HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 01151985 Meeting Sheet
h
101862
'x
Box: 21
Folder:-PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1985
k
Y
4
Document: PL MINUTES 01151985
. a
. r
S
A
.A
.5
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
January 15-, 1985
1 The meeting was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Franzese at .7:35 P.M.
2
3 Present for roll call : Bowerman, Jones, Madden, Franzese, Bjorklund, and Hansen.
4
5 Absent: Wagner.
6
7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund to amend
10 the agenda to include the discussion of an amendment to the Kenzington P.U.D. and
11 the election of Commission officiers for 1985 under #5(d) and (e) and to welcome
12 John Madden who had been appointed January 14th to serve a three year term on
13 the Commission.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16
17 The Chair Pro Tem commented that the Commission now had representation from
18 Ramsey County and the perspective of a townhome owner who lived on 37th Avenue N.E.
® 19
20 The Secretary requested the word "hearing" be substituted for "meeting" in line 7,
21 page 2 of the December 11th Commission minutes.
22
23 Motion by Commissioner Hansen and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to approve
24 as corrected the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held December 11 , 1984.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 Commissioner Bjorklund volunteered to represent the Commission at the Council meet-
29 ing to be held January 22nd.
30
31 At .7:42 P.M. Chair Pro Tem Franzese read the notice of the hearing to consider a
32 request from Mike McGinn, 4021 Fordham Drive N.E. for subdivision without platting
33 of Lot. 8, Block 4, Moundsview Acres into two single family residential lots
34 approximately 62.25 feet X 296 feet in size and totalling 18,000+ square feet
35 each, as well as a variance from the City Ordinance requiring minimum lot width of
- 3-6-7,5—feet;—but only-9;000—square feet-tota-l—area.
37
38 The notice had been sent to all property owners of record within "35'0 feet of the
39 subject property and had been published January 2nd in the Bulletin. No one
40 present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
41
42 The proposal had been included in the October 16, 1984 Commission agenda but had
.43 been withdrawn by Mr. McGinn. In his January 11th staff report on the :request,
44 the Manager had indicated he had received no objections to the proposal and had
• 45 advised the Commission that. the precedent for the requested action had -been
46 set in Moundsview Acres with .the latest being the identical development of Lot 9
47 by Mr. McGinn which was approved by the Council in their June 26, 1984 meeting.
-2-
1 B'irger L. Kylander, 4013 Fordham Drive (.one of those lots . approved in 1984)
2 indicated he was appearing for Mr. :McGinn with whom Mr. Kylander would be
3 developing these lots as he had the previous two. He said---the,,ol.d ramshackle
4 structure at 4009 Fordham would be replaced by two new, larger homes on the
5 lots which would result from the subdivision and he assured Commissioner Jones
6 there would be no need for further variances for either of those new homes .
7 Mr. Kylander indicated he perceived a hardship was evident since the existing
8 124 foot X 296 foot lot is landlocked .at the rear and frontage for two additional
9 lots would probably never be provided. He said the area would never:;support
10 the type of house which would have' to be built on a $64,000' one acre lot. He
11 added that the subdivision of surrounding parcels into similar sized lots had
12 commenced way back in the 60' s.
13
14 The developer indicated he and Mr. McGinn had believed contacting all the neighbors
15 again was unnecessary in view of,-the signed petition presented when Lot 8 had
16 been approved in June, 1984 at which time all the neighbors who signed under-
17 stood that Lot 9 would probably be developed in a similar manner.
18
19 No one else appeared to speak for or .against the proposal and the hearing was
20 closed at 8: 50 P.M.
21
22 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund .and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend
23 the City Council approve the request from Mike McGinn, 4021 Fordham Drive, to
24 subdivide without platting Lot 8, Block 4,. Moundsview Acres (described as 4009
25 Fordham Drive) into two single- family. residential lots, approximately 62.25 feet
26 wide by 296 feet in. length, totalling 18,000+ square feet each, and to grant the
®
27 necessary variance to the City Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum lot
28 width of 75 feet, finding that:
29
30 1 . No opposition to the request was demonstrated during the Commission ' s hearing
31 or to staff following the notice;
32
33 2. The applicant had in the past secured signatures of his neighbors on a document
34 which indicated their approval of an identical lot split and variance on the
35 adjacent lot;
36
37 3. Approval of the request seems -justified by the unique physical attributes of
38 this property and the adjoining lots of similar size and shape (extreme
39 depths and narrow widths) , as well as the fact that the property to the rear
40 remains undeveloped and a _precedent for similar lot splits exists in Moundsview
41 Acres and on the adjoining property.
42
43 4. The three conditions which are required to be satisfied affirmatively appear
44 to have been done so for this request; and
45
46 5. Platting the property would be expensive and cumbersome.
47
48 Motion carried unanimously.
49
50 The Chair read the notice of the hearing to consider the petition from Rosemary and
51 Victor Munayco for the variance which would allow the erection of a 6 foot fence in
• 52 the front yard of .3507 Edward Street N.E. where the City Fence Ordinance allows
53 only four foot fences. The notice had been sent to all property owners of record
54 within 200 feet of the subject property and published in the 'January 2nd Bulletin.
55
-3-
1 The hearing was officially opened at 8:00 P.M. with. the staff report from Mr.
2 Childs which reiterated much of the information contained 'in hi.s January
3 11th memorandum detailing the circumstances under which the existing fence, which
4 had been damaged..by the Apri-1 tornado and subsequently damaged further by winds
5 this summer, had been deemed by .the Public Works Director to require a variance
6 since its protection under the "grandfather. law" had been, in Mr. Hamer 's opinion,
7 lost because the fair market value of the fence damage had been more than 75%.
8
9 As stated in his memorandum,. the Manager reiterated that the Fence Ordinance had
10 been written in response to the neighbors' objections to thesix foot height in the
11 front yard of this fence and another on Pahl Avenue. He also mentioned that the
12 Commission might find the similarities between this case of tornado damage and the
13 Hertog and Johnson florist operations which were considered to be 75% damaged in the
14 same storm.
