Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09171985 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII ioisas Box: 21 Polder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1985 Document: PL MINUTES 09171985 fR' i . • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 17, 1985 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chair Franzese. 2 3 Present for roll call : Franzese, Hansen, Bjorklund, Wagner, Madden, and Jones. 4 5 Absent: Bowerman. 6 7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager. 8 9 During the consideration of the August 20th minutes, Commissioner Madden reported 10 he had been gratified to see the sign on the truck/trailer advertising the mini- 11 warehouse facilities about which he had restated his concern at the August meeting, 12 had been painted over during the weekend. 13 14 Motion by Commission Madden and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to approve as 15 submitted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held August 20, 1985. 16 17 Motion carried unanimously. 18 • 19 Commissioner Bjorklund said he would be willing to report the- minutes of the Com- 20 mission meeting to the -Council at their September 24th meeting . 21 22 At 7:35 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider a request from Dan 23 and Kay Kramer, 4000 Fordham Drive N.E. , to subdivide without platting their exist- 24 ing 124 foot X 133 foot lot so 45 feet could be transferred to the 89 foot X 25 133 foot lot at 4008 Fordham Drive, owned by Arvid Johnson. As indicated on the 26 sketch of both properties, the resulting lots would be 79 feet X 133 feet for the 27 Kramer lot (.,Lot 5) and 134 feet X 133 feet for the new Johnson parcel (Lot 4) . 28 29 The notice of the hearing had been published in the September 3rd Bulletin and 30 mailed to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject properties. 31 No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content 32 and the Manager reported he had received no calls either for or against the split. 33 34 In his September 12th memorandum to the Commission members, Mr. Childs had advised 35 that the two lots which would be created by this split would both meet all codes 36 and the remaining structures would meet all ordinance setback requirements as 37 well . The Manager had also speculated that, Mr. Johnson might sometime in the 38 future, want to split the new parcel so a new home could be constructed on what 39 would then be a subsize parcel . The-resultant lot would probably be only about 40 62 feet wide and 8,624 -square feet..,and wod_l d--requi re-var_.i ances from _the City to-=be 41 built on. Sixty-two foot lots are not unusual in that neighborhood, Mr. Childs 42 said. However, he added,- the McGinn lots had- been 18,000 square feet in size, 43 double what is required by the City Ordinance. • 44 45 Mr. Kramer was present and told Commissioner Madden he had his house up for sale 46 and that he and Mr. Johnson had agreed years ago that the first to sell would give 47 the other the opportunity of buying the other's excess property. Mr. Johnson I I -2- 1 said his only request at this time was to be allowed to make that purchase since • 2 any further split of the property would probably not happen for at least four or 3 five years . 4 5 Mr. Childs indicated the legal description of the lot split would have to meet with 6 the approval of the Ramsey County Torrance Office, but said he would anticipate no 7 problem there, since they had recently approved a number of similar splits in the 8 same area. 9 10 No other persons were present to speak to the issue and the hearing was closed at 11 7:40 P.M. for Commission consideration of a recommendation to the Council . 12 1.3 The consensus of the Commission was that, although it was true, as Mr. Childs had 14 said, the City had to assume some responsibility for creating situations where lots 15 might not be up to City standards, it was also true that there was no request before 16 the Commission to create such a lot that evening, and if there had been, the pre- 17 cedent for 62 foot lots had already been set in that same neighborhood. It was 18 also acknowledged that there was a potential for the same width lots being created 19 if the undeveloped property east of the McGinn property were opened up by the owner. 20 21 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend 22 Council approval of the transfer of the north 45 feet from the property at 4000 23 Fordham Drive N.E. (_Lot 5) to tie in with the property at 4008 Fordham Drive N.E. 24 (.Lot 4) , by subdivision without platting, as requested by the owners of Lot 5, 25 Dan and Kay Kramer, finding there had been no opposition to the subdivision expressed 26 either during the September 17th Commission hearing or to staff prior to that • 27 hearing. 28 29 Motion carried unanimously. 30 31 The Final P.U.D. Plan for the Walker on -Kenzie project had been submitted for 32 Commission reaction and Mr. Childs indicated he, as Executive Director of the 33 Housing and Redevelopment Authority, co-developers of the project, would answer any 34 questions .the Commissioners might have about that Plan. He pointed out that there 35 had been two changes made in the plan; one to change the roofline from flat to 36 pitch, would be more in keeping with the rooflines in St. Anthony, and the other, 37 to move the trash area into the building. 38 39 At Commissioner Hansen's request, the Manager measured the height of the new roof- 40 line and it appeared it would be about three feet higher than the flat roof ori- 41 ginally proposed. The Manager said, however, that type of change would be judged 42 under the Planned Unit Development requirements rather than the Variance Ordinance 43 and under the P. U.D.., this modification could not be perceived to "change materially 44 either the intent or impact of the total project. " 45 46 Commissioner Madden said he had not been on the Commission when this project was 47 developed, but he .perceived constructing only a portion of the Saliterman shopping 48 center at a time had not been the intent of the Kenzie Terrace Task Force when 49 they had first studied the redevelopment of this area. He was told of the many 50 unsuccessful efforts to get 202 funding for larger 030 unit) senior housing pro- .51 ro- 51 jects for the property across Kenzie which had resulted in the proposed project 52 for only 45 units being the only one which H.U.D. would fund. Mr. Childs indicated • 53 the Walker project was considered a separate development from the rest of the 54 Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment project and told Commissioner Madden it had only been 55 because Mr. Saliterman had been willing to sell this parcel separately that the 56 project had been possible. -3- • 1 The Manager told Commissioner Bjorklund he was .probably right that the Walker, 2 unlike the Kenzington property, would have to be platted and Commissioner Wagner 3 said it had been a H."U.D. requirement that the access road be completed at this 4 time. Since Walker and Kenzington projects have the same architect, Mr. Childs 5 said he was certain the appearance of both would be kept as compatible as possible. 