HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 04211987 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
iovoz
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
Document: PL MINUTES 04211987
CITY OF ST . ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• AP R S L 2 1 , 3- 987
1 The meeting opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Pro Tem Wagner.
3
4 The oath of office was administered by the Council Secretary to
5 Commissioner John Madden.
6
7 Present for roll call: London, Wingard, Hansen, Wagner, Werenicz,
8 Madden.
9
10 Absent: Franzese.
11
12 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
13
14 COUNCIL MEETING REPRESENTATIVE DESIGNATED
15
16 Commissioner Hansen will represent the Planning Commission at the
17 Council ' s April 28th meeting.
18
19 MARCH 17 , 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
20
21 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to approve the above with
22 the following changes:
• 23
24 Page 1 , line 31: Substitute "March" for "February" .
25 Page 3 , line 39: Correct typo "property" .
26 Page 5 , line 16: Insert "foot side" before "setbacks" .
27 Page 5 , line 33.: Substitute 113421" for 3412" .
28
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30
31 PUBLIC HEARINGS
32
33 Setback Variance for Brett Peterson for 3301 East Gate Road
34
35 The hearing was opened at 7 : 35 P.M. by Chair Pro Tem Wagner. He
36 read the notice of the hearing which had been published in the
37 April 8 , 1987 Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record
38 within 200 feet of the subject property. No one present reported
39 failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
40
41 Application: for consideration of a request for a setback
42 variance to allow construction of improvements
43 to the existing house freestanding garage at the
44 above address which would result in the garage
45 becoming an attached garage which would require
46 a setback variance because the existing garage
47 is only 24 inches from the property line and
• 48 therefore legally nonconforming under the Zoning
49' Ordinance. In addition, the northerly neighbor ' s
50 garden shed actually encroaches onto the Peterson
-2-
• 1
2 property one or two feet. Anew laundry room and
3 two season porch are planned which would not ex-
4 acerbate the current setback problems for addi-
5 tions to nonconforming additions, but would
6 require a variance.
7
8Staff report: reiterated information in his April 16th memoran-
9 dum.
10
11Proponents: Brett Peterson, who said he had negotiated an
12 agreement with his northernmost neighbor to
13 remove the garden shed which he and the former
14 owner had , erected if City required or Mr.
15 Peterson_ ever moved.
16
17 Marc Dicky, 2925 Crestview Drive (that neighbor)
18 had written a letter of approval of the variance
19 which had been included in the agenda packet.
20
21Opponents: None at the hearing and Mr. Childs reported
i 22 staff had received no calls or letters opposing
23 the variance.
24
25The hearing was closed at 7 : 46 P.M.
26 _
27 Commission Action
28
- 29Motion by Madden, seconded by Hansen to recommend the Council grant
30 the petition for a variance from Brett and Robin Peterson for 3301
31 East Gate Road which would allow construction of improvements which
32 would connect- an existing detached garage to a principal structure
-- 33 (house-) . The Zoning Ordinance requires a 5 foot -sideyard setback
34 for attached garages. The existing detached garage has a 2 foot
35 sideyard- setback (nonconforming) which requires that a variance be
36granted when additional construction is planned.
37
38 In recommending the necessary variance be granted, the Planning
39 Commission finds that:
40
41 -the addition would probably make the rear portion of the pro-
42 perty look more attractive;
43
44 -both the existing home and the new addition would become safer
45 for fire separation purposes because firewalls are required
46 when the structures are joined;
47
48 -no one spoke against the proposed variance at the hearing and
49 staff reported receiving no calls or letters in opposition to
50 the additions prior to the -hearing;
51
52 -staff had recommended the variance- be granted; --- -
• 53
54
55
-3-
1
• 2 -all three conditions required to be satisfied affirmatively
3 before a variance can be granted have been met with this pro-
4 posal and had been satisfactorily addressed by the applicant
5 on their application.
6
7 Motion carried unanitdously.
8
9 Sign Variance Request for Equinox Apartments, 2808 Silver Lane N.E.
10
11 The hearing was opened by the Chair Pro Tem at 7 : 50 P.M. He read
12 aloud the notice of the hearing which had been published in the
13 April 8, 1987 Bulletin and mailed to all. property 'owners of record
14 within 200 feet of the subject property. No one present reported
- 15 failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
16
17 Application: from Penny Cervantes, resident Manager of the
18 above and E.S.I . Signs for a variance to replace
19 three existing two foot by four foot identifi-
20 cation signs with new signs and to add a fourth
21 sign next to the Hardees entrance sign west of
22 Silver Lake Road near the Mobil Station. One of
23 the signs -was proposed to be relocated within the
24 City' s right-of-way on the southwest intersection
25 of Silver Lane and the Equinox Apartments
26 driveway.