15
16 At this point, Commissioner' Bjorkl.und- interjected his request that the record should
17 state that it is his opinion that the 'City Ordinance does not conform in this
18 regard to the standards set by other communities around the City who consider 50%
19 damage as qualifying .for termination of non-conforming uses. Commissioner Bowerman
20 responded that whether or not the City Ordinance was correct- was not the issue
21 before the Commission that evening, but rather their recommendation had to be based
22 on the 75% figure set in the Ordinance.. Commissioner Bjorklund agreed that amending
23 the Ordinance should .be taken care of another time but indicated he felt the
24 Commission had to use commonsense in their deliberations that evening.
25
26 Mrs. Munayco reiterated much of the information included in the copy of her November
•
27 letter explaining what had happened to the fence during the storm and later during
28 the summer while she was waiting for the contractor she had hired to repair the
29 fence which had been included in the agenda packet. Her contention was that while
30 a good deal of the tornado damage was done to the fence in back, there was only one
31 panel of fence blown down in the front yard at that time. She further contended that
32 there had been very little damage' to the wood itself, but rather the problem was
33 only that portions of the fence were blown down. None of the posts were blown she
34 said. She drew a sketch of her- home and fence on' the blackboard and illustrated
35 just which panels the tornado .had blown down and which went down later that summer.
36 Mrs. Munayco said only seven of a total of 73 panels had to be replaced, although
37 some of the. wood had to be replaced in other panels . Mrs. Munayco blamed the delay
38 in putting up the .fence on the contractor she. had hired in June and who failed to
39 do the work. In 'the fall , she hired another contractor who repaired the fence
40 but did not get a permit.
41
42 Joe -Mezzenga', who said he lives next door to the Munaycos at 3511 Edward_Street N.E. ,
43 indicated he doesn"t believe the six foot fence, which "looks like a stockade" in
44 front is appropriate for a residential neighborhood. His testimony differed from
45 Mrs. Munayco' s testimony that the greater damage was done after the tornado, in that
46 he insisted "a lot of the fence was knocked down by the tornado and lay on the
47 ground for a .long- time during which more of. the fence was blown down". He showed
48 pictures he had .taken within the last week which showed the fence as stained and
49 poorly maintained even after it was rebuilt. Mr. Mezzenga insisted the fence had
50 downgraded the value of his :;own home. Mr. Mezzenga did testify, however, that
51 "nota l of .of the front fence was down at any time".
52
53 Mr. Childs told the Commission it was up to them to make the interpretation of
54 whether the ordinance intended to include the entire fence as one structure or
55 considered the 75% figure for only the non-conforming portion. When Commissioner
56 Jones later requested the -matter. be tabled so the Commission could get the benefit
57 of the Council 's interpretation, the Manager told him that the duty of interpreting
58 the Ordinance remained with the Commission.
-4-
• 1 When Mr-. Childs indicated, Mr. Hamer had considered the whole fence as the "structure"
2 in making the 75% determination of damage, Commissioner Bowerman indicated he
3 disagreed with that determination, .saying .he believed only the figure should have
4 been applied to only the port ion of the fence which was . noh=conforming. The
5 Commissioner continued by stating that if the Commission accepts Mr. Mezzenga's
6 testimony that the majority of the damage was done to the back fence,- which is
7 built in conformance with the City Ordinance, it would be his opinion that it would
8 not be necessary. for the Munayco"s to get a variance for the front fence which is
9 still a legally installed non-conforming use. under the Ordinance. Commissioner
10 Bowerman told Commissioner Bjorklund that the fact that the pictures prove the fence
11 is unsightly and poorly maintained is not really germane to the issue before the
12 Commission that evening. Commissioner Jones stated that in his opinion, even if
13 the front fence were cut down to. four feet; it would not erase the neighbor opposi-
14 tion to it because of its appearance. Commissioner Madden indicated he agreed with
15 Commissioner Bowerman that the Commission should not concern itself with the
16 appearance of the fence.
17
18 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
19 that the Council make the interpretation that 75% destruction of the front yard
20 fence at 3507 Edward Street K.E. had not. occurred and that the pre-existing permitted
21 legal non-conforming use is still protected. The Commission, however, notes that
22 other fence portions which are not involved in the variance request may be in
23- violation of the City's Fence Ordinance regarding maintenance, structural condition,
24 and state of repair, etc. In- recommending- this interpretation, the Commission has
25 taken into account the testimony of, both the proponent and one opponent which
C, 216.- indicated that significantly less than 75% damage was sustained to the. front yard
27 fence.
--—-
28 ---- - -- -- - - -- — —------ -
29 Commissioner Madden continued .in his belief that the condition of the fence should
30 not be an _issue in the motion but rather that the matter should be referred to the
31 Public Works Director for enforcement of the ordinance which -properly addresses
32 the condition and maintenance of fences. Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived
33 key word in this consideration as well as in the action taken related to the florist
34 operations damage in the same storm, should be whether there was 75% of the fair
35 market value damage done.
36
37 Commissioner Jones spoke against the motion indicating his interpretation of the - - -
38 ordinance was that the whole integral fence should be considered one structure and
39 suggestedthematter be tabled for another month so the Commission could get the
40 benefit of first hand testimony of Larry Hamer about the .tornado damage, etc.
41 The Commissioner then indicated he sawa direct connection with this issue and the
42 Hertog property damage where the City had rul.ed the one side was 75% destroyed and
43 could not be r.eplaced .but continued to let the Hertog's operate their business, even
44 if temporarily, on the other side of the street, a decision he is opposed to.
45
46 Commissioner Madden then made a motion to table the recommendation on the Munayco
47 fence for a month, which Commissioner. Jones seconded.
48
49 Voting on the motion to table:
50
51 Ayer Madden, Jones, Hansen and Franzese.
• 52
53 Nay: Bjorklund and Bowerman.
54
55 Motion to table carried.
-5-
• 1 The Chair Pro Tem indicated the issue would be addressed again at the Commission 's
'2 February 19th meeting, at which the Manager had indicated he would have Mr. Hamer-
3 present to personally explain his inspections of the property.