6 7 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend 8 Council approval of the Final P.U.D. Plan for the Walker on Kenzie senior housing 9 project as presented for Commission consideration September 17, 1985, with the 10 latest revision dated July 31 , 1985, and site survey as of September 4, 1985. 11 12 In recommending approval , the Commission acknowledges three changes in the Plan: 13 14 1 . The change from a flat to pitch roofline; 15 16 2. An increase of approximately three feet in the building height with the dif- 17 ferent type of roof; and 18 19 3. Provision of inside access to the rubbish facility for the building occupants . 20 21 The Commission further finds that the Final P.U.D.. Plan is compatible with the 22 Development Concept Plan and Detailed Concept- Plan for this project, and, since 23 the agenda for September 17th Commission meeting had been posted, perceives there 24 had been opportunity provided for public input which no one took advantage of to 25 express opposition to the Plan or the project. 26 • 27 Motion carried unanimously. 28 29 The Commission had also been requested by the H.R.A. to comment on the proposed 30 Chandler Place Redevelopment/Tax Increment Plan and Mr. Childs indicated that, 31 again, as the H.R.A. Executive Director, he would be presenting the Plan to them. 32 33 He said the soil conditions on the vacant lot on the northeast corner of Chandler 34 Drive and County Road D had proved to be so much worse than anticipated. The 35 latest estimate was that it would cost between $500,000 and $600,000 to do the 36 excavation necessary to correct the problem and the developers, St. Anthony Health -37 Center, had decided to seek tax increment financing from the,�H.R.A: to cover the .. 38 increased costs for the project. 39 40 There was a brief discussion of various specifics of the Plan with the Executive 41 Director telling the Commissioners this would be a $6,000,000 dollar project from 42 which the City, School District, and County could be expected to divide a tax 43 return of an additional $200,000. He also said the bonds could be expected to be 44 retired in seven or eight years. 45 46 Commissioner Madden said he had asked another Commissioner to present his con- 47 cerns about the plans for parking and traffic flow for the new building at the 48 initial Council meeting on this project last December. Because the nursing home 49 staff and visitors already create traffic congestion on Foss Road, the Commissioner 50 indicated he 'had suggested at that time that there be a physical separation between 51 the parking lots for the two buildings, which he -perceived had not happened. • 52 53 The recollection was that the traffic flow had been discussed with Mike Miller at 54 the December 4th Council meeting and the nursing home administrator had stated he 55 perceived the Health Center staff would find Chandler Drive a preferable exit to -4- 1 the heavily travelled Foss Road. (_The minutes of that meeting reported the Mayor • 2 had told Mr. Miller, "It might be a good idea to encourage the Health Center staff 3 to do that. ") Mr. Childs said he would ask the developer to discuss that point 4 when the Council adopts the Tax Increment Plan. 5 6 The Manager then took several suggestions from the Commission members related to 7 the wording of the Plan itself. He said he perceived the Redevelopment Agreement 8 would require the project to be commencedand completed in 18 months. Mr. Childs 9 agreed B-1 , under "Objectives", should be restated since the proposed building 10 would be almost five stories high at one point. Commissioner Bjorklund commented 11 that to call a vacant lot in "C-2" in the same classification, "underdeveloped", 12 might not be altogether accurate. 13 14 Commission Jones wanted the architect's design for .the connection between the nurs- 15 ing home and apartments given careful consideration so the end .product doesn't. 16 look like the Crestview nursing home/residence complex in Columbia Heights . 17 18 The Manager reported no negative reaction to the Plan from either the school 19 district or county. He said he would expect the Council to approve the plan at 20 their October 8th meeting. 21 22 Another matter had come up, the Manager said, on which he needed Commission guid- 2 3 ance. George Deschene, who has operated a beauty shop in the St. Anthony Village 24 Shopping Center, had come in to request he be permitted to retain the same signage 25 which had been allowed his predecessor for the vacant beauty shop building across 26 from Apache. The sign Mr. .Deschene proposed, would be 24 square feet, internally • 27 lit, and timed to shut off at whatever hour the City desired, and the Manager said, 28 he personally considered this request to be the most reasonable made for this site 29 because the applicant appeared to have the financial resources necessary to make 30 this business go and he gave the impression of wanting to cooperate with the City 31 and its regulations. The beauty shop owner had said he had a Contract for Deed 32 with Gordon Hedlund; intended to replace the fence on the north side of the 33 property; understood he couldn't rent out any portion of the building for resi- 34 dential use; and was ready to make all the necessary improvements to upgrade the 35 appearance of the property. 36 37 Commissioner Jones said he personally liked externally lit signs like that in front 38 of the St. Charles Church but agreed the proposed sign would closely match several 39 signs in the same area. He said this might be the right candidate for that build- 40 ing because he has already established a successful business in the community. 41 42 Motion by Commissioner Wagner and seconded by Commissioner Madden to recommend the 43 Council let the variance to the Sign. Ordinance stand as granted December 18, 1984 44 for the sign in front.of 3909 Silver Lake Road and to permit George Deschene to 45 put up the sign he proposes, under the provisions of that variance. 46 47 Motion carried unanimously. 48 49 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to adjourn the 50 meeting at 9:25 P.M. 51 • 52 Motion carried. unanimously. 53 54 Respectfully submitted., 55 Helen Crowe, Secretary