HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 03171987 Meeting Sheet
101704
,t
r
. i
,
BOX: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
Document: PL MINUTES 03171987 s
CITY OF ST _ ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 1 7 1 9 8 7
1 The meeting was opened at 7: 35 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance
2 led by Chair Franzese.
3
4 The oath of office was administered by the City Manager to
5 Commissioners Stephen London and John Wingard, Jr.
6
7 Roll call: London, Wingard, Hansen, Franzese, Werenicz.
8
9 Absent: Wagner and Madden.
10
11 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
12 - -
13 JANUARY 20 , 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
14
15 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wingard to approve the above with the
-- 16 following--changes: -- - -
17
18 Page 8, line 37 : Remove "k" from "areas" .
19 Page 12 , line 35: Insert "not" between "had" and "told" .
20 Page 13 , line 45: Substitute "noisy" for "noise" .
21 Page 14, line 5: Make "person" plural.
22 Page 14, line 11: Correct typo "Werenicz" .
- 23 Page 15 , line 36: Correct typo "persisted" . -
24 Page 17 , line 16: Correct typo "one" .
25
26 Motion carried unanimously.
27
28 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED
29
30 Commissioner Werenicz will represent the Planning Commission at the
31 Council' s March 24th meeting. The consensus was that a fresh start
32 should be made related to the sequence of appearance before the
33 Council.
j 34
35 PUBLIC HEARINGS
36
i 37 Side Yard Setback Variance for Dwayne Nelson, 3412 Roosevelt Street
38 N.E.
{ 39
40 The hearing was opened at 7 : 42 P.M. by Chair Franzese. She read the
] 41 notice of the hearing which had been published in the March 4 , 1987
42 Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record within 200 feet
43 of the subject property. No one present reported failure to receive
44 the notice` or objected to its content.
45
46 Application: by Dwayne Nelson, 3412 Roosevelt Street N.E. for
47 a variance from the setback regulations of the
48 Zoning Ordinance to allow construction of an
• 49 addition to the south and west sides of the
50 single car garage to within 6 feet of the south
-2-
1 property line where the Zoning Ordinance requires
2 a 10 foot setback.
3
4 Staff report: Mr. Childs' March 12th memorandum advised:
5
6 -City' s Zoning Ordinance now requires a two car
7 garage in a single family residence. A one car
8 garage is a grandfathered use;
9
10 -the variance would put the property out of con-
11 formance relative to setback, but in conformance
12 relative to enclosed parking space;
13
14 -there would be a total separation of 11 feet
15 between Mr. Nelson' s property and the house to
16 the south;
17
18 -no calls had been received by staff either for
19 or against the request.
20
21 During the discussions which were carried on between the
22 Commissioners and persons present to respond to the request, the
23 City Manager stated further that:
24
25 -a four foot variance would be required if a
26 22 foot, wide garage would be constructed because
• 27 the north setback on the property is only 5
28 feet from the property line, leaving 10 feet to
29 be made up on the south side to bring the project
30 into conformance with the Ordinance requirement
31 of 15 foot total side yard setbacks. The project
32 would conform to the Ordinance requirement that
33 at least .5 feet setbacks be provided on each
34 side;
35
36 -indicated that because there are so many one car
37 garages still in existence in the City, a number .
38 of similar variances had been granted by the City
39 the last six years he has been City Manager;
40
` 41 -said that variances for setbacks of less than 5
42 feet from the lot line were considered difficult.
43 The Council and Commission seemed more receptive
44 to approving additions which came within 5 or 10
45 feet of the lot line as long as at least a 10
46 foot separation between houses is maintained.
47 (This proposal would allow 11. ) ;
48
49 -recalled there had been a good number of similar
50 variances granted after the tornado;
51
• 52 -confirmed that the Zoning Ordinance stated that
53 eaves could project up to three feet into the
54 side yard but not closer than 30 inches to the
55
-3-
• 1 property line, which meant the Nelson' s pro-
2 posal for two foot eaves would be in conformance.
