HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09181984 Meeting Sheet
J
Y
101919
-i
Box: .21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1984
Document: PL MINUTES 09181984
,I
i
,f
.S
1
1
' rl
• CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
September 18, 1984
I
1 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Zawislak at 7:33 P.M.
2
3 Present for roll call : Jones, Franzese, Zawislak, Wagner, and Hansen.
4
5 Absent: Bowerman and Bjorklund.
6
7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Hansen and seconded by -Commissioner Wagner to approve the
10 minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held August 21 , 1984, with the amend-
11 ments and corrections suggested by the Secretary in her September 12th memorandum
12 to the Commission.%members.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 Commissioner Hansen will report the Commission recommendations to the Council at
17 their next meeting, September 25th.
18
• 19 At 7:35 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider a petition from
20 Stanton E. Fabel for a,..variance which would permit_ him to construct a 10 X 30
21 foot -addition to the existing garage .at 2509 - 29th. Avenue N.E. , to within six
22 feet, three inches, of his east property line, where eight feet, three inches would
23 be necessary to meet the total 15 foot sideyard requirement of the City Ordinance.
24
25 Chairman Zawislak read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property
26 owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property and which had been
27 published in the Bulletin September .5, 1984. No one present reported failure to
28 receive the notice or objected to -its content.
29
30 Mr. Fabel discussed the plans enclosed with his application for constructing a
31 second stall to his existing garage in conformance with the original design for
32 the home. He said he needs a two car garage now that the family vehicles have
33 increased, making it necessary to constantly shuffle cars on the driveway. The
34 applicant told the Commissioners he would be adding to the 16 foot concrete
35 driveway in front of the garage and would be reroofing his existing home and. gar-
-36—age-so-the-additi-on-woul-do-'t-have-an`added=on-"-appearance. These-improvements
37 should enhance,' rather than detract from, the appearance of his property, Mr.
38 Fabel said. The addition would also permit him to extend the screened-in area
39 on the back of his home.
40
41 -Tom Shaffer, 2513-29th Avenue N.E. , Mr. Fabel 's neighbor to the east, was present
42 to indicate to the Commission that he was very much in favor of the project. . He
43 said the lot, lines between the two properties were very deceptive because, "Stan
44 mows on my lawn and I own his roses". Mr. Fabel estimated the distance between
• 45 Shaffer's home and his property- 1.1ne to be between seven and eleven feet, with
46 eleven the most likely. Mr. Shaffer said he had his own property surveyed and
47 provided for a two car garage when he built his home because his neighbor to,the
3 .
-2-
• 1 east had i.ndi.cated opposition to his getting a variance for that purpose. However,
2 the homeowner said, the economic conditions .did not warrant adding another stall
3 at this time.
4
5 Mr,. Childs reiterated the explanation of the proposal as stated in his September
6 12th memorandum and reported receiving no calls pertaining to the variance request '
7 since that t-ime.. No one present raised any further questions or-.objected to the :
8 request and the hearing was closed at 7:44 P.M. l
9
10 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend the
11 Council grant Stanton E. Fabel a two foot variance to the City Ordinance require-
12 ment for 15 foot sideyard setbacks for single family residential property which
13 would allow Mr. Fabel .to construct the one stall addition he proposes to the
14 existing garage at 2509 - 29th Avenue N.E. , finding that:
15
16 1 . There was no opposition from the neighbors and, in fact, the neighbor to the _i
17 east who would be the most affected by th'e variance-, was present at the hearing
18 to indicate hi.s approval of the project;
19 ;
20 2. The improvements proposed by the applicant would enhance the appearance of the
21 property and the extension of the screened porch to the rear would increase
22 Mr. Fabel 's ability to use his backyard in the summer;
23
24 3. St. Anthony is a two car garage community and it was perceived. by the Commission
25 that it would be a hardship, not just an inconvenience, for a family with more
26 than one vehicle to have only a one-stall garage;
�27
28 4. The purpose of' the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon the desire
29 of the owner to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land;
30 and
31
32 5. The perceived hardship could be considered to have been caused by the City
33 Ordinance and not by persons having an interest in the parcel of land.
34. }§
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 Mr. Fabel indicated he was anxiousto get started on .construction before the winter
38 set in. He was told the final decision had to be made by the Council the following
39 week, and if that decision turns out to be affirmative, he could apply for a
40 building permit th-e following morning.
41
42 At 7:50 P.M. , the public hearing was opened to consider the petition from Arthur ;
4-3 R__Peele, 492 Roll-s Roadway_, New_Brighton, for an interpretation of the zoning_
44 ordinance or a variance to allow construction of a 31 X 82 foot house (including
45 garage) on the existing 66 X 140 foot corner lot at 2621 - 32nd Avenue N.E.
