HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 05201986 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101778
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1986
Document: PL MINUTES 05201986
• CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING-COMMISSION MINUTES
May 20, 1986
1 The meeting was opened at 7:34 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair
2 Franzese.
3
4 Present for roll call : Madden, Franzese, Wer.enicz, and Bowerman (Wagner arrived
5 at 7:35 P.M. ) .
6
7 Absent_: Jones (arrived at 7:38 P.M. ) and Hansen.
8
9 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
10
11 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to approve the
12 minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held April 15, 1986, with the following
13 changes:
14
15 Page 1 , line 40: Substitute "to" for "would" between "house" and "be con-
16 structed" .
17
18 Page 3, lines 9 & 10: Delete "and the land".
• 19
20 Page 4, line 22: Insert "is" between "Lot 20" and "built" .
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 At 7:37 P.M. the Chair opened .the hearing to consider the request from the Apache
25 Country Store for a conditional use permit to allow the rental of video tapes and .
26 equipment in the store. The notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property
27 owners of record within 350 feet of the subject property had also been published
28 in the May 6 Bulletin and no one present indicated failure to receive the notice
29 or objected to tis content.
30
31 Mr. Childs reported receiving no calls related to the permit and reiterated, as
32 stated in his May 12th memorandum that this request was similar to the approvals
33 . the City had previously given to other St. Anthony business establishments; .namely,
34 990 Video, Video Update, Town and Country, Video Movie Center, and the Apache
35 Little Professor Bookstore, under the same conditions he had cited in his memorandum.
36
37 Commissioner Jones arrived at 7:38 P.M. during the course of this report:
38
39 When Commissioner Bowerman wanted to know how the City was able to keep track of
40 possible violations of obscenity laws by either owners or employees of those
41 stores, the Manager told him "the obscenity requirements are related to the
42 location for which the permit is granted" and Mr. Childs -indicated he perceived no
43 need for any -type of "protective review" to monitor compliance with the obscenity
44 regulations as long as there continues to be no specific problems with these
•
45 operations in the City.
46
47 Jim Peltier, Assistant Manager of the Country Store, indicated he was present
48 because the former manager, who had signed the original application, had since
-2-
• 1 been transferred. However, Mr. Peltier said, he was certain a family-oriented
2 business like his would be unlikely to deal in anything which could jeopardize
3 that clientele. Mr. Childs indicated he perceived the intent had always been
4 to grant permits to the businesses themselves -and not to store managers who
5 are subject to change from time to time.
6
7 There was no one present to object to the permit and the hearing was closed at
8 7:45 P.M.
9
10 Motion by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
11 the Council grant a conditional use permit for the rental of video tapes and
12 equipment to the Apache Country Store at 2508 - 38th Avenue N.E. under the
13 following conditions:
14
15 1 . There would be no viewing of tapes i,n the store, except for the bona fide
16 demonstration of tapes and no viewing visible from outside the store.
17
18 2. The proprietors must comply with all state laws relating to obscenity and
19 to any ordinance of the City of St. Anthony thereafter relating to obscenity.
2.0
21 3. Conviction of the owner or any of the employees of the owner for violation of
22 obscenity laws in the operation of the store would be grounds for revocation
23 of this permit by the City Council .
24
25 In recommending the Council grant this permit, the Planning Commission finds that:
26
• 27 1 . All three questions in the application which are required by statute to be
28 answered affirmatively, had been done so by the applicant and accepted by
29 the Planning Commission;
30
31 2. Similar permits had been granted to five other St. Anthony businesses prior
32 to this request; and
33
34 3. No objections to the permit had -been expressed either to the staff prior
35 to the hearing or during the Commission hearing .
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
i 39 At 7:5:2 P.M. Chair Franzese opened the hearing to consider the request from James
40 Nesser and Cheryle Clancy fora five foot variance to the City ordinance require-
41 ment for 25 foot rear yard setbacks which would allow them to construct the new
42 home they proposed at 2801 St. Anthony Boulevard in alignment with the average
43 40 foot front yard setback maintained by other residences on that street.
