HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 04151986 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101780
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1986
Document: PL MINUTES 04151986
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
April 15, 1986
1 The meeting was called to order by Chair Franzese at 7:30 P.M.
2
3 Present for roll call : Wagner, Franzese, Werenicz, Madden, and Hansen.
4
5 Absent: Bowerman and Jones.
6
7 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Hansen and seconded by Commissioner Madden to approve as
10 submitted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held February 18, 1986.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Commissioner Hansen will represent the Commission at the next Council meeting,
15 April 22nd.
16
17 At 7:32 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider the request from Arvid
18 and Eleanor Johnson, 4008 Fordham" Drive N.E.. , 'for subdivision without platting of
19 the 134 foot wide by 133.05 foot"A ong parcel at that address for the purpose of
20 developing two separate parcels, 62 and 72 feet wide, respectively, which would
21 result in the vacant Lot A being smaller than required by the ordinance, and both
22 lots being narrower than the 75 feet required by the zoning ordinance.
23
24 No one present reported failure to receive the notice of the hearing which had
25 been mailed to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject pro-
26 perty and published in the April lst .Bulletin, or objected to the notice content.
27 Mr. Childs reported receiving no calls either for or against the split or necessary
28 lot size variance.
.29
30 In their agenda packets, the Commissioners had been provided with copies of their
31 September 17, 1985 hearing on the same property where, when Mr. Johnson acquired
32 an additional 45 feet of property from his neighbor to the south, the understanding
33 had been that-he would be returning at a later date to seek another lot split
34 which would allow him to construct a new home on the vacant parcel proposed that
35 evening as Lot "A" .
36 In his staff report on the proposal , Mr. Childs reiterated much of the information
38 he had provided in his memorandum of that date, including his recommendation that
39 the new lot be only 60 feet wide to provide a minimum distance of at least 14 feet
40 between the house would be constructed there and the attached porch and archway
41 on the existing Johnson home. The Manager cited other circumstances where lots
42 of approximately 60 foot width were incorporated into the motion of approval .
43 Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were present and Mr. Johnson told the Commissioners the porch
• 44 in question had been a part of his home for the last 25 years and is used by his
4 5 family all the time. He indicated he saw no problem with siting the 1 ,700 square
46 foot structure he plans to build on Lot "A" on a 60 foot lot and agreed that pro-
49 viding more separation between the two structures would be advisable.
-2-
1' Motion by, Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
2 the Council approve the subdivision without platting of the parcel owned by Arvid
3 and Eleanor Johnson described as Lot 4, Block 5, Moundsview Acres 2nd Addition,
4 except the North 34.5 feet thereof lying east of the west 163.07 feet thereof
5 (4008 Fordham Drive N .E. ) into two parcels, 60 feet by 133.05 feet and 74 feet
6 by 133.05 feet, which would result in the newly created Lot "A" being 7,988-
7 square feet where 9,000 square feet is required by ordinance, on the condition
8 that the new structure is constructed no closer than 10 feet from the north
9 property line which would provide at least 14 feet between the two structures on
10 Lots "A" and "B", and further granting width variances for both lots which will
11 be 74 feet and 60 feet wide, where 75 feet is required.
12
13 In recommending the lot split and necessary lot size and width variances, the
14 Commission finds that:
15
16 1 . No calls either for or against the proposal had been received by staff prior
17 to the hearing; and
18
19 2• Lots less than 60 feet wide already exist in the Village and in that parti-
20 cular neighborhood construct ion of at least eight lots with smaller widths
21 had been allowed by the City which the Commission perceives would bring
22 the proposed lot well within the mainstream of City lots.
23
24 Motion carried -unanimously.
25
26 At 7:45 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing to consider a request from
•
27 Robert and Beverly Stafford, 3916 Penrod Lane N.E. , for subdivision without
28 platting for property located at the intersection of Old Highway 8 and Rankin
29 Road (2911 Rankin Road N.E. ) to divide the existing property into two single
30 family residential lots. No one present reported failure to receive the notice
31 of the hearing which had been mailed to all _,propertynowner_s of record within
32 350 feet of the subject property and published in the April 1st Bulletin or
33 objected to the notice content.