46
47 The notice of the hearing which had been published in the September 5th Bulletin
48 and was to have been mailed to adjacent property owners of record within 200
49 feet of the subject property, was read by the Chairman. The Manager reported,
50 Commissioner Hansen, who lives to the south of the Peele property, had indicated y'
51 failure- to receive the notice, but he had researched the City Code of Ordinances I
W2_ and found "failure to receive the notice would not nullify the hearing". j
3: _
54 In his September 12th memorandum to the Commissioners, Mr. Childs had reported '
55 staff had recommended that the Commission accept the interpretation of the front
n
i
-3-
1
• 1 yard as the narrow side of. a corner lot for setback purposes for this proposal and,
2 perhaps, make a .permanent recommendation to that effect which could be applied
3 when the Johnson and Hertog properties in that same area are considered for
4 residential development.
5
6 Commissioner Franzese wondered if that interpretation were made, whether the
7 hearing had to be held at all . The response was that since it had been published .ti
8 and neighbors had been notified, .the hearing should proceed. . The recollection was �a
9 also that the Council had indicated a preference for considering such action on
10 a case-by-case basis. The Manager confirmed for Commissioner Jones that no ;
11 variance would be necessary if the Peele home were built to face Belden Drive,
12 which would create a buildable and usable lot as Mr. Childs had indicated on the
13 sketches he had included in the agenda packet.
14
15 He had no plans with him, but Dr. Peele indicated he perceived it would not be
16 feasible for the home he and his wife plan to build on the lot and live in, to ;
17 have the front door facing 32nd Avenue. He said it had been somewhat of an {
18 economic sacrifice for them to tear down the building which they had rented out for
19 a great number of years which had been damaged, but not demolished, in the storm,
20 especially since they received very little compensation from the insurance for
21 tearing it down. The applicant indicated he perceived the removal of the "eyesore" Ii
22 which had caused so many problems for the neighbors and the police, should be
23 considered a service to the community.
,4
f
24
25 Dr.. Peele indicated he perceived no problem for his neighbor to the north of him
26 since only their garages would be adjacent to each other. He said the structure
•
27 he proposes to build would be in alignment with the Beberg's house, and although rr
28 it might not be as' far back as the two homes being constructed further north on 1
29 that street, hi.s home would be set back mu&' further than the Brown home at the =`
30 end of the street. Mr. Childs guessed the two new homes might be set back further
31 than the City Ordinance requires and indicated he views this request to be very
32 similar to those approved for the house on 34th and Edward and for the Flaherty
33 home on 32nd and Rankin Road.
34 i
35 Dr. Peele indicated he perceived the home's appearance would be more aesthetically
36 pleasi:!ng if it faced Belden Drive, which should cause no problems for the property
37 owners to the rear since only their back yards would be facing each other. He
38 saw the home he was .proposing as enhancing that corner, in contrast to, "the dog
39 I tore down". F
40
41 Frank Budnicki , 3124 Wilson Street N.E. , said he lived two lots down and across the
42 street from the Peele property and indicated he was opposed to letting Dr. Peele
4-3— _build_a_house_which he compared to a "long shed" which would be "twice the size of
44 my house and on a smaller lot". Mr. Budnicki indicated he couldn 't understand
45 why the City kept changing the .rules about setbacks and said he 'perceived lots ;a
46 in the City were getting smaller and smaller; lot lines shorter and shorter; and
47 homes being built. much closer together, than when he had built. - The opponent
48 indicated his own lot was 11 ,000 square feet with "a little variation" and had a q
49 much smaller house built on it. He was concerned that the Peele home would not
50 be comparable to -the $100,000 homes he sees being built just north.of the Peele j
51 properties on lots which were wiped out by the April 26th tornado. ;
52
53 Commissioner Jones asked Mr. Budnicki if it would change the character of the house
54 for him if Dr: Peele put his front door facing 32nd Street and told ,,him all the s
55 applicant is asking of the City is permission to turn his house around to face out
F
-4-
4
1
• 1 on Belden Drive. When Mr. Budnicki indicated that was not what he was objecting
2 to, the Commissioner told him Mr. Brown 's home on the other end of that street
3 had been permitted to .be built 15 feet from the curb line, and since the state t
4 ordinance says "your front yard setback must average what your neighbors are," ;
5 the Commission coul.d recommend sucha vari.ance .should be granted to Dr. Peele
6 with which he could bui 1 d the...home_.he i s= nowpropo8i'ng.
