HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 06171986 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
101776
. Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1986
Document: PL MINUTES 06171986
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 17, 1986
1 The meeting was opened at 7:35 P.M. with the Pledge. of Allegiance led by Chair
2 Franzese.
3
4 Present for roll call : Bowerman, Jones, Franzese, and Madden.
5
6 Absent: Wagner, Hansen, and Werenicz.
7
8 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
9
10 Motion- by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve the
11 minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held May 20, 1986 with the following
12 change:
13
14 Page 3, line 10: Substitute "feet" for "foot" .
15
16 Motion carried unanimously.
17
18 Commissioner Madden said he had-only represented the Commission at a Council
• 19 meeting once in -the 18 months he had served -on the Board and suggested there
20 might be a more equitable way of assigning by order of the Chair or by alpha-
21 betical rotation. The Secretary-was requested to research the past rotation and
22 to maintain a running record of who. served in the future. Commissioner Madden
23 was designated to serve as the Commission representative to the July 24th
24 Council meeting.
25
26 The Manager indicated to the applicants who were present that the Commission
27 - recommendations related to their requests were scheduled to beprepontedrearly inethe
28 agenda but the Council consideration of the META project, which had been tabled
29 which would be taken up first, might take ,some time.
30
31 At_7:45_P._M.._the_Chai r_opened the publ i c hearing and read the notice _of the_hearing
_
32 to consider a request from Richard Graff, 3061 Asbury Street, Roseville, for a
33 variance from the ordinance setback- regulations for industrial classification which
34 would allow a 39 foot X 49 foot canopy to be erected over the existing gas pumps
35 [at Murphy's Service Center, Inc. , 3501 - 29th Avenue N.E . to within seven feet of
36the southpropertyline on 29th Avenue, where '40 foot front yard setbacks are
37 required for structures located in that zoning_ classification.
38 The notice had been published in the June 4th Bulletin and mailed to all property
39
40 owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. No one present re-
4 1 ported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content and Mr. Childs
4 2 reiterated the statement in his June 13th memorandum on the request that staff had
43 received no calls either for or against the variance.
• 4-4 Mr. Graff was present and corrected the impression in the notice that the existing
45 pumps would remain in the same location, saying he intended to move the most
46 easterly pumps three feet to the east and the west pumps approximately ten feet
47
-2-
• 1 further to the west to provide a greater spread between the pump island which
2 would allow four rather than two vehicles to be serviced at the same time .
3
4 The applicant said the canopy would be seven feet from the property line but
5 actually 19 feet from the road because the county has a 9 foot right-of-way in
6 that location. Mr. Childs confirmed that moving the pumps laterally would leave
7 them 26 feet from the curbl-ine, and he said there would still be more than
8 adequate side yard setbacks retained on both sides after the move. The Manager
9 also said even though the station is a commercial use for which the ordinance
10 only requires 30 foot setbacks, it is because it is located in an industrial
11 district that 40 foot front yard setbacks are required.
12
13 Commissioner Madden noted that Mr. Childs had drawn a comparison -between this
14 proposal and the situation -when the Amoco station was rebuilt on Silver Lake Road
15 and the Commissioner indicated he thought the City had granted Amoco a 10 foot
16 front yard setback variance for their canopy but had refused to grant a five foot
17 setback variance for the pumps to be moved closer to the street. The minutes of
18 the meeting where the Council acted on the Amoco request revealed that only a
19 variance for a canopy had been granted.
20
21 Mr. Graff told Commissioner Jones he perceived a four foot slab of cement in
22 front of the station office might cause a traffic problem in that area if the
23 pumps were moved closer to the building as the Commissioner had suggested. The
24 Manager indicated there might be a building code problem with moving a detached
25 canopy closer to the station building . .
26
•
27 Commissioner Bowerman raised the question of whether by relocating the pumps, the
28 owner could be perceived to .have totally changed the -character of the existing
29 installation, thereby invalidating its protection as a non-conforming use which
30 had been "grandfathered in" when the Zoning Ordinance was written. Mr. Childs
31 indicated he perceived it might be up to the Commission to interpret whether the
32 change was substantial enough to require a variance but a legal opinion on the
33 point might also be required since he was not sure himself.