3
4 The Manager also said:
5
6 -there are no Ordinance restrictions on thb size
7 of garages as long as they meet the setback
8 requirements;
9
10 -he didn' t think the City would oppose having
11 Mr. Nelson' s service door swing out rather than
12 in;
13
14 -the City doesn' t allow anyone to add on if the
15 resultant drainage would adversely impact the
16 adjoining property. The Building Inspector
17 wouldn' t issue a building permit for this addi-
18 tion until he was certain there would be no such
19 impact;
20
21 -the matter could be tabled until the next Commis-
22 sion meeting to allow the Nelson' s and Mrs.
23 Ittner to discuss a time schedule for the con-
24 struction to take place;
25
26 -said neither Mrs. Ittner nor her grandson would
• 27 have to appear at the next hearing if they con-
28 tacted the City offices before the hearing about
29 the current status of the house sale and their
30 arrangements with Mr. Nelson.
31
32 Proponents: Dwayne and Nancy Nelson, property owners and
33 residents.
34
35 -when they had measured Mr. Bjorklund' s property
36 they had found his neighbor to the north had less
37 than the required 15 foot total side yard setback
38 ( 13 feet) but Mr. Bjorklund had 8 feet between
39 his house and their joint Property. line and not
40 5 feet, as indicated on the sketch in the Com-
41 mission' s agenda packet;
42
43 -owners of 3420, 3416, 3417 , 3413 , 3409, and 3405
44 Roosevelt Street had signed the petition he had
45 distributed that evening but the other property
46 owners had told him they planned to be at the
47 hearing instead;
48
49 -he wanted to build a 22 foot wide garage because
50 he wanted a service door in front; needed space
51 for the 3 cars and a boat he owned; and would
• 52 like to have space for a hobby wood working shop
53 if there was enough room;
54
55
-4-
• 1 -his measurements had been from the house to the
2 lot line but he planned to put up a two foot
3 overhang to match the rest of the structure;
4
5 -recognizing that the Ittner property to the south
6 had a lower grade, he planned to do anything
7 which would be necessary to divert the rwnoff
8 from his eaves away from that property;
9
10 -he expected the drainage would be improved with
11 the new structure and anyway, Mr. Childs had
12 said the City would see to it that the Ittner
13 property would not be harmed by his addition;
14
15 after- being requested to consider delaying the
16 project, said he had lived in the house the way
17 it was since 1976 so a few more weeks shouldn' t
18 matter too much, however
19
20 -he would be concerned if he were asked to wait
21 for a year or more just because the Ittner
22 house wasn' t sold.
23
24 Opponents: Mrs. Barbara Ittner, 3408 Roosevelt Street N.E.
25 and her spokesman, her grandson, Paul Szurek,
26 3430 Benjamin Street N.E.
• 27
28 Mr. Szurek -told the Commissioners his grandfather had died
29 two weeks ago and Mrs. Ittner now lived at Chand-
30 ler Place;
31
32 -said she "totally" opposed the construction of
33 the .garage while she was trying to sell her home
34 because she was concerned about what effect the
35 construction might have on prospective buyers;
36
37 -indicated she felt it would be better for the
38 new owners to have their say about the proposed
39 garage being so close to the home; and
40
41 -said she was concerned about the potential run-
42 off damage to her house where she already had
43 problems with water in the basement;
44
45 -wondered with all the space he had in his back-
46 yard whether the garage could be redesigned to
47 meet the setback requirements, in which case his
48 grandmother would have no right to object to the
49 addition;
50
51 -said he didn' t consider it would be unreasonable
• 52 to ask the Nelsons to delay their construction
53 until the Ittner house is sold, probably within
54 the next six months or a year;
55
-5-
1 -indicated they had a prospective buyer who had
2 not been told about the Nelson' s plans for a
3 garage but no purchase agreement had yet been
4 signed.
