HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 01201987 Meeting Sheet a
11 11 111A
101706
BOX: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
Document: PL MINUTES 01201987
CITY OF ST _ ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
S .JANUARY 2 0 , 1 9 8 7
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M.. with the Pledge of Allegiance
2 led by Chair Franzese.
3
4 Present for roll call: Hansen, Madden, Wagner, Franzese, Werenicz ,
5 and John Wingard, who was appointed by the
6 Council January 13, 1987 .;
7
8 Absent: Stephen London, also appointed during the same Council
9 meeting.
10
11 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
12
13 NOVEMBER 18 , 1986 MINUTES
14
15 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Hansen to approve with the following
16 changes:
17
18 Page 2 , line 38: Substitute "recommending" for "recommend" .
19
20 Page 2 , line 46 : Delete "of" .
21
22 Page 3 , line 29: Delete "recommend" at end of page.
23
24 Page 3 , line 30: Substitute "approve" for "approval" .
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED
29
30 Commissioner Wagner will represent the Planning Commission at the
31 Council' s January 27th meeting.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARINGS
34
35 Sign Variance for Get It For Less Store
36
37 The hearing was opened at 7 : 34 P.M. by Chair Franzese.
38
39 She read the notice of the hearing which had been published in the
40 January 7th Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record
41 within 200 feet of the subject property. No one present reported
42 failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
43
44 Application: by Colite Industries, Inc. , 229 Parson Street, West
45 Columbia, South Carolina; for either a 150 square
46 foot or 72 square foot identification sign for their
47 Get It For Less Store at Apache Plaza in addition to
48 the existing 147 . 5 square feet of signage ( 2 signs)
49 the store has near its entrance on the south side of
50 the building.
1 _
2 Proponents: Store Manager Peter Bues, 655 10th Street N.W. , New
3 Brighton, who indicated because of the number of
4 calls the store received everyday asking where it
5 was located, the store owners had concluded there was
6 a real need for a store sign on the Silver Lake Road
7 side of the building as well;
8
9 told the Commissioners he had only recently become
10 the store' s manager and was unaware of the circum-
11 stances under which two signs had been erected on the
12 south side;
13
14 said he was certain the store owners would be willing
15 to take down the smaller non-conforming- sign in
16 return for better visual exposure on the east side;
17
18 also indicated he knew the smaller sign would be
19 acceptable to the owners.
20
21 Jeff Lofgren, 3109 Stinson Boulevard, who said he was
22 present to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment
23 but knew from his own experience that the store was
24 hard to find with only signage on one side of the
25 building;
26
27 said he perceived anything the City could do to draw
28 more customers into Apache should be done.
29
30 Apache management, who had told staff they believed
31 additional signage for Get It For Less would be
32 appropriate under the signage regulations they have
33 established for their renovation efforts.
34
35 Staff input: Mr. Childs ' January 16th memorandum listed the sign
36 variances recently granted to other corner businesses
37 or those with multiple frontages;
38
39 reiterated that even the larger sign would not appear
40 excessive on the large expanse of vacant wall space
41 on that corner of the shopping center;
42
43 advised that, with the elimination of the smallest
44 sign on the south side and if the City only allowed
45 the smaller 72 square foot sign on the east side, the
46 store would have a total of 188 square feet of sign
47 surface and two signs where the Sign Ordinance allows
48 only a total of 150 square feet for one sign per
49 business.
50
51 The hearing was closed at 7: 34 P.M. for Commission consideration as
52 follows:
53
54
55
-3-
1 Hansen -said he was not opposed to additional signage for the
2 store, but
3
4 -questioned the validity of the claim that Get It For
5 Less had less sign exposure than other Apache stores
6 of like size;
.7
8 -pointed out that True Value Hardware' s sign could
9 only be seen from the north and the Country Club
10 Market Store, which is on the opposite corner from
11 Get It For Less, only has a sign on its south side;
12
13 -from this, said he perceived "corner stores in St.
