HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07211987 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101696
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
Document: PL MINUITES 07211987
C=TY OF -ISM
. ANTHONY
P LANN=N G C OMM= S S=ON M2 NUTE S
JULY 2 1 , 1 9 8 7
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led by
2 Chair Pro Tem Wagner.
3 Present for roll call: London, Wagner, Werenicz, Madden.
4 Absent: Franzese, Hansen, Wingard (arrived at 7:34 P.M. ) .
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 JUNE 16, 1987 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
7 Motion by Madden, seconded by Werenicz to approve the above with the
8 following changes:
9. Page 3 ;� -Line •43 :. Insert "of" after "most" .
lu Page 4 , Line 16: Delete second "Campbell" .
11 Page 4, Line 38: Insert "would" after "eventually" .
12 Page 5, Line 21: Substitute "further" for "farther" .
13 Page 6 , Line 36: Substitute "snow" for "now" .
14 Page 6, Line 54: Delete "to be" .
e5 Motion carried unanimously.
16 WINGARD TO REPRESENT COMMISSION AT JULY 28TH COUNCIL MEETING
17 The Commissioner agreed to contact Chair Franzese if he was unable to do
18 the above.
19 PUBLIC HEARING
20 Approval Recommended for Transfer of Land Within Johnson Manor
21 Subdivision
22 The hearing was opened at 7 : 35 P.M. with the notice of the hearing read
23 aloud by Chair Pro Tem Wagner. The notice had been published in the
24 July 8, 1987 Bulletin and mailed to all property owners of record within
25 350 feet of the subject property. No one present reported failure to
26 receive the notice or objected to its content.
27 Application: for subdivision without platting which would allow the
28 transfer of approximately 1,580 square feet of left-over
29 property not utilized by the tennis courts from the com-
30 mon area in Outlot A to Outlot B, which is the property
31 owner' s own back yard.
32 Staff Report: -Mr. Childs reiterated the statement in his July 17th
3 memorandum to the Commissioners that he perceived this
4 was a simple lot split and everything seemed to be in
35 order;
36
1 -2-
• 2 -said the 22. 8 X 72. 4 foot parcel had apparently been
3 left over after the tennis and basketball courts had been
4 constructed in Outlot A and the owner of the subdivision
5 apparently wanted to tie it to his own backyard at 3306
6 Belden Drive;
7 -reported receiving no calls or letters either for or
8 against the proposal but said did receive one letter from
9 Robert Kluwe, 2600-34th Avenue N.E. inquiring about what
10 was being proposed;
11 -indicated no further contact by this neighbor after he
12 had sent him the same explanation he had given the Com-
13 mission in his memo -on this proposal.
14 Proponent: -Rick Johnson, subdivision owner who confirmed for Com-
15 missioner Werenicz that last year another small piece of
16 land had beentransferred from Outlot B to Outlot A when
17 he learned tennis courts had to run north and south;
18 -said the currently proposed parcel wasn' t needed for the
19 courts and would fit better with the property in Outlot B
20 since Outlot A is fenced.
21 Opponents: -none, but Robert Churilla, who said he lives directly
0-2 behind the Johnson home at 26.08-34th Avenue N.E. reported
23 the storm sewer intake behind his house had been moved
24 off its base with the heavy rainfall several weeks ago
25 and had been put back by the neighbors;
26 -said about a fourth of his plantings had been ruined when
27 that happened and he was concerned about whose responsi-
28 bility it was to maintain the storm sewer;
29 -was told by Mr. Johnson that the storm sewer is the
30 City' s;
31 -was assured by Mr. Childs that the Public Works Depart-
32 ment would be checking the erosion around the sewer line
33 which they probably knew nothing about because it had
34 happened on private property;
35 -Mr. Churilla said he had no objections to Mr. Johnson
36 transferring the parcel.
37 The hearing was closed at 7 : 48 P.M.
38 Commission Recommendation
39 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Madden to recommend the Council approve
0 the request from Rick Johnson, 3306 Belden Drive, for subdivision
1 without platting to allow transfer to a parcel of land approximately 22
-3-
2 feet X 72 feet in size from outlot A to Outlot B of Johnson Manor
• 3 Subdivision as indicated on the sketch in the Commissioners July 21,
4 1987 agenda packet. The purpose of the transfer is to transfer unused
5 land from the parcel the owner had dedicated for a tennis court common
6 area to his own back yard.