5
6 Neighbors Who Were Not Opposed But Had Some Concerns About the
7 Project
8
9 Leroy Genaw, 3404 Roosevelt Street N.E. (next to Mrs. Ittner' s
10 property) :
11
12 -noted the procedures followed that evening were a lot more
13 formal than when he had served on the Planning Commission 32
14 years ago;
15
16 -said 15 yard foot side setbacks were also required at that time
17 but most people could only afford one car so single garages were
18 commonplace;
19
20 -speculated that the double garage on Bjorklund' s property had
21 been built along with the house in 1954;
22
23 -stated that the fact that he had not signed the petition approv-
24 ing the garage addition had not meant he was opposed to it, but
25 rather,
26
27 -said because he had lived next door to Mrs. Ittner for so
28 many years, he was interested in what she wanted done;
29
30 -suggested a delay of a month or two on the Nelson' s part might
31 not be out of order.
32
33 Lou Novak, 3412 Roosevelt Street N.E.
34
35 -said he had originally only come to listen to what was said at
36 the .hearing, but
37
38 -thought the drainage problem could be remedied by draining the
39 runoff from the eaves down the driveway;
40
41 -expected there might be less problems after the construction
42 than there had been in the past.
43
44 ' Commissioners' Responses to the Variance Request
45
46 Werenicz -was concerned about leaving only 7 feet between the
47 overhangs on the Nelson and Ittner homes because of
48 the potential for two rather than just one fire if
49 either caught fire;
50
51 -wasn' t clear in his own mind how he would vote on the
52 request because he peceived with all . the houses on
• 53 that street with single garages, the City might end up
54 with "houses on top of houses" if the precedent for
55
-6-
• 1 variances for double garages were set;
2
3 -didn' t think the Commission should be speculating on
4 how long it would take for the Ittner house to be
5 sold; and
6
7 -supported Commissioner Hansen' s suggestion that it
8 should be left to the two neighbors to compromise the
9 issue.
10
11 Franzese -complimented Mr. Nelson on the indepth answer he had
12 provided on the application to the questions which are
13 required to be answered in the affirmative;
14
15 -asked Mrs. Ittner why, if Mr. Nelson had indicated he.
16 recognized the addition might enhance the value of his
17 property, she thought the garage would downgrade her
18 property valuation;
19
20 -pointed out that the Ordinance does allow houses to be
21 as close to each other as Mrs. Ittner' s house and the
22 proposed garage would be;
23
24 -did not consider the separation would be "inordinately
25 close" ;
26
• 27 -said she had noticed there were a good number of
28 double garages on Roosevelt Street and doubted that if
29 more were built there would be "houses upon houses" as
30 Commissioner Werenicz feared;
31
32 -stated she would be in favor of Mr. Nelson' s request
33 for a 22 foot wide garage but was also concerned about
34 Mrs. Ittner' s welfare;
35
36 -suggested Mr. Nelson might be further ahead waiting
37 for the house to be sold and then getting the garage
38 he wanted.
39
40 Hansen -indicated he was in favor of allowing a double garage
41 on this property because it met the City' s desire to
42 get cars off the street and driveways and into
43 garages;
44
45 -shared Mrs. Ittner' s concerns about being able to sell .
46 her house;
47
48 -said the concerns of neighbors had always been an
49 issue to be considered when granting variances and the
50 City had always tried to get neighbors together to
51 come to terms with their differences; but
• 52
53 -didn' t believe the Commission should set any deadline
54 for that to happen;
55
-7-
• 1
2 -perceived this was a unique situation and considered
3 Mrs. Ittner ' s request to be able to sell her house to
4 be a reasonable one;
5
6 -wanted the record to show that the Commissione5 were
7 neither for or against either of the neighbors, and
8 that the decision to table the matter had been with
9 the blessings of both parties.
10
11 London -considered the distance between houses to be somewhat
12 "cosmetic" but wanted assurance the drainage wouldn' t
13 adversely affect the house next door;
14
15 -thought Mr. Nelson' s was a good proposal and wanted to
16 see the neighbors agree on a time limit over which
17 Mr. Nelson would have to wait to build his garage.
18
19 Wingard -indicated the most important issue as far as he was
20 concerned was the stress Mrs. Ittner was already ex-
21 periencing with the death of her husband and trying to
22 sell her property;
23
24 -said he would appreciate Mr. Nelson giving her a
25 couple of months to get the property sold;
26
• 27 -told Mr. Nelson he perceived he had a better chance
28 of getting the garage he wanted approved if he waited
29 for the Commission' s decision.