14 Anthony had an advantage when it came to signage" ;
15
16 -indicated he would not oppose the granting of a vari-
17 ance for the smaller sign, but considered the larger
18 sign "would far exceed the size of the store' s sign
19 on the south side and would be out of scale with
20 other signs on the shopping center. "
21
22 Wagner -agreed this store might have an unfair advantage with
23 extra signage;
24
25 -cautioned that the Commission should be prepared to
26 give the grocery store and Minnesota Fabrics the same
27 type of variance.
28
29 Madden -said he had trouble finding Get It For Less even
30 though he lived only a few blocks from Apache;
31
32 -perceived it was quite unusual for a shopping center
33 to have such a large expanse of bare wall;
34
35 -indicated he had no problem with allowing Get It For
36 Less to erect a sign in the empty space available on
37 the east side of their store.
38
39 Werenicz -agreed it was not common for shopping centers to have
40 so much bare space on its walls;
41
42 -was surprised J. C. Penney had never sought a higher
43 elevation for its entrance signage;
44
45 -thought the Get 'It For Less store' s size justified at
46 least another sign on the east wall to match the
47 larger sign it now has near its south entrance; but
48
49 -supported the removal of the smaller sign in that
50 same area.
51
52
53
54
55
1 _
2 Franzese speculated that because the Penney store had been in
3 that same location for such a long time, it probably
4 wouldn' t require the same store recognition as a new
5 business like Get It For Less.
6
7 Wingard -didn' t believe the larger sign would be out of place
8 on the east wall but agreed the smaller sign should
9 be removed from the south side.
10
11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDS SIGNAGE ADDITION
12
13 Although several of the Commissioners had indicated they believed
14 the larger_ sign might not be. too big for the east wall, a smaller
15 sign was recommended in the following:
16
17 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Hansen to recommend the Council grant
18 Colite Industries, Inc. a variance to the Sign Ordinance which
19 would allow them to mount another Get It For Less sign on the
20 vacant southeast corner of Apache Plaza Shopping Center. The said
21 sign would be 116 square feet to match the existing sign the store
22 has near its south entrance. In return, the smaller 31. 5 square
23 foot sign on the south side would be taken down, leaving Get It For
24 Less with two equal signs, one on each side of their corner
25 location.
26
27 In recommending that the additional signage be allowed, the
28 Planning Commission finds that:
29
30 *.the new sign should not be detrimental to the public welfare or
31 injurious to other property in the neighborhood or village
32 since it would be mounted on a large empty expanse of shopping
33 center wall;
34
35 *a particular hardship to the applicant would result if the
36 strict letter of the regulations are adhered to and the impres-
37 sion is given that the store is only operating on one side of
38 the building, whereas Get It For Less actually occupies a large
39 portion of that particular corner of the center;
40
41 *the conditions upon which this particular variance are based
42 are unique in that the store only has one . entrance on that
43 corner even though there, is traffic flow on both sides;
44
45 *no one spoke against the variance during the Commission hearing
46 and, in fact, there was testimony favoring the additional sign-
47 age; and
48
49 *the Apache management had assured staff the new signage fit
50 into its signage plans for the center.
51
52 Motion carried unanimously.
53
54
55
Leslie.. Pa er, 2850 Anthony Lane South Sign Variance Request
1
2 The hearing was opened at 7 : 57 P.M.
3
4' Chair Franzese read the notice of the hearing which had been
5 published in the January 7th Bulletin and mailed to all property
6 ,owners of record within 200 feet of the subject property. No one
7 present reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its
8 content.
9
10 Application: for a 3 feet high by 10 feet wide, two-sided ground
11 sign to be mounted on an 8 inch concrete base and
12 placed on a natural berm, approximately 3 feet high;
13
14 that the sign be allowed either in addition to or
15 instead of the existing 98 square foot "L" on. the_west
16 side of the building and the smaller 50 square foot
17 "L" and the 42 square foot company name on the north
18 wall of the building.