4
5 At 8:50 P.M. , Chair Pro Tem Franzese opened the hearing to consider the proposal
6 initiated by the City for the rezoning and preliminary .plan review for the Walbon
7 property from R-1 , single family residential to R-3, multi-family residential which
8 would allow the construction of 32 townhauses on the property where industries
9- Ancompatible to the residential character of the rest of the neighborhood are now
10 conducted.
11
12 The notice had -been- sent to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the
13 subject property and been published in the .January-,2nd Bulletin -and a special meet-
14 ing with the proposed developer and the neighbors had been field December 29, 1984.
15 No one present reported- failure to receive the notice of the January 15th hearing
16 or objected to its content.
17
18 Mr. Childs, in his .January 11th memorandum; had given the staff report on the
19 proposed Redevelopment/Tax Increment Plan and Redevelopers Agreement which had
20 been included in the agenda packet, inc'luding,,staff recommendation that the plan
21 and selection of Brighton Development Corporation be accepted by the Commission.
22
23 He told the Commissioners the Council and-H.R.A. had both given preliminary approval
24 to the proposal at their January 8th meetings and the H .R.A. had referred it to the
25 Commission, School -District and. County for their input and recommendations.
26 The Manager said the idea of having the project developed under a Planned Unit
27 Development had -been abandoned when it became clear the variances which would be
28 necessary to. push the development closer to Old Highway 8 and away from the resi-
29 dences to the"west and to provide four more units than the Ordinance allows for
30 R-3 zoning, could be handled better through variances, especially since less than
31 three acres would seem to be too small for a P.U.D. Mr. Childs confirmed that the
32 proposed project would result in a use for the property which would conform to the
33 City's Comprehensive Plan for that area. He then introduced Peter Carlsen and
34 Sylvia Frank of Carlsen & Frank .A.rchitects, 482 Dayton Avenue, St. Paul , who
35 presented the preliminary plans developed by Brighton Development after their
36 meeting with the affected neighbors.
37
38 Mr. Carlsen indicated .Brigh.ton 's plans are to develop 32 townhouse units which
39 would be broken down into clusters of .six and four units arranged on the site so
40 the massing would break down into smaller units. Each of the buildings would be
41 composed of. two or three bedroom units, as the market dictates in the future and the
42 architect indicated the exact mi.x was not definite at that stage. Each unit would
43 have .its own one stall garage and'.a parking stall in front of the garage which
44 Brighton Development had found to be highly marketable in their other projects.
45 Mr. Carlsen said the project would be staged over a period' -of a year or so and
46 would be built in three separate phases,- with the first to include the six units
47 near. Old Highway 8, one of wh:ich, woul.d serve as a model . The second three buildings
48 would be constructed in the middle of the *site and the final phase would be to
49 build two buildings across the rear of the property.
50
51 The architect said the fire lane had not been planned off 33rd Avenue N.E. because
• 52 of neighbor concern about increased traffic on that street. This would leave a
53 double access off Old Highway 8, Mr. Carlsen said.
54
55 Each of the units are planned to be approximately 1 ,100 to 1 ,200 square feet in area
56 and would be designed for a two story split entry on the front and what would appear
-6-
1 to be a story and a half in the rear in deference to the neighbors who would view
2 them from the rear. The "prairie" style home had been adopted for the townhomes
3 because, Mr. Carlsen said, Brighton Development perceived that style .would be more
4 in keeping with the surrounding homes. At the suggestion of the community at the
5 December 29th meeting, the architect told the Commissioners. the developers are
6 evaluating the possibility of providing two car garages for some of the units.
7
8 Commissioner Jones said he had a real problem with the problem for potential buyers
9 with the first phase of units being-constructed so they backed up on the busy
10 intersection of Old Highway 8. The- Manager. and architects both indicated that
11 was the only possible way the buildings could be constructed as far away as
12 possible from the neighbors to' the west. Ms' :.- Frank told the Commissioner there
13 might be a conflict with the existing drainage ditch if the driveways and parking
14 for those townhouses were built in the Old Highway 8 right-of=way. Mr. Carlsen
15 told Commissioner Jones that although neither one of them might like to have their
16 rear yards facing the. street, the developer feels that there is a market for
17 persons who want that specific design, .i .e.,, people who like to watch the action
18 from that vantage point.
19
20 Commissioner Madden gave the perspective of a townhouse dweller, disputing the
21 impression that some single family residents have that people who live in townhomes
22 are any different than themselves.. He agreed with Commissioner Jones that the
23 potential for the noise and congestion in the back yards facing Old Highway 8 might
24 be a detriment to selling those units.
25
26 Virgil Hietala, 3609 - 33rd Avenue N.E. , who lives across 33rd Avenue from the
27 proposed project', indicated that although he would have always preferred to have
28 single family homes' across from his-.home, had become convinced that the project
2.9 proposed now was the' best..which could be- expected for that property which .is a
30 difficult shape to develop.
31
32 Bob Williams,' who said he lives just south .of the project at 3125 Croft Drive,
33 whose back yard runs along Old Highway 8; said he is generally in favor of the
34 proposed project, "mainly to get rid of what 's there now". However, Mr. Williams
35 added- that he had mixed feelings- ab,out the proposal because of his concern about
36 what could happen if the property is rezoned and the proposed development falls
37 through. Mr. Childs told him that if Brighton doesn 't develop the site, the H.R.A.
38 would .have already purchased the parcel and would accept only a development for it
39 which would be done properly.
40
41 Gail Gibson, who said she and her husband had bought the property at 3612 - 33rd
42 Avenue N.E. , immediately west of. the Walbon property in September, . said she believes
43 they- are the only neighbors who have 50% of their property abutting the subject
44 property. She wanted assurance that the property line in front of her *home would
45 be straightened out before the final project plans are. adopted. Mr. Childs reported
46 that,this -had been done. She added that survey sticks recently put in would seem
47 to indicate that would be the case. Mrs. Gibson stated, of course she and her
48 husband would prefer single family residences with fewer people next -door to them,
49 especially since the side of their home is only 26feet from the Walbon property
50 line, but said she had perceived from the December 29th meeting that the proposed
51 developers-would be "reasonable people, who would give weight to the neighbor's.
