HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 02191985 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101860
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1985
Document: PL MINUTES 02191985
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY-
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 19, 1985
1 The .meeting was called to order by Chair Franzese at 7:30 P.M,
2
3 Present for roll call : Franzese, Bowerman, Madden, Bjorklund, Hansen, and Wagner.
4
5 Absent: Jones.
6
7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager; .and Larry Hamer, Public Works Director.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to approve as
10 submitted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held January 15, 1985.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Commissioner Wagner will report the minutes of the meeting at the February 26,
15 1985 Council meeting.
16
17 As stated in the Manager's February 14th memorandum to the Planning Commission, the
18 request from Rosemary and Victor Munayco to allow a non-conforming fence to remain
• 19 at 3507 Edward Street N.E. had been tabled at the Commission 's January 15th meeting
20 to get the. Public Works Director's observations about the condition of the fence
21 after the April 26th tornado and through the summer.
22
23 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to remove
24 from the table the Munayco January 23, 1985 petition for a variance to retain the
25 six foot non-conforming fence in their front yard.
26
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28
29 Mr. Hamer testified that he had talked to Mr. and Mrs. Munayco after their fence
30 was damaged by the April 26th tornado and when nothing had been done about the
31 poor condition of the fence by the end of the summer, had written them a letter
32 telling them they would require a variance to reconstruct the fence and suggesting
33 that they contact the City as to the procedures they must follow.. The Public Works
34 Director said the next time he visited the property he observed the fence had been
35 put back up in a very unsatisfactory manner with materials which did not match the
-- —36-origi-nal-cons-truc-tion-and-with-the-nor-th-por-tionTeaning-ower what he-per-cei-ved-to
3 7 be was the neighbor's property. He was unable to get verification from the Munayco's
38 as to where their property line was, Mr. Hamer said. As to whether only the damage
39 to the non-conforming front yard .fence should have been considered in making such a
40 determination, the Public Works Director told the Commissioners his department
41 i'ssues building permits for fences as one unit and not for front and back portions
42 of the structure.
.43
44 Most of the back yard fence, but only a few panels 'in front were blown down by the
•
45 storm, •Mr. Hamer said, and he affirmed for Commissioner Bjork.lund that he considered
46 the damaged section constituted "more than 75% of the total fence", which he had
47 told the property owners made their front yard fence non-conforming to the City
48_ fence ordinance, since. it was more than four feet tall .
-2-
• 1 Mr. Hamer indicated to the Commissioners that it was the condition of the back yard
2 fence when it was erected without a permit with grass and dirt hanging from it and
3 tilting to the north which had prompted him to pursue the matter further. He
4 confirmed that "condition-wise; the fence could be considered to be substandard,
5 because it needs 'a lot more attention", but when it was first constructed, the
6 Department Head had indicated he perceived the fence had been built of materials
7 which met the City standards and in a manner which satisfied the City 's evaluation
8 as to workmanship and value to the neighborhood. Mr. Hamer reported he had taken
9 no pictures of the fence after the tornado and did not have a copy of his correspon-
10 dence with the property owners with him. He left at 7:45 P.M.
11
12 When Commissioner Bowerman commented that he perceived the crux of the matter was
13 the amount of damage. done to 'the fence, initially by the tornado, Mrs. Munayco
14 requested the Commissioners read the letter she had provided that evening from her
15 contractor. The Chair read the statement .from Freddie's Lawn Service which stated
16 that "less than 45% to 60% of the fence had been damaged* in the storm". Mr. Munayco
17 asked that the pictures of the fence as it appears now be shown to the Commissioners
18 so they could see how much work had been done on-the fence. The pictures were
19 passed around although a majority of the Commissioners indicated they had personally
20 visited the site.
21
22 Joe Mezzenga, 3511 Edward Street N.E. , testified that he agreed with Mr. Hamer that
23 "at least 75% of the fence was down after the storm He said "most of the fence
24 is in the back yard and most of that was down". The Munayco 's neighbor also told
25 the Commissioners that the original "rough cedar" panels had been replaced with
26 "smooth finish cedar", resulting in ' "a fence built with two different materials".