34
35 Commissioner Madden said he perceived that if the pumps were moved, that action
36 would constitute a change. great enough to require a variance and he suggested the
37 matter be tabled for another month to allow Mr. Graff time enough to sit down with
38 staff to try to work out a proposal which would be more palatable to the Com-
39 missioners and which would not be so close to the -road. The Commissioner indi-
40 cated he perceived there might be a line of sight problem created for drivers
41 coming westward and turning north on Highway 88. Commissioner Bowerman said from
j42 his own experience of driving that way, he perceived having the canopy closer
43 might provide better lighting for that dark corner.
' 44
45 ' Mr. Graff indicated it would not be a problem for him to have the project delayed
46 another month but he said he just didn't know where he could move the canopy.
47 He sai.d there had been no major accidents on that corner as far as he knew and
48 he indicated that he perceived that if'-the Commissioners looked at the picture
49• -which was similar to how his property would look after the changes were made,
I
50 they could not help but agree that there would be a big improvement and the
51- -station would now be an asset to the community.
I
52 -
53
253 Commissioner Jones responded by telling Mr. Graff that the Commission might be
54 facing a procedural problem because., if the City Attorney indicates a second
55 variance would be required for the pumps, which the Commissioner said he expected
-3-
• 1 to happen, because he perceived more than a 75% change would be involved, another
2 hearing would have to be held with advance notification of the same neighbors
3- about the second issue to be addressed. The Commissioner then suggested that,
4 if the applicant were willing to compromise by moving the pumps at least four
5 feet towards the station, he, in turn, would be willing to recommend Mr.. Graff
6 be granted a 20 foot variance for the canopy. and a 10 foot variance for the
7 pumps.
8
9 The Commissioner said he perceived if Mr. Graff did as he had suggested, there
10 would be about 22 feet left between the station and the pump island and he sug-
1 1 gested it might be necessary to allow only one way traffic between the two.
12 He perceived the ordinance had been written to keep greater distance between gas
13 station pumps and the traffic and Commissioner Jones said that. was why the City
14 had not allowed Amoco to put their pumps any closer to Silver Lake Road. He
15 agreed with the applicant that there hadn't been any major accidents on that
16 corner to date but if there had been, the Commissioner said, "You would have found
17 us a lot tougher than we are now" about any variances.
18
19 Commissioner Bowerman told Mr. Graff he perceived that when a person has a piece
20 of property where the existing .structure predates an ordinance, he is allowed to
21 continue that non-conforming -,use as long as it is continued in the same fashion.
22 However, if that person elects to make substantial changes to the property, the
23 question which has to be answered is whether the change is still protected by
24 the "grandfather" clause. The Commissioner indicated there had been instances
25 in the Village several years ago where two businesses which' had -been protected by
26 the same clause had been destroyed by. a tornado and the non-conforming -;use had
•
27 not been permitted to be rebuilt. Commissioner Bowerman indicated he. perceived
28 the Commission would now be requesting staff to give a legal opinion on whether
29 the station's changes would -fall within the same category.
30
31 No one else appeared to provide input to the discussion and the hearing was
32 closed at 8:07 P.M.
33
34 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded .by Commissioner Madden to table the
35 request for a change at the Murphy Service Station, 3501 - 29th Avenue N.E. ,
36 pending staff opinion as to the next action required of the Commission.
i 37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 At 8:08 P.M. , the hearing was opened to consider a .request from Tom Peters of the
!
41 Nationwide Sewing Machine store in the St. Anthony Shopping Center 'for. .a variance
42 from the Sign Ordinance allowance of only one sign per store which would allow
43 the proprietor of the. store to replace the existing, non-conforming, "grandfathered
44 in", 16 foot X '18 foot reader board on the southwest side of his corner store
45 witha 14 foot X 3foot 3 inch sign advertising that an "Oreck Vacuum 'Cleaner
46 Care Center" would now be operating from his store.
47
48 The notice of the hearing which the Chair read aloud had been published in the
49 June 4th Bulletin and sent to all property owners of record within 200. feet of
50- the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or
51 objected to its content and the Manager reported receiving no calls related to
j 52 the variance request.