19
20 Staff input: Mr. Childs corrected an error in his January memor-
21 andum which should have stated that the sign code
22 would allow a total sign surface of 36 square feet for
23 this ground sign, which in this instance would require
24 a 24 foot variance;
25
26 said he perceived the proposed sign would be substan-
27 tially constructed and attractive unlike some other
28 ground signs which had recently gone up around the
29 Village.
30
31 Proponents: Timothy Eaton, President of Eaton and Associates
32 Design Company, 303 Thresher Square, Minneapolis, who
33 would install the sign, said the landscaping and trees
34 the paper company had planted to improve the site had
35 grown up to obscure the view of the signs on the walls
36 from several directions causing the owners to perceive
37 the need for better identification closer to the road-
38 way;
39
40 assured Commissioner Werenicz that the berm would be
41 constructed of natural materials and not like the
42 deteriorating sign base on the adjacent property;
43
44 indicated the base stone would match the building
45 exterior and the sign would be lit from the front.
46
47 Ike Halliwill, Vice President and District Manager of
48 Leslie Paper, 4635 St. James Gate, Excelsior, told the
49 Commissioners his company' s first priority would be to
50 get the ground sign and if they- were allowed to retain
51 any of the existing wall signage, their preference
it 52
53
54
55
-6-
1 - would be the larger "L" on the north side of the
2 building.
3 '
4 R. Neil Hamlin, President of Garment Graphics, 2837
5 Anthony Lane South, had written a letter to the City
6 supporting the variance for the ground sign and urging
7 that Leslie Paper be allowed to keep its existing wall
8 signage;
9
10 wrote that he felt that .signage "is done in good taste
11 and does not appear excessive. "
12
13 The hearing was closed at 8 : 10 P.M. for the following comments from
14 Commission members:
15
16 Madden -could see no harm in allowing the paper company to
17 keep all its wall signage in addition to the ground
18 sign.
19
20 Hansen -thought only the large "L" should be kept since the
21 company' s representatives had indicated the company
22 would have no problem with removing its name from the
23 north wall as long as it is reproduced on the ground
24 sign.
25
26 Werenicz -agreed that only the one wall sign should be
27 retained.
28
29 Franzese -also preferred having the "well-designed, attractive,
30 larger logo" kept on the west side of the building.
31
32 Wagner -concurred with that assessment, saying the logo added
33 to the appearance of "what is a well maintained
34 building. "
35
36 Wingard -was told allowing three signs for a building might
37 set a dangerous precedent;
38
39 -wanted assurance that the wall where the sign is
40 removed would be patched up.
41
42 COMMISSION RECOMMENDS COUNCIL ALLOW REQUESTED SIGNAGE
43
44 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council
45 grant the necessary variances to the Sign Ordinance which would
46 allow Leslie Paper Company to erect a ground sign with 60 square
47 feet of sign surface, where the Ordinance only allows 36 square
48 feet, in the location they propose on their property - at 2830
49 Anthony Lane South, as long as the said sign is installed as the
50 applicants have proposed, of very substantial construction on a
51 sodded berm. In addition, the Planning Commission recommends
52 Leslie Paper be allowed to retain the large "L" logo on the west
53
54
55
wall of their building but be required to remove the smaller "L"
land "Leslie Paper" lettering from the north wall.
31nrecommending the Council grant the variances for these signs,
4the Planning Commission finds that:
5
6 *all three conditions required to be satisfied affirmatively
7 before a variance can be granted have been met with this pro-
8 posal;
9
10 *no one spoke against the variance at the Commission hearing but
11 rather, a letter from Garment Graphics supporting the request
12 was entered into testimony.
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Residential
17Parking and Definition of Family Size
18
19The hearing was opened at 8: 22 P.M. following a five minute recess
20while Mr. Childs went to get some of the necessary documentation.