30
31 The hearing was closed at 8: 23 P.M.
32
33 Commission Action
34
' 35 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to table the request from
36 Dwayne Nelson for a four foot variance to the Ordinance requirement
37 for 15 foot total side yard setbacks until the April Commission
38 meeting. The request is tabled to provide Mr. Nelson and Mrs.
39 Ittner and her representative the opportunity to resolve either an
40 alternative to the plan or a date when the proposed garage
41 construction might take place.
42
43 Motion carried unanimously.
44
45 Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program Year XIII
46 Allocation
47
48 The public hearing to receive public input on how the City' s .
49 allocation of CDBG funds should be divided was opened at 8: 35 P.M.
50
51 The notice of hearing which indicated the activities which the City
• 52 was proposing to fund with these monies had been published in the
53 . March 4, 1987 Bulletin, however no resident was present to aid the
54 Commission in formulating a recommendation to the Council.
55
-8-
. 1 Staff report: Mr. Child' s March 12th memorandum explaining that
2 he was now recommending $22 ,491 be allocated to
3 the signal project because of a miscalculation of
4 the senior program for which the correct alloca-
5 tion should be $3 ,969.
6
7 -the City had also applied for $30 ,000 in Dis-
8 cretionary Funds to make up the final cost so
g the signal could be installed in 1987 ;
10
11 -the Manager stated further that he was not
12 terribly hopeful that the latter would be granted
13 and, therefore, the City might have to wait until
14 next year' s CDBG allocation to pay for the signal
15 which could cost from $70, 000 to $80,0.0.0 ;
16
17 -said Hennepin County had issued a resolution say-
18 ing the City could install the signal on its own
19 but the County would not participate in its costs
20 because the traffic count did not warrant that
21 payment;
22
23 -also said he was working on getting state aid on
24 the signal anticipating that the CDBG funds might
25 dry up next year;
26
• 27 -perceived the City had to make good on its
28 promises 'to'-.the buyers-ofenzlea.Terrace prod
29 j ect units to provide this signal.
J
30 -
31 Senior Citizen Funds Discussed
32
33 Commissioner Hansen said he would like to see a breakdown of how the
34 allocation for this activity is spent. He informed the other
35 Commissioners that the money actually goes to pay the activity
36 coordinator' s salary and not towards any specific program. He said
37 "St. Anthony doesn' t have any poverty stricken seniors" .
38
39 Mr. Childs stated the City hasn' t been able to use up its housing
40 rehabilitation allocations from past years and he also said it is
41 very difficult to get kids in St. Anthony to work in the senior
42 chore programs.
43
44 HERO Small Business Incubator/Accellerator Activity Not Included in
45 City' s Allocation
46
47 In his March 12th memorandum on the CDBG allocation, Mr. Childs had
48 advised against the City participating in this project because its
49 benefits for St. Anthony would be minimal because of the distances
50 lower income residents would have .to travel to work in the program.
51 He said he would anticipate there might be a similar program stated
• 52 in the Roseville area which might be more feasible for City
53 participation.
54
55
_9_
. 1 Funds Not Feasible for Shopping Center Renovation
2
3 The Manager explained the problems the City is having getting even
4 leases signed for the St. Anthony Shopping Center which would seem
5 to preclude using CDBG funds to upgrade the center' s appearance.
6
7 The hearing was closed at 9: 05 P.M.
8
9 Commission Recommendation
10
11 Motion by Hansen and seconded by Wingard to recommend the City
12 Council allocate the CDBG monies of approximately $26, 460 (exact
13 amount to be yet determined) to the following activities:
14
15 Activity Budget
16
17 Pedestrian Signal on Kenzie $22 ,491.00
18 Continuation of Senior Citizens Programs 3 ,969. 00
19 through District #282 Community Service
20 $26,460 . 00
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 MISCELLANEOUS
25
26 Sign Criteria for Apache Plaza
• 27
28 As requested,. the City Manager had secured a copy of the shopping
29 center ' s sign criteria for exterior signs which had been included in
30 the Commission' s agenda packet as informational.