• 53
54 In his June 13th memorandum, Mr. Childs had indicated- the total signage the
55 store would have if the variance for. the proposed sign were granted would be
-4-
1 104 square feet, where a maximum of 90 square feet would be allowed by the
• 2 ordinance for a 45 foot wide business store front. The Manager indicated that
3 with the non-conforming reader board which was installed before the new Sign
4 Ordinance dictated only one sign per store, there are approximately 166 square
5 feet of signage there now. The Manager called attention the point the applicant
6 had made in the statement attached to his application that other cases existed
7 where two signs were allowed when the City granted variances for the Town and
8 Country and Cokesbury stores in the shopping-center. When the Chair commented
9 that she perceived those stores all faced major thoroughfares, the Manager showed
10 on the site plans for the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project how the developers
11 envisioned Coolidge Street, which runs behind this store, might become "more
12 major" when the project is completed.
13
14 Commissioner Madden-questioned why, if the -new sign were to be installed within
15 the outlines of the existing reader board, a variance was required at all . The
16 Manager told him that because an entirely new sign with .interior' lighting, etc.
17 was to be installed, a substantial change .could be perceived to have been made
18 which would require a variance. He also told the Chair that it had only been
19 since the new Sign Ordinance had been written several years ago that stores
20 were restricted to one sign.
21
22 When Commissioner Bowerman asked Mr. . Peters if. his affirmative answer to #2
23 on the application meant he perceived he wou-ld suffer a- particular hardship if
24 he were not allowed a second sign under Section 430 of the Sign Ordinance,
25 Mr. Peters said it would not be an "extreme" hardship for him to forego the second
26 sign and he might have misunderstood what that meant when he read the letter
•
27 which accompanied the application .for him to sign. Mr. Childs said he inter-
28 preted from Mr. Peters ' statement attached .to the application that the store-
29 owner considered he had a similar circumstance to other corner stores which had
30 two signs and his hardship would be that he would not be treated equitably if
31 he were denied the second sign.
32
33 Commissioner Jones stated that he perceived the sign was necessary to identify
34 a second business in the store and he noted that the 'non-conforming sign would
35 be downsized with this "better quality sign" . However, the Commissioner was
36 adamant that the sign not be lit after the store closed.
37
38 _ No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance and the hearing was
} 39 closed at 8:24 P.M.
40
41 Motion by Commissioner Jones and .seconded by Commissioner Madden to recommend the
42 Council grant a variance to the Sign Ordinance requirement for only one sign to
43 a business to Nationwide Sewing Machine, Inc. , 2922 Pentagon Drive., for a 3 foot
44 3 inch X 14 foot sign (.approximately 45 square feet) to replace an existing non-
45 conforming reader board sign on the southwest side of the store, which is
46 approximately 100 square feet, which would identify a new business to be located
j
47 on the premises and operated in conjunction with the existing sewing machine
48 business in the store, with the stipulation that the sign woul.d not be lit after
49 business hours. In recommending the variance be granted, the Commission finds
50 that:
51
d • 52 1 . The new sign would substantially reduce .the square footage of the existing
53 non-conforming signage and the quality of the signage would be much improved;
54
55 2. Several stores with corner locations in that immediate shopping area had
56 previously been granted variances for similar signage;
-5- }
• 1 3. The proposed signage could be considered to be an asset to the community and
2 would provide a necessary.. service because it would identify a second business
3 in the store which the community might not know about without the signage;
4 .
5 4. The three questions in the application which are required to be answered in
6 the affirmative by statute, have been done so by this applicant and accepted
7 by the Commission.
8
9 Commissioner Bowerman suggested as a friendly, amendment that the requirement that
10 "the sign be only lit during business hours" be deleted because he perceived it
11 was not at a-ll unusual for- City businesses to keep their signs on past their
_12 closing time until 10:00. or 11 :00 P.M. He said he believed that was the advantage
13 of having lighted signs which faced busy:'thoroughfares. ' The Commissioner said he
14 recalled many times in.-the past when similar concessions -had been made for
15 businesses and said he 'perceived the Commission might be imposing an undue hard-
16 ship on Mr. Peters by requiring something of him that is not asked of other
17 businesses .
