HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07151986 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII III
II VIII VIII loll IIII
coma
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1986
Document: PL MINUTES 07151986
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 15, 1986 .
1 The meeting was called to order by Chair Pro Tem Wagner at 7:35 P.M.
2
3 Present for roll call : Bowerman, Madden, Wagner, Werenicz, and Jones.
4
5 Absent: Franzese and Hansen.
6
7 Also .present.: David Childs, City Manager.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Madden and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman to approve the
10 minutes of the Commission meeting held June 17, 1986, with the following changes :
11
12 Page 1 , line 23: Should be "June 24" rather than "July 24" .
13
14 Page 9, line 45: CommissionerMadden was the maker and Commissioner Bowerman seconded
15 the motion related to the Zero Lot Line Ordinance.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
• 19 The Secretary reported the research she had .done on the number of times each Com-
20 missioner had represented the Commission at a Council meeting., which prompted
21 Commissioner Jones to volunteer to report the Commission minutes to the Council at
22 their July 22nd meeting.
23
24 At 7:38 P.M. , the Chair Pro Tem reopened the hearing to consider the request from
25 Richard Graff for the variances from the setback regulations for the industrial
26 classification requirement that a 40 foot front yard setback would be necessary for
27 both the canopy he proposed to erect over the pump islands at the Murphy's Service
28 Station, 3501 - 29th Avenue N.E. and for the relocation of those islands farther
29 back from the property line on 29th Avenue which had been revised in accordance with
30 suggestions from the Commissioners during the first hearing on the proposal , June 17th.
31
32 Chair Pro Tem Wagner read the notice which had been readvertised in the July 2nd
33 Bulletin and remailed to all property .owners within 200 feet of the subject property.
34 No one present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
35 Mr. Childs reported receiving no -calls either for or against the proposal and had
36 distributed copies of letters supporting the project from eight business owners
37 in the same area.
38
39 The Manager told Commissioner Bowerman the City Attorney had advised that readvertis-
40 ing and renotif�in� nthe neighbors of the changes in the variance requests should
41 address the Commissioner's concerns related to the possible loss of the "grandfather
42 protection" the station now enjoys under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Childs
43 reiterated as he had stated in his July 3rd memorandum to the Commissioners that
44 the applicant had tried to comply as best he could with their suggestions that the
• 45 pumps be moved farther back from 29th Avenue N.E. and Mr. Graff 's revised plans
46 were to narrow the width of the islands to about 23 feet where the industry standards
47 are about 24 feet.
• 1 Mr. Childs then indicated he perceived his sketch in the agenda packet differed
2 from the notice of the hearing description when it came to the distances the
3 pump islands would be moved. Mr. Graff said the notice had been correct when it
4 stated the northernmost island would be moved three feet farther north and the
5 south island would be relocated two feet farther north than they are now.
6
7 The Manager told the Commissioners the station owner had redrawn his plans to make
8 the canopy slightly longer and to bring it within 9=1/2 feet of the property line
9 rather than the seven feet originally proposed and Mr. Childs said the new request
10 would require a 30 foot 6 inch variance for the canopy and a 19 foot 6 inch variance
11 for the pumps. Mr. Graff said he could no longer get insurance for the existing
12 pumps because of tank leakage and he needed to spread the islands farther apart
13 so he could offer both "self service" and "full service" to his customers . The
14 applicant indicated he perceived the changes would not interfere with traffic or
15 create a line of sight problem for drivers on either County Road C or Highway 88.
16 Commissioner Bowerman agreed tthat the proposed changes in Mr. Graff's "somewhat.-
17 isolated location" between Anthony Lane and Highway 88 should. have no adverse
18 impact on his neighbors ' businesses because nothing could be built on either side
19 of his station. Mr. Graff told the Chair Pro Tem he would be replacing all his
20 existing tanks and pumps with the exception of the diesel pump which was compara-
21 tively new. He also told Commissioner Jones all the road surfaces in front of the
22 station would be replaced and he hoped the increased revenues he is expecting with
23 the changes would permit him to upgrade the surfaces of the parking areas to the
24 rear and north side of the station. He would also be replacing the lighting in
25 keeping with the other improvements' of the station, Mr. Graff said.