21The notice of the hearing had been published in the January 7th
22Bulletin and news stories about the proposed amendments had been
23carried on the front pages of both the Bulletin and the Northeaster
24which are delivered to all St. Anthony residents.
25
26Mr. Childs reported he had written an article on the changes in the
27Newsletter which was to have gone out to the residents with the
28water bills last week. However, because there was an error in the
29water bills, that mailing had been delayed until after the hearing.
30
31Copies of the minutes in which the changes were discussed at length
32were included in the Commission agenda packet and included the
33 following:
34
35 *April 22 , 1986: reasons for changes discussed by Council.
36
37 *July 22 , 1986: Council received results of staff and City
38 Attorney investigation of Ordinance
39 changes.
40
41 *September 16, 1986 : Planning Commission comments on proposed
42 amendments.
43
44 *November 25, 1986: Council schedules public hearing before the
45 Planning Commission.
46
47 *December 9 , 1986: Councilmembers reported receiving numerous
48 calls from residents who had read about the
49 proposed changes in the two newspapers.
50 The majority of those calls favored the
51 changes.
52
53
54
55
-8-
• 1 Copies of the working papers on the proposed amendments were
2 distributed to the Commission members. These had been summarized
3 in the body of the Notice of the Hearing as follows:
4
5 Staff report: Manager' s January 16th memo to Commissioners
6 advising of procedures to be followed in the
7 hearing;
8
9 Mr. Childs summarized all five amendments as they
10 were proposed for Council adoption;
11
12 in relation to a 4 vehicle limit, he explained
13 that the Council believed because the City re-
14 quires all single family residents to have double
15 garages, limiting the number of vehicles to be
16 parked in the front yard to four actually antici-
17 pated a property owner being able to park six
18 vehicles in the front of his or her home;
19
20 said the last amendment addressed the problem of
21 having "classic" or "collector" vehicles stored
22 on residential property and which required that
23 any of these be stored in a garage or another
24 enclosed building if it is not registered with
25 the State;
26
27 explained that the Council perceived the above
28 vehicles with newspapers in the windows presented
29 an "eyesore" for the neighborhood;
30
31 told Chair Franzese buses and other vehicles
32 above 9,000 pounds vehicle weight were addressed
33 in other City Ordinances as were motorhomes,
34 which were excluded from those restrictions;
35
36 read the Ordinance which restricted vehicles over
37 9,000 pounds from being parked anywhere in resi-
38 dential areas overnight;
39
40 reported that no action had been taken related to
41 the parking of vehicles in backyards, but added
42 that corner lots are considered to have two front
43 yards.
44
45 The hearing was then opened to comments from the residents who were
46 present.
47
48 Proponents: Gary Danyo, 3540 Edward Street, formerly of 2418 -
49 33rd Street N.E. -
50
51 -lived in Village "all of home-owning life" ;
52
53 -perceived the meeting that night had been dedicted
54 to "common sense matters related to preserving the
55
-9-
aesthetics and enforcing the existing City regula-
tions through signage and the proposed changes in the
2 Ordinance. "
3
4 -considered staff to -have done a very good job of
5 drafting an ordinance which addressed the problems
6 some residents fear could cause St. Anthony to get
7 the same reputation as "our Near North Minneapolis
8 neighbors. "
9
10 -cited "junk" vehicles and the overpopulating of resi-
11 dences as the cause of six or more vehicles being
12 parked in front yards in the City;
13
14 -thought the proposal to limit vehicles to four per
15 front yard might solve the problem -of "unsightliness"
16 he sees in his own neighborhood where five vehicles
17 parked all over a yard are not uncommon;
18
19 -expected the new Ordinance would help his property
20 maintain its value; and
21
22 -stated he was 100% in favor of all five proposed
23 amendments.