18
19 Commissioner Jones indicated he could not accept that amendment .because he per-
20 ceived there were strong justifications for not encouraging additional traffic
21 in a business area when the stores are closed. He reminded the Commissioners of
22 the restrictions the City had placed on the hours of operation for the hair
23 studio on Silver Lake Road. Mr. Childs said the City had made that restriction
24 on the Silver Lake Road business because of the shop 's proximity to a residential
25 area and because a- variance was required for a free standing sign but had not
26 done so recently for the Cokesbury store in the commercial area.
• 27
28 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to amend the
29 motion to delete =the requirement that the new sign be turned off when the business
30 closed. Before the vote was taken, Commissioner Jones said he perceived this
31 sign would also be near residences when the redevelopment project is completed and
32 he indicated he would like to see a policy established for St. Anthony which is a
33 "bedroom community" to have signage turned off when business establishments are
34 closed. He. said he perceived signage is intended to let people know where the
35 businesses they are seeking are . located and doubted many people would be looking
36 for a vacuum after 9:00 P.M. He also perceived lighted signs were a distraction
37 for late night drivers along Highway 88. Commissioner Bowerman asked whether the
38 City' s on-sale, off-sale -liquor operation at the Stonehouse had to turn off its
39 sign when the bar was closed. Mr. Childs told him there had been no such restrictions
I 40 placed on that signage.
i 41
42 Commissioner Madden indicated he believed the City should grant this business the
43 same privileges which are allowed other business establishments in .the same
44 shopping center and he said he was still hopeful that sometime in the future
45 uniform signage would be established for the entire center even though Mr. Peters
46 had said the center owners -have talked about that for the last 10 or 12 years
47 without doing anything about it.
48
49 Voting on the amendment:
50
51 Aye: Madden and Bowerman.
( • 52
i
53 Nay: Jones and Franzese.
54
55 Motion -not carried.
-6-
• 1 The original motion then carried unanimously.
2
3 Commissioner Jones told Mr. Peters that if he felt strongly -that he needed his
4 sign to be lit after hours, he could argue his case again before the Council the
5 next week and they might decide that restriction was not necessary. The applicant
6 noted that the Town and Country. sign next to-him' was lit up for 24 hours a day
7 but then indicated he would have no problem with having to turn off the sign
8 when his store was closed, -if that�was the City's final decision.
9
10 At 8:35 P.M. , the hearing was opened to consider the request from Dick Peterson
11 of the RPA, Inc. , 1075 County Road E, Shoreview, MN for a conditional use permit
12 to allow the operation of a restaurant (.pizza delivery service)- at 3005 - 37th
13 Avenue N.E. for which the ordinance requires a permit for any restaurant located
14- -within 250 feet of a- residential district or zone. The notice of the hearing,
15 which had been publ-ished in the June 4th Bulletin and sent to all property owners
16 of record within .350 feet of the subject proper y was read aloud by the Chair.
17 No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
18
19 In his June 13th- memorandum, Mr. Childs had advised the Commissioners that no
20 calls related to the permit had been .received and he had recommended approval if
21 the concerns related to the parking could- be resolved. The Manager gave the
22 background history of how the restaurants which would be close to residential
23 developments became conditionally permitted uses which the City could review and
24 impose conditions on, if necessary. However, he added, no provisions had been
25 made for not allowing such operations altogether if located in a commercial zone.
26
•
27 As he had stated in his memorandum, the Manager indicated the facility would be
28 used as a pizza bakery and delivery outlet with- a portion of the building to be
29 used for storage and a conference/training room. Mr. Childs reviewed the un-
30 certain history of the building the last few years and said that although after
31 all the changes made for the reconstruction of County Road D and plans for a four
32 foot wide sidewalk on that side of the street, there would only be nine spaces
33 left for parking, he perceived parking overflow should be no problem for the type
34 of activity proposed for the building because the landlord, who owns Autotraac
35 next door,' �.ad indicatedjthe app.licant,,would be ab�heetocdse'-his*,parking �spaces
36 i.f necessary;because t'f:lere.wou:l:ucbe.,.l i t�Ll e:.or-no�conf l iLtt,.i ni,tf�e-,hoursvof�-opera-
37 tion for the two businesses because the main hours of operation of the pizza
38 operation would be evenings and weekends when the car service would be closed.