26
• 27 There was no one present to speak against the proposal and the hearing was closed
28 at 7:55 P.M. for development of a recommendation to the Council .
29
30 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend the
31 Council grant Richard Graff dba Murphy's Service Center, Inc. at 3501 - 29th
32 Avenue N.E. (County Road 'C). the necessary variances from setback regulations for
33 industrial classification within the Zoning Ordinance which requires a 40 foot
34 front yard setback for structures located in that classification which would
35 allow the property owner to erect a 36 foot X 47 foot canopy over the existing
36 gas pumps, 9-1/2 feet from 29th Avenue property line and to relocate the existing
37 gas pumps on the southernmost islands 20-1/2 feet from the south property line to
38 the center of the pump islands at the same time as both sets of pumps are spread
39 far enough apart to provide adequate spacing for the types of customer service
40 the station owner indicates he desires to offer his customers . In recommending
41 these variances be granted, the Planning Commission finds that:
42
43 1 . Because this property is classified fora light industrial zone, the setback
44 restrictions are more stringent than they would be.for the same type of
45 property located in a commercial zone;
46
47 2. The business was initiated prior to the inception of the existing Zoning
i
48 Ordinance;
49
50 3. Sight lines between adjacent properties should not be a. necessary considera-
51 tion for this property which is bounded by Anthony Lane on the east and by the
• 52 right turn onto Highway 88 on the west.
! 53
54 4. The proposed improvements would enhance the aesthetic appearance of that corner
55 and would provide weather protection for the station's customers; and
-3-
• 1 5. There were- no objections to the proposal raised either before or during either
2 hearing on the proposal and, in fact, at least seven of the adjacent business
3 owners had written letters (_attached) urging the City to grant the variances
4 for the proposed improvements .
5
6 Before a vote was taken, Commissioner Bowerman indicated he perceived the motion
7 had addressed all the conditions which are required by statute to be met before
8 the variances can be granted.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11
12 At 8:05 P.M. the Chair Pro Tem opened the hearing to consider the petition from
13 Bernard Blanske for preliminary plat approval for .76 acres of land located at
1.4 the southeast corner of Silver Lake Road and Silver Lane which would allow the
15 property owner to construct 8 townhouses on the site which had been rezoned for
16 that purpose in November, 1985.
17
18 The notice of the hearing which had been published in the July 2nd Bulletin and
19 mailed to all property owners of record within 350 feet of the subject parcel
20 was read by the Chair Pro Tem. No one present reported failure to receive the
21 notice or objected to its content and the City Manager said he had received no
22 calls related to the proposed platting .
23
24 In his July 3rd memorandum, Mr. Childs had advised the Commissioners that con-
25 struction would start after the preliminary plat approval- is given and a final
26 plat would be submitted for approval only after the foundations are in place and
• 27 surveyed.
28
29 The Manager had included in the agenda packet a copy of the Commission's November
30 19, 1985 minutes reporting their recommendation that the parcel be rezoned for
31 townhouses as well as the certification of the surveyors which had indicated the
32 parcel in question contained 31 ,919 square feet, which Commissioner Werenicz
33 pointed out was 81 square feet less than the- ordinance would require for 8
34 townhouses. Mr. Blanske speculated that might have been the amount of land he
35 had donated fifteen years ago to the City for a right turn off Silver Lake Road
36 "on the condition it would not later create a •problem for me to develop the rest
37 of the parcel ".
38
39 While Mr. Childs was researching the plans which had been submitted when the
40 property had been rezoned, Mr. Blanske told Chair Pro Tem Wagner that he perceived
t 41 it would be up to the utility company to 'bury the overhead lines in that area just
42 as they-had been doing for other projects near him. The developer told Commissioner
43 Madden he would be developing the property for resale and not rental and it would
44 be up to each individual homeowner to maintain the land he was donating for a
45 backyard behind each unit, or to have the maintenance provided by a homeowners
i
46 association if that was the way they wanted to go. Mr. Blanske also indicated
47 he had given the carpenter- who had remodeled the home adjacent to his property on
48 Silver Lane about three feet of land from Outlot A for a better sideyard setback.
49 The elevations of the subject parcel were indicated on the plans the Manager
50 returned with which Mr. Childs said showed the same outside dimensions as the
51 current survey but a total area of 33,132 for the parcel at -the time the property
• 52 was rezoned for townhouses the previous fall . The Manager told the Commissioners
i 53 he perceived that under the Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council could approve
54 the preliminary plat with an. 81 foot density variance just as had •been done various
55 times in the past 'wher.e a compromise had been reached with the developer to trans-
56 f er land between parcels to provide more buildable lots.