24
25 Carol Anderson, 3523 Edward Street N.E.
26
27 -said there were five people in her group in attend-
28 ance that evening in addition to the spouses at home,
29 all of whom were in favor of the Ordinance changes;
30
31 -anticipated there would be many homes in St. Anthony
32 who would be effected by the Ordinance changes;
33
34 -cited one family in her neighborhood who has two unrel-
35 ated persons living with them which results in 5
36 vehicles being parked all over the yard, with two of
37 these parked on the grass, not even adjacent to the
38 driveway, on a daily basis;
39
40 -didn' t consider St. Anthony' s reputation of having a'
41 high quality community was being preserved by allow-
42 ing people to park on the grass in front yards;
43
44 -also wanted to maintain the City' s ability to attract
45 prospective home buyers...
46
47 Brad Bjorklund, 3416 Roosevelt Street, former Planning
48 Commissioner
49
50 -had the Manager restate the proposed amendments;
51
52
53
54
55
-10-
said. he .was very much in favor of the changes, per-
1 ceiving this would. restate the existing Ordinance for
2 better enforcement;
3
4 -agreed that having the beer truck parked around the
5 Village for years was one of the matters which the
6 new Ordinance would address;
7
8 -disputed that the Ordinance took away anyone' s rights
9 to house a family in a home built large enough to ac-
10 commodate them;
11
12 -said he had seen huge delivery trucks parked every
13 day in front of residences or in their driveways and
14 hoped the Ordinance would be enforced to keep com-
15 mer-cial vehicles- in commercial areas;
16
17 -was glad to see the Ordinance requiring vehicles to ,
18 be parked on paved areas, but wanted to see something
19 written in to guarantee no more than perhaps a
20 quarter of the front yards would be paved over but
21 at least so that paving doesn' t absorb the whole
22 front yard. Wouldn' t want to see a "concrete jungle
23 out there. " ;
24
5 -thinks the City is flirting with just that with this
25
Ordinance if some landscaping is not required as
27 well;
28 -wanted setbacks from the property lines and struc-
29
30 tures better defined to correct the impression that
31 the property owner can control access to the City' s
32 boulevard next to the road;
33
34 -suggested paved areas not be allowed within a stated
distance from the property lines to avoid problems
3
355 with snow storage, etc. and to assure people like
37 joggers to use the boulevards;
38
39 -the setback ) -:from the structure would assure that no
40 damage occurred to the residence from fire or an
41 explosion in a car parked in a paved area too close
42 to the structure;
43
44 -Commissioner Hansen later questioned this suggestion,
45 saying there _are no restrictions against parking
46 cars next to structures in attached garages or on
47 driveways close to the homes;
48
49 -suggested the City should research other cities to
50 protect St.' Anthony from challenges to the new ordin-
51 ances. He .didn' t believe the City should become the
52 pacesetters with these ordinances but rather could
53
54
55
benefit from the track record of similar ordinances
1
2 in other municipalities;
3 -was told by Harland Walbon that the .percentage of
4 green space in a yard is already established when the
5 home is built. =
6
7 Jim Reasoner, 3526 Edward Street N.E. :
8
9 -liked the Ordinance changes as far as they went;
10
11 -thought the City
y should also give consideration to
13 what ' s parked in the backyards as well;
14 -said his opinion as a taxpayer no matter when he
15 moved in should be given weight;
16
17 -defended his right to expect to live in a near com-
18 munity without a lot of unattractive outside stor-
19 age;
20
21 -perceived if that storage is carried to extremes, it
22 would detract from the property values in the com-
23 munity and he had a right to expect the City to take
24 steps to see that doesn' t happen;
25
26 -knew a lot of people moved to St. Anthony because of
27 its reputation as an attractive City and had the
28 right to expect that to continue;
29
30 -said he thought the reason more people weren' t at the
31 hearing was because the majority of residents had no
32 problem with the changes.