• 27
28 Commissioner Hansen reiterated his January 15th statement that the Commission
29 should base itsrecommendation on whether "75% of the market value of the fence"
30 had been damaged by the storm.
31
32 At the request of Commissioner Bowerman, Mr. Childs went to the City offices to find
33 a copy of Mr. Hamer' s September 4, 1984 letter to Mr. and Mrs. Munayco. During his
34 absence, the hearing .was closed to further public input at 7:50 P.M.
35
36 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated his perception was that this fence should be con-
37 sidered as only one unit or major system, constructed with- the same style, materials,
38 ownership, location, and workmanship and he recommended the Commission make the
39 interpretation for this one special case where a precedent could not be set (there
40 being only one other fence in the City like this one) , "that the Munayco fence is
41 all- one structure". Commissioner Bowerman indicated that, after seeing the fence
42 firsthand, he could make the same interpretation.
43
44 Commissioner Madden .reported he had also visited the site and, from the street, had
45 noted .that the fence panels had been replaced with sections of different materials
46 and that the northside sections appeared to tilt towards the property to the north.
47 He concurred that the fence should be interpreted to be "one unit of construction",
48 for which a variance would be required if it was 75% damaged, and Commissioner Madden
49 said he would oppose granting that variance.
50
51 Commissioner Bowerman read Mr. Hamer's September 4th letter to Mr. and Mrs. Munayco
• 52 informing them that. the City considered their damaged fence to be in non-conformance
53 with the City Fence Ordinance and outlining the action the property owners would
54 have to take to permit the fence to remain as it had been before the storm.
55
-3-
1 Chair Franzese then asked for a motion based on the two options presented by the
• 2 City Manager.
3
4 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Madden to recommend
5 that the City Council deny the request from Rosemary and Victor Munayco. for a two
6 foot front yard fence variance for a six foot front yard fence in front of their
7 home at 3507 Edward Street N.E. , where only a four foot fence is allowed by the
8 Fence Ordinance, basing the recommendation for denial on 'the interpretation that the
9 existing fence around the Munayco property was originally constructed as "one
10 Piece of goods", with unity of style, design, workmanship, materials, location,
•11 and oWnership. in the front, sides and rear yards of the property and that this
12 specific fence was constructed as a single entity and ceased to remain a single
13 entity in. the late spring and summer of 1984 when, the testimony was heard, in
14 excess of 75% of the market value of the fence, as interpreted by the Planning
15 Commission, was destroyed. The Planning Commission 's interpretation therefore, is
16 that the existing fence is now in non-conformance and subject to the current
17 City Fence Ordinance requirements for front yard fences.
18
19 In recommending denial , the Commission finds further that:
20
21 1 . Sufficient public input from neighbors, staff, and Commission members was
22 received during the January 15th and 19th Commission hearings that granting the
23 variance would not relieve a particular physical hardship;
24
25 2. The variance could not be based on the applicants ' replies to the three
26 questions on the application form, which must be answered in the affirmative
•
27 for a variance to be granted; and
28
29 3. Granting the variance for a six foot front yard fence could set a dangerous
30 precedent for handling future requests of this nature.
31
32 The Planning Commission further recommends that City staff be requested to cite
33 the owners of the fence to bring it up to the standards set by the City codes for
34 quality of maintenance, condition, and workmanship and to locate the fence on the
35 owned property.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 At 8:03 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider a request from James
40 R. Tjernlund, 3124 Silver Lake Road, for a five foot variance to the total sideyard
41 setback requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance which would allow him to con-
42 struct a 23 foot X 26 foot garage and room addition to the south side of the
43 existing structure at 3124 Silver Lake Road. The proposed addition would allow for
44 a 6 foot'setback on the north side and a four foot setback on the south side, for
45 a total sideyard setback of 10 feet where 15 feet are required by Ordinance.
46
47 The Chair read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property owners
48 of record within 200 feet of the subject property. No one reported failure to
49 receive the notice -or objected to its content. Mr. Childs indicated he had
50 received no calls about the proposal .
51
• 52 The seven foot room addition he proposes would open out to his existing kitchen,
53 Mr. Tjernlund said and he would have a side entrance off Silver Lake Road. From
54 the perspective of the neighbor to the south, the applicant said he did not intend
55 to raise any elevations and there should be no problems with water runoff from the
56 19 foot garage.