• 27
28 Staff report: -reiterated statement in April 16th memorandum
29 that signage could not be located in the City' s
30 right-of-way but could be moved closer to the
31 Silver Lane right-of-way line as it didn' t ob-
32 struct visibility for traffic in or out;
33
34 -confirmed that the new signs should all be
35 ground signs to conform with the Sign Ordin-
36 ance;
37
38 reported no calls for or against the new signage
39 were received;
40
41 -indicated complex has two addresses which might
42 justify additional signage.
43
44 Proponent: Tim Gow of E.S.I . Signs, 841 Grand Avenue, St.
45 Paul
46
47 -said the visibility of the existing Silver Lane
48 sign is obstructed by an overgrowth of shrubbery
49 and trees for traffic coming one way on Silver.
50 Lane;
51
• 52
53
54
55
-4-
1 -indicated that the same square footage would be
• 2 retained for badly damaged signs which would be
3 retrofitted to look like the sign shown on the
4 front of the brochure he had passed around to
5 the Commissioners;
6
7 -reported the apartment managers perceived ,a
8 need for Silver Lake Road identification;
9
10 -said the proposed sign would be installed about
11 eight feet away from the curb for visibility
12 past the new wall;
13
14 -indicated the sign near the Hardees south entr-
1-5 ance would be about three feet from the curb;
16
17 -told Commissioner Werenicz the new signage had
18 not been requested by apartment tenants but by
19 the owners.
20
21 No one appeared to speak against the proposal and the hearing was
22 closed at 8: 05 P.M.
23
24 During the discussion of the proposed signage, Commissioner
25 Werenicz questioned whether additional signage at that location on
26 Silver Lake Road might not give a cluttered appearance to the area.
• 27 Commissioner Hansen suggested the signage be converted to a ground
28 sign, which the sign representative perceived would not be a
29 problem and if bermed might provide more visibility.
30
31 Commission Recommendation
32
33 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wingard to recommend the Council
34 grant the necessary variances to the Sign Ordinance to Equinox
35 Apartments, 2808 Silver Lane to allow them to replace the three
36 identification signs on their property with ground signs of
37 substantial construction which would be bermed or landscaped to fit
38 into the surrounding terrain and to bring them into conformance
39 with the Ordinance description of permitted ground signs. The
40 Commission recommends that the Silver Lane sign be allowed to be
41 relocated closer to the roadway for better visibility as long as it
42 does not encroach into the City' s right-of-way or obstruct
43 visibility for traffic in or out of the driveway.
44
45 The Planning Commission recommends that the fourth sign be allowed
46 for Silver Lake Road identification, as shown on the applicant' s
47 sketches.
48
49 In recommending approval of this signage, the Planning Commission
50 finds that:
51
• 52
53
54
55
-5-
. -this property is unique in that it has access from a number of
• 1 street entrances and probably requires more identification;
2
3 -even- with the additional sign, the total square footage would
4 conform to the signage amount the Ordinance permits for the
5 complex;
6
7 -all three conditions required to be satisfied affirmatively
8 have been done so with this .proposal; and
9
10 -there was no opposition demonstrated to the variances being
11 granted either during the Commission hearing or to staff prior
12 to that hearing.
13
14 Voting on the motion:
15
16 Aye: Hansen, Wingard, London, Wagner, Madden.
17
18 Nay: Werenicz.
19
20 Motion carried.
21
22 Drainage Plan to be Required for Subdivision Without Platting of
23 Parcel Owned by David Evanson at Approximately 3512 Silver Lake
24 Road
25
26 The hearing was opened at 8: 16 P.M. by Chair Pro Tem Wagner. He
27 read aloud the notice of the hearing which had been published April
28 8, 1987 in the Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of
29 record within 350 feet of the subject property. No one present
30 reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content.
31
32 Application: for subdivision without platting of Lot 5, Block
33 6 Gardenia Acres into four single family, resi-
34 dential lots, approximately 75 feet .by 131 feet
35 in size. Two lots would have frontage on Silver
36 Lake Road in the 3500 block and two lots would
37 front on the 3500 block on Belden Drive.