33
34 35 Opponents : Harland C. Walbon, 3225 Skycroft Drive, who has lived
in the Village since 1956
36
37 -said he had raised 8 children on Skycroft and still
38 had 2 living at home;
39
40 -reported he had a Winnebago, a boat, a car, a pickup
41 and a Bronco and his children' s vehicles are often
42 parked in the yard as well;
43
44 -admitted his yard was "full most of the time" ;
45
46 -considered the proposed ordinance "discriminated
47 against his being a family man; "
48
49 -stated he had lived in St. Anthony longer than anyone
50 else in attendance that evening and said most of his
51 neighbors could have bought elsewhere when they saw
52 his 8 children;
53
54
55
-12-
1 -challenged Commissioner Werenicz ' connecting his
2 "lifestyle" with the City' s efforts to maintain the
3 public safety, welfare, high standard of living, and
4 betterment of the community; and
5
6 -reiterated his statement about nobody being forced to
7 move next to his large family.
8
9 Jeff Lofgren, 3109 Stinson Boulevard
10
11 -indicated he now lives at the above address but has
12 owned three other homes in the Village;
13
14 -opposed the amendment which would limit the number of
15 unrelated persons in the same household- to 3 (he pre-
16 ferred 4) ;
17
18 -thought in his own case, where he is unmarried and
19 has to make payments on an $85,000 four bedroom house
20 hie should be allowed to rent the extra three bedrooms
21 to make those payments;
2.2
23 -thought the whole Ordinance change had come about be-
24 cause his neighbors had complained to Councilmember
25 Ranallo about the beer truck he had licensed for
• 26 9,000 pounds being parked in front of his home and
27 also complained about his having a roommate and a
28 Couple who had just gotten married living with him.
29 Those neighbors accused him of trying to convert his
30 single family home into a duplex;
31
32 -said the beer truck had been parked at his father' s
33 home and at various City locations for the past
34 5 years;
35
36 -insisted the City Manager in April had not
37 told him the current Ordinance allows six unrelated
38 persons to live in -the same house but rather that he
39 could have "three_ unrelated persons besides yourself" ,
40 which put,-him in- c6mpl once. at9 -that me.
41 - -
42 agreed with the City' s efforts to remove the
43 "junkers" from residential area, perceiving that if a
44 car is a collector' s item, its owner would never
45 leave it in the backyard.;
46
47 -pointed out that he had moved the beer truck even
48 though he didn' t have to because it was licensed
49 although there is a person on 33rd and Rankin who
50 parks semi-trucks in his backyard; which is certainly
51 in violation with ,the ordinance;
52
53 - believed he was being harrassed because his neighbor
54 had a friend on the City Council;
55
• -13- :
reported he *pays $980 a year to store a big boat and
1 the beer truck, although he should be able to keep
2- them in his yard under the existing Ordinance. He
3 now has a row boat, a camper sitting in his backyard
4 since 1960, both on the grass;
5
6 -asked whether people have to build an enclosed struc-
.7 ture to park a snowmobile trailer or a 14 foot boat;
8
9 -also wanted to know if an Ordinance can be enforced
10 without a complaint being lodged;
11
12 -was told by the Chair that if an Ordinance is on the
13 books, it is enforceable without complaints.
14
15 Chair Franzese challenged the statement that the
16 "Police can harass anyone they please, by telling Mr.
17 Lofgren she perceived the Police are busy enough
18 arresting people for flagrant. violations of the law
19 _ these days and don'_t__hav-e the time to--drive- around
20 the City looking for minor violations.
21
22 -he was also told the Ordinance has noise ordinances
23 which address noise from families as well.
24
25 His statement that the- new Ordinance came about
26_ because of a few complaints -led Chair_ Franzese to tell
27 him these problems have been under the surface for
28 years and had just gotten bad enough to suggest City
29 action.
30
31 -was told proposed Ordinance would only require paved
32 surfaces for vehicles ( .parked in the -front yards.