44
45 The notice of the hearing which-was read aloud by the Chair had been sent to
46 all property owners of record within 200. feet of the subject property at the
47 same time it had been published in •the Bulletin, May 6th, and there was no one
48 present who reported failure to -receive the notice or objected to its content.
49
50 As he had advi-sed 'in his May 12th memorandum,; Mr. Childs reiterated that if the
51 garage the applicants proposed to build onto their home were detached, it could
• 52 be sited within three feet of their rear lot line, which might indicate the
i
53 ordinance- itself had caused the "hardship" for the applicants to maintain the
5.4 same front yard alignment as the rest of the homes on St. Anthony Boulevard.
55
-3-
• 1 The Manager reported the only call he had gotten related to the proposal had come
2 from Mr. Gottwalt who lives just west of the property in question, whose only
3 concern had been. whether the home going up next to him would be architecturally
4 compatible with his own and other homes -in--that neighborhood and, after seeing
5 the plans -which were included in the agenda packet, had said he had no problem
6 with the variance because he perceived the proposed home would be more in keeping
7 with the neighborhood than the "modern- type" home he feared -might be erected
8 there.
9
10 Commissioner Jones indicated he perceived that, with an additional five foot
11 of space between the alley pavement and the property line, the new home would
12 still be 25 feet from the alley.
13
14. Both applicants were present and Mr. Nesser showed -the plans for the home which
15 had ween reproduced in the agenda packet reporting his neighbor to the east,
16 Robert Knox, had .told him he would have no problem with the City granting the
17 necessary variance. Ms. ` Clancy commented that she perceived it would be prefer-
18 able to build the house in line with the other houses on the street rather than
19 to move it forward to meet the rear yard setback requirements.
20
21 Jerome Hanson,' whose home at 2800 Murray Avenue N.E i.s across the alley from the
22 applicants' property, told the Commissioners hi-s only concern was that the exist-
23 ing swale which -controls the flow of water between the Gottwalt and Nesser
24 property from the alley not be altered to the extent that it caused drainage
25 problems for him or added. to the problems with flooding some -residents on
26 St. Anthony Boulevard are already experiencing every time there is a heavy rain.
®
27 Mr. Childs—assured Mr. Hanson that the City would see to it that even if the
28 ditch had to be moved one way-or another, the existing drainage flow would not be
29 altered with the new construction.
30
31 When Commissioner Madden asked whether it was possible that portions of the fence
32 on the property east of this .lot might project beyond the- property line, Mr.
33 Nesser told him he planned to •have' a .survey made before construction is started
34 and any problems in that regard would become very evident from the markers which
35 would be .installed. ,The Commissioner then indicated he 'believed the 23.8 foot
36 long and 28 foot wide dimensions quoted by Mr.- Nesser for his double garage was
37 certainly a- "reasonable" garage size for the house he was going to build.
38
1 39 Motion by .Commi,ss,ioner Jones andseconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
i 40 the Council grant a five foot variance to the City ordinance requirement of 25
41 foot rear yard setbacks for the construction of the home and attached garage
42 proposed by James Nesser -and Cheryle Clancy at 2801 St. Anthony Boulevard,
43 finding that:
44
45 1 .. Where the City only requires 30 foot front yard setbacks, the average aligh-
4 6 'merit„of homes along St. Anthony Boulevard is 40 .feet and to move the structure
47 forward to allow the required setback to the rear would place this home out
48 of alignment;
49
50 2.. The applicants had agreed to maintain the existing swale on the west side of
51 the property and normal -inspections by the City after the construction and
+ •
52 landscaping is completed would confirm that no drainage change had been made;
i 53
54 3. There were no neighbor objections to the variance and, in fact, the next door
55 neighbor indicated to staff..that he approved of both the plans for the house
56 and its siting; and
-4- >
1 4. The three questions required by statute. to be answered in the affirmative
• 2 had been answered -thus on the application and accepted by the Planning
3 Commission.
4
5 Motion ,carri.ed .unanimously.
6
7 At 8: 10 P.M. , the Chair read, the- notice of the hearing to consider a City initiated
8 -change'. n zoning to reclassify the Amerman property north of the former Clark
9 Station at 33rd and Stinson from C, commercial district, to R-3, townhouse
10 'residential district, in response to the development of the gas station property
11 to a townhome development .by Duane Fisher.