38
39 Staff report: reiterated information in his April 16th memoran
40 dum advising proposed lots would be 9,825 square
41 feet which was more than the 9 ,000 square feet
42 required by the City Ordinance and suggesting
43 points which should be satisfied before the sub-
44 division without platting is approved;
45
46 reported because there is substantial height on
47 the parcel, a grading plan would be necessary to
48 assure adequate and proper drainage and to meet
49 the requirements the City had made back in the
50 ' 60 ' s of Mr. Forsberg and Dr. Osterbauer to lower
51 their property to the Belden street level;
• 52
53
54
55
-6-
• 1 said the City would not be able to determine. just
2 how much earth would have to . be taken off the
3 proposed lot without a survey and grading and
4 drainage plans being submitted by the owner.;
5
6 indicated Mr. Evanson was in the process of' pre-
7 paring all of the above and since they were not
8 available that night, no decisions about drain-
. 9 age could be made that night;
10
11 reported the City would also be requiring five
12 foot drainage and utility easements on the front/.
13 sides of each of the four lots;
14
15 had provided copies of the April 17th letter from
16 John Forsberg of 3512 Belden Drive, whose
17 property abuts one of the undeveloped lots on the
18 north which gave the history of his arrangements
19 with the City related to the future development
20 of the Evanson property. His letter also told of
21 the litigation he and Dr. Osterbauer, his next
22 door neighbor, had been involved in with Mr.
23 Evanson' s parents who protested the grading the
24 City had required;
25
26 said both property owners were present that
• 27 evening to assure that adjacent lots are cut
28 down to a level which at least would allow drain-
29 age to be properly controlled so there would be
30 no negative impact on their property following
31 construction of the four new homes.
32
33 Mr. Childs advised that it would be difficult to guarantee that no
34 negative impact would result if the homes were allowed to be built
35 on an individual basis with separate ownership and time schedules
36 for construction. The City Manager concluded his report by saying
37 he had received no other communications for or against the
38 proposal. He said the platting process would probably have to be
39 followed but he perceived it would be beneficial to hear the
40 concerns of those who were present so Mr. Evanson could take them
E 41 into account when the platting was done. Mr. Childs advised the
42 Commission to give Mr. Evanson enough guidance that he could come
43 in with a final plat which would include drainage plans which
44 addressed the concerns of all concerned.
45
46 Testimony was taken from the following:
47
48 The applicant, David G. Evanson, 2208 - 73rd Avenue N. , Brooklyn
49 Park:
50
51 -had told Mr. Childs the person who had been granted a vari-
• 52 ance to build a nonconforming home above Mr. Forsberg had been
53 unable to buy the property after all and the home being
54 considered for that lot now would require no variance;
55
-7-
• 1 -told Mr. Forsberg and Dr. Osterbauer he had recently purchased
2 the property and had not been involved twenty-two years ago in
3 his parents ' lawsuit against them;
4
5 -said he would not be involved in the construction of the new
6 homes;
7
8 -reported he had talked to all abutting property owners on
9 Belden and Silver Lake Road except Mr. Christen who was out of
10 town and all seemed happy to have the property developed;
11
12 -thought grading on Silver Lake Road side would be minimal but
13 acknowledged the need for grading the Belden Street properties
14
15 --said hadn' t :set a price -on individual lots but prospective
16 buyers had been concerned that the view of the Minneapolis
17 skyline be retained if possible; as many trees as possible
18 be preserved; and that the architectural integrity of the
19 homes they would build would be provided to match the exist-
20 ing homes on Belden;
21
22 -was concerned that he might have to pay all the grading costs
23 himself up front and that if grading for all homes was done
24 prior to platting, there might be erosion of earth from one lot
25 to another if all lots were not developed at the same time;
26
• 27 -wanted grading to be started on each lot at the onset of con-
28 struction;
29
30 -said could cost him at least $5,000 if fill could be sold and
31 $10,000 if had to be taken away. Tree removal might also be
32 costly.
33
34 Mr. Childs suggested the developer could post a performance bond
35 with the agreement that the grading be done prior to the issuance
36 of the first building permit. Said that way, Mr. Evanson would not
37 have to pay for the grading up front and could get back his bond
38 after the City has verified proper grading had been accomplished.
39 Mr. Evanson said he would have to consider that option, which he
40 considered he would be more amenable to than having to grade the
41 entire parcel and seed it to prevent erosion between development
42 projects.