34
35 The Manager reported receiving several calls about the project but said they were
36 for the most part from neighbors asking whether duplexes would be built in that
37 location. Mw. Childs said he had informed the callers that the zoning was only
-38 for R-1 , Sing16 Family Residential .
I 39
40 The Manager told the Commissioners that what they were actually being requested
41 to do was to "unsplit" two lots which at one time had- been joined together as one
42 parcel when the home, which has now been torn down, was first built. The
43 Manager indicated both of the proposed lots would meet the City ordinance require-
44 ments in terms of area, lot width, setbacks, etc. , and, in spite of the odd
45 triangular shape on the southernmost parcel (Lot 20) , no variances would be
46 needed to construct a house on that lot.
47
48 Mr. Stafford addressed his proposal to construct two single family homes on the
t 49 property once it is subdivided by saying both lots would meet the City's
50 requirement for 75 foot lots . He said he and his wife would probably live in
51 the house "on the point" and their nephew, who was present with his family, would
• -52 be living -in the new home on Lot 19. . Both houses would face Rankin Road and
i
-53 each would have its own driveway, the applicant said.
54
55 A sketch of the house plan, which .the Manager had indicatedmight or might not
56 be constructed on the property, had been included in the Commission agenda
-3-
1 packet to show that a house would, indeed, fit„along with a copy of a Surveyor's
2 Certificate dated April 26, 1982, and Mr. Childs' April 11th memorandum to the
3 Commission related to the proposal .
4
.5 Councilmember Makowske and her husband, Don, whose home north of the Stafford
6 property is identified as Lot 18, . in the Survey, were present to .discuss several
7 questions and concerns they had about the subdivision. The Councilmember gave
8 some historical background of how the property had become one parcel . She said
9 in 1964 the Highway Department took a big chunk of Lot 20 for Highway 88 and
10 the land leaving a parcel less than the 13,000 square feet the City.ordinance
11 required at-that time for a corner .lot and the undersized portion was attached
12 to Lot 19 when the house on that property was sold twelve years ago.
13
14 The Councilmember said it was her own observation that because "the hill distorts
15 the view, a driveway- on the south side of Lot 20 close. to the turn around could
16 be quite dangerous She suggested the driveway either be sited on the north
l 7 side of that lot or perhaps, even a common driveway might servebbothooftthe
18 proposed structures.
19
20 Another question Councilmember Makowske indicated she had was what had been done
21 with the well and cesspool which she knew had been on the property originally
22 and the Councilmember said her greatest concern was that, according to the site
23 drawings they had been provided, it appeared the fence which had been on the
24 property when she and her husband bought the house appeared to be at least six
25 inches over their property line. Beverly Stafford showed the couple a revised
26 survey of the Stafford's property which indicated the Makowske fence was right
•
27 on the property line.
28
29 Robert Markuson, who indicated he lived right across the street at 2900 Rankin
3p Road, related the different methods for which the Staffords had told him they
31 were going to use their property from duplexes to a retirement home for them-
32 selves. He and Leonard Erickson, 2904 Rankin Road, related the problems they
33 had with young renters in the house which had been torn down whom they termed
34 to be "hooligans" . The two neighbors speculated that the Staffords might be
35 building the homes for rental purposes which could mean a repetition of their
36 problems. Mr. Erickson said the property owners had "never taken care of the
37 property in the past and probably wouldn 't again, if the homes were rented out" .
38 They agreed that it would. be very dangerous to try to back out of a driveway so
39 close to the corner.-
40
i
41 Chair Franzese told the neighbors it was not within the domain of the City to
42 govern whether property owners rent or live in the homes they build but was the
43 City' s responsibility to assure those properties would not .-pose-- a safety hazard
44 for the neighborhood. She also pointed out that once the homes are up, that
45 site could no longer be used as a gathering place for young people.