52 wishes that the development would be sited as far away from the neighbors ' homes.
S53 to the west as possible." She also indicated she hoped the project would not
54 cause any water drainage problems for her home. When pressed by Commissioner Jones
55 to say .she perceived the proposed project would "have a positive advantage over the
-7-
• 1 activities which are now conducted from the Walbon property", Mrs. Gibson declined
2 to go that far, r.emi.ndi.ng, the Commission memb.ers 'that the view from her window, now
3 is only a vacant lot .with trees on it.. However,- Mrs.- Gibson indicated she was in-
4 sympathy with the concerns the other neighbors, have about the existing condition
5 of the .Walbon property.
6
7 The hearing was closed at 9:20 P.M.
8
9 Commissioner Jones indicated .he wished .he could see the cash flow figures for two
10 single family homes plus 26 townhomes on that site. He said he wasn 't convinced
11 that the figures weren 't there to produce the needed purchase funds from the
12 develo.pment,-of two single family lots,on the back of the property, which he
13 perceived could easily be sold for from $30,000 to $35,000 each and less townhomes
14 than proposed. Mr. Childs responded by saying that staff had studied that alterna-
15 tive in the summer of- 1984 and that the cash flow figures had- shown that even with
16 two .$100.,000- houses, the Tax Increment wouldn 't work for such a project.
17
18 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
19 the Council rezone .the 2. 5 acre Walbon property at the southwest corner of Old
20 Highway 8 and 33rd Avenue N.E. 'f rom R-1 single family residential , to R-3,
21 multi-family residential , for' the O1d' Highway 8 Redevelopment/Tax Increment Plan
22 which would provide 32 townhomes on the site as proposed by the tentative developer,
23 Brighton Development Corporation, finding that:
24
25 1 . The proposed plan met with the general agreement of the neighbors following
26 their review of the proposal ;
27
28 2. No one spoke against the rezoning;
29
30 3. The proposed development would eliminate the legal non-conforming, industrial/
31 commercial type of land use now in existence on the property;
32
33 4. Rezoning does address. a stated conflict of land users in that area which had
34 been identified in the City' s Comprehensive Plan;
35
36 5. The Comprehensive -Plan further recommends that medium density housing be
37 developed for this area; and
38
39 6. The proponent for the rezoning is the City, which is perceived to have the
40 best interests of its residents at heart.
41
42 Before the vote was taken; Commissioner Bowerman commented that he would be happy
43 to see this project completed because,. as a resident of that area for overr21
44 years, he had been involved it its development.
45
46 Commissioner Jones commented that he- perceives this proposal is an excellent one
47 which would satisfy many of the neighbors ' concerns. He recognized that the City
48 had gone a long way to get this far on a viable'project and conceded that some
49 concessions had .to be made to produce a project which would work. He shared the
50 concern that the agreement had not been unconditionally guaranteed before the
51 property was rezoned.
• 52
53 Commissioner Jones hoped the developers would look seriously at the provision of
54 double garages and would work out a satisfactory traffic flow which would eliminate
55 some of the problems they might not have foreseen with the proposed plan. The
-8-
1 Commissioner said he .questioned whether the provision of only 12 guest parking
• 2 spaces for 32 units would .be adequate and still wanted to see the Tax Increment
3 figures for 2 single, family homes and 26 townhomes. He also had some questions
4 of whether it was a good idea to .rezone the property for R-3 before a final
5 proposal is received.
6
7 To the last, the Manager responded that the' City Council had indicated their
8 acceptance of. the Redevelopment/Tax Increment Plan. woul.d be 'subject to rezoning the
9 property only when they are sure the proposed project would go' forward. Commissioner
10 Bowerman added that he perceived the developers would be reluctant to expend any
11 further funds unless they had .been assured the property would be rezoned.
12
13 The vote was taken and the motion carried unanimously.
14
15 At 9:_30 P.M. the Chair Pro Tem read the notice of the hearing to consider a request
16 from Amoco Oil Company for a variance from the setback requirements of the City
17 Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a canopy to be located at 3700 Silver
18 Lake Road N.E. to within 17 feet of the west property line, where 30 feet are
19 required. The notice had been published in the. January 2nd Bulletin and mailed to
20 all the property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property. No
21 one reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content, although
22 the proponent amended his request for a 17 feet variance to 15 feet. In_ his
23 January 11th staff report on. the request, the Manager:.:: hadidiiciicated=:receirv_ingjno
24 questions or comments on the project from neighboring property owners and Mr. Childs
25 reported receiving none since his report.
\26
•
27 The hearing was recessed from 9:32 P.M. and resumed at 9:37 P.M. with a report
28 from Mr. Childs reiterating much of the data contained in his memorandum related
29 to the removal of the existing Standard Station and replacement with an Amoco
30 pumper station which would sell convenience food along with gas. A detached car
31 wash facility would be constructed at the north end of the property which the
32 Amoco representative later indicated would be token operated, and self-service,
33 requiring no operator.
34
35 James Filippi of North Star Engineering Consultants, Inc. , 12610 - 58th Avenue
36 North, presented Amoco's request. Scott Adamson and Bill Horn of Amoco, 5001
37 West 80th .Street, Minneapolis, were also in attendance but did not speak.
38
39 Mr. Filippi reported that, since the plans had been drawn, he had consulted with
40 the County Highway Department. and learned they would be taking 15 feet off the
41 corner of the property for a turning lane ,which would force Amoco to-move the
42 proposed pumps and canopy further north than had originally been planned which
43 would in turn place them farther away_ from Silver Lake Road. This in turn
44 would require a 15 foot variance from the closest point to the property line,
45 the Amoco representative estimated. .
46
47 Commissioner Madden asked Mr—Childs what the setback requirement would be for the
48 pumps and_ the Manager told hi"m since' that requirement is 30 feet, he assumed a
49 five foot variance would also be required, for the pumps, if they will be erected
50 25 feet from ,the lot line. The Commissioner indicated he perceived there would
51 be a real safety .problem in that setback requirement which should be observed
52 because of the chance of- an automobile hitting the pumps if-they are too close
53 to the road.
