersize with Mrs . Dorumsgaard' s
25 acquisition of the triangular piece, the resultant lot would be
26 undersized'Torfuture single family development.
27
28 Mrs . Dorumsgaard -was present and indicated her opposition to sub-
29 dividing without platting unless she could come to some agreement
30 with the owner. She believes the City of St. Anthony should never
31 have issued a building permit for lot like hers at 3612 - 33rd
32 Avenue N.E. , which she termed "ridiculous" and she now perceives the
33 City is intending to create another just as ridiculous . She told the
34 Commissioners that before she bought the property a friend at the
35 Hennepin County courthouse had assured her that the subject property
36 would never .be used for anything except a park. Commissioner Bower-
37 man recalled the - City had turned down an offer from the County to
38 donate the land to St. Anthony for- that -purpose. Mr. ..Childs said
39 it had since been determined that the property belonged to the Walbons
40 who have had to pay back taxes of about 10 years .
41
42 Commissioner Jones asked Mrs . Dorumsgaard if she would be willing to
43 pay $1. 89 a square foot for the parcel and she replied she would not,
44 since it was at the bottom of a hill , and in front of a trucking
45 business which made it of no use to anyone except herself. She said
46 she had offered to trade two feet of easterly boundary to Mr. Walbon
47 but Mr. Halva had said the cost of that transaction would also be
48 very expensive because of surveying costs and attorney fees . Mr. Halva
49 indicated the subdivision should be approved without giving any land
50 to Mrs . Dorumsgaard or taking any away from her, saying. his client
51 had been really amenable to resolving their differences but $1 or
• 52 $2 a square foot wouldn' t even pay the costs of transferring the land.
53 '
54 Commissioner Zawislak wondered if sometime in the future the owner
-55 might need that additional two feet to sell the land and, if at
-10-
• 1 that time , Mrs . Dorumsgaard might not remind him that he had refused
2 her offer. The Commissioner reiterated his position that the variance
3 should be dealt with along withthe subdivision.
4
5 Robert E. Williams, 3124 Croft Drive, whose property abuts the Walbon
6 property on the rear stated that he wanted to go on record as opposing
7 the subdivision because it appeared to him that the two lots would
8 be very small as compared to other homes in that neighborhood and he
9 was very concerned about what the owner intended to do with the rest
10 of his property . He wanted a comprehensive plan for the entire
11 Walbon property which "would get it down to nothing but single family
12 lots" and wanted to know ".Why is he piecemealing it bit by bit-?" .
13
14 Mr. Halva responded that Mr. Walbon "just wanted to give the property
15 to his kids" . Commissioner Jones. told Mr. Williams it's not the
16 responsibility of the Commission to plan the use for private property,
17 which Mr. Williams indicated he understood.
18
19 When Mrs. Dorumsgaard told of years of having to maintain the tri-
20 angular parcel in front of her home , Mr. Childs- told her the City can
21 force the owner to maintain his property or the City would do it for
22 him, at rates he wouldn' t like. Mr. Childs also told the two opponents
23 of the proposal that this split would have no bearing on the City ' s
24 pursuit of the legality of the non-conforming use of -the other Walbon
25 parcel.
26
• 27 Commissioner Jones told Mrs . Dorumsgaard he perceived she would be
28 foolish to try to purchase the triangular piece of land since she
29 would have to pay the taxes on it and could be assessed for any road
30 improvements on the adjoining street
31
32 Ron Dorumsgaard, whose address was also 3612 - 33rd Avenue N.E. ,
33 thanked the Commissioners for their help and indicated he realized
34 the Commission is not responsible fo-r- resolving the differences
35 related to the triangular parcel.
36
37 The hearing was closed at 10 : 0.5 P:.M. for Commission consideration.
38
39 Although he perceives it to be the City ' s responsibility-:to organize
40 the way in which City lots are laid out, Commissioner Bjorklund said
41 he realizes the private parties in this case would have to resolve
42 their differences before a variance can be granted. However, he
43 indicated he would be happy to approve a variance for an undersize
44 lot if the matter can be resolved.
45
46 Commissioner Jones noted the large road easement along Old Highway 8
47 and wondered since that roadway would probably never be widened, if
48 the center line in the parcel couldn' t be moved so the non-conforming
49 lot would not be the interior lot which is required to be 75 feet
50 wide. Mr. Childs gave the reasons it might be more difficult to
51 position a house on the corner than on the smaller lot.
. 52
53 Commissioner Zawislak disagreed that creating a non-conforming lot was
54 not the Commission' s concern since he foresees there could be a problem
55 with granting a- variance later on. Commissioner Bowerman reminded
i
-11 �
• 1 him that the Commission only had a request to split the lot before
2 them and he did not see the Commission would have a problem granting
3 the variance. later, if. necessary.