46
47 Mr. Childs told Councilmember Makowske any questions about the existence of a
48 well or cesspool on the property would be handled by the Building Inspector
49 before the building permits are issued. When Mr. Markuson noted the window in
50 the basement which was shown on the highway side of the home on Lot 20, he
5 1 questioned whether that might be used to advertise the couple's real estate
•
52 business which they might conduct from their home, the Manager told him the City
i
53 doesn't issue permits for businesses in residences. Mr. Stafford indicated he
54 would have no problem with siting the driveway for Lot 20 on the north side and
55 Councilmember Makowske indicated she perceived the proposal was "fine" now that
56 the question of the fence had been resolved.
-4-
1 The hearing was closed at 8:20 P.M.
2
3 Commissioner Hansen indicated he had no problems with the requested lot split
4 since the resultant lots appeared to meet all the City ordinance requirements.
5 The Commissioner said he perceived some of the neighbors concerns were valid ones
6 but were not ones which should affect the Commission's approval decision. He
7 indicated he perceived there were many different ways in which the lots could
8 be developed and the Commission should not therefore be involved in the specifics
9 of what kind of house or driveway should be built, which could be handled when
10 the building permit is issued.
11
12 The Chair commented that she perceived some stipulation regarding the siting of
13 the driveway for safety reasons as long as it didn't foreclose_ the option of an
14 exit off Old Highway 8 would not be out of order. Mr. Stafford indicated he
15 would have no problem with placing the driveway on the north side of the lot.
16
17 Motion by ;Commiss,i!oner-Wagnerrandcseconded"bYvCommiasi.oner Hansen to recommend
18 Council approval of the subdivision without platting of the property at 2911
19 Rankin Road N.E. generally described as portions of Lots 19 and 20, Auditor' s
20 Subdivision #377, Hennepin County, as requested by Robert and Beverly Stafford,
21 3916 Penrod Lane, for the development of two residential lots, with the stipula-
2 2 tion that, if the driveway for Lot 20 is built to exit off Rankin, as a safety
23 measure, it should be constructed on the Lot 19 side of the property away from
24 the Rankin turnaround.
25
26 In recommending the lot split approval , the Planning Commission finds that:
27
28 1 . The subdivision as proposed would result in two buildable lots which meet
29 all City ordinance requirements related to size and setbacks; and
30
31 2. There were no objections expressed to the lot split per se, but only concerns
32 about the use of the property which the Commission perceived were matters
33 better settled with mutual agreements between the owners and their neighbors.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 The meeting was recessed at 8:27 P.M. and reconvened at 8:30 P.M. -for an informal
38 discussion prior to the hearing to consider the request from the META Partnership
39 for variances related to the redevelopment of the former American Legion building
! 40 at 2701 and the vacant gas station building at 2709 Kenzie Terrace into a pro-
41 posed commercial facility. In the absence of representation of the applicant,
42 the Manager reported the request as it had been made when the applicant had come
43 in to make their applications.
44
45 Mr. Childs reiterated. some of the information he had included in his April 11th
46 memorandum to the Commissioners including the fact that the discovery that the
47 site dimensions were much smaller than had originally been assumed. When he
48 received the new drawings for the project, Friday, Mr. Childs said, he noticed
49 the parking spaces had been reduced to 42 from the 48 the Commission had approved
50 December 2nd and when he finally got in touch with the architect Monday, the
5 1 Manager learned that with the loss of land on the west side, and with the
52 addition of a little more landscaping, it had been necessary to cut out six
.
53 parking spaces from the project. The applicants also request that the five foot
54 sideyard and 10 foot front yard setbacks required for parking by the ordinance
55 be waived so vehicles could be parked right up the property lines as with the
56 former tenants.
>
-5-
1 The Manager said the developers had indicated to him when they applied for their
2 variances that they wanted to make this building architecturally compatible
3 with their other -building, the Kenzington, next door by installing a pitched,
4 rather than a flat roof (which would meet the height requirements of the City
5 ordinance) . A 7-1/2 foot variance to the City's ordinance requirement for three
6 story or 35 feet tall buildings would therefore also be necessary for the highest
7 peak of the graduated heights now planned for the new structure. Because there
8 were two persons present to voice their concerns about the project, the decision
9 was that the Commission would continue the hearing to get their input and then
10 voice their own concerns before tabling the request to a time when the proponents
11 were present.