54
55
-9-
® 1 Mr. Childs indicated the four parking spaces Amoco proposed to provide on the site
2 would meet the Ordinance .requirement for one parking stall for every 300 square
3 feet and, he told Commissioner-Jones the Ordinance doesn 't specifically provide for
4 employee parking for commercial property.
5
6 Commissioner Bjorkl-und indicated..he had observed a profusion of signs which had
7 gone -up al-1 over the -Standard., tation since the owner was granted a variance for
8 the inclusion of price changes in the' sign on the corner: He believed the Com-
9 mission should have_ a complete history: of all variances which had been granted
10 for that property in the past. The Manager- reminded him that most of the signage
11 had been installed before the Sign Ordinance went into effect. The Commissioner
12 replied that he anticipated Amoco might not realize St. Anthony 's Sign Ordinance
13 was more stringent than most and he could foresee they mightwant signs all over
14 their site advertising the food sale, gas service, the car wash, etc. and he wanted
15 the amount of signage which would be a]-lowed established right from the start.
16
17 The plans Mr. Filippi showed did not reflect the changes which would have to be
18 made to accomodate the County's plans for that corner. He said the post for the
19 canopy would- be in the middle of an, island which would be 27 feet from the side
20 of the property and pointed out the . location of the four pumps which would be
21 installed at this time and the .location of the two pumps which might be added later
22 if the market indicates a need for them:- A one foot variance for the latter
23 would be necessary at that time, he added.
24
25 The engineer indicated the St. Anthony station would be almost identical to
26 another Amoco station at, White" Bear and Suburban Avenues in St. Paul and he showed
• 27 an illustration of the station which he indicated had essentially the same type of
28 signage proposed for this station.
29
30 With the 13 or. 14 feet of clear span"of spaceunder the canopy, Mr. Filippi indicated
31 he 'anticipated no problem with sight distance across the corner of the property,
32 and he said the widened..curb cuts planned for: 37th Avenue had been taken from the
33 County's plans for the site anal the County had indicated to him .they perceived
34 no problem with the canopy variance. Because of the change in the plans, there
35 was a strong consideration on Amoco''s part to move the proposed storage tanks back
36 of the stationbuilding-. accordi.ng,to the cons u'ltant, -who pointed out the traffic
37 flows through .the property.to Commissioner Jones. He said 'the car wash traffic
38 woul.d` be oriented towards Silver Lake Road where the median proposed by the
.39 County would prevent northbound traffic. -The .Manager indicated no median is
40 planned for 37th Avenue except the triangular right turn lane on the east side
41 of Silver Lake Road.
42
43 Mr. Filippi, did-not anticipate parking problems on the site because most customers '
44 cars would be parked at the .pumpswhile they 'go into .the store to pay for their
45 gas, and the fact that mostly convenience food would be sold would probably shorten
46 that .stop.
47
48 Richard Freb.erg, who operated Dick's Standard which is being replaced by Amoco,
49 indicated -he was. "completely opposed to the type of station the new owners plan
50 to operate, which woul.d result in' a loss of-- full service for the community".
51 He said, .with. the fast food aspects of the new station, he would anticipate the
•
52 traffic could be -tripled on that corner. Mr. Freberg* said .he .understands Amoco'
53 plans to pump 2.4 million gallons of gas. a year from that location, which could
54 mean 700:.c.ar.s_ passing through the station .a day. The former station operator told
55 the Chair Pro Tem the station would be*owned by Amoco but "that he has the right
56 to continue to operate it.
_10-
1 When Commissioner Jones asked Mr'. ' Filippi whether.'the station could .be built with-
2 out a variance, the answer was. that the pumps could be slid back a couple of feet
3 and the canopy which was only provided as a convenience for the customers
4 eliminated altogether. The Nor-th. Star consultant also pointed out that he
5 perceived the pumps would be protected very well by their location on raised
6 islands with concrete bumper guards.
7
8 When Mr. Freberg mentioned that the new station would be open 24 hours a day,
9 Mr. Childs indicated that is allowed. by the City Ordinance.
10
11 The hearing closed at 10:00 P.M.
12
13 Commissioner Jones indicated he agreed-.with 'Mr. Freberg that traffic could be
14 dangerously increased on that busy *corner with- the new operation. He said he would
15 prefer to see the current operator continue in that spot because he doesn 't
16 perceive "the new facility would be .a real addition to the community". The
17 Commissioner indicated he was concerned that the "City might be held liable for
18 promoting a hazardous condition on that corner, but conceded he didn 't know how
19 the City could prevent the changes.
20
21 Commissioner Bjorklund agreed, indicating he perceived that by granting the
22 variance the City would be allowing a- more intensive use of-that busy corner which
23 coul d be perceived to be promoti ng .a' hazard: _'._,He sai d he woul d be voting agai nst
.24 the variance in an effort. to force Amoco to downsize their operation if the
25 variances -weren 't granted.
26
27 Mr. Filippi responded by saying there. were 'many ways the station could be redesigned
28 to avoid the variances,' but he foresaw that the loss of the canopy would force
29 only a hardship for the customers and he said if the gas islands .are resited, it
30 is possible a hazardous .condition coul.d. be created on the site by squeezing the
31 same number of cars into' smal:ler spaces. The consultant indicated he perceived
32 that- reorienting the entrances would :.make the turning area easier.
33
34 Commissioner Bowerman said he had never noticed there was much of' a traffic con-
35 gestion problem near the Super America station further north at Silver Lake Road
36 and Mississippi' Street or near the Holiday Station on Central Avenue near the
37 White Castle which he passes almost daily. Commissioner Hansen disputed those
38 comparisons, saying he passes the St. Anthony intersection as well as the other
39 sites every day and believes the traffic- flow i.s at least double at the corner of
40 Silver Lake Road and -37th. As a matter-of fact,. the Commissioner reported, he
41. had witnessed an accident at the St. Anthony site only the previous evening.
42 Commissioner 'Hansen indicated he anticipated many problems for drivers trying to
43 get out on Silver Lake Road.
