Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07171984 Meeting Sheet 101923 Box: 21 . Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1984 Document: PL MINUTES 07171984 1 T CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COPM4ISSION MINUTES • July 17, 1984 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 32 P.M. by Chairman Zawislak. Present for roll call: Bjorklund, Zawislak, Hansen, Wagner and Franzese. Absent: Bowerman and Jones . Also present: David Childs , City 'Manager. Prior to the motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission' s last .meeting, there ensued a discussion of the Commission's past minutes . After pointing out how well the minutes are written, the Commission members noted that there were several places in the June 19th minutes where the paraphrasing was not wrong,. but was_. - not 100% accurate. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to approve as submitted the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting held June 19 , 1984 . Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Franzese will report the July 17th Commission minutes to the Council at their July 24th meeting. Chairman Zawislak explained the procedure which would be followed that evening in conducting the public hearings listed on the agenda. At 7 : 40 P.M. , the Chairman opened the hearing on the request from Eugene and Patricia DeKanick, 3109 Wilson Street .N.E. , for a variance for a 3 foot sideyard setback, where a 5 foot setback is required by City Zoning Ordinance.. Mr. DeI:anick proposes to construct a 2 foot X 13 ' 6" addition to the south side of his home. The Chairman read the notice of hearing which had -been published July 3rd and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. Andrew Smoka, 2607 Townview, indicated he failed to receive the notice, however, the City Manager informed him the City Ordinance provides the hearing is nevertheless valid, especially since Mr. Smoka was present that evening. The City Manager reviewed the DeKanick ' s request, noting the concept review was held at the Commission's last meeting, and then opened discussion by the applicant and neighbors , some of whom had indicated opposition to the DeKanick's proposal. Mrs . DeKanick proceeded to discuss what had transpired in her attempt to find the definition ofa bay. A bay would be allowed to come with- in 3.. feet of the p.r.operty line under Section 12 , Subd. 3. 2 of the • Zoning Ordinance. Mrs . DeKanick had first consulted her dictionary with little satisfaction and then spoke with a contractor. The con- tractor indicated the addition she desired to construct was termed a "bay" in his business . The contractor had contacted Mr. Childs and was told a variance was not needed for construction of a bay. Mrs. -2- DeKanick 2-DeKanick check.e.d the Hennepin County Law Library in her pursuit, of the definition but to no avail. She then contacted the State of • Minnesota Building Code Department where she was told to refer to a dictionary at the library. She went to the St. Anthony Library and proceeded to quote the definition of a bay to the Planning Commission members. The applicant indicated they have access to an 8 foot bay window or would provide two 42 inch windows, which they propose to place together. Mrs. DeKanick had taken pictures throughout St. Anthony of housing units which are closer together than what their proposal calls for. She had obtained a picture of a similar house on 28th and Coolidge, which. she felt fits the definition of bay . The appli- cants propose to construct -a porch., with brick front, aluminum facia and completely stucco the structure. Mrs. DeKanick also presented a picture which showed that the bushes in their yard were further out than the proposed cantilever. Commissioner Bjorklund went to the blackboard to draw a detailed illustration of the proposed construction. The Commissioner questioned whether the porch will align with the building. Mrs . DeKanick had researched this and indicated the porchmust be 5 feet off the property line. It was felt an overhang over the porch is needed. Again, the question of the interpretation of bay was discussed. The City Manager indicated neitherthe zoning ordinance nor the building code defines the word "bay" or "bay window" . He perceives there is a • difference between the two, and that when "bay" or "bay window" as an ordinance definition comes to his mind - the DeKanick' s interpreta- tion may be correct and if the Planning Commission interprets the addition to be a bay, a variance wouldn't be necessary. This would be true only if the .bay is cantilevered and does not go to the ground. Mr. E. B. Emerson, 2615 Townview, was present to speak for the DeKanick' s. proposal. He stated he is a neighbor and close friend of the applicants and also with other interested parties . He does not feel the proposed structure would interfere with saleable property or with access to- property during an emergency. Mr. Emerson stressed