43
44 Lee Larwick, 2300 Greenview Drive, New Brighton
45
46 -indicated he owned the undeveloped 80 foot lot at 3516 Silver
47 Lake Road next to Mr. Evanson' s property which was also for
48 sale;
49
50 -said he wanted to see the property in question sold so he
51 could sell his own property;
• 52
53
54
55
-8-
• 1 -wanted to know why Mr. Schroeder had not been required to grade
2 the lot he was going to buy next to him when he had been
3 granted a. variance for his construction;
4
5 -was told that was because that involved only one property and
6 this issue involved a subdivision for which the City likes
7 to have all grading agreed to before platting. Mr. Childs
8 said Mr. Schroeder would have been required to do some grading
9 to develop his property as he had proposed.
10
11 Dr. Robert Osterbauer, 3504 Belden Drive and son, Joseph
12
13 -were told the existing City Ordinances don' t require homes to
14 be at street level or address elevations of driveways but the
15' City does require that properties be developed in such a man-
16 ner as not to negatively impact on the neighbors;
17
18 -Dr. Osterbauer said he would prefer not to see the property
19 developed at all because the path which has been worn through
20 the property over the years channels the runoff onto the street
21 and not onto his property;
22
23 -the Chair Pro Tem told them the engineers Mr. Evanson retained
24 would be advising him about what drainage would be required and
25 the developer would be unable to provide that information that
2.6 evening.
• 27
28 Mr. Forsberg:
29
30 -reiterated that he hoped the Evanson property could be
31 developed as long as the developer is required to grade his
32 property to match what was required of him when he built his
33 home;
34
35 -he said the lawsuit had resulted when he had asked to have the
36 Evanson property sloped down to protect his property. He had
37 put in a retaining wall when that had not been accomplished in
38 spite of both parties incurring substantial court costs.
39
40 Two prospective buyers of lots from Mr. Evanson expressed their
41 concerns about the resultant lots after the City' s requirements are
42 met.
43
44 Chris Paidosh, 3155 Old Highway 8
45
46 =estimated the lot he was interested in buying was 16 feet off
47 street level and about even with the top of Dr. Osterbauer' s
48 garage;
49
50 -said a builder had told him the excavated dirt would have to be
51 taken from the site before a house could be built there;
• 52
53
54
55
` -9-
• 1 -perceived it might be too severe to require the undeveloped
2 lots to be graded to the same level as the existing homes on
3 Belden and thata four or five foot differential might be
4 reasonable;
5
6 -wanted assurance that the lots would be buildable, but would
7 not put undue hardship on the neighbors because of drainage or
8 to have drainage problems himself;
9
10 -said he and his fiancee who was with him, would naturally like
11 to keep the existing view of the skyline, but that would not be
12 the deciding factor in their decision to build.
13
14 Kurt Matthys, 9760 Monroe Street, Blaine
15
16 indicated he was interested in one of the lots which front on
17 Silver Lake Road and would not like to have a high dropoff
18 between his and his neighbor' s property on Belden Drive;
19
20 -wanted as many trees preserved on his lot as possible to shield
21 his home from the noise on Silver Lake Road.
22
23 Mr. Childs said he was recommending the Planning Commission suggest
24 the subdivision without platting be denied and that the Council
25 direct the developer to return simultaneously with a final plat for
26 four lots and a drainage plan for Commission consideration at a
• 27 future meeting where the neighbors would be able to react to both
28 plans. The Manager reiterated that whatever arrangement the City
29 had made with Mr. Forsberg and Dr. Osterbauer related to retaining
30 walls would be part of the basis for establishing grading for the
31 undeveloped lots. He suggested there might be agreements reached
32 whereby the grading for the new lots might be stepped up and
33 retaining walls provided on the back of those properties as well.
34
35 There were no further concerns expressed and the hearing was closed
36 at 9: 00 P.M.
37
38 Commission Recommendation
39
40 Commissioner Madden said he would not entirely rule out the
41 subdivision without platting for' this property but agreed it should
42 be denied at this point.
43
44 Motion by Madden, seconded by Werenicz to recommend that the
45 Council deny the request from David Evanson to subdivide without
46 platting the property at approximately 3512 Silver Lake Road at
47 least for the present and instead, direct the applicant to prepare
48 a final plat and a grading plan which would be consistent with the
49 City' s requirements and the neighbors' concerns about drainage.
50 The plan should also satisfy the City as to the proper legal
51 descriptions for the property and provide for 5 foot drainage and
• 52 utility easements similar to those provided for the Johnson and
53 Hertog subdivisions.
54
55
-10-
• 1 Motion carried unanimously.
. 2
3 The meeting was recessed from 9 : 12 P.M. to 9 : 17 P.M.
4
5 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
6
7 Approval Recommended for Nelson Request for Setback Variance for
8 3412 Roosevelt Street N.E.