8 As far as the value of the house goes, Commissioner Jones said he is certain it
9 would be worth more than what was there -before the storm, and added that it is not
10 the responsibility of the City to dictate the worth of the home which is being
11 built on that property. The Commissioner told Mr. Budnicki he had every right
12 to develop his own 160 foot lot all the way back to the required setback lines.
13
14 Mr. Budnicki indicated he would like to know how the neighbor just west of the
15 Peele property felt about the proposal . Joseph Tretter, 2617 - 32nd Avenue N.E. ,
16 responded by saying he had been confused by the notice and had come to the meeting
17 to find out just exactly what was involved in the Peele request. Mr. Tretter .
18 said he didn't care where the Peele's put their front door. His own home is about z
19 15 feet from the lot line and Dr. Peele indicated a good portion of the back of
20 hi.s proposed home would probably face Mr. Tretter's back yard and the distance
21 between the two homes would be increased even more if' he utilized only 28 of the
22 31 feet the Manager had said were available for a house on the narrow .side of the
23 lot. There was also a possibility the house would only be built 82 feet wide,
24 including the garage.
25
26 Mr. Budnicki indicated he was happy to learn the Peele's would be living in the
•27 new home but said he wouldn 't want to see a double house built on the lot. He
28 was told the zoning would not permit that.
29
30 When the two started exchanging remarks about the size of their respective homes,
31 the Chairman closed the hearing at 8:22 P.M.
32
33 Commissioner Hansen questioned Dr. Peele about whether or not he intended to
34 retain the exi-sting curb cut on 32nd. Dr. Peele indicated he would have no use
35 for a driveway in that location and the Manager said that it would be the home-
36 owner's expense to have the curb cut closer. r
37
38 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded- by Commissioner Hansen to recommend the
39 Council interpret the lot frontage on 32nd Avenue N.E.. be considered the front
40 yard for setback purposes for the property at 2621 - 32nd Avenue N.E. and that the
41 structure to be built there by Arthur R. Peele be permitted to- face towards Belden
42 Drive, finding that:
4.3 f
44 1 . Arthur Peele has indicated he intends to build a home without variances in
45 that location;
46
47 2. Because the subject property is a substandard lot, it is necessary for him to
48 face the house towards Belden Drive;
49
50 .3. The owner of the lot directly west .of the subject property- Joseph Tretter,
51 2617 - 32nd Avenue N.E. , was present for the- hearing and indicated he would
•52 have no- objections to facing the house in that direction; and
53
54 4. Removal -of the decrepit old house which previously stoodon that corner, could
55 do ;nothing less than enhance the appearance of that corner and the neighborhood
- r
56 itself.
F'
-5-
1
5-
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 Mr. Budnicki :persisted in his belief that the proposed structure "would be too long
4 for that small lot", and indicated he was convinced the Commission would see he
5 was right after it is constructed.
6
7 Under the "Unfinished Business" classification inthe agenda, Mr. Childs had advised
8 that Robbie Nelson, whose request for a variance had been tabled August 21st,
9 would be constructing his addition in such a manner as to not require a variance.
10
11 Mike Anderson, 1809 South Plymouth Road, Minnetonka, was present to request concept
12 approval for his plans for rebuilding for sale of the storm damaged property at ;
13 2608 - 33rd Avenue N.E. , which he had purchased from his father's aunt, Ila Clark,
14 who could not bear to return to her home now that all her dearest belongings were
15 gone. He said he had completely removed the damaged structure and dug out the =
16 basement where there had been water problems in the past and now planned to
17 construct on the 47 X 156 foot lot a 34 foot wide structure for which he would
18 need a two foot variance to the City Ordinance requirement for 15 foot sideyard
19 setbacks.
20
21 The plans, which were included in the Commission agenda, were the same ones as
2.2 used for the Robert Rivard home at 3224 Roosevelt Street N.E. , which had been
23 recommended by Mr. Hamer. However, since the Rivard home was built on a 51 foot
24 lot, Mr. Anderson indicated he doubted -very much weather the City would be will -
25 ing to give him a four foot variance and said he would be adjusting the plans so
26 only _a two foot variance would be- necessary. The modifications would be made in
27 the length of the home since there is plenty of room to the rear, Mr. Anderson said.
28
29 The applicant indicated he had lived in the northeast metropolitan area most of
30 his life and had three-relatives, including a sister who lives on Edward, within
31 10 blocks of the Clark home. The man who lived next to this property was a friend
32 of his grandfather and Mr. Anderson said that he had indicated a great interest in
33 seeing him develop the property but had died two weeks previously.