-4-
• 1 That neighbor, Mrs. Ray Thorsfeldt, 3120 Silver Lake Road, asked Mr. Tjernlund
2 how he would be able to get larger equipment to his back yard with only four feet
3 to his property line, especially if the next owner of her home should decide to
4 build a fence. She speculated that the brush on the north side would prevent him
5 from going that way. Mrs. Thorsfeldt indicated the bedroom on the north side of
6 her home was eight feet from her lot line.
7
8 When Mr. Tjernlund attempted to answer her question, Commissioner Bjorklund, as
9 Commission Parliamentarian, told him the procedure which has. been adopted by the
10 Commission for public hearings would permit the applicant to speak only after all
11 opponents had finished their presentations.
12
13 Mrs. Thorsfeldt concluded her remarks by raising the question of whether the
14 property value of Mr: Tjernlund's property might -be lowered if the owner would
15 not be- able to move large equipment to his back yard.
16
17 Mr. Tjernlund was then allowed to speak and told the Commissioners that with the
18 addition he proposed, the south sideyard setback would only be one foot less than
19 required by Ordinance and he did not perceive this would make his home much dif-
20 ferent than many other structures in the City. He told Commissioner Wagner he
21 planned no rear door for the garage because of the steep slope to the rear of his
22 property.
23
24 Commissioner Bowerman told Mr. Tjernlund that he had lived in three different homes
25 in the Village and not one of them had been positioned on the lot as they had
26 thought. He perceived it would be the City's responsibility to be certain of the
•
27 siting when an addition is this close to the neighbors' property. Mr. Childs told
28 the Commissioner that, if the drawings are not accurate and that when the building
29 is staked, if it is too close.,_to the lot line, the Building Inspector would make
30 Mr. Tjernlund either redesign his project or return to the Commission for another
31 variance. The Manager added that the City usually has the original surveys for
32 all developed homes in its. files.
33
34 Commissioner Bowerman said it probably wouldn't be practical to request legal certi-
35 fication for all additions, but he perceived some concern on the part of the neighbor
36 to the south related to the possible effect the addition might have on the
37 property values for her home.
38
39 Mr. Tjernlund indicated he had used the property stakes to draw the sketch in the
40 agenda packet which indicated he had six feet on the north side and 30 feet on the
41 south before the addition.
42
43 The hearing was closed at 8:17 P.M. for Commission consideration for a recommenda-
44 tion.
45
46 Commissioner Bowerman indicated he perceived the property owner would have no
47 problem adding a two car garage and a smaller addition to his home without a
48 variance. The Commissioner said he had not been convinced that a hardship had
49 been established for the owner if the City would not let him build the seven foot
50 room addition.
51
•
52 When the applicant attempted to tell him why he needed an addition that .large,
53 Commissioner Bjorklund indicated the procedures established for a public hearing
54 would not permit him to speak after the Commission had begun its considerations.
55 The Chair ruled ahe considered the applicant's response germane to the Commission
56 consideration.
-5-
• 1 Mr. Tjernlund told Commissioner -Bowerman the manner -in which his lot is designed
2 dictated the location of the garage on the south side and if that is done, no
3 further construction on the house would be possible since the City would not let
4 him build any closer to the street and the only way he could go would be to the
5 rear where there is a steep- slope. His existing house is only 750 square feet and
6 Mr. Tjernlund said a house that size would not be permitted to be built in the
7 City today. The only way to bring the home up to a competitive market value,
8 would be to make the requested addition, he said.
9
l0 The applicant agreed with Commissioner. Bowerman that a 890 square foot house
11 could not be considered to be a very substantial house by City standards, but
12 said it would be as far as the layout goes for the addition would provide a dining
13 room -and an entry closet on the side exit. He disputed Commissioner Bjorklund's
14 assumption that a -raise in market value was the primary reason for the addition,
15 which the Chair supported. - Commissioner� Bowerman indicated he -perceived a five
16 foot variance to be a major one which could set the precedent toward allowing
17 expansion of properties to non-conforming uses of land in the City. He suggested
18 the Commission should take a hard look at how the applicant answered the three
19 questions required to be answered affirmatively for granting a setback. variance.