31
32 Food and Fuel Store Request Withdrawn
33
34 As he had advised in his March 11th memorandum, Mr. Childs said the
35 protests of neighboring residents had apparently forced the the
36 application for the above to be withdrawn at the March 9th Roseville
37 Council meeting. The Manager reported that one local developer
38 might be interested in erecting some one story townhomes on the site
39 at the corner of 33rd Avenue N.E. and Old Highway 8, if the zoning
40 in changed to residential. The development company seems to feel
41 there Iwould be a market for that type of unit because many
42 prospective buyers of townhomes have expressed a desire for units
43 with no stairs.
44
45 NEW BUSINESS
46
47 Proposed Ordinance Changes Discussed
48
49 Commissioner Hansen took exception to the report in the February
5.0 24th minutes that it had been the Planning Commission who had
51 changed the number of unrelated persons who could reside in a home
52 from 4 to 3 , saying the draft the Ordinance which the Attorney had
53 marked up had specified 3 to start with. The secretary said she
54 recalled Councilmember Marks ' statements had only been an
55
-10-
• 1 affirmation of Councilmember Enrooth' s recollection that the
2 original number had been 4. Commissioner Werenicz said he recalled
3 the Commission had been given a choice between 6 and 2 and had
4 settled on 3 at the end.
5
6 Commissioner Hansen questioned whether, if the Council 'actually
7 rewrote the whole Ordinance, the Planning Commission would %not have
8 to give its reaction to those changes. Mr. Childs indicated that
9 was not his understanding. The Chair agreed that the Planning.
10 Commission had already fulfilled its role in the process by
11 reporting the public reaction to the issue. Commissioner Hansen
12 said he perceived the Commission had also been receiving more
13 resident response since the hearing.
14
15 Mr. Childs said he would send copies of the revised draft to the
16 'Commission members before the next Council meeting and reiterated
17 some of the reasoning he perceived behind the changes.
18
19 Manager Gives Update on Various City Projects
20
21 Mr. Childs discussed the problems which had arisen with the last
22 phases of the Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project; successful
23 rental of Chandler Place; sale of the Hertog lots and the type of
24 homes to be constructed. in that project. He said he wasn' t sure how
25 many lots had been sold in the Johnson project; considered the
26 Blanske townhome project to have been done very well; and indicated
• 27 he had no further information with regard to the property on the
28 corner of 33rd -and Stinson.
29
30 Commissioners Protest Three Signs Being Erected on Dairy Queen
31
32 Commissioner Werenicz said he recalled the Commission had only
33 recommended the store be permitted to keep the sign on top of the
34 store and erect one other sign where now that the store has been
35 rebuilt there are two well lit signs on each side of the building as
36 well as the sign ' which had been perceived to have been
37 "grandfathered in" . Commissioner Hansen said even the latter might
38 be doubtful since the store was completely taken down and rebuilt.
39
40 Mr. Childs said he would check on the matter and' get back to the
41 Commission at their next meeting.
42
43 He then reiterated the businesses which had been lost to the center
44 because of the delay by the absent landlords in signing the leases
45 which had been submitted to them.
46
47 Manager Updates _ Commission on Possibility of City Taking Over the
48 Parkview Building
49
50 Mr. Childs gave the changes in the City facilities which might
51 conceivably result from the above happening but said this was only
52 one of the issues the school district is contemplating because of
53 decreases in enrollment and economic problems. Commissioner Hansen
54 said he understood the school district wants to get the matter
55
'-11-
1 settled by the end of, the fiscal year. The Manager promised to
2 keep the Commission apprised of any new developments, although he
3 doubted a . public hearing was mandated on the changes the City might
4 make.
5
6 There was a brief discussion of whether or not St. Anthony' Council
7 or Commission meetings would ever be televised for Cable T.V.
8
9 The condition of the St. Anthony Village Shopping Center parking lot
10 was briefly discussed in relation to the sale of that property to
11 the City for the redevelopment project.
12
13 ADJOURNMENT
14
15 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Hansen to adjourn the meetin-g at
16 9: 35 P.M.
17
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19
20
21
22
23 Respectfully submitted,
24
25 Helen Crowe, Secretary
26
• 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 :cjk
38
39
40
41 -
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
• 52
53
54
55