7
-4-
• 1 No one present objected to having this done and the hearing was closed at 8:22
2 P.M. .
3
4 Before a motion"was made, the Manager confirmed for Commissioner Jones '_benefit
5 that -the ordinance permitted .a deck to protrude -to within 20 feet of the required
6 rear yard setback.
7
8 Motion by Commissioner Bowerman and seconded. by Commissioner Jones to recommend
9 the Council - grant the request from Bernard- B.lanske for preliminary plat approval
10 for the parcel he owns at the southeast corner of Silver Lake Road and Silver
11 Lane generally described as the Blanske Addi.tion.or that part of Lot 1. except
12 the east 137.8 feet lying north of Lot 2 and its extension west being in south
13 Lot 1 Block 1 , which would allow -the developer to construct the 8 townhouses on
14 his property which was rezoned for that purpose in November, 1985. In recom-
15 mending plat approval , the Commission recognizes the parcel in .question has a
16 total area of only 31 ,919 square feet, which i-s 81 square feet short of the area
17 required by the Ordinance for- the project, but considering this to be insignificant
18 when compared to the total concept, recommends that- the Council further grant
19 a variance for the 81 square feet,' finding that:
20
21 1 . One of the reasons for the area size deficiency was that the property owner
22 had deeded to the community, at no cost, to the City, land for a right hand
23 turn on the corner of- Silver Lane and Silver Lake Road; and
24
25 2. No opposition to the townhouse project had been expressed since that concept had
26 first been proposed.
• 27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 At 8:30 P.M. the Chair Pro Tem opened -the hearing to consider the request from
31 Rick Johnson, 3306 Belden .Drive, for three adjustments to the Johnson Manor and
32 Belden Terrace listed in the notice of the hearing which had been published in the
33 July 2nd Bulletin and sent to all property owners of record within 350 feet of
34 the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive the notice or
35 objected to its content.
36
37 In his memorandum related to the matter, Mr. Childs had advised the Commissioners
38 that staff was recommending approval of three requests explained by Mr. Johnson
39 in the July 3rd letter he had attached to -his application for subdivision/plat
40 approval . '.
E 41
42 Mr. Johnson reiterated many of the points he had made in that letter, telling
43 Commissioner Madden that it had been h.is own lack of understanding that tennis
44 courts had to run north and south which had resulted in his having to deed an
45 additional 18 X 60 foot piece of land from Outlot B to the Homeowners Association
46 to complete the construction of the courts. He also explained that the City would
47 need an additional ten. foot easement on the south side of Lot 'l -to service the
48 storm sewer extension for Johnson Manor and the applicant indicated it had been
49 necessary for him to transfer the' 495 square foot pie shaped piece of land from
50 vacant Lot 10 to Lot 11 to correct a setback error he had made when he constructed
51 an addition to his existing garage too close to his property line.
+, • 52
53 Frances (Frenchy) Von Dell , 3312 Belden Drive, was present to express his concerns
54 about the type of house which was going to be built on Lot 10, saying he "didn't
55 think it would fit in with the other homes along Belden Drive. " Mr. Von Dell
56 also questioned- why the notice of the hearing had indicated the tennis courts on
-5-
• 1 Outlots A and B were "being sited" when actually, their construction was almost
2 completed.. The owner of Lot 9 then -said he would like to see the City "take
3 steps now to require the tennis court lights would have to be turned off at
4 9:30 P.M. , to avoid problems later on" .
5
6 Elizabeth Heller, 3310 Belden Drive (.Lot 9). was present to express her concerns
7 that potential activities on the tennis courts early in the morning or late : ,
8 at night "might disturb the neighbors" .