20
21 Chair Franzese noted that the Manager, in his February 19th memorandum, had cited
22 the lot ' s topography as a justification for the variance and had mentioned the
23 City Ordinance appears to encourage two car garages. Commissioner Bowerman
24 responded by saying there are many one car garages in the same neighborhood. Speak-
25 ing personally, he indicated he would have no problem at all with permitting the
\,-26 two car garage, which of course Mr. Tjernlund could construct without ,a
27 variance, but he was having a hard time with allowing a seven foot addition
28 which would put the' structure so close to the neighbor on the south.
29
30 Commissioner Hansen responded by saying there would be twelve feet between the
31 structures and many homes are built ten feet apart under the ordinance. As far as
32 emergency equipment getting between houses, that had almost been ruled out in the
33 past because of telephone poles, large trees, fences, etc. Commissioner Hansen
34 also indicated that he had not been convinved the neighbor to the south was really
35 opposed to the request.
36
37 Commissioner Madden agreed with Mr. Tjernlund that to make a meaningful addition to
38 his 750 square foot home, he would have to have at least a seven foot addition as
39 well as the garage at this time because once the garage is built, there is little
40 or no prospect for increasing the square footage. He agreed with the Manager that
41 this was a substandard size lot and perceived that 12 feet between structures
42 should be adequate considering some of the other variances recently granted in
43 the City.
44
45 Commissioner Bjorklund disagreed, saying the reason people originally settled in
46 St. Anthony is being compromised because they moved to the City to have "elbow
47 room" and "quality", which he perceives is being degraded with every variance like
48 this one. He indicated he believed the City had been developed with a minimum of
49 15 feet between houses and the Commissioner indicated he believes the addition in
50 question could be designed and built in another manner, even to the rear without a
51 variance. He did not perceive the dropoff in the back was so severe an addition,
52 perhaps a walkout basement, couldn't be built. To him, 12 feet, between homes was
53 "extreme" and he perceived a dangerous precedent was being set.
54
55 The Chair indicated she was not really "firm" on a decision, but did perceive there
56 was difficult topography involved.
-6-
1 The Manager mentioned that there was a history of granting similar variances
2 recently, citing a 10 or 11 foot variance for Ed Brown 's property, as well as the
3 variances granted for the Ruth Smith home and the house next to the Hertog
4 development. However, he cautioned -against using precedents for justifying
5 variances, indicating he perceived each case should be judged on its own merits.
6
7 When Commissioner Hansen wondered if the request should be tabled to enable the
8 petitioner to come back with a new proposal , Commissioner Madden made the following
9 motion for purposes of discussion:
10
11 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded .by Commissioner Bjorklund to recommend
12 the Council grant a five foot sideyard total area variance to the City Ordinance
13 requirement for 15 feet to construct a 26 foot garage and room addition to the
14 home of James R. Tjernlund at 3124 Silver Lake Road as he proposes finding that
15 the applicant had indicated he could not add to his 750 square foot home in any
16 other manner because of the steep dropoff of his property to the rear.
17
18 Voting on the motion:
19
20 Aye: Madden, Franzese, Wagner, and Hansen.
21
22 Nay: Bowerman and Bjorklund.
23
24 Motion carried.
25
26 Commissioner Bjorklund reiterated the reasons he would be opposing the motion
•
27 before the vote was taken and the applicant asked for permission to address these
28 objections after the vote. When the exchange became personal , the Chair shut
29 off_the_dis6ussion._
30
31 At 8:40 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider the petition from the
32 Mobile Hi-Fi Sound Center, 2550 Kenzie Terrace, for a variance to the Sign Ordinance
33 which would allow display of a 3 X 6 foot "sandwich board" type of sign in front
34 of that establishment during the regular business hours. The total areai.of the
35 proposed free-standing sign would be 36 square feet.
36
37 The notice of hearing was read by the Chair and no one present reported failure to
38 receive the notice or objected to its content. Mr. Childs reported receiving no
39 calls either for or against the request.