33 The front -yard was then defined.
34
- - 35 - -said the City won' t -let you park on the streets dur-
36 ing the winter and won' t let you build oversized
37 garages, so he bought a house to store the extra
38 vehicles he has, including two pickups, a Lincoln,
39 and his roommate' s car;
40
41 -didn' t consider it fair for some families to have 14
42 children in one home while the City restricts , unre-
43 lated people to three;
44
45 -said that many children can be very noisy but he has
t 46 never had complaints about noise at his house, and
47 never has noisy parties; .
-i 48 -
49 -suggested the City should allow enough time for
50 people to pave their front yards or build garages to
51 be in compliance with the new ordinance;
- 52 -— — - -
53
54
55
-14-
-indicated he would consider taking the City to court
1 if they passed the Ordinance limitation of unrelated
2 residents;
3
4 -was advised that the Supreme Court had given the
5 cities the option of restricting such persons to -two
6 per household;
7
8 -didn' t believe the ordinance changes had been adver-
9 tised enough. His statement that all he had seen was
10 about a paragraph in the Bulletin was refuted by Com-
11 missioner Werenicz who said he had seen articles about
12 the changes in both the Bulletin and Northeaster off
13 and on ever since the City started talking about the
14 changes;
15
16 -said he lives in a block which except for 3 houses
17 is all multiple dwellings with more than 4 people
18 living in them, and questioned what was fair about
19 that;
20
21 -asked what he had to do to get that type of classi-
22 fication for his own home so he could have 3 room-
23 mates.
24
25 Joe Walbon, 3225 Skycroft, son of Harland.
26
27 -said his neighbors, the Kelly' s, with seven in their
28 household had asked him to express their concerns
29 about the restriction of vehicles parked in front;
30
31 -said he perceived a family like that would be dis-
32 criminated against by the Ordinance;
33
34 -told of problem he had experienced with his father' s
35 neighbor when he plowed snow on the boulevard in
36 front of her home. Said the Police threatened to
37 issue a ticket to him if he didn' t stop doing that
38 didn' t seem fair if the boulevard was not hers;
39
40 -said he goes to college and runs a snow plowing
41 service from his shop in Vadnais Heights, where he
42 stores all his equipment except a snow plow he parks
43 at his father ' s. He also has a car and two trucks at,
44 the Skycroft address. His brother lives there too,
45 resulting in at least 6 vehicles parked in the drive-
46 way;
47
48 -said driveway is big enough to accommodate all those
49 vehicles but perceives it would be discriminatory for
50 the City to restrict those vehicles to four;
51
52 -reitered his father ' s claims of discriminating
it 53 against families and expressed his disagreement with
54
55
• -15-
the closing of schools the City had already built
1 with taxpayer ' s money;
2
3 -insisted large families pay enough taxes to allow
4 them to use their property for parking;
5
6 -believed the small newspaper article he saw was not
7 specific enough about the time the hearing would be
8 held.
9
10 Before the hearing was closed, the Chair thanked all the residents
11 who had offered input to the Ordinance consideration. The times
12 the changes had been discussed in the papers were reiterated as
13 well as what it would have cost the City to have sent out separate
14 not outside the Newsletter which would have carried the notice
15 if it had gone out before the hearing was held. They were also
16 told the Ordinance would be given three readings before it was
17 adopted and citizen input would be welcomed at any of the three
18 readings starting with the Council ''s January 27th meeting.
19
20 The hearing was closed at 9: 15 P.M. for Commission response to each
21 section of the proposed Ordinance amendment as follows.
22
23 Section I
24
25 All concurred three was a good number for unrelated persons.
26
27 Werenicz -perceived the City' s Ordinance in this respect
28 would be less restrictive than the Supreme Court
29 ruling. Allowing six unrelated persons in a single
30 family residence would actually be converting them
31 to mini-apartments and the City wants to prevent
32 that.
33
34 Section II
35
36 Concern about the status of motorhomes persisted.
37
38 Questions were raised about whether the state regulated aircraft
39 but it was agreed it could be considered later if further -
40 amendments were needed.