9
10 The Commissioners told the opponents of the subdivision amendments that (-a) the
11 applicant owned both Outlot A and B and had as much right as any other resident
12 to build tennis courts on his property if it was large enough to accomodate that
13 activity; (.b) the tennis court construction had been accepted by the City along
14 withthe project subdivision approval last summer; and (c) it was only because
15 he wanted to deed the courts to .the Homeowners .Association that Mr. Johnson was
16 seeking this subdivision amendment. Mr. Von Dell and Ms. Heller were also told
17 that, even with the transfer of- the 495 square feet of land from Lot 11 , the
18 parcel would remain a buildable lot with a 75 foot width at the building setback
19 line as required and over 3,000 square feet more than the ordinance required in
20 total area.
21
22 In reference to lighting the tennis. courts, Commissioner Jones explained that the
23 City had no ordinances to prohibit or control lighting, per se. Mr. Childs
24 indicated any complaints by the neighbors in that regard would have to be
25 handled eithor under the City's Residential Noise Ordinance or the Nuisance
26 Ordinance. The two neighbors were also reminded that Mr. Johnson had stated that
27 because of the costs involved, he had no plans to light the tennis courts, and,
28 since it would now be up to a Homeowners Association, whose members would be
29 directly impacted by the tennis courts activities, to put in the lighting, it
30 would seem reasonable to .assume that in their own interests- those homeowners
31 would impose the necessary controls on the use of the courts .
32
33 Mr. Johnson's response to ,the neighbors' objections was to state that his family
34 had been in business in that area since 1960 .and, after being wiped out by the
35 tornado, were now attempting to rebuild their property to something both the
36 neighborhood .and the City couldbe proud of. The applicant said as the owner
37 of the most property in that subdivision with his home right next to the properties
38 in question, he perceived he would naturally be just as concerned about lighting
39 and noise as any of his neighbors. Mr. Johnson reiterated that he had no intention
40 of lighting the tennis courts and felt badly aboutcsom'e of^�the�.compl'ai ntsl h,i's;lneighbors
41 made about his attempt to rebuild the area.
42
43 Mr. Van Dell told Mr. Johnson that he had always refused- to lead the fight against
44 the florist business, telling the homeowners who complained about the business
I
45 "they were already here when you bought your homes". He suggested Mr. Johnson
1 46 should not take comments made that evening personally.
r 47
48 There was no further input to the consideration and the hearing was closed at
49 9:05 P.M.
50
51 Motion by Commissioner Madden -and seconded -by Commissioner Bowerman to recommend
52 the Council approve the request from Rick Johnson, 3306 Belden Drive, for amendments
0
53 to the Johnson Manor and Belden Terrace Second Addition subdivisions, Hennepin
54 County, as follows:
55
-6-
1 0 1 Division of Outlot B, Johnson Manor, into .two parcels relating to siting of
2 tennis courts;
3
4 (2)- Provision of a. 10 foot- utility easement on Lot 1 , Johnson Manor;
5
6 (3). Transfer of approximately 495 square feet from Lot 10 Belden..Terrace Second
7 Addition to Lot U of the same subdivision.
8
9 In recommend Council approval , 'the Commission finds that:
10
11 ( 1 ) The siting of the tennis. court should be considered nothing more than a
12 method 'for Mr. Johnson to retain ownership of a portion of his own property;
13
14 (2) The 10 foot utility easement is necessary for a storm sewer installation;
15
16 (3) The transfer of 495 square feet of land from Lot 10 to Lot 11 is intended to
17 correct the accidential construction of a garage addition too close to the
18 property line on Lot 11 ;
19
20 (4) The proposed amendments would generally benefit the Village;
21
22 (5) Although the opposition of the property owners of Lots 8 and. 9 should be
23 taken into consideration, -'it should also be noted that they were the only
24 neighbors who had received notice of the hearing, who had expressed any
25 - opposition to the subdivision:.amendments; and
26
27 (6). The perception is that the- donation of more property for the use of the Home-
28 owners Association should be commended rather than condemned.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
-32 Motion by Commissioner --Madden-.and seconded by Commissioner Bowerman.to adjourn
33 the meeting- at 9: 10 P.M.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
i 37 Respectfully submitted,
38
1 39 Helen:Crowe, Secretary
40
41
—42
43
44
45
46
47
48
j 49
` 50
51
i • 52
i 53
-54
55