40
41 In his February 19th memorandum, the Manager had indicated that the applicants
42 had been advised that staff would be recommending denial of the request because
43 approval would not be in keeping with the intent of the City Ordinance and would
44 pose long term enforcement problems for staff as do the similar signs permitted
45 gasoline stations and for open houses. He had also mentioned that the business
46 already had identification on the southeast side of the building.
47
48 Fred Denn, who, along with Larry Matthes, his partner in the business, had signed
49 the application, was present and reiterated many of his statements on the applica-
50 tion which he perceived justified his having additional signage for his business.
51 Mr. Denn indicated that he believed signage in the front of the building would
• 52 increase the business by 50% and would cut down on some of the ."hostility" dis-
5 3 played by some of his customers who have difficulty finding the business. He
54 said many of these customers are "leery of a hole-in-the-wall business" and the
55 business owner contended the shop was almost impossible to find for customers
-7-
1 heading east on Kenzie Terrace. . The stereo installer- indicated..his business drew
• 2 people from all over the metropolitan area, many of whom would go and shop in
3 the adjoining shopping center while their equipment was being installed in their
4 vehicle. Mr. Denn told-the Commissioners he and his partner have done a lot of
5 work cleaning up the back of their property and he perceives they have become a
6 real -asset to the community. .
7
8 The man who had accompanied Mr. Denn to the hearing did not speak and the hearing
9 was closed at 8:45 P.M.
10
11 When Commissioner Wagner asked about the signage on the side of the-building,
12 Mr. Childs told him that sign which is a bit bigger than allowed had been painted
13 . on the building before the City found out about it and told the occupants they
14 needed a permit for the sign.
15
16 Commissioner Hansen and the Chair both indicated they recognized the need for
17 identifying a business and Commissioner Hansen told Mr. Denn' the City was glad
18 to have a business in that location. However, he said, the Sign Ordinance had
19 been written to assure that all signs were of substantial quality which the
20 proposed sign did not appear to be. It was also pointed out that the Ordinance
21 almost discourages any type. of free standing sign and the only ones which have
22 been permitted have been of substantial construction and not temporary.
23
24 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund to recommend
25 the Council deny the request for a• variance under the existing sign ordinance
26 for a "sandwich board" type of sign in front of the Mobile Hi-Fi Sound Center,
•
27 2550 Kenzie Terrace, finding that:
28
29 (1 ) It is not the intent of variances to change the ordinance for each applicant 's
30 physical situation either for a business or property;
31
32 (2) There was not sufficient hardship demonstrated in that there is already
33 identifying signage on that building; and
34
35 (3) To commence granting variances to permit free-standing sandwich board signs
36 is not an activity the Commission wishes to begin for the City.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 The meeting was recessed from 8:50 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. when the public hearing to
41 consider the preliminary platting for Johnson Manor was opened.
42
43 No one present indicated failure to receive the notice of the hearing or objected
44 to its content. Mr. Childs indicated he had received no calls either for or against
45 the platting of the property but had received many, many calls from people who
46 were interested in buying one of the new lots.
47
48 Mr. Childs reiterated many of the points about the request for platting which he
49 had made in his. February 19th report on the proposal ,, telling the Commission
50 members that the hearing was to consider the request from J. R. Johnson Supply, Inc.
51 for preliminary plat approval of a 9 unit subdivision of land located east of
•
'52 Edward Street between 33rd and 34th Avenue N.E. which had been formerly occupied
53 by a wholesale florist greenhouse prior to the April 26, 1984 tornado for single
54 family residential dwelling development. The Manager told the Commissioners that
55 in addition to the nine residential lots, there were two outlots included in the
-8-
1 plat. Outlot B, he said, would -be added to the owner's home property at 3306
• 2 Belden Drive, and Outlot A was proposed to be used for a community tennis court
3 for the adjoining home owners.
4
5 Three of the nine residential lots, #2, , #3, and #4, would be 640 square feet
6 smaller than the 9,000 square feet required by the Ordinance, which Mr. Childs
7 said are restricted by their 110 feet depth and narrowness of the property at that
8 location. All three would conform to the Ordinance as to 'length and width and
9 the Manager had indicated he perceived the small variances necessary for these
10 lots were justified considering what he perceived to be an excellent layout, con-
11 sidering the configuration of that land and the fact that single family use conforms
12 to the Zoning Ordinance and would be very compatible for the neighborhood, and
13 similar variances had been approved for the Hertog Development.