12
13 The hearing was opened at 8:38 P.M. by the Chair who read the notice of the
14 hearing which had been published in the April 1., 1986 Bulletin and mailed to all
1.5 property- owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property. No one
16 present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
17
18 Because there..,was no one present to speak for the proponents, those who had any
19 questions or concerns about the project were requested to speak. Joe Schluender,
20 2708-27th Avenue N .E. , said the new project would be directly south of his. yard
21 and he "never liked the idea of having a 35 foot building there" and certainly
22 "wasn't going to like one 42-1/2 feet high" . He said he perceived a 35 foot flat
23 building would be preferable. and Mr. Schluender stated "We already have a seven
24 story building almost in our yard now just because they kept getting variances
25 and this new project would just add another feature" .
26
•
27 The property owner indicated he had not thought "the five foot variance the.
28 station had from the alleyway had been too bad but when they go in height on
29 the gas station, I don't think it should be allowed". Mr. Childs told him the
30 plans call for only a single story building where the gas station is now which
31 would be stepped up to two and one-half stories farther south and back across
32 the Legion building so the highest point would be the closest to the Kenzington.
33 Mr. Schluender responded by saying his house is- located behind but almost between
34 those two, buildings.
35
36 The property owner said his biggest complaint about the project was that "giving
37 all those variances for the property across the alley just makes that property
38 more valuable and our property less valuable, with no compensation to us for
} 39 that" . Mr. Schluender questioned whether cutting down the parking places on
40 the site would just enable the developer to build a bigger building than would
41 normally be allowed. He was told the applicant was just asking to rearrange
42 the parking but not seeking a larger building area except for a pitched roof
43 on top. His response was that "years ago the Village wouldn't even allow a
44 two story building on Apache" and Mr. Schluender told the Commissioners he has
45 been in before to protest the buildings proposed for that site "starting with the
46 nursing home".
47
48 Mr. Childs said a medical facility planner had approached the staff last week
49 to discussthe possibility of putting a satellite clinic in the new facility
50 which the Manager indicated he perceived would provide a natural mix* with the
51 new neighborhood which is evolving.. He said he understood the developers were
52 looking more at service office type businesses, not necessarily retail , because
53 the dollar per square foot rent which would have to be charged would require
54 that type of tenant.
55
1 Commissioner Hansen indicated he perceived from observing the traffic- problems •
2 at the Apache Medical Building that there might be more traffic and parking
3 problems with that type of business than with some retail . He said he was
4 especially concerned with the parking and especially where the parking spaces
5 were proposed. Commissioner Madden indicated he shared those concerns and
6 indicated the developers statement that any overflow parking outside the Kenzington
7 at night might be funneled to,-the commercial. space also bothered him. Mr. Childs
8 indicated he understood the developers were considering letting some of the
9 tenants use the Kenzington underground parking.
10
11 The motion to table by Commissioner •Madden and seconded by Commissioner Hansen
12 was ruled out of* order because .the hearing had not been closed when Jim Guttormson
13 of Environmental Expressions, the project architect, arrived at approximately
14 9:00 P.M.
15
16 Mr. Guttormson told the Commissioners he had drawn -up a different layout for the
17 building after an accurate survey had been obtained. He said the developers
18 had found that they had lost about 15 -feet on the west side which required
19 "tightening down an already tight site" by establishing ,the best parking possible
20 at the same time as much greenery is kept to maintain as much interest as
21 possible. He said this required using the adjacent alley for pull-in parking.
22
23 The architect presented a model of the proposed project and indicated that,
24 because of the constraint on the site and actual alignment of the building,
25 the drive-through feature in original plans had been filled in and another floor
26 on the bri.dgelike section had been added to maximize the square footage of the
•
27 building. He said providing angle parking would allow some landscaping between
28 parking stalls to give "a little life" to the project appearance. There would be •
29 no objections about the zero setback on the Kenzington side from those developers,
30 Mr. Guttormson indicated, and a sidewalk is planned to connect to the Kenzington
31 underground parking area where the architect said he understood the ratios are
32 showing there would be lot -more parking than would be used by the condominium
33 residents .
