HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 02181986 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
iovsz
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1986
Document: PL MINUTES 02181986
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION ,MINUTES
February 18, 1986
1 The meeting was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Wagner at 7:34 P.M.
2
3 Present for roll call : Bowerman, Jones, Wagner, Werenicz, and Madden.
4
5 Absent: Franzese and Hansen.
6
7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
8
9 The Chair Pro Tem suspended the agenda and read the following statement which
10 received the unanimous support of all the Commissioners present:
11
12 "We, the members of the St. Anthony Planning Commission, extend our deepest
13 sympathy to Rosemary Franzese and her children upon the death of Michael
14 Franzese, husband and father. We hope that knowing our thoughts and prayers
15 are with her will lend additional comfort in this time of grief. Collectively,
16 and individually, we offer her our support and encouragement and look for-
17 ward to her early return to active leadership of the Planning Commission".
18
• 19 The agenda was resumed with the consideration of the January 21st minutes.
20
21 Motion_ by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Werenicz to approve the
22 minutes of the meeting of the Planning Commission held January 21 , 1986 with the
23 following changes:
24
2.5 Page 1 , line .;3: Add the name of "Madden" to the. listing of Commissioners present.
26
27 Page 6, line 30: Insert "to adjourn the meeting" between "Werenicz" and the time.
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 Chair Pro Tem Wagner agreed to represent the Commission at the next Council meeting,
32 February 25th.
33
34 The order of the agenda was suspended to consider (G) which required setting an
35 alternate meeting date for the Commission's regularly scheduled meeting March 18th
36 because the precinct caucuses were to be held that evening . Mr. Childs suggested
37 the March 11th date which was now open because the Council had cancelled their
38 meeting that evening because of a conflict with the National Conference of Cities
39 in Washginton, D.C.
40
41 Because the Chair Pro Tem and Commissioner Madden had indicated they would not be
42 able to attend that meeting and they were not certain about the missing Commissioners,
43 the following decision was made:
• 44
45 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to reschedule
46 the March 18th Planning Commission meeting to March 11th subject to an indication
47 of a quorum and, if that is not possible, to request the City Manager to reschedule
48 the meeting to a date when a quorum was possible.
-2-
1 Motion carried unanimously.
2
3 The Manager circulated the program for the national conference of the American
4 Planning Association to be held in California in which some of the Commissioners
5 had indicated an interest.
6
7 Commissioner Madden asked for a status report'.on Berger Transfer and was told
8 by the Manager and the Chair Pro Tem that the company planned a -phased move of
9 some of its corporate offices to a building they are constructing in Roseville
10 on County Road- C,: but current plans .were to 'retain some offices and storage
11 space in their St. Anthony location which should result in less activity from
12 their current building and would probably eliminate the' need for their most
13 easterly parking lot.
14
15 Mr. Childs reported the first occupancy -for the Kenzington is anticipated for
16 May and for the Walker on Kenzie this summer. He said the owners had promised
17 to notify him when application for rentals would be taken . The first occupancy
18 in the Village Townhomes was imminent, the -Manager said.
19
20 Mr. Childs told Commissioner Madden surveyors had already contacted staff about
2 1 the project which would replace the Legion Club and Mobil station next to the
22 Kenzington and the utility easements had been identified so soil borings.;
23 could be drilled. The Commissioner reiterated his concerns that the Legion
24 Club building might not have been designed to support a second floor or
25 the connecting bridge between the, two buildings.
26
•
27 At 7:45 P.M. the Chair Pro Tem opened the public hearing to consider a
28 petition from Duane Fisher to rezone the former Clark Station property on
29 the northeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Stinson Boulevard N.E. from C,
30 commercial district, to R-3, townhouse residential district, to construct four
31 townhouses on that property. He read the notice of the hearing which had
32 been published in the February 4th Bulletin and had been sent to property
33 owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property. No one present
34 reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
35
36 As he had advised in his February 14th memorandum, Mr. Childs said the proposed
37 plan would conform in all ways to the R-3 zoning- requirements including a site
38 area, density, building height, parking, setbacks, etc. and he added, Mr.
39 Fisher intends to provide two car garages for each unit where the ordinance
40 only calls for single garages. The Manager said in terms of the City' s
41 Comprehensive Plan, a perceived conflict between residential and commercial
42 would be eliminated and he reiterated that because he perceived the proposal had
43 been so well prepared and presented such a clear and straightforward concept,
44 he was recommending approval of the request.