39
40 Mr. Childs also indicated he understood there would be a minimum of take-out
41 service and no tables or service of food within the premises . He also told the
f
42 Chair there would be a curb cut in front of this building and another for Autotraac
'
43 and Rapid Oil on each side. Commissioner Jones commented that he perceived
44 vehicles would still be able to cross the Rapid Oil station property to get to
45 Silver Lake Road.
46
j47 The applicant was present and indicated he and his wife, Karen, own most of RPA,
48 Inc. He said they have five Paul Revere stores in the Twin Cities and hoped
49 eventually to open another four soon. The franchise owner indicated he expected
50 very little business from customers coming to the counter and causing traffic
51 congestion. He said there would be from three to five persons in the building on
t .
52 busy nights doing the cooking but many nights only the store manager would be
53 doing the cooking and coordinating the deliveries. The primary business hours
54 would be in .the evening from 4:00 P.M. on and drivers would be moving in and out
55 rapidly so they should cause no congestion for the parking areas at all .
-7-
1 Mr. Peterson told Commissioner Bowerman the plans now are to keep the store open
2 until 11 on Sunday night, 12 Monday through Thursday, and .1 :00 A.M. on Friday and
3 Saturday nights, although he is "not convinced those later hours are really
4 cost- effective" .
5
6 Mr. Peterson indicated that when he had first negotiated his lease, the company
7 had considered subleasing the less than ha.lf of 66 foot X 33 foot building they
8 might not need for their own business, but since then had determined that with
9 nine stores eventually, there was a need for conference/training space for
10 which the remainder of the building could be used as indicated on the floor
11 plan in the Commission agenda. The franchise owner also indicated he had not
12 realized how much the site would be affected by the reconstruction of County
13 Road D, but had concluded that with the type of operation he would be running,
14 what was left should be sufficient, especially since the landlord had assured
15 him that any spillover could be .parked on the Autotraac property.
16
17 Gene Crowley, the owner of Autotraac, was present to let the Commissioners know
18 he perceived Mr. Peterson would be able to establish a successful business in
19 that location unlike the previous three tenants and he urged the City to grant
20 the necessary permit. Mr. Crowley also said he would be willing to do anything
21 he could to prevent traffic congestion on the site.
22
23 No one else appeared to speak either for or against the permit and the hearing
24 -was closed at 8:47 P.M. for Commission discussion.
25
26 Commissioner Madden commented that he perceived one of the signs a community is
•
27 going down hill is to have empty store fronts and he perceived the proposed
28 business had a good chance to succeed in that location.
29
30 There was a brief discussion of how this business could be categorized when it
31 came to parking requirements. The consensus was that the proposed nine spaces
32 would be sufficient for a "general service" operation or even the seating require-
33 ment for a restaurant. Mr. Peterson said there might be six or seven drivers
34 delivering pizzas on- a busy night but it would be the manager' s responsibility
35 to see none of them spent any more than a minimum of time at the store.
36
37 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend
38 the Council grant a conditional - use permit to RPA, Inc. to allow the operation of
39 the Paul Revere Pizza .bakery and delivery service from 3005 —37th Avenue N.E.
40 as proposed by the franchise owner, Dick Peterson; finding that:
41
42 1 . No calls either for or against the permit had been receiv6d .by staff and no
43 objections to the proposal were raised during the Commission's hearing;
44
45 2. The proposed use would fill an empty store front which is perceived to be a
i
46 detriment to the City;.
47
48 3. The owner has indicated there would be no seating for customers provided in
49 the store which could result in parking congestion around the site; and
50
51 4. The three conditions required by statute to be satisfied before a conditional
j •
52 use permit can be authorized have been perceived to have been done so with
53 this proposal .