34
35 There was an indepth discussion of the relation of the subject property and the
36 Hertog property, which Mr. Childs is certain would be replatted for residential
37 development some time in the near future, for which the Manager anticipates the
38 property owners would be seeking a similar treatment on the corner lots as had
39 been requested for the Peele property that evening.
40
41 Mr. Anderson indicated he agreed that it would be ideal to have his property
42 incorporated into the Hertog and Johnson developments as suggested by Commissioner
4.3 :Jones,_but since the Manager had indicated it could be some time before the
44 insurance settlement is made and the lot split for such a development realized,
45 the new property owner indicated he could not delay his own project that long. T
46 He said he still hoped to get into the ground as soon as the City procedures would
47 permit and to have the home sold by Christmas.
Y.
48
49 Mr.. Anderson said he had found out the lot owned by the Hertogs east of his own
50 was' 42 feet wide and he .:estimated the old structure, which was once used as a
51 schoolhouse, to be at least 10 feet from his property line. - The applicant
52 indicated- he perceived he had a similar situation to the Peele's where it would be
•53` hardship to build- an attractive home in such a limited space..without ending up
54 with a "shed" appearance which had concerned Mr. Budnicki . Mr. . Anderson also
55 contended the home he planned to build on the lot would not .appreciably increase _ F
56 the value of the parcel beyond-what: was there before the storm.
�f
-6.
• l The Commission members were polled for their reaction to the proposal .
2
3 , Commissioner Jones indicated he would have no objections to building the proposed
4 home on that 47 foot lot but wondered if there woul-d be an advantage for Mr.
5 Anderson to at .least talk to the Hertogs about their plans for developing the
6 adjacent property to see if he couldn 't work out a different configuration which
7 could be beneficial 'to both parties since the Commissioner does not foresee the
8 City permitting the redevelopment of the florist property into 47 foot lots
9 facing Edward Street N.E. He told Mr-. Anderson it would be to his 'own advantage
10 to return to the public hearing on the request with written indications of
11 neighbor approval of his plans. `
12 `.
13 Commissioner Hansen responded to this by saying he agreed with Commissioner Jones '
14 desire to have this property fit .into .the Hertog development, but perceived,
15 since that would not be possible for----at least a year, the Commission would have
16 to consider this proposal independently since Mr. Anderson had indicated he
17 wanted to start construction as soon as he could. The Commissioner indicated
18 that', barring any serious opposition from the neighbors, he would be voting for
19 a recommendation of approval for this project since he personally is very happy
20 to see the lots :in that area, none of which are an ideal size, developed for
21 attractive homes.
22 �.
23 Commissioner Franzese indicated she could recommend approval of this proposal
24 since a 34 foot wide house would probably be fitted more attractively on this
25 lot which the Manager had indicated was 7,300 square feet and larger than the
26 Mike Pribula lot at 3231, Roosevelt, for which a variance was recently given.
• 27
28 The Chair indicated he also would have preferred to have an arrangement whereby
29 the Hertog property could have been considered with this proposal , but conceded �.
30 there just wasn 't time for that to be worked out. He offered no objections to the
31 proposal before him.
32
33 Commissioner Wagner indicated the Anderson proposal looked good to him and said
34 he would have no objections if none were raised by the neighbors.
35
36 Mr. Childs reported the actions taken by the City in an attempt to get the storm
37 damaged property like the -Johnson's and the Hertog's. cleaned up. Commissioner
38 Hansen said he saw bulldozers working on the Johnson property that- day.
39
40 There was a brief discussion of Arkell 's financing problems with the condominium
41 project with several Commission members indicating their concern that some of the
42 buyers might withdraw from their purchase agreements if start of construction is -
43_ delayed too long_ _ r
44
45 Commissioner Hansen promised to report back on the vote scheduled the next evening
46 by St. Anthony Legion members* on whether the local post was interested in joining
47 with the New Brighton Legionnaires to purchase the former Super Valu building on
48 01-d Highway 8 for clubrooms. If the City group decides to make the move, the
49 St. Anthony building would be sold. Mr. Childs said it would be difficult for
50 that property to be considered along with the condominium development at this
51 late, date.
52
53.- Commissioner Hansen requested support .of the Commission :members for the St.
54 Anthony Biennial. Ball which is scheduled to be held in Apache* in April . This led
-5-5 to & short update on the reconstruction of the center by staff. {
T
-7-
1 Motion by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to adjourn the
2 meeting at- 9:05 P.M.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 i
7 ,i
8 Respectfully submitted,
9
10 Helen Crowe, Secretary
11
12
13 t]
14 4'
15 I
16
17
18
19
20
21 ,
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
4-3-- —
44
45 E
46
47
48
49
50
0 52 s
53
54
55