9
10 The above had been tabled at the last meeting to allow the
11 applicant and his neighbor to try to work out their differences
12 related to Mr. Nelson' s proposal to convert his existing single
13 garage to a four car double garage which because of his home ' s
14 siting on his lot would require a four foot sideyard setback
15 variance to construct..
16
17 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Wingard to take the above request
18 off the table.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21
22 Mr. Nelson testified that his meeting with his neighbor had not
23 been held until the previous Friday when Mrs. Ittner had indicated
24 she would like to consult with her family on Easter Sunday about
2.5 the matter.
26
27 Mrs. Ittner and her son, Paul Szurek, were present and the latter
28 told the Commissioners his mother was still concerned about the
29 runoff from the new addition and wanted the construction to be
30 delayed so the next owner could have input related to its size and
31 location.
32
33 When he conceded that potential buyers had been "put on hold
34 because it was taking so long to get the house emptied out" ; that
35 the real estate company had not even quoted a price for the home,
36 the Commissioners concurred that it would not be fair to make the
37 Nelsons wait indefinitely for the Ittner home to be sold. The
38 Commissioners also questioned Mrs. Ittner' s concerns about the
39 addition runoff increasing her water problems, perceiving that the
40 plans he had presented that evening for diverting the runoff would
41 in all likelihood improve the present situation. There was also
42 Commissioner agreement that a double garage would probably enhance
43 rather than detract from that neighborhood. Mrs. Ittner' s
44 suggestion that the Nelson garage be sited further back on the,
45 property to avoid annoyance to whoever lived there next was not
46 considered reasonable. The Chair Pro Tem told her a long driveway
47 would probably add to her water problems.
48
49 No one else appeared to provide input to the consideration and the
50 hearing was closed at 9: 3.5 P.M.
51
• 52
53
54
55
-11-
• 1 Commission Recommendation
2
3 Commissioner Werenicz said he now perceived that since the addition
4 would actually be 11 feet away from the Ittner structure, its
5 impact would probably be minimal. Commissioner Madden perceived
6 the two neighbors might still be able to compromise the garage
7 width after the City approves its construction.
8
9 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Wingard to recommend the Council
10 grant Dwayne and Nancy Nelson a 4 foot sideyard setback variance
11 for the 22 foot wide attached double car garage they propose to
12 construct on their property at 3412 Roosevelt Street N.E. on the
13 condition the gutter system is put in to drain runoff away from the
14 adjoining property. In recommending the variance be granted, the
15 Commission f inds= that:
16
17 -the City had already given the neighbors a month to compromise
18 their differences;
19
20 -any further delay would impose an undue hardship on Mr.
21 Nelson' s plans for construction;
22
23 -the applicant had satisfactorily addressed all three questions
24 which have to be answered in the affirmative for the City to
25 grant this variance;
26
27 -precedents have been set for allowing double garages in that
28 same block and in fact, the new City Zoning Ordinance requires
29 double garages for all new construction.
3.0
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 MISCELLANEOUS
34
35 Fifteenth Annual Minnesota Planning Conference
36
37 Because the above was geared to planners and the seminars which
38 Councilmember Marks is involved in would be more helpful to
39 Commission members, it was generally agreed it would be better to
40 wait for that meeting this winter.
41
42 Manager Reports on Owner' s Response to Letter Regarding Signage at
43 3909 Silver Lake Road
44
45 Mr. Childs said Mr. Vargas had indicated a contractor would be
46 starting work on the landscaping of his sign by the first of May.
47 The Manager said he would recommend the Commission take steps to
48 have the sign removed altogether if that was not accomplished
49 before their May meeting.
50
51
• 52
53
54
55
-12-
1
2 Dairy Queen Signage
3
4 In addition to all the banners which had been erected on the
5 building, Commissioner Werenicz said the store now has three
6 lighted signs even though the Commission had only recommended the
7 roof sign could be reinstalled along with one other new si4n when
8 the Dairy Queen was rebuilt. Mr. Childs agreed to provide the
9 Commissioners with all the pertinent minutes when the issue is
10 reconsidered.
11
12 ADJOURNMENT
13
14 Motion by Wingard, seconded by Werenicz to adjourn the meeting at
1.5. 9 ::59 P-.M,.
16
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18
19
20
21
22 Respectfully submitted,
23
24 Helen Crowe, Secretary
25
26
• 27 .
28
29
30
31
32
33
34 :cjk
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
• 52
53
54
55