12
13 No one present indicated failure to receive the notice of the hearing which had
14 been mailed to all property owners within 350' f eet of the subject property and
15 published in the May'6th Bulletin -or objected to its content and the Manager said
16 the only calls he had gotten,-had been inquiries about just what type of housing
17 could be`developed under the zoning change.
18
19 The Planning Commission had indicated agreement with the..rezoning of this parcel
20 at their April 15th meeting and Mr. Childs told Commissoiner Bowerman a telephone
21 affirmation by Mr. Amerman would be. sufficient since the Council has the right
22 to rezone the property with or- without the .consent of the property owner. There-
23 fore, neither a formal application or his presence at the hearing would be
24 required of Mr. Amerman. , The- Manager also indicated the -lot in question was
25 large enough to support a. three dwelling townhouse project with the required
26 setbacks without a variance.
• 27
28 Commissioner Jones recalled that about ten years ago, when the City's Comprehensive
29 Plan was being developed,. the Planning Commission, perceiving that commercial
30 zoning for this property was not in conformance with the surrounding residential
31 neighbor-hood; especially after't•he Clark station next .door, had closed down, had
3.2 recommended the Cou.nci.l change-.the zoning .' However, the Commissioner indicated
33 the Council at that time had .acceded to the objections of the property owner and
34 deferred action until such time as the vacant gas station property was developed.
35
36 When the Chair noted that the address on the house on that property was 3309 rather
37 than 3305 as'indicated in the -notice of the hearing, Mr . Childs told her the
38 latter number appears on the tax listings and is therefore the legal address.
39
I 40 There was no one present ,to speak either for or against the rezoning and the hear-
41 ing was closed at 8:16 P.M.. for the following:
j 42
43 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
44 the Council . approve the change in zoning classification from C, commercial district,
45 to R-3, townhouse residential district, for the property owned by Derek Amerman
46 at 3305 Calso known as 330.91--St.inson Boulevard N.E. and described as the North
47 98.3 feet of the South 228.3 feet of the West T98 feet of the Northwest 1/4
48 of Section 6 T 29 R 23 Cexcept roadway). .Hennepin County, finding that:
49
50 1 . The City=s Comprehensive Plan recognizes a problem with the existing zoning
51 of this property;
I • 52
i
53 2. There i,s sufficient land available in the parcel to construct an R-3 project
54 without variances; and
55
-5-
• 1 3. No one expressed opposition to the proposed change either to staff prior to
2 the hearing or during the hearing on the reclassification.
3
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5
6 The request for a setback variance for a garage at 2528 Murray Avenue N.E . was
7 deferred until the applicant had arrived and the Commission instead took up
8 #6 in the agenda, a report from the Manager on research he had done related to a
9 possible ordinance change -which-would permit .'.'zero lot line" zoning for duplexes .
10 Mr. Childs had included in the agenda packet pertinent ordinance sections from
11 New Brighton, Coon Rapids, Minneapolis, and Brooklyn Park and he said he per=
12 ceived the latter might best fit the intent of the City in this regard, with
13 perhaps the inclusion of the section from the Coon Rapids ordinance which pro-
14 hibits the installation of fence and shrubbery dividers on the common front yard
15 boundaries,
16
17 The Manager,,-sa,id he would develop and advertise the ordinance and return i.t to
18 the Commissioners for their approval at the same time he would provide samples
.19 of Declaration of Covenants for their selection to be distributed along with the
20 ordinance whenever a duplex split sale is contemplated. Mr. Childs told Com-
21 missi.oner -Wereni,cz he would also research his questions about the City's
22 enforcement of the Covenant.
23
24 At 8;35 P.M. the hearing was opened to consider a request from Robert D. Tokar. ,
25 2528 Murray Avenue N.E. , for an approximate one foot variance to the ordinance
26 setback regulations for detached garages which would allow Mr. Tokar to replace
27 the 35 year old, 14- X 22 foot-garage on the alley between Murray Avenue and
• .