54
55 Before the vote on the motion was taken, the applicant was asked about the sign-
56 age he planned for the building . Mr. Peterson said it appeared the sign he would
-8-
• 1 like to put up would fit into the existing space available for signage on the
2 storefront, but it was his intention to work with the City staff to provide
3 signage which would meet the City requirements.
4
5 Commissioner Jones then indicated he considered the proposed business to be a very
6 compatible enterprise-for that location because its hours of operation would be
7 more compatible to the traffic patterns than the previous businesses. However,
8 because "the location directly impacts on the residential area" the Commissioner
9 said he perceived the store owner should be required to turn off the sign
10 when the store closed. Mr. Crowley indicated the' Autotraac sign is lit all night.
11 When Commissioner Jones replied that the auto store sign had been grandfathered
12 into the ordinance, Commissioner Bowerman said he still perceived "this would be
13 an unusual restriction of business" .
14
15 The Chair indicated she associated a lighted sign to mean the store is available
16 for service and said she had often been disappointed to find that premise not to
17 be true when she stopped at a drug store which was closed, but kept the sign. lit.
18
19 Motion by Commissioner' Jones and seconded by Chair Franzese to amend the motion
20 to indicate the store owner would be required to turn off his sign when his store
21 was closed.
22
23 Voting on the motion:
24
25 Aye: - Jones and ,Franzese:...
26
• 27 Nay: 3owerman•'and'.Jliadden•.
28
29 Notion to amend! not carried: -
30
31 Voting,' oh-'the or.i!gi nal ,motion:
32
33 Aye: Madden, Bowerman-, and Franzese.
34
35 Nay: Jones.
36
37 Motion carried.
38
39 At 8:58 P.M. the Chair opened the. hearing to consider the request from Elmwood
' 40 Lutheran Church for a conditional use permit to .allow the construction of a new
#
41 church sanctuary on the north side of their existing church building at 3615
42 Chelmsford Road by reading the notice of the hearing which had been published in
43 the June 4th Bulletin and sent to all property owners of record within 350 feet
1 44 of the subject property.
a
q 45
46 The Manager indicated the only calls he had gotten in response to the notice had
i
47 come from persons who indicated approval of the church's plans . However, one of
48 these had suggested that in order to assure there would be no misunderstanding
49 as to just what was being constructed, it might be advisable for the City to
50 rescind all previous approvals since they are no longer valid. Mr. Childs had
51 included in the agenda packet copies of minutes relevant to those actions and
52 had advised the Commi.ssi.oners in his June 13th memorandum that the proposal
i •
53 before them that evening complied with all City ordinances and no variances
54 would be necessary.
55
• 1 Dennis. Olson, 3117 Rankin Road, Chairman of the church building committee was
2 present to answer. any questions -the Commissioners might have about the project.
3 He said the church':s previous plans to add to the south side of their structure
4 had not met either the church's purposes because the fellowship hall would have
5 been too far from the kitchen or the wishes of the adjacent neighbors on 36th
6 Avenue who would have been most affected. Present plans called for building the
7 addition on the north side of the church where the neighbors had suggested it
8 be located right from the start, Mr. Olson said. The church representative had
9 constructed a model of the church -with the addition and said the decision had
10 been made to construct -the sanctuary at an angle because the building committee
11 had perceived it would be more attractive in that location than just squared off
12 with the rest of the building. Mr. Olson told the Commissioners there was a
13 change in elevation from the sketch they had in their agenda packets because
14 Dave Nordine of Architects Plus in Faribault, the project architect, had perceived
15 a steepled roof would be more compatible to' the rest of the church building than
16 a flat roof. The building chairman indicated he thought the new roof would be
17 lower, or about the same, as the existing sanctuary roof but added that if a
18 cross were added, it might be higher.
19
20 Commissioner Bowerman said he understood that since there were no variances
21 required for the project, it had .only been because the church is located in a
22 residential area that a conditional use permit is necessary.