7 In recommending approval, the Planning Commission finds:
8 *Mr. Johnson initially owned all this property and this transfer
9 would only be allowing him to take back a piece of land not needed
10 for the tennis courts constructed on the common area he had
11 dedicated for that purpose;
12 *staff reported receiving no letter or calls objecting to the
13 transfer and no one appeared at the Planning Commission hearing
14 to voice an objection to the proposal.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
17 Commission Recommends Council Grant Two Variances for Undeveloped Lot On
18 Southeast Corner of 37th Avenue N.E. and Roosevelt Street N.E.
19 Action had been tabled June 16th on the petition from William Campbell
20 of Campbell Construction Incorporated, 12409 Drake Street N.W. , Coon
01 Rapids, to construct a home on the above property which would require
2 variances for substandard lot and house size as well as a 14 foot
23 setback from 37th Avenue N.E. , where 30 feet are required by Ordinance.
24 The Commission direction, in their motion to table, had been that legal
25 ownership of the property be established before the matter was returned
26 for Commission consideration.
27 A copy of the June 22nd letter from the Randall, Dehn & Goodrich law
28 firm to Mr. Childs had been included in the agenda packet, which
29 addressed this issue by stating that "as Special Administrator 'to be' ,
30 Don Flynn, the law firm' s deceased client' s brother, had concurred with
31 Mr. Campbell' s variance application to build a 26 foot X 38 foot house
32 on the said lot.
33 The Chair Pro Tem read aloud the notice of the June 16th hearing which
34 had gone out to all the property owners within 3200 feet of the subject
35 property and stated, that, as had been promised at the conclusion of
36 that hearing, those same neighbors had been notified that the request
37 would be reconsidered at the July 21st Commission meeting. This notice
38 advised the neighbors that, although the legally required public hearing
39 on the matter had been closed, any of them who cared to do so would be
40 permitted to provide further input to the issue at this meeting.
•
• 1 -4-
2 Staff report: -Mr. Childs' July 17th memorandum, which, along with a
copy of his June 12th memorandum, but had been included in
4 the agenda packet;
5 -the City Manager read aloud the letter from the law firm
6 which clarified the issue of ownership and reported he
7 had read the letter to the City Attorney over the phone;
8 -said the City Attorney had concurred the clarification of
9 ownership had been acceptable in terms of making a valid
10 application and, more importantly, since the variance
11 runs with the land and not the owners, the City Attorney
12 had perceived the June 22nd letter would be an accept-
13 able basis on which the Commission could take action.
14 Commission Response
15 Wagner: -indicated he believed the question of ownership had been
16 satisfactorily clarified by the attorneys;
17 -said he had concluded after reading the literature, the
18 Manager had provided in the agenda packet related to
19 recent Supreme Court decisions, that the City, would
20 literally be running the risk of being accused of "tak-
IR1 ing" that property if construction were denied alto-
2 gether;
23 -added, however, that he perceived the City would be
24 _permitted to impose certain criteria for the constru-
25 ction including the requirement that the driveway could
26 only exit off Roosevelt. He also said he would be
27 reluctant to recommend a variance for a setback which
28 would be less than half of what the City Ordinance
29 requires;
30 -pointed out that any questions about drainage would
31 have to be settled before the City would issue a
32 building permit.
33 London -said he would be very uncomfortable allowing a house
34 size less than the Ordinance required and ask whether
35 there had been many similar variances granted in the
36 past;
37
38 -indicated he perceived the neighbors' concerns about
39 snow storage obstructing drivers' view might be legi-
40 timate, although he had noticed there were also build-
41 ings, fences and large spruce trees in the same neigh-
42 borhood which probably obstructed the view more than
�3 this house would.
1 -5-
•2_ Wingard: -reported he had paced off the lot and concluded the
3 house where it is proiposed to be constructed would not
4 be a deterrent to the sight distance for drivers '
5 approaching that corner from Roosevelt;
6 -agreed the blue spruce on the other corner probably
7 interferred more with the drivers ' view than a house on
8 the other side would;
9 -suggested the vegetation height could be limited so as
10 not to interfere with the drivers' sight distance on
11 37th Avenue; and
12 -thought that by requiring a 20 foot drainage easement
13 across the back of this lot, there would be no interfer-
14 ence with the continuation of northerly drainage off
15 adjacent homes onto 37th Avenue and away from the ad-
16 joining property to the east.
17 Madden: -noted thast if the proposed house were built two feet
18 narrower and four feet longer it would require no house
19 size variance; and
20 -said he believes it would be a reasonable compromise for
41applicant to build the house this way and to provide a
2 16 foot rather than a 14 foot setback off 37th Avenue.
23 Mr. Childs ' reaction to these statements was to say:
24 *he could recall no cases where a variance for less than minimum
25 house size had been granted in the six years he had served as City
26 Manager, except perhaps where small homes had been allowed to be
27 reconstructed after the tornado;
28 *he could see no reason why the Commission couldn' t recommend the
29 contractor be required to construct a 24 feet X 42 feet house and
30 to provide two more feet of setback off 37th Avenue;
31
32 *in relation to possible obstruction of view, indicated that with
33 around 12 feet of City right-of