28 St. A.nthony Boulevard wi;th 'the standard 22 X 24 foot double garage Sussel
29 builds, using_ the same' location for the new structure.
30
31 The noti.ce. of the hearing, which had been published May 6th and mailed to all
32 property owners of record within 200 .feet of the subject property, was read
33 aloud by the Chair, who got no response to her question whether anyone present
34 failed to receive the notice or objected to its content or top the variance itself.
35
36 The agenda packet included .copies of-Mr. Tokar'-s application, his letter support-
37 ing the request and a copy of the 1953 survey of the property on which the pro-
38 posed garage had been -sketched. Copies of the petition signed by eleven of
39 Mr. Tokar, 's closest neighbors indicating they would not oppose the City granting
' 40 the variance necessary-for- "the project had been distributed before the meeting .
i 41
42 The Manager reiterated as stated in his May 13th memorandum, that detached garages
43 only required 3 foot setbacks''and the garage itself would probably meet the
44 ordinance requirements but the one foot wide overhang would encroach into the
45 setback and would require a variance. - He also reiterated that a problem with
46 the original surveys along that street had resulted in most of the garages being
47 constructed either three feet or less from the property lines, as Mr. Tokar had
48 explained in his application.
49
50 The applicant told the Commissioners the 12 inch overhang comes with all Sussel
51 garages and he perceived that might be more appropriate for a larger garage.
• 52 He also said he perceivedi,t would be much harder for him to get into his garage
-53 if his driveway .had to be shortened to conform to the ordinance. Mr. Tokar said
54 he had "learned to live" with- his neighbor's garage to the east being right on
55 his lot line and the one on the other side encroaching on his property and his
56 request was for the City to "leave things just as they have been for the last
57 thirty years" .
-6
• 1 The Manager reported no one from the neighborhood had expressed opposition to the
2 variance and- no persons except Mr. -and Mrs. Tokar were present for the hearing .
3 The hearing was closed. at 8:43 P.M. for the development of a recommendation to
4 the Council .
5
6 Commissioner- Wagner indicated he perceived only a minimum variance was being
7 requested and Commissioner Madden commented that he had seen for himself that
8 there were at least two feet of alley right-of-way behind the Tokar garage
9 which would leave five feet between the proposed garage and the alley itself.
10
11 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
12 the Council grant the variance to the ordinance setback requirements for detached
13 garages which would allow Robert D. Tokar to replace his existing garage with
14 the larger detached garage he proposes to construct in .the same location to
15 the rear-of -his property -at 2528 Murray Avenue N.E. , as long as the garage
16 overhang for which the variance is required is no more: than 12 inches wide,
17 finding that:
18
19 1 . The three questions on the application which are required by statute to be
20 answered affirmatively had been answered thus by the applicant and accepted
21 by the Planning Commission;
22
23 2. There was no neighbor opposition-to the variance expressed either to staff
.24 prior to the Commission hearing- or during the hearing May 20th and, in fact,
25 11 of Mr., Tokar's closest neighbors had signed a petition (to be attached to
26 the application)_ which indicated no opposition to the City granting the
• 27 variance;
28
29 3, It appears the proposed 'structure itself would meet the setback requirements
30 of the Zoning Ordinance and .it was .only the proposed overhang which would
31 encroach into the required 3 foot setback; and
32
33 4. The perception i.s -that all. the garages 'in that area were built either three
34 feet or less from the property lines due to faulty lot surveys for the
35 entire area at the time they were constructed thirty years ago.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
i 39 There was a brief discussion of the City' s efforts to clean up a Silver Lane pro-
40 perty where the neighbors perceive a junk dealer to operate, The Manager told
.I
41 Commissioner Jones the owner had called him and promised to take care of the
42 problem now that he is out of the hospital after suffering a heart attack.
43
44 Motion by Comm.issi:oner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Jones to adjourn
i
45 the meeting at 8;55 P.M.
I 46
47 Motion carried unanimously,
48
49 Respectfully submitted_ ,
50
51 Helen Crowe, Secretary
• 52
i 53
54
55