14
15 Rick Johnson who lives at 3306 .Belden Drive advised the Commission that the survey
-16 had shown that a wooden retaining wall constructed across the rear of Lot 13
17 (3302 Belden Drive) , which encroached on the property lines for Lots 1 and 2 and
18 might pose potential problems for the purchasers of those lots. The Manager
19 indicated a meeting between Orville Thompson, who had erected the retaining wall
20 and the Johnson's might be arranged to straighten out the deficiency.
21
22 When Commissioner Bjorklund recalled past Commission testimony regarding a "ditch
23 running through this property", the Manager told him the City has a storm sewer
24 easement across the -back of the property and Mr. Johnson indicated there is a,'
25 24 inch pipe which runs across the back of Lot 1 to catch the water running on the
26 back side of those yards and all water would be drained to the back and then to
•
27 the south.
28
29 Ron Sonmore, 2708 - 34th Avenue N.E. , indicated he was in favor of the proposal in
30 general but was concerned that the drainage easement for the Belden Terrace
31 Addition be unimpeded. He told Commissioner Bjorklund he would personally not be
32 opposed to having Outlot A made into a ponding area, but could not speak for his
33 neighbors.
34
35 Bill Zawislak, 2500 - 34th Avenue N.E. , who had just completed a two year service
36 on the Planning Commission, indicated he would be very much in favor of the project
37 and both the platting and variances as requested. He saw a similarity with the
38 Hertog Development where the lots were 70 X 140' and like the proposed lots, lined
39 up to match the lots behind them.
40
41 Peter Leba, 3316 Edward Street N.E. , who said he lives directly across the street
42 from the Johnson property, strongly recommended the acceptance of the Johnson
43 proposal , which he perceived would be a great improvement for the neighborhood.
44
45 Mr. Johnson told Commissioner Wagner the recreational area on Outlot A would be
46 maintained by the- imposition of an annual fee which would be a part of the sales
47 contracts for the lots which would be included in the association. He said Lots 1 ,
48 12, and 13 would not be included. The proponent told Commissioner Madden access
49 for Lots 2, 3, and 4 to the tennis courts would be provided by easement across
50 Lot 9. He then told the Chair construction would be started as soon as approval
51 is granted.
• 52
53 Mr. Johnson commented further that there is a catch basin to the back, north of his
54 home, which is going to be maintained because it is to their interest as well to
55 to do so but the petitioner indicated he couldn 't see the pond which had been
-9-
1 discussed perceiving there would be a mosquito problem and it might present a
2 hazard for children in the area.
3
4 When Commissioner Hansen asked whether the wiring would be over or underground
5 for these lots, Mr. Johnson told him the lines are already in on Edward and the
6 homeowners would have the option of having service run underground to, their
7 property at a higher charge. The Manager said it had been NSP's decision to go
8 underground for the Hertog homes.
9
10 The hearing was closed at 9:15 P.M.
11
12 It was affirmed that the potential buyers of the 3 lots which .are encroached by
13 the retaining hall would be notified of that fact.
14
15 Motion by Commissioner Bjorkilund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
16 Council approval of the preliminary platting for Johnson Manor, a nine lot and
17 two outlots subdivision between 33rd and 34th Avenues N.E.. , east of Edward Street
18 N.E. , as presented in the Certificate of Survey by Comstock and Davis, Inc. , find-
19 ing that:
20
21 1 . The proposed project conforms to the municipal standards;
22
23 2. Many similar lots with smaller frontages, depth, and land area, have been
24 platted and developed in the same neighborhood;
25
26 3. The plat would to a large extent eliminate a legal , but non-conforming, use in
27 this residential area; and
28
29 4. No -objections to the proposed platting were raised during the Commission
30 hearing, but in fact, many of the neighbors testified in favor of the proposed
31 plat and project.