44
45 Commi,ssi.oner Bowerman said Commissioner Hansen might be right, but reminded him
46 that Amoco can still build the station .without variances from the City.
47
48 Commissioner. Jones indicated he was very uncomfortable with the provision of only
49 four parking spaces on the 'site, foreseeing that at least three more emplyyees
50 would be needed for the proposed operation and with the coolers, etc. out in front
51 of the store, parking could become. a-real problem, as it has for the Super America
52 just west on 37th Avenue N.E. The Commissioner said he had a real problem with
•
53 the pumps being built so close to such a high traffic road.
54
55
-11-
® 1 Commissioner Bowerman told the Commission Amoco owns the station and has the right
2 to market it any way they desire within the'City Ordinance. He indicated that,
3 if it is true that the company has designed a station which they say provides
4 better traffic patterns and more efficiency than the previous operation and
5 granting them the variances-.' for a safer operation, recognizing the high traffic
6 area they would be operating .in, .is. perceived to' be correct, then the Commission
7 should accept in all .fairness the request for those variances. - The Commissioner
8 indicated that he would .hate to- see the Commi.ssion' reject that variance when the
9 granting-of the variance might be a good public service.
10
11 Commissioner Madden said the .c'loseness.. of the pumps to the street was still a
12 concern of his from a safety standpoint and he indicated he also regretted the
13 loss of a full service station on that corner, citing an instance where the
14 service had been a real boon to him personally.
15
16 Mr. Filippi told the Commissioners that, in .terms of the City's 30 foot pump
17 setback, he perceivedthe strictness of St. Anthony's ordinance as something- he
18 had never encountered in the metropolitan area. He said 15 foot setbacks are
19 common in both Minneapolis and St. Paul. and many suburbs- only require 20 feet.
20 He pointed out that the existing .Standard Station does not meet the 30 foot
21 setback requirement and added that to apply the same 30 foot setback to the
22 structure as well as the pumps i.n his opinion was very stringent.
23
24 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded .by Commissioner Jones to recommend
25 that the City Council .'deny the 15 foot setback variance for the canopy and the five
26 foot setback variance for the pump which Amoco Oil had requested for their station
• ,'27 which would .replace the Standard Station at the southwest corner of Silver Lake
28 Road and 37th Avenue N.E. , finding that:
29
30 1 . The. Amoco request did not sufficiently prove the hardship which is required
31 to be satisfied for a variance;
32
33 2. By granting the variance, the City may be causinga hazard due to the close
34 proximity of the proposed gas pumps to -Silver Lake Road;
35
36 3. Granting the variance may create'an adverse. increase in the already heavy
37 and dangerous traffic on the adjacent street; and
38
39 4. There was insufficient data- provided regarding the potential earlier variances
40 which may already be in place for this site.
41
42 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Madden to cut off
43 debate on the question.,
44
45 Voting to cut off debate:
46
47 Aye: Bjorklund, Madden, Franzese and Hansen.
48
49 Nay: Bowerman and .Jones.
50
51 Motion carried.
• 52
53 Voting on the motion to deny the variances:
54
55 Aye: Bj.orklund,' Hansen, and Madden. _
-12-
1 Nay: Franzese, Jones and Bowerman:
2
3 Motion failed.
4
5 Commissioner Jones explained his .vote by saying the information that Standard's
6 pumps had been closer to the .street than the proposed pumps would be had caused
7 him to reevaluate his opposition, perceiving that if the City permitted those
8 pumps to stay in that location, it might be-permitting the continuation of an
9 existing hazard. The Commissioner indicated he .wondered if the Amoco request.
10 might, in fact, be increasing the safety on that corner.
11
12 Mr. Filippi told him Amoco 's pumps would- actually be 35 feet from the curbline on
13 Silver Lake Road and Commissioner Bowerman commented that he perceived that infor-
1 4 mation should answer. the concerns about a .car careening off the street into the
15 pumps. The Commiss-ioner also disputed the-findings in the motion related to the
16 hardship which must be proved-which Commissioner Bowerman indicated he perceived
17 had been satisfactorily addressed in .the statement: Amoco 'had made on the back of
18 their application.
19
20 Commissioner Bjor.klund indicated- he..perceived there were some on the Commission
21 who did not believe the hardship had been satisfactorily addressed by the pro-
22
ro22 ponent and he persisted in his belief that granting the requested variances would
23 intensify the traffic on that alreadydangerous corner and would not be a service
24 to the community. He reiterated that he recognized that Amoco could build their
25 station without the variances, but said he wanted them to do so without the
26 blessings of the City. The Commissioner .indicated he perceived that by forcing
•
27 the downsizing of the number of pumps, the. City might even be increasing the safety
28 of that area.
29
30 Mr. Filippi said he .sensed that' it was the pump location that made the difference
31 in how the Commission voted, and said. that, although Amoco was removing all the
32 pumps on the 37th Avenue side of. the station, they would now be willing to slide
33 the proposed pumps back five feet to comply with the Ordinance, if the canopy
34 can be retained as proposed.
35
36 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend
37 the City Council grant the request from -Amoco Oil Company for a 10 foot setback
38 variance from .the 30 foot setback required in the City Ordinance which would allow
39 . the construction of 'a canopy in conjunction with the construction of a new gas
40 station to be located .at 3700. Silver Lake Road, finding that the following state-
41 ments which the proponent had included in their December 26, 1984 application
42 for the variance addressed the hardship aspects required to be considered in
43 granting this variance:
44
45 1 . On this lot several factors combine to create the conditions necessitating
46 a.-variance from the front yard setback requirements on Silver Lake Road.
47 The frontage on 37th Avenue N.E. (,118.8) is extremely narrow for the combined
48 side yard and front yard. setback requirements of 50 feet. The only other
49 manner in which this facility could be situated (rotating the site plan 90
50 degrees)- is impractical due .to the front yard setback from 37th Avenue N.E.
51 andthe steep drop off to the railroad tracks. Also, the bridge over the
52 tracks restricts the access to Silver Lake Road in such a manner to create
53 poor on-site traffic circulation. The lot tapers from south to north, thus
54 at the front yard setback from 37th Avenue N.E. , the lot is narrower than the
55 frontage indicates.