4 - - - _
5 Motion by ,Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklu'nd
6 to recommend that -the Council grant the request from Irving Walbon for
7 subdivision without platting of the ' undeveloped parcel of .land located
8 at the southwest corner of' 33rd Ave. N.E. and Old Hwy. 8 , which would
9 result-in-two-single family residential_ lots-_from_a -single vacant,
10 unplatted parcel (property I .D. #06-029-23 41 0001) containing ap
-12-
J 1 John Bedard, 3090 Rice Street , owner of the Video Update franchise ,
2 said his operation has a system set up by which customers can get in
3 and out within eight or ten minutes . He said he also-:-owns other stores
4 ,wh ch...range in size from 800 to 4 ,000 square feet and they all have
5 less parking space than this store . He also pointed out that the
6 Kentucky Fried Chicken caters to customers who move in and out fast
7 and don't park for any length of time at all .
8
9 Jim Shelton, 2908 West 100th Street, identified himself as the land-
10 lord of that store , which was formerly a Penny Pincher Discount
11 store, and he said parking. had never been a problem in that center .
12
13 Hobie Swan , who owns the Lowry Motor Court across Kenzie Terrace ,
14 indicated he__wa_ s:_not opposing_the - store - but thought the-City should
15 address a long standing problem with traffic coming out of the center ,
16 onto Kenzie Terrace since there have been three accidents and many
17 near misses because drivers use the wrong side of the entrance island
18 and make an illegal left hand turn west_ "=on Kenzie jeopardizing- -motor
19 court residents in many instances . He suggested Kenzie Terrace be
20 designated as only an entrance and Lowry Avenue as the exit to avoid
21 the potential for more accidents . Mr. Swan indicated he was cer-
22 tain there would be ample parking on the east end of the building.
23 Mr. Childs indicated the City would post the driveway in such a
24 manner as to prevent further illegal left turns .
25
26 The hearing was closed at 10 : 35 P.M.
27
28 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Franzese
29 to recommend the City Council grant the request from Mary J. and Craig
30 14. Belisle for a conditional us'e permit to operate a Video Update
31 movie and VCR rental and sales operation at 2510 Kenzie Terrace N.E.
32 under the conditions that,:
33 r
34 1. There would be no viewing of tapes in the store , except for bona
35 fide demonstrations of tapes and no viewing would be visible
36 from outside the store ."
37
38 2 . The proprietors..-must comply with all state laws relating to
39 obscenity and to any ordinance of the City of St. Anthony there-
40 after relating to obscenity.
41
42 3. Conviction of the owner or any of the employees of the owner for
43 violation of obscenity laws in the operation of the store would
44 be grounds for revocation of this permit by the City Council.
45
46 4. That there be a drop box installed in front of the store to avoid
47 traffic congestion.
48
49 5. The traffic flow information signage be installed at the direction
50 of the City Manager.
51
52 In recommending this permit be granted, the Planning Commission finds
53 that:
54
55 A. The proposed,-luse is one of the conditional uses specifically per-
56 mitted in the district in which it is located.
1 .
-13-
1 B. The proposed .conditional use would not -be detrimental to the
�^ 2 health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working
3 in the vicinity or injurious to property values or improvements
4 in the vicinity.
5
6 C. The proposed conditional use is possibly necessary or possibly
7 desirable at the specified location to provide a service or a
8 facility which is - in the interest of public convenience_.and.-may
9 contribute to the general welfare of the neighborhood or
10 community.
11
12 D. There was no opposition to the permit demonstrated during the
13 hearing before the Planning Commission.
14
15 Before a vote was taken, Commissioner Bowerman indicated he would not
16 want to lock the owners into installing and keeping a drop box because
17 he foresees the potential for problems with vandalism, etc. Com-
18 missioner Bjorklund disagreed, saying .he believed the use of a drop
19 box would help to expedite traffic through the center.
20
21 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Zawislak
22 to amend the motion to eliminate Condition #k4 .because the makers of
23 the motion do not want to force the store owners to keep the drop box
24 if it produces problems for them.
25
26 Voting on the amendment:
27
28 Aye: Bowerman, Zawislak , Wagner, Franzese and Hansen.
29
30 Nay: Bjorklund and Jones.
31
32xAmendment carried.
33
34 Voting on the amended motion ,carried unanimously .
35
36 The final platting of the Midland Park Subdivision showing the NSP
37 easement had been completed and staff had recommended the Commission
38 give a favorable recommendation to the Council.
39
40 Motion by- Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner
41 Bowerman to recommend Council approval of the final platting of Lots
42 3 and 4 , Block 2 , St. Anthony office Park Addition (.also identified
43 as 2817 Anthony Lane South) as the blidland Park Addition, which would
44 combine the two lots and officially transfer a 60 foot X 212 . 46
45 foot tract of land to the westerly abutting property.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously.
48
49 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Bowerman it had been an occupancy permit
50 which had alerted the staff to the fact that the video store was
51 going in.
52
53 Mr. Bjorklund discussed the study he had participated in which had
54 Polled the City residents on what they liked best about the City.
55
-14-
1 Motion by. Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Franzese
2 to nominate Bill Zawislak as Planning Commission Chair for 1984 .
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 Motion by Commissioner Zawislak and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund
7 to nominate Rose Mary Franzese as Chair Pro Tem for 1984 .
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11 The Planning Commission' s March meeting was rescheduled to Monday,
12 March 19th, because of caucuses on March 20th.
13
14 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to
15 adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19
20 Respectfully submitted,
21
22 Helen Crowe , Secretary
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55