34
35 Handicapped ramps at all three entrances and four handicapped parking spaces
3,6 had been proposed in the back of. th'e building to encourage the prospective
:37 medical tenant. In regard to the �hreight variances his clients were seeking,
38 the architect indicated he perceived the ceiling line ended at the allowed 35
39 feet and "an unusable unstorgeabl.e" attic area he termed as a "belfrey" made
40 up the seven and a half foot difference. Mr. Guttormson stated he believed "the
41 matching of this building would relate to and strengthen the overall powerfulness
42 of this Kenzington product" .
43
44 When Commissioner Hansen questioned .in what areas and how the square footage of
45 the building had been reduced from-the original proposal , the architect told
46 him the difference between the 16,500 originally approved and the 16,284 square
47 feet proposed now had resulted from a 2,000 square foot error -in calculation by
48 someone in his office. He said META had considered at least 15,000 square feet
49 would be necessary to justify this project.
50
51 The architect told Chair Franzese a proposal had been made to the library across
1 52 the street to move into 2,400 square feet of the main floor of this building.
53 When she said promoting a high traffic use for the building concerned her, •
54 Mr. Guttormson said there was less than a 25% chance of that ever happening because
55 the people who run the library are very satisified where they are.
-7=
1 The architect said he was not concerned with not providing enough parking spaces
• 2 with the availability of parking within the Kenzington and what he perceived
3 was the potential of most of the clientele within walking distance of the build-
4 ing. There was a short discussion of how snow plowing and removal could be
5 handled without cutting down the available parking.
6
7 Mr. Schluender was concerned that the new building would cut off the light on
8 his property and was told the City had done shadow -studies for the larger
9 Kenzington building and they had shown the shadow case would extend barely past
10 the alley. Mr. Guttormson said the fact that the mass of the building would be
11 on the southwest corner should take away from the impact on the Schluender
12 property. The architect also -said the low level lighting planned for the
13 building should cause them no problems either. Mr. Schluender indicated with
14 parking on the alley, he perceived the alley would be used just like a road as
15 it is now with the construction of the Kenzington. The homeowner indicated he
16 perceived a major change was being made in the proposal this time and questioned
17 how the previous variances could apply now. He thought all the previous
18 variances should be resubmitted for approval again. The architect told him there
19 had been no change in the concept at all but only a different roof was being
20 added and the proposed drive-through was being filled in. As Mr. and Mrs.
21 Schluender left, the latter told the Commissioners that she "just hated the whole
22 project" . She also perceived they "would be buried in snow" .
23
24 Mr. Childs indicated a study is planned on the impact all the new construction
25 would be having on the traffic in that- area with the thought that medians might
26 be rearranged for better traffic flow. The consensus was that it would be
•
27 preferable to have all building employees park in back -of the building because
28 if that were done there would probably not be as much alley movement during
29 the day. When Mr. Guttormson recalled the extent of the parking for the Legion
30 Club, Commissioner Hansen reminded him that the club never opened until after noon.
31
32 The Commissioner then stated that he considered this to be a very good proposal
33 and recognizing the site restraints, a well planned project, but indicated he
34 was still concerned that parking and traffic flows would result in street
.35 parking. He said the twelve additional parking- spaces being requested repre-
36 sented almost 20% reduction of what the ordinance requires, which "might be
37 more than has ever been granted before" . Commissioner Madden indicated he
38 was not just concerned with the numbers- but, the way in which vehicles would
39 be forced to come in and out of the property.
40
.f 41 The architect indicated there had actually been 12 feet of parking lost to the
I
42 project with -the discovery that the first proposal had been based on a bad survey
43 and he said he had spent many hours since that discovery trying to find a valid
44 way ofproviding the same number of-parking spaces and some landscaping to add
45 some "life to the site". The Manager agreed that it had been a hard task for
46 the developer to fit a viable project on a parcel with such a difficult shape.