32
33 In recommending approval , the Commission notes that the proponent had advised the
34 City that a retaining wall encroaches the property line for Lots 1 and 2 and
35 acknowledges that the platting would result in three of the proposed lots being
36 smaller than the required 9,000 square feet.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 At 9:25 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider the request from
41 Ernest Berquist, 4745 Larson Road, Shoreview, MN for a conditional use permit to
42 sell video tapes of classic movies at the Little Professor Book Center, 72 Apache
43 Plaza Shopping Center. She read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to
44 all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property and had
45 been published in the Bulletin, February 5th. No one reported failure to receive
46 the notice of the hearing or objected to its content and there was no one present
47 to provide input to the Commission consideration.
48
49 Mr. Childs had reported on the request in his February 19th memorandum and rec-
50 ommended approval with the same conditions attached to the previous video tape
51 conditional use permits for Video Update, 99 Video in the Apache Shopping Center
• 52 and Video Center in the same shopping center.
53
54 Commissioner .Bjorklund commented that even without the proponent to testify, this
55 request appeared to present no special problems which would warrant delay of action
56 by the City.
-10-
• 1 The Commission was in agreement that there was no need to. restrict the sale of
2 videos from any particular era because those sales are well controlled by
3 ordinance.
4
5 The hearing was closed at 9:28 P.M. for Commission action.
6
7 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend the
8 Council grant a conditional use permit to Ernest Berquist of the Little Professor
g Bookstore at Apache Plaza which would allow him to sell video cassettes of film
10 classics in his store under the'foll-owing conditions:
11
12 1 . There would be no viewing of tapes in the store, except for bona fide demon-
13 strations of tapes and no viewing would be visible from outside the store;
14
15 2. The proprietors must comply with all state laws relating to obscenity and to
16 any ordinance of the City of St. Anthony thereafter relating to obscenity; and
17
18 3. Conviction of the owner or any of the employees of the owner for-..violation
19 of obscenity laws in the operation of the store would be grounds for revocation
20 of this permit- by the City Council .
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 At 9:30 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider the requests from
25 Arkell Development for approval -of the amendments to the Kenzie Terrace Development
26 Concept Plan and Detail Plan for Phase I of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment
27 Project and the Final Plan for Phase I. The notice of the hearing, which had been
28 published in the February 5th Bulletin and sent to all property owners within 350
29 feet of the subject property, was read by the Chair and the Manager indicated that
30 not only the notice but copies of the original artist renderings of the building
31 and the proposed new design, which had been included in the agenda packet, had
32 also been sent to the neighbors so they would be fully informed as to what changes
33 in the Kenzington would be made. He stated that he had received no calls for or
34 against the amendments since the notice.
35
36 Commissioner Hansen asked Steve Yurick of Arkell and Gary Tushie of Tushie-
-.-3-.7---Montgomery, Architects,—the developers, why the buyers of the condominiums had
38 - been informed by letter, January 24th, that the footings were going in right away
39 and that had not happened to date. He was told that when the plans were changed
._ _40- to provide heated and. enclosed garages on two floors, the type -of footings had -----
41 to be .changed. A detailed explanation of what that entailed followed with the
42 developers indicating that they expected the final footings plan to be submitted
43 ' for approval this week and installation to start as soon as the plans are approved
44 ,by the State. Mr. Tushie mentioned that the excavation could only start ona Monday.
45 — - --- -- - -
4 6 Chair Franzese asked whether any of the prospective buyers had been lost when the
47 fourth floor condominiums were upgraded to "K" units and whether the .enclosed garages
48 had been welcomed. Mr. Yurick indicated all the "K" units had been sold and the
49 only opposition to the deletion of the loft units had come from the loft purchasers,
50 three out of four of whom switched to "K" units.
51
• 52 Commissioner Hansen indicated he had heard that there had been some resentment about
53 the change in plans after prospective purchasers had made their choice of units
54 and he perceived all the changes had created a sense of apprehension for the
55 buyers. The Commissioner requested Arkell be careful about keeping the lines of
56 communication open with them.
-11-
1 Mr. Yurick said they would be sending a letter -out the next- day and indicated the
• 2 developers primary concern was their buyers because "we can 't afford to lose them".