-13-
1 2. The purpose of the proposed- variance is not merely for economic gain. The
2 proposed variance as requested, neither increases the size of the building
3 nor the number of gasoline. pumps to be located on the site. The canopy
4 over the pumps projecting into. the front yard setback from Silver Lake Road
5 will provide protection for the residents of. the area stopping to purchase
6 gas. The -variance would alleviate the-.factors previously referred to which
7 created the hardship.
8
9 3. This hardship is not created'. by the current owners of the property. The
10 hardship is created .by the size and shape of the lot,- the topographic
11 features of the lot, and the bridge.. (.The bridge reduces the frontage on
12 Silver -Lake Road for access drives) . combined with the strict application
13 of the front and side yard setbacks contained in .the ordinance.
14
15 The Commission further .requests that .the Council- grant the request on the condition
16 that all signage and advertising -in the media attached to the facility would conform
17 to the City' s existing Sign Ordinance, and also in conjunction with the variance
18 and requests that staff be directed to research any previous variances granted
19 for signs at that location in the past.
20
21 Commissioner Bjorklund persisted in his opposition.to granting any variances for
22 the new operation, indicating -he believed to do so would allow the development
23 of property which might not .other-wise occur, thereby creating a traffic hazard
24 and he indicated he continued .to perceive the required hardship had not been
25 sufficiently addressed because he foresaw that by permitting an increase in the
26 density for that .property, the owner would, in fact, be increasing his income
•
27 potential .
28
29 Commissioner Jones. commented that his decision 'to vote for the motion had been a
30 hard one for him because he perceived the City would be losing a good friend in
31 the previous owner of the station who had provided a service for the residents
32 which would now be lost.
33
34 Voting on the motion:
35
36 Ayer Bowerman, Hansen, Franzese, . Madden, and Jones.
37
38 Nay: Bjorklund.
39
40 Motion carried.
41
42 A poll of the Commissioners was taken related to their reaction to the. 'revised
43 Redevelopment/Tax Increment Plan for the Walbon property which had been included
44 in the agenda packet. Commissioner Jones raised- several questions about some of
45 the figures which had been. presented and indicated he would still like to see the
46 figures which proved .two single family dwellings couldn 't be substituted for four
47 townhouses on that site. The .general agreement on 'the Commission was that the
48 Council should go ahead with the project as proposed.
49
50 There were no comments on the Mayor' s January Memo.
51
52 Mr. Childs .had included in the agenda packet the proposed streetscapes for entrances
53 to the City. at Kenzie Terrace, St.. Anthony Boulevard and other access points near
54 Highway 88, and the section of Silver Lake Road close to the northern access point
55 near Apache Plaza, which .had, been developed-.by the Physical Improvements Committee
-14-
• 1 of the City/School. Marketing Committee in response to the perceived need for
2 better identification and image enhancement of the City to prospective new
3 residents. He indicated the Committee had been formed to propose methods for
4 encouraging the settlement of employees. oflarge industries in the close proximity
5 of the City. in the 80 to 100 new homes coming up for sale in St, Anthony in the
6 near, futuee: . The Manager touched briefly on the progress of- the. project and showed
7 the logo graphics which reinstated the name of'St. Anthony Village as the standard
8 identification.of the community which the Committee hopes would eventual.ly appear
.9 on the main access, street corner signs, the watery tower. .and the City's stationery
10 as funding permits.
11
12 Commission members .indicated they were impressed with, these preliminary proposals.
13
14 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he liked the idea of the landscaping of meridians
15 in the access .street but said he hoped there would not be more plantings provided
16 than could be maintained by City crews.
17
18 The Commission then took up the agenda addendum which .called for a recommendation
19 regarding the amendment of. the Kenzington Planned Unit Development to the extent
20 that the number of units permitted for the condominium project would be increased
21 from 134 .to a maximum ..of, 150 and a fifth story to replace the loft units be added
22 which would -increase the height of the building from grade to the bottom of the
23 mansard roof from 49 feet to -50 feet, six inches and which would be two feet
24 shorter than the previously proposed height to the peak of the roof, as proposed
25 by Arkell Development, the redevelopers. The changes to the plan, which the
26 Manager indicated. had first surfaced just before Christmas, had been presented
27 to the Mayor and Council and all other members of the restructured Planning Com-
28 mission except Commissioners Hansen and _Bjorklund, at a work session called for
29 that purpose just prior to the Planning Commission that evening. There had been
30 general consensus .by those at the work session that the changes were acceptable.
31
32 Mr. Yurick explained that the increase had resulted from F & M's indicationithiey
33 wanted a better loan to value ratio for their commitment to finance the project.
34 The concept to convert the loft units into a 5th floor to meet this requirement
35 became possible. with the withdrawal of their options to purchase from 75% of the
36 loft purchasers during the period which followed the withdrawal of the original
37 financing for the project by the First. Bank of St. Paul in the summer of 1984.
38 The developer indicated that this gave Arkell an opportunity of redesigning the
39 building to provide more double sized units and, Mr. Yurick told the Commissioners,
40 if the marketing of the large "K" units..proceeds as successfully as it has up to
41 now, the numberof total units in the project could be cut down to as low as 138.
42
43 As reported by those attending the work session, the general consensus of those
44 present had been to .accept the proposed changes because, :as Commissioner Bowerman
45 put it, the perception was that the project might not be developed at all if F & M
46 withdrew from theircommitment, and the P. U..D.. amendments could be. seen as a good
47 tradeoff for the addition of fo'ur. more parking spaces for guests outside the
48 building; two additional underground.parking spaces; and the enclosure of both
49 levels of parking (which had been a concern of the Planning Commission in the past) ;
50 and a redesigning of the Kenzington building to complement the exterior design of
5 1 the 202 project across Kenzie Terrace.
• `52
53 Mr. Childs -reminded:.the Commission members, that the City had previously accepted
54 a total .height of 64 feet for the Kenzington project after .many meetings with the
55 neighbors in back of the site.
-15-.