23
24 Larry Antczak, 3501 - 36th Avenue N.E. , indicated he had been one of the neighbors
25 who had opposed an- addition on the other side of the church because of its proxi-
26 mity to his home, but after attending the. meeting of church officials with the
27 neighbors, said he was wholeheartedly in favor of the addition to be made on the
28 north side. Erling Weiberg, who had served as spokesman for the neighbors who
29 had opposed the southern addition, indicated he perceived all the neighbors
30 considered the proposed- positioning of the church to be "very innovative" . He
31 said although he had not been able- to attend the meeting with the neighbors, he
32 understood none of them had any concerns about the new proposal . Mr. Weiberg
33 indicated he perceived the church would now have an adequate parking lot and
34 ample landscaping and he concluded his statement- by saying "They take good care
35- of their property and are good neighbors" . Mr. Antczak affirmed his statements
36 about the concerns of the neighbors being resolved at the meeting .
37
38 No one else appeared to discuss the request and the .hearing was closed at 9:10
39 P.M. Even though he had never been inivited to any of the neighbor discussions
40 about the church's plans to expand, Commissioner Madden said he considered him-
41
im-
41 self a neighbor, especially now that the new addition would bring the church 106
42 feet closer to his home. - The Commissioner indicated he considered the proposal
43-- to be a good one which would provide an attractive addition to the neighborhood.
44
4 5 Chair Franzese said she perceived adding to the north end of the church balanced
46 the property better and made it more functional for the church itself.
47
48 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend
49 the Council grant a conditional use permit to the Elmwood Lutheran Church for the
50 construction of a sanctuary on the north side of their existing building at 3615
51 Chelmsford Road N.E. , finding that:
( • 52
i
53 1 . All the ordinance provisions had been complied with and no variances are
54 necessary for the project;
55
-10-
® 1 2. There were no expressions of opposition to the proposal either before or
2 during the June 17th hearing; and
3
4 3. Essentially, this addition can be perceived to be an improvement of the
5 existing property.
6
7 In recommending approval of the permit, the Planning Commission also recommends
8 that al.l previous permits and variances reported in City minutes from June 1983
9 to June 1984 related to improvement of this property be rescinded and the con-
10 struction be governed only by the action the Council takes at their June 24,
11 1986 meeting.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15—The meeting -was recessed from 9:15. P.M.- to 9:210 P.M. when the hearing was opened
16 to consider the proposed Zero -Lot Line Ordinance, which the Manager had developed
17 as directed by the Commission during their May 20th .meeting . The proposed amend-
18 ment of the City Ordinance would provide for a twin home classification, i .e. ,
19 zero side lot line and would allow the split ownership of current and future
20 side-by-side duplexes after certain criteria are met and the City approvals are
21 properly received.
22
23 The notice of the hearing had been published .in the June 4th Bulletin. Commissioner
24 Jones indicated he perceived the use of the.word "duplex" in the notice might be
25 somewhat misleading because to him that word had -always denoted a double
26 occupancy "up-and-down".rather than "side-by-side" . Commissioner Bowerman said
27 he perceived adding the "side-by-side" clarified the meaning. There were no other
28 objections to the notice content.
29
30, Mr. Childs indicated the proposed amendment had been principally developed from
31 the Brooklyn Park ordinance with some portions of the Coon Rapids ordinance added.
32 He said he had added "d" as one of the Condit ions under Section 5 . The wording
33 of that section- was modified- at- Commissioner Bowerman's suggestion to read "No
34 fence or shrubbery divider may be installed or maintained within the required
35 front yard" . Commissioner Jones said he could accept the change since it would
36 probably not prevent an island being developed in the middle of driveways with
37 too large expansions .
38
} 39 The Commissioners agreed with the Manager' s suggestion that the model Declaration
40 of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions could be offered as a sample of a
41 document which would be acceptable to the City with any additions their attorneys
42 might make. There was no one else present to provide further input to the develop-
43 ment of either document and the hearing was closed at 9:30 P.M.
44
45 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend
46 the Council hold hearings on the proposed Zero Lot Line Ordinance with the pro-
47 posed change in wording in (d) under Section 5 and to adopt the sample of a
48 Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for distribution to those
49 seeking that zoning classification.
50
51 Motion carried unanimously.
t 52
�
53 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to adjourn the
54 meeting at 9:33 P.M.
55
56 Motion carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Helen Crowe, Secretary