45
46 The petitioner, Duane Fisher was present and indicated he had resided at 3329
47 Stinson Boulevard since 1969 and had been negotiating the purchase of this
48 property for redevelopment with the Clark Oil Company for the last three years.
49 Mr. Fisher indicated he had appeared before the Planning Commission several
50 years ago in an unsuccessful attempt to get the property rezoned, but the
51 matter had been laid over because he could not get the of-1 company to join in
i • 52 his petition.
t 53
54 The developer indicated he proposed to construct four 1 ,100 square foot units with
55 two bedrooms and baths. The two car garages would be designed as tuck-under's
-3-
1
3-1 with family rooms behind which would open out on patios with privacy dividers
• 2 between. The structure. would be of frame construction with masonite siding
3 and the unit costs would run a little over $50,000. However, it is his
4 intention to own and maintain the buildings for rental .purposes and Mr. Fisher
5' assured Commissioner Werenicz he perceived his employment with a Minneapolis
6 development company gave him the expertise to manage the six rental units he
7 would now own.
8
9 When Commissioner Jones raised the question:;of whether the proposed structure
10 might cause a visibility problem on that corner, Commissioner Bowerman pointed
11 out that the sight line for the west side of the building would seem to be in
12 alignment with the residence to the north and it did not appear that the
13 building would encroach into the area normally reserved for corner visibility.
14 Mr. Fisher indicated he planned no fence between his and the property behind
15 him and said the existing line of trees on that property should provide an
16 adequate buffer between properties.
17
18 The developer indicated it had been fortunate that the Clark station had no
19 grease rack but said- soil borings would certainly be taken to assure there was
20 no gas seepage into the soil under the proposed structure. However, because
21 the gas tanks had probably left some need for soil correction, Mr. Fisher
22 indicated he was exploring the possibility of adding a .half story basement
23 under the family rooms for utilities which, he said, would not affect the total
24. height of the building at all .
25
26 Several Commissioners expressed the desire that the 16 foot wide undeveloped
•
27 parcel- to the east might be incorporated into the project to provide a fifth
28 unit, but the final consensus was that, since Mr. Fisher had reported he had
29 made what he considered to be a "reasonable" offer to the owner of the
30 property which had been rejected, there was nothing further the City could do
31 to change that decision. The recollection was that the owner's�br.otherhhdd
32 recently appeared before the Commission and they had been unable to give him
33 any solution for developing that undersized lot, except to contact the county
34 about a reduction in value and therefore taxes. Mr. Childs commented that,
35 even if Mr. Fisher could acquire that property, he would only have an 18,000
36 square foot parcel to work with where the ordinance requires 20,000 square
37 feet for five townhouse units. The Manager indicated that in the past there
38 had been some criticism on the Commission that structures were being built
39 too close to each other and at least adequate sideyard setbacks would be
40 retained with only four units.
41
42 Mr. Fisher told Commissioner Jones that, even with his assumption that the
43 Commission would be sympathetic to a petition for a variance for five units,
44 he wanted to get into the ground as soon as the frost is out and would not con-
45 sider any changes once the construction is started.
46
47 No one appeared ,to oppose the request and the hearing was closed at 8:06 P.M.
48 for development of a Commission recommendation to the Council .
49
50 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Madden to recommend
51 Council approval of the petition from Duane M. Fisher, 3329 Stinson Boulevard,
i
52 to rezone from C, commercial district, to R-3, townhouse residential district,
53 the property he owns at the northeast corner of 33rd Avenue and Stinson
54 Boulevard N.E. (3301 Stinson Boulevard) to a.11ow' construction of the four
55 unit townhome project he proposes on the parcel generally described as S. 133'
-4-
1 of the W 198' of the SW 1/4 of 'the NW 1/4 of .Sect. 6, Township 29, range 23,
2 subject to easement for road purposes over the W 33' and the S 33' thereof,
3 Hennepin County.
4
5 In recommending approval , the Commission finds that:
6
7 1 . The project provides a distinct improvement for that location and conforms
8 with all City codes and ordinances including the provision separate
9 utilities for each unit;
10
11 2• The proposal would eliminate a perceived conflict in use in that neighbor-
12 hood in the City Comprehensive Plan by replacing commercial with residential
13 development on that property; and
14
15 3. There were no objections to the proposal voiced either before or during
16 the hearing.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20 When the name of the owner of the 16 foot parcel could not be found on the
21 listing of property ,owners who had been notified of the hearing, Mr. Childs
22 assured the Commissioners that the omission would not nullify the proceedings.