47 He observed that if the landscaping were eliminated, the site would be right
48 back to what it was with the Legion Club. Mr. Childs indicated he expected
49 neither the Commission nor the Council would consider 42 parking spaces enough
50 unless some commitment were made by the developer to provide parking spaces in
51 the Kenzington to make up at least six spaces. He conceded it might be difficult
.
52 to legally get such an agreement but indicated he was certain some creative
53 lawyer would find a way to do just that.
54
55 The hearing was closed at 9:45 P.M.
-8- .
• 1 Motion by Commissioner -Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
2 the City Council grant to the META Partnership the following variances in con-
i junction with the commercial fac ility they propose to develop at 2701 and 2709
4 Kenzie Terrace in accordance with the plans presented by the architect during
5 the Commission hearing April 15, 1986:
6
7 1 . A variance from the maximum height regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to
8 construct additions to the existing structure, portions of which will not
9 be greater than 42 feet by 6 inches in height where the City allows 35 feet;
10
11 2. A setback variance for parking which would waiver the five foot side yard
12 setback requirement on the southwest side of the property and the ten foot
13 front yard setback requirement on the southeast side for a total of 42
14 parking stalls on site.
15
16 In recommending approval of these variances, the Commission further recommends
17 they be granted on the following conditions:
18
19 1 . That the developer would have _to- make a binding commitment to provide at
20 least six tenant parking stalls in the underground parking in the Kenzington
21 building which would make up for that number of stalls lost when this project
22 had to be redesigned for dimensions less than originally proposed;
23
24 2. Because their use of the alley behind their property would probably be as
25 much or more than its current use, the project owners should be required
26 to blacktop the alley surface; and
• 27
28 3. Due to the unique layout and traffic flow on the site in relation to the
29 facility which is to be constructed, the property owner should also be
30 required to provide clear, concise traffic flow markings to identify en-
31 trances, exits, and one ways so as to control the traffic flow in such a
32 manner as to minimize a potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrian
33 traffic in that area.
34
35 In recommending these variances be granted, the Planning Commission finds that:
36
37 1 . The proposed project would provide an obvious improvement and possibly better
38 mai,htenance.., for that site;
39
40 '2. The setback encroachments can be perceived to have been caused by the tri-
41 angular shaped dimensions of the site and the owner should therefore be given
42 full consideration to properly develop this project within the confines of
43 those difficult dimensions;
44
45 3. This proposal would be compatible with the Kenzington and Walker on Kenzie,
46 as well as the previously approved upcoming senior .rental project to be
47 developed by Arkell Development, in the surrounding area;
48
49 4. It should be recognized that there is an alleged difficulty-.or hardship not
50 created by persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land but
5 1 rather by the City ordinance because the developers are attempting to improve
.
52 their property and to refuse their request to do so would impose an undue
j
53 hardship on them;
54
55
• 1 5. By approving this request, the City would be eliminating one curb cut to
2 Kenzie Terrace; and,
3
4 6. Only one property owner appeared in.opposition to the variances at the April
5 15, 1986 Planning Commission hearing.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8
9 When the Commissioners indicated ,they would like to see more information related
10 to a change in the City Ordinance which would establish a "zero lot line" ordin-
11 ance for two unit structures only as requested by Dennis Palm, 3308 Roosevelt
12 Street N.E. , the .Manager said he would continue his research into what other
13 communities have done in this regard' and return the request for their further
14 consideration when his study is completed.
15
16 Mr. Childs indicated perceiving a -high level of acceptance on the part of the
17 Commissioners to the Council 's suggestion that the City initiate the rezoning
18 of the Ammerman property at 3305 Stinson Boulevard from C, -Commercial district,
19 to R-3, townhouse residential district and would proceed to develop the ordin-.
20 ance which would accomplish that change.
21
22 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to adjourn the
23 meeting at 10: 15 P.M.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
•
27 Respectfully submitted,
28
29 Helen Crowe, Secretary
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
r 48
49
50
51
f 52
i 53
54
55