he does not believe the structure would be a detriment and emphasized he wants peace and harmony in the neighborhood to prevail. Mr. Harold Root, 3107 Wilson Street N.E. , was present to speak against the DeKanick- request. Mr. Root feels the proposed 13� feet is an addition and part-. of the building, therefore not a "bay" . He questioned the dimensions shown on the plan and asked for a clarification. He also stated his house is 7 feet away from the property line, however, he said, his original plan was 10 feet. He wanted space. between the houses . He noted, however, that the Village said no to his original plan and he had. had to build according to their wishes because the neighboring lot was a corner lot. Mr. Root indicated there is a water- shed between the properties which could possibly create a water drainage problem on that side. He feels the proposed structure would be an infringement on his .property and should not be closer than • 5 feet from the property line. He added that he feels a 9 foot separation between roof lines is too close. -3- After Mr. Root requested a clarification on the. watershed, the Planning Commission' s consensus was that they did not feel the • drainage will change. Commissioner Bjorklund perceives that any addition, with or without a variance , would increase the runoff . Commissioner Bjorklund queried Mr.. Root about his own interpretation of a bay. Mr. Root indicato.d he believes a bay must be- curved and should not be more than 250 of the width of the dwelling. The Chairman asked Mr. Root if the proposed structure was disturbing to him because, as a neighbor; it would have windows in it and Mr. Root answered windows had nothing to do with his objection and that he objects to the structure itself being too close to his property line. He went on to say he feels the building codes should be adhered to and by granting variances , we allow people to build... anything they want. He feels strongly he he has the right to object to a variance from the building code. Mr. Root also stated he was Pot only speaking for himself and had obtained the signatures of other neighbors who are against the proposal. No other persons . present, however, spoke against the proposal . Before Pat DeKanick began to speak for the proposal, the Planning Commission requested an exact measurement of the proposed structure. Mr. DeKanick indicated, in response, that 12 feet would be added on to the existing house, plus 2 feet additional for the porch, for a total of 14 feet overall. Mrs. DeKanick then read from law books the basis of variances . She stated that she feels that Mr. Root obviously does not understand • variances . In the book, under zoning changes , it showed that vari- ances allow the individual landowner to deviate somewhat from zoning code requirements and variances do not require a zoning change. However, the variance must not change the basic characteristics of the neighborhood, according to the law book. The applicant also commented on Mr. Root's concern about the drainage problem. She said at the time Mr. Root built his house he was aware of thewater problem. Mrs . DeKanick also stated that when they (DeKanick's) built their house in 1959 , they were the first new house on that side of the block . In 1961 the house to the north was built a little bit higher than the DeKanick' s since the . ground level for that house is built up. She feels that as the first people on the block, they are not causing the drainage problems and she also cited other neighbors with water problems . The Chairman asked if there were any other questions . Commissioner Bjorklund read the section of the Ordinance regarding permitted encroachments, which .may .come within 3 feet of the property- line . He perceived the- DeKanick' s held to that regulation. However, the following several sections of the Ordinance state that certain en- croachments may not be within 5 feet of the property line, the Commissioner continued. He then asked Mrs . DeKanick what she felt the width of a bay should be. She stated her interpretation of the ordinance is that it could be any size, however, she does not feel it should be as large as 25 feet, but did not feel 12-15 feet to be • excessive. Commissioner Bjorklund also asked why the original plans , which indi- cated the proposed structure would extend 16 feet back from the -4- existing structure, were changed to show the proposed structure would extend 14 feet back. Mrs . DeKanick indicated they desired to • extend the structure out in front of their kitchen window. Mr. De- Kanick stated the existing house is 26 feet wide, with a 12 foot porch to be added on the rear. When the Chairman asked if there. were any further questions before the public hearing was closed, Mr. Root objected to not receiving the correct plan, due to the fact that the original plan had been changed to such an extent. There were no further questions or comments for or against the proposal and the Chairman closed the