23 He said he had held conversations with the property owner, his brother, and
24 father about the development of both properties and would see to it that
25 Mr. Mikkelson was notified that the Council would be making a decision on the
2 6 property next door to his at their next meeting.
• 27
28 The Manager then indicated John -Theisse, 2949 Beechwood Avenue, was present that
29 evening to get Commission feedback on his proposal for a front/rear split of
30 the 124 foot wide by 300 foot deep, partially developed lot he owns at 3821 Foss
31 Road for the purpose of continuing the multiple housing use he is permitted under
32 an R-4 zoning on the back portion of the lot which borders on the City's walkway
33 around Mirror Lake. As he had indicated on the surveyor' s sketch and his
34 February 10th letter which were included in the agenda packet, Mr. Theisse said
35 he would be providing access to the new parcel with a 26 foot wide access drive-
36 way off Foss Road.
37
38 Mr. Childs had addressed the proposal in his February 14th memorandum and he
39 stated his concerns about allowing the lot split several times during the course
' 40 of the discussion that evening. He said he perceived that type of lot split
41 was a little out of the ordinary and was concerned the precedent might generate
42 future requests from other homeowners who also have extremely long lots to split
43 off the rear of their properties for another house, which the Manager said he
44 would not consider to be good planning for the City. He indicated he would have
45 the same concerns about the lots on the east side of Fordham Drive which have
46 the potential for the same type of lot split and the Manager indicated he just
47 wanted the Commissioners to think about the potential problems with lot splits
48 where ownership of waterlines, etc. could become a real problem.
49
50 Mr. Theisse agreed with Commissioner Madden,.who lives in the same neighborhood,
,51 that the current appearance of the property is very unsightly and said that is
•
52 one of the reasons he wants to get rid of the whole parcel and responsibility
53 for supervision and maintenance of the existing house which has a three bedroom
54 apartment on the main floor, a two bedroom unit on the second floor, as well as
55 a one bedroom apartment in the basement now that he no longer lives in that house.
-5-
1 The property owner said a real estate agent had a developer. who might be inter-
2 ested in buying both parcels after the upper parcel is clear and free and the
3 access road which would assure a marketable title has been provided. Mr. Theisse
4 indicated he had no specifics on how the newly created lot would be developed
5 but he said he was certain there wou.ld be enough- room for a triplex to match the
6 one on the property next to his . Under questioning, Mr. Theisse indicated he
7 would be refinancing the lower developed portion once the upper lot is split off.
8 He said he was certain that even with the removal of the 26 feet for the access
9 road and a couple of feet on the rear of. the developed portion to provide the
10 required 14,500 square feet for the upper portion, the remaining lot would still
11 meet all City requirements for lot size and setbacks. Mr. Childs commented that
12 Mr. Theisse could build another three unit building behind the existing house
13 with the same driveway access without splitting the lot at all .
'14
15 When Commissioner Werenicz questioned how the property owner was going to report
16 what he had learned that evening -to the prospective developer if he had no com-
17 munication with him, Mr. Theisse said he considered his job was only to get the
18 property split so he could go back to the developer with an unencumbered parcel
19 to sell .
20
21 Commissioner Jones told Mr. Theisse the project he was suggesting sounded like it
22 would be a vast improvement of that property, but the Commission perceived they
23 needed more specifics on how the whole property would be developed to assess its
24 potential impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Madden said he had a real
25 concern about the current appearance of the property with old cars parked all
26 over the lot. He also asked whether consideration had been given to providing
•
27 an,-;access off 39th Avenue rather than the "extremely heavily traveled Foss" ..
28
29 Commissioner Bowerman told Mr. Theisse his was a highly unusual proposal which
30 might establish a precedent the City might find hard to live with in the future
31 and he perceived the Commission needed more than a nebulous concept to act on.
32 Commissioner Wagner advised the property owner to 'look for a way to come up with
33 a firm, specific proposal on which the Commission could make a definitive answer.
34 He said he would personally be against establishing a separate lot on the upper
35 portion of the property but believed he could .look favorably upon the property
36 being developed as an entity. The Commissioner also said to approve the split.
37 might leave the City liable- for improper maintenance, etc.
38
} 39 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Werenicz to adjourn the
40 Planning Commission meeting at 8:45 P.M.
.I 41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 Respectfully submitted,
45
46 Helen Crowe, Secretary
47
t 48
49
50
51
i 52
� 53 .
54
55