41
42 Section III and IV
43
44 Madden -in reference to Brad Bjorklund' s comments about
45 the amount of front yard which could be paved, said
46 his townhome front yard is all paved and that' s the
47 way he wants it to stay.
48
49 Hansen -didn' t believe this was the area in the Ordinance
50 where the question should be addressed.
51
52 Childs -said a problem could be addressed when it has become
53 unmanageable.
54
55
• {: -16-
Wingard -questioned whether the recreational vehicles would
1 probably be stored during the winter and would only
2 cause problems in the summer. He was told most
3 people would keep this to a minimum out of considera-
4 tion for their neighbors.
5
6Franzese -indicated she has four vehicles but °;.with a double
7 garage six vehicles in a family seems reasonable.
8
9Hansen -only the people who persist in flagrant violation of
10 these Ordinances need be concerned about them.
11
12 Sectiony
13
14 There was concurrence that this section is for getting rid of the
15 inoperable junkers.
16
17 Commission Recommends Council Proceed with Ordinance
18
19 Motion by Madden, seconded by Wagner to recommend the Council adopt
20 all five sections of the proposed Ordinance amendment as presented
21 during the public hearing January 20 , • 1987 . the Commission reports
22 there were seven residents who offered testimony during the
23 hearing, four of whom approved of the proposed changes and three
24 who spoke in opposition.
25
26 In light of the concern of some of the latter that the residents
27 might not be aware that the City is taking this action at this
28 time, the Commission thought that more publicity might be
29 generated to obtain further citizen input before the amendments are
30 adopted and to delay the process if necessary to get that input.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 NEW BUSINESS
35
36 Election of Officers for 1987
37
38 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to renominate Rosemary
39 Franzese to serve as Planning Commission Chair in 198.7 .
40
41 Motion by Werenicz and seconded by Wagner to close the nominations.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 Motion by Madden, seconded by Wagner to move a unanimous ballot in
46 favor of Franzese.
47
48 Voting on the motion:
49
50 Aye: Madden, Wagner, Hansen, Werenicz , Wingard.
51
52 Abstention: Franzese.
53 Motion carried.
54
55
�} -17-
Motion by Werenicz , seconded by Hansen to renominate George Wagner
Ito serve as Planning Commission Chair Pro Tem in 1987 .
2
3Voting on the motion:
4
5Aye: Werenicz , Hansen, Franzese, Madden, Wingard.
6
7Abstention: Wagner.
8
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10
11Commissioner Werenicz Reports Attending An Excellent Planning
12 Institute
13
14 The Commissioner said he found the above seminar in December most
15 informative and helpful. He urged Commissioner Wingard to attend
16 one of these planning conferences as soon as he is able.
17
18 Commissioner Werenicz added, as he said he is certain all the
19 Commissioners know, St. Anthony is very fortunate to have
20 Councilmember Marks so involved in those planning sessions because
21 the Councilmember is very knowledgeable and excellent in what he
22 does. The Commissioner said he was made more aware of what a plus
23 this was for the City from the comments from other persons at the
24 conference.
25
26 City Manager Reports Progress of Various City Projects
27
28 Mr. Childs said he had no further information to offer in regard to
29 the medical building which the META Partnership proposes to build
. 30 next to the Kenzington but understood' they were still trying to
31 market it.
32
33 Commissioner Wagner indicated he thought Roger Bona had done a very
34 good job of remodeling his station next door.
35
36 Mr. Childs reported the Chandler Place is half rented. He said the
37 owner of the old Clark station property has not been in contact
38 with the City, but had indicated the new tax laws had caused him to
39 take another look at doing that project.
40
41 ADJOURNMENT
42
43 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to adjourn the meeting at
44 9 : 55 P.M.
45
46 Motion carried unanimously.
47
48 Respectfully submitted,
49
50 Helen Crowe, Secretary
51
52
53 cjk
54
55