3
4 Commissioner Wagner told Mr. Yurick and Mr. Tushie he had liked the design of the
5 first building much better, and although he knows it isn't so, thinks the new
6 design looks more dense with the removal .of the lofts. Commissioner Hansen indicated
7 he considered the new design to be a poor substitute for the one which had ori-
fi ginally been approved.
9
10 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
11 the City Council accept the Modification to the Kenzie Terrace Development Concept
12 Plan, .dated February 8, 1985, consisting of two pages, a title page and a site
13 development plan, with the majorchange being that the units in the Phase I
14 building had been increased to 150 units with a corresponding reduction in the
15 units for Phase II and III so that the project total remains at 495 units of
16 housing, finding that:
17
18 1 . Significant information pertaining to the new proposal had been provided by
19 the proponents and no one expressed opposition to it during the Commission
20 hearing or to staff prior to the hearing;
21
22 2. The project is contained in a Planned Unit Development in area designated for
23 significant redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and
24
25 3. The P.U.D. process allows the City and staff to give 'constant attention to the
26 development process.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 Motion by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
31 the Council accept the Modified Detail Plan and Final Plan for Phase I of the
32 Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project, dated February 8, 1985, and contained in the
33 set of drawings presented by the redevelopers, including the amendments listed
34 in the notice of the Commission hearing published February 5, 1985, as follows:
35
36 a Increasei,fr-om =134 to 150 the .maxmum .number of units allowed in the development;
37 - - -
38 b. Allow complete enclosure of both levels of underground parking (previous plans
39 called for one level to be enclosed and one level to be unenclosed) ;
40
41 c. Allow increase of 2 enclosed parking spaces and an increase of 4 exterior
42 parking spaces;
43
44 d. Allow increase in height of the building from 49 feet to 50 feet 6 inches to
45 the bottom edge of the mansard roof. Height to roof peak would decrease from
46 previously approved maximum of 64 feet to approximately 56 feet;
47
48 'e. Allow conversion of the loft units above the fourth floor to a fifth floor,
49 thus allowing an additional 16 units in the total building design.
50
51 The Commission also recommends the Council accept the recommendations of staff that
•
52 the 2% construction bond required in Section 13, Subdivision 7.6 of the Zoning
53 Ordinance be waived since the H.R.A. has a $400,000 Letter of Credit to assure
54 compliance with the City requirements.
55
-12-
1 In making these recommendations, the Planning Commission finds there was no
2 opposition to any of these changes expressed during the hearing.
3
4 Voting on the motion:
5
6 Aye: Wagner, Bowerman, Hansen, Franzese, and Madden.
7
8 Nay: . Bjorkl und.
9
10 Motion carried.
11
12 The Manager then informed the .Commission members that the decision of whether or
13 not to plat the property had not yet been' made, but the process would not require
14 a hearing in any event..
15
16 The Manager sent around the brochure for the APA annual planning conference in
17 Montreal in April .
18
19 When staff was asked the status on the Capital Improvement. Plan, Mr. Childs said
20 the Council is planning a city-wide meeting-with the residents in April , where the
21 Mayor, Council ,members, and Department Heads would be available to discuss City
22 concerns such as street improvements, the liquor operation, and future housing for
23 the liquor operation and City offices. He said he would anticipate the Planning
24 Commission would become involved with the task forces he would anticipate would
25 evolve from the meeting.
26
•
27 Commissioner Bowerman expressed concern with the way the Planning Commission minutes
2.8 are reported to the 'Council . He said it had' always been his impression that the
29 Commission representative was to confine the report only to what the Commission
30 as a whole voted on and other remarks should be identified as personal conclusions
31 of that particular Commissioner and not given within the context of a Commission
32 report. Commissioner. Bjorklund agreed that the direction had always been that the
33 Commission representative should only read the motions and answer questions and
34 not give personal views about what the rest of the Commission thought about an
35 issue. However, he indicated that the last time he had represented the Commission
36 he had been asked many questions about the Commission's minutes. The Manager said
37 he perceived the Council felt that the 'Commission minutes were always very complete
38 in reflecting the actions of the Commission.
39
40 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to adjourn the
41 meeting at 10:20 P.M.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 Respectfully submitted,
46
47 Helen Crowe, Secretary
48
49
50
51
• 52
53
54
55