1 Commissioner� Hansen .apologized for not attending the discussion which proceded
2 the Commission meeting, but expressed his chagrin that he had not been alerted
3 sooner that these changes were in the offing.- Mr. Childs stated his reasons for
4 not - discussing the project earlier,, 'Which were basically- that until Arkell demon-
5 strated good faith by initiating. construction, he felt that any consideration of.
6 changes was out of the question. ' The Commissioner was especially concerned that
7 all the potential. buyers who had suffered much from the delay in construction
8 had been informed about the building*.design change and been given the opportunity
9 of changing their location if they chose. Mr.- Yurick told him he was certain at
10 least 90% of those persons knew -about the changes but could not guarantee 100%
11 notification, since. he couldn't get in touch with one of the salesmen whose
12 responsibility it had been to notify the prospective buyers that the changes were
13 being contemplated.
14
15 Commiss-ioner Bjorklund was .told the nearest neighbors had not been informed about
16 the change in building height, which .Commissioner Jones perceived would not really
17 adversely -affect -them since the sun shadow cast by the building is not perceived
18 to fall further -than the alley separating this project from .the neighbors to the
19 west.
20
21 Commissioner Bjorklund responded to this by saying he was nevertheless concerned
22 with those neighbors reaction to a higher building, recalling that when the first
23 building of this type was proposed, a building much shorter than this one had
24 generated a great deal of opposition from the- neighbors who would be most affected.
25 The Commissioner indicated he personally had reached the limits of acceptance for
26 this project and would be voting against any further amendments of the P.U.D.
®
27 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he perceived himself as representing those City
28 residents,:whoemoved-- to St'.-Ant honyi-,because•theypwahtedwto-.li,.ve-1in ;a,commun tya. ..
29 of spacious yards which are not overshadowed by high rise buildings. He said he
30 personally doesn 't want such "a monstrosity in my community" and would prefer to
31 see the building not constructed at all rather than to accept the higher density
32 proposed in the amendment.
33
34 Mr. Yurick responded by reiterating that acceptance of the K bedroom plan by more
35 prospective buyers could cut down th.e' number of units which would be necessary
36 to as few as 138 rather than the maximum 1.50.
37
38 When the Commission poll was continued, Commissioner Jones indicated that he
39 perceived the addition of the..fifth. floor`only involved the roof line since most
40 of the interior changes would be accomplished in almost the same amount of space
41 as had been dedicated for. -the loft units. He could not see any adverse impact
42 on the neighbors from the height increase- and' said it appeared to him that there
43 was a good chance only four units would need to be added to the project. The
44 Commissioner indicated he perceives there is a tremendous acceptance of the
45 Kenzington in the community as evidenced by the fact that it had been estimated
46 that 55% of the potential buyers were -from the Village and he pointed out the
47 fact that .there had been unanimous support for the changes from the Council .
48
49 Commissioner. Bowerman indicated he still perceives this to be a very viable
50 concept which- had not changed substantially from the proposal which had been
51 approved by the City. He said he could certainly understand the economic realities
52 which had been presented as justification for the plan change and he agreed with
® 53 Commissioner Jones that.-.there had' been very little change in the interior square
54 footage.
55
-16-
1 Commissioner Madden indicated he enthusiastically endorsed the amended project
• 2 which to him was very attractive.
3
4 Commissioner Hansen indicated he intended to vote for the amendment because he
5 perceives the Kenzington ..as "a great project", said he would support all the
6 proposed changes and that he liked the new architectural design. However, he
7 reiterated his unhappi.ness at not having _more- time to consider the changes and
8 told Mr. Yurick he believed the developer .owed it to the potential buyers who
9 have suffered much .through the delays to let them know about any changes well in
10 advance. of their being put into effect. . When he asked Mr. Yurick whether he
11 really believed the project would be lost if' F & M demands were-:not met, the
12 Arkell Vice President said the bank officials had indicated they would not go
13 through with their commitment of funds for the project if the -loan to value ratios
14 were not met. Commissioner Bowerman' reminded 'Commissioner Hansen that there is still
15 a week left .before the Council takes-final action on the P.U.D. amendments,-during
16 which time Arkell should be sure to contact all of the current buyers.
17
18 The Chair Pro Tem indicated she perceived one plus side of the new proposal would
19 be the provision for more affordable housing for, residential buyers. She also
20 liked the new design for the building and was very glad to see the interior park-
21 ing areas would be enclosed and heated. She said she shared Commissioner Bjorkl-und's
22 dislike of high buildings but perceived the requested- height increase to be
23 negligible when compared to what was .originally approved by. the City and would
\,-24 have no adverse effect on the appeal of the .project to prospective buyers-
25
26 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
27 the Council amend the Kenzington preliminary P. U.D. to allow the revised archi-
28 tectural 'design proposed for the .Kenzington by Arkell Development which would
29 increase.the height- of the. building to .five stories and-from 49 feet to 50 feet,
30 six inches from grade to the underside of the mansard roof, and to permit a
31 maximum of 150, rather than 134, units-'.to be'developed under a proposal which
32 would .also provide two additional parking spaces in the underground parking area
33 both levels of which would now be enclosed and heatedand four additional guest
34 parking spaces in front of the building.
35
36 Voting on the motion:
37
38 Aye: Jones, Bowerman, Madden, Franzese; and Hansen.
39
40 Nay: Bjorklund.
41
42 Motion carried.
43
44 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to designate
45 Rosemary Franzese to serve as Planning Commission Chair for. calendar year -1985.
46
47. Voting on the motion:
48
49 Aye Bjorklund, Hansen, Bowerman, Jones and Hansen.
50
51 Abstention" uFnanzese.
• 52
53 Motion carried.
54
55
-17-
1 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund to designate
® 2 Ron Hansen to serve as Planning Commission Chair Pro Tem for the calendar year
3 1985.
4
5 Voting on the motion:
6
7 Aye: Bowerman, Bjorklund, Franzese, - Jones and Madden.
8
9 Abstention: Hansen.
10
11 Motion carried.
12
13 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by -Commissioner Madden to adjourn the
14 meeting at 11 :35 P.M.
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18
19
20
21 Respectfully submitted,
22
23 Helen Crowe, Secretary
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