hearing at 8 :45 P.M. , for Commission consideration and action. Chairman Zawislak asked the Commissioners ' interpretation of a bay. He also reminded them that if it is a bay , no variance would be required. Commissioner Bjorklund indicated -he felt 20 to 250 of a wall would be the maximum size of. a bay.. He said he has done hundreds of appraisals and feels that the proposed structure is not a bay because it is not curved. He also stated '9- feet with. curving would be acceptable, but this proposal is not a bay. Commissioner Wagner does not believe curving is essential to create a bay. He said a bay is generally not as large as proposed by the DeKanick's , but does not believe the definition indicates it can' t be. • He also pointed out it does not run the full length of the house and therefore meets the requirements. Commissioner Franzese had mixed feelings about the bay question. The Chairman indicated he would like her opinion on the interpretation: She indicated she would not consider the proposed structure a bay in that it does not compare with other encroachments cited in the ordinance. She queried whether the percentage of windows_�would change the definition. Commissioner Bjorklund pointed out that the permitted encroachments , such as a chimney, are not habitable floor areas and do not add floor space. to the house. He said a bay is a window seat which does add to the floor area of the house and that the DeKanick' s interpretation of a. bay is a wild stretching of the ordinance. Commissioner Hansen feels that itis a bay , as it is not on the ground and therefore will not affect the watershed and the .flow of water. Chairman Zawislak indicated he has built for ten years and has a bow window. He explained the bow window and then stated he felt this proposed addition is a large bay, but nonetheless a bay. Motion by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to submit to- the City Council the Planning Commission' s interpretation of a bay, relating to a request from Eugene and Patricial DeKanick • for a proposed structure at 3109 Wilson Street N.E. , is that their proposed structure may be termed a "bay" . Commissioner Bjorklund reiterated he will vote against the motion, feeling it is a gross encroachment to the community and the Planning -5- Commission has misinterpreted the meaning of encroachments . Commis- sioner Wagner said his concern is that the proposed structure meets • the definitions of a bay and therefore must be called a bay, and that that was the reason for his motion. Voting on the motion: Aye: Zawislak, Wagner and Hansen. Nay : Bjorklund and Franzese. Motion carried. Chairman Zawislak indicated it is .his interpretation that the DeKanick's do . not have to obtain a variance for their proposed porch and bay. He stated this recommendation.will go before the City Council on July 24th for a final decision. At 9 :05 P .M. , Chairman Zawislak opened the hearing to consider a petition from Walter Sentryz , Jr. , for a variance to the City Zoning Ordinance requirements which would .allow the construction of a new home on the vacant lot at 3316 High.crest, with side yard setbacks of 5. feet and 8 feet 113 feet total) where a total of 15 feet is required. He read the notice which had been published July 3rd and mailed to all adjoining property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive that notice or objected to its content and the Manager reported receiving • no objections to the request. The Manager reported that Mr. Sentryz had appeared before the Planning Commission for a concept. review at their last meeting proposing to build a 62 foot wide home and is requesting a 2 foot variance. Mr. Childs had received an inquiry concerning the drainage mainten- ance and indicated that that is part of the building permit process and the drainage will be maintained. Mr. Sentryz explained his request and his proposed construction of a home design which recently won three Reggie Awards . Mark Blockey , 3313 Croft Drive, was present and discussed his concerns about the water runoff and maintaining the drainage after the home is built. Mr. Blockey stated he is not against the request but wanted to be on record as expressing his concerns regarding the drainage on the lot. He emphasized he is in favor of Mr. Sentryz' desire to build on the vacant lot. There were no further questions and Chairman Zawislak closed the public hearing at 9. : 13 P.M. for, Commission consideration and action. Motion by Commissioner Franzese and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend the Council grant a 2 foot side yard setback variance which would allow Walter Sentryz to construct. a single family dwelling • on the vacant lot at 3316 Highcrest, finding that: 1. The home is expected to be of high cl-aality and the design (Reggie Award winner) has already been reduced by 2 feet. -6- 2. Granting the variance would still provide for total building separation of 25 .5 and 20 .5 feet. • 3. No opposition was received from the neighbors . 4. Approval is contingent upon the proposed home not aggravating the existing drainage conditions of the area. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Zawislak opened the hearing, at 9 :16 P.M. , to consider a petition for a variance to the City Zoning Ordinance requirements which would. allow Gary Dooner, 2920 Silver Lake Court, construction of an addition resulting in the need for a front yard variance of 12 feet. A 30 foot front yard setback is required by City Ordinance and Mr. Dooner is proposing an 18 foot front yard setback. The Chairman read the notice which had been published July 3rd and mailed to all adjoining property owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive that notice or objected to its content and the Manager reported receiving no -objections to the request. The Manager made note of the odd shape of the Dooner ' s lot and cited this as a justification for a hardship. He stated that while the average alignment does not allow the setback Mr. Dooner proposes , the average .neighborhood setbacks are substantially less than 30 feet and other variances have been granted, setting a precedent for the request. As with the preceeding two variance requests , some of the • preliminaries had been completed on this request at a concept review the previous month. He indicated Mr. Dooner had submitted three neighbor' s signatures approving the request. Mr. Dooner was present to speak for his request and said that his neighbors had encouraged him to build the proposed additions , stating that the reasons for this encouragement were the noise, dust and amount of traffic traveling on Silver Lake Road. He also noted several precedents had been set for this request. There had been no changes in Mr. Dooner 's request since the concept review the month before and the public hearing was closed by the. Chairman at 9 :20 P.M. for Commission consideration and action. There was no one present to speak either for or against the proposal. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend the Council grant a 12 foot front yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition on the home of Gary Dooner, 2920 Silver Lake Court, finding that: 1. The lot is unique by its odd shape. 2. The property is located on a false cul-de-sac adjacent to a high traffic street with dust, noise and visibility problems . • 3. The proposed addition would reduce the impact of the road on the neighborhood. -7- 4 . The three conditions required for granting of a variance have been affirmative. • 5 . Other similar variances have been granted in the neighborhood. 6 . No persons spoke in opposition to the request. Motion carried unanimously. There was a short recess before the Chairman opened a public hearing, at 9 : 28 P.M. , . to consider a petition for a variance to allow con- struction of a single family dwe-lling; at 3334 Edward Street N.E. Mrs . Ruth Smith proposes to locate front of said residence on 34th Avenue N.E. and requests interpretation of the Planning Commission and City Council to use property frontage on Edward Street as required front yard and the west side of said property as required rear yard for setback purposes. The -Chairman read-the notice which had__-been pub-- - lished July .3rd and mailed to all adjoining property owners of record within 200 feet of the .subject property.. No one present reported failure to receive that notice or objected to its content and the Manager reported receiving no objections to the request. The City Manager explained that. a ' similar request had been made last fall where a resident had wanted to add on to his home. The Manager had, at that time, referred to a policy commonly .used in high growth communities that the short side of a corner lot be considered the front for setback purposes. What that did was to still provide . the same amount of open space, which is really what the setbacks intend, • between buildings , the Manager said. Mrs . Smith has ;.req.uested, at the Manager's advice, an interpretation to the effect that the front yard is the short side and therefore a variance is not necessary. The Manager told the Commission membersthat if they did not wish to interpret it in - that way, Mrs . Smith would need a 15 foot rearyard variance to locate this house on. the lot because it a substandard size lot and in either case there is either a .hardship justifying a variance or there is a need for an interpretation of the ordinance. The City Manager asked if the Commission would want to make a policy to that effect. Clarence Ranallo, 2504-34th Avenue N.E. was present to speak for the requested interpretation and perceives this construction would be a plus for the neighborhood. No one was present to speak against the proposal, and the Chairman closed the hearing at 9 :40 P.M. for Com- mission consideration and action. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Franzese to recommend the interpretation of the front of the corner lot to be the short side (regardless of where the front door is located) to the City Council and relating said interpretation to the request for a variance from Ruth Smith, 3334 Edward Street N.E. Motion carried unanimously . • At 9 :42 P.M. , the Chairman opened the hearing to consider a petition from Faith United Methodist Church, 2708 - 33rd Avenue N.E. for a conditional use permit to allow reconstruction of the storm damaged church along with an 800 square foot expansion of the church. In - addition, additional parking is ' proposed for the property. He read the notice, which had been published July 3rd, and mailed to all 8- adjoining -adjoining property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive that notice • or objected to its content and the Manager reported receiving no objections to the request. Commissioner Wagner stepped down temporarily to discuss the church' s proposal. He is a member of the church and the Financial Chairman on the Building and Rebuilding Committee . He .said the church Com- mittee had considered several alternatives as to whether to rebuild at the present site or somewhere else. Their decision had been to rebuild onsite and would involve about a $300,000 expense to the church with 'the remainder of the cost expected .to be picked up by insurance coverage. Commissioner Wagner indicated the first thing the Committee decided to do was to expand the sanctuary and increase the seating capacity. He said they also proposed to expand the park- ing spaces to bring them up .to code, which would somewhat relieve onstreet parking problems . Other changes proposed- for the interior would include handicapped .accessibility ramps to both levels and a provision to be installed for the handicapped along with improvements in the bathrooms . The nursery school would have ground floor access and an outdoor play area directly connected to the school and the kitchen area would also be improved, Commissioner Wagner said. Area neighbors were surveyed on the previous Sunday and did not object to any of the proposed rebuilding. The original church was erected in 1957 and the education wing along Belden Drive was added in 1965 . Commissioner Wagner indicated the targeted completion date was Easter, however he had reservations about that timeframe.. He • informed the Commission members the project, including furnishings , will cost about $1- million. Commissioner Wagner went on to say the church has a seating capacity for 210 seats and the proposed parking capaci.ty ::is-..proposed to increase from 60 to 84 spaces . Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he would like to see a larger play area which could perhaps be ac- complished by cutting the proposed parking spaces from 84 to 79 . Commissioner Wagner believes the church Committee would be amenable to that suggestion. There was no opposition to the proposal, however, a neighbor, Dan Korba, 2708 Hilldale , was present to express his concern with the snow plowing and granite chips which .had been placed on the surface of the parking lot at the church. Mr. Korba said the plow plows the snow across the parking lot directly into his front _yard. He would like that to cease. He suggested the situation could be rectified if the church could enlarge the lot and reduce snow storage on the property. Mr. Korba also wondered if a barrier for headlights had been considered which would screen the lights from beaming into the residents ' windows . Commissioner Wagner indicated he will bring the plowing problem to the attention of the church trustees and he had not realized this was a concern. The public hearing was closed at 10 : 02 P.M. by Chairman Zawislak for • Commission consideration and action. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend the Council approve the plan for rebuilding Faith United ' -9- Methodist Church including an 800 square foot expansion, for their church sanctuary at 2708 - 33rd Avenue N.E. and grant a conditional use permit, providing the church changes proposed increase in parking spaces from 8.4 to 79 , finding that: 1. No objections were received to the proposal . 2 . The 79 parking spaces will bring the property into closer com- pliance with. parking ratio requirements . 3. Approval would allow rebuilding of a substantial, high quality churchbuilding which. would be an asset to the City. Voting on the motion: Aye: Zawislak, Bjorklund, Franzese, and Hansen. Abstention: Wagner. Motion carried. At 10 :04 P.M. , Chairman- Zawislak opened the hearing to consider a petition for a variance and conditional use permit from the St. Anthony Health Center, 3700 Foss Road N.E. The Health Center is proposing an 84 unit apartment complex to be built on the vacant property immediately west of the rest home on County Road "D" , which requires a conditional use permit. The proposed new addition is proposed to have a height of 4 stories or -42_ feet, where 3 stories are allowed by the Ordinance, • and a total of 149 units on the site, .where 119 are allowed by City Ordinance. The Chairman read the notice which had been published July 3rd and mailed to all adjoining property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive that notice or objected to its content and the Manager reported receiving no objections to the request. The City Manager reported the St. Anthony Health Center currently consists of 65 units and they propose to erect a four story complex that would connect by a walkway between the two projects . The rest home is proposing 84 rental units with some underground and some aboveground parking. Mr. Childs noted 149 units of elderly housing, such as proposed, has an entirely different impact than 149 units in an apartment building such as Diamond 8 or, Macalaster Manor. He cited the number of persons in a family, the number of persons coming and going, and the amount of traffic, would constitute the differences . He said additional parking would be needed at a rest home partly because of the staff which would be .needed for the extra care re- quired by the elderly , and added that exists at the current facility . The Health Center had held a meeting for concerned neighbors to outline their proposed plan and attendance at the meeting had been sparse, Mr. Childs indicated. The St. Anthony Health Center was represented by David Frank of Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson, who are the architects for the proposed • addition. Mr. Frank detailed the site plan. A unique drainage problem at- the site was discussed and the Manager suggested Rice Creek Watershed District should be consulted regarding the matter. • -10- Commissioner Bjorklund expressed .his concerns. about the future ownership of the 2 complexes in that the proposed project would be • connected to the existing facility and. there is the possibility of the the two complexes being owned by 2 different entities . Com- missioner Bjorklund' s parking concerns were adequately addressed by the architect. The Commissioner asked the architect what the typical size of the units would be. The architect responded that a single unit would be approximately 650 square feet and a double unit would consist of approximately . 800 square feet. The Manager pointed out there are regulations on the minimum square footage of an apartment unit and the proposal is over the minimum. The Commission's consensuswas that the buildings , as proposed, go very well together. When questioned about the timetable for the project, the architect indicated he would like to -begin the project in the fall, when the ground is drier,. because of the drainage problem previously discussed, and, also, starting the project would depend on .th.e plans for the 37th.. Avenue reconstruction. Commissioner .Wagner is concerned with space for a truck turnaround on the service road. He indicated he would not vote for the pro- posal unless that aspect was recitfied. Commissioner Franzese asked if part of the building would be under- ground. The architect explained the plan shows the building would not be underground to any. great extent, but only along one edge . A walkout from the lowest level on the back part of the building is • being planned. The Commissioners discussed the potentiality of future changes in the plans for the Health Center. The architect indicated they would definitely not make any changes relating to their variance request, however, the .truck turnaround and parking layout may need to be modified. - There being no other questions or opposition' to the proposed plan, Chairman Zawislak closed the public hearing for Commission considera- tion and action. Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend the Council approve thevariance and conditional use requests from St. Anthony Health .Center, 370.0 Foss Road N.E. , for the erection of a four story market rate, semi-independent facility on the vacant property west of the Rest Home on County Road "D" , finding that: 1. No opposition to the request was received by the Planning Com- mission or at an informational meeting held by the applicant. 2. The proposal is for market rate , semi-independent living apart- ments in conjunction with the existing 65 unit nursing facility and the applicants have addressed: • a. unit size (.650+ to 800 square feet) ; b. street access - service access and turnaround; - ' -11- C. joint use of parking; d. soils and site drainage; e. shared facilities; • f. health and safety provisions, including fire protection; g. handicapped access; h.. building height Cnot to exceed 42 feet at grade) ; i . building appearance; j . landscaping; k. floor area ratio and open space. 3. The building height adequately allows open space and the siting addresses a unique soil and drainage problem. 4 . The unique use of the building in conjunction with the adjacent nursing home. 5. That the development be per the site plan submitted. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10 :58 P.M. Respectfully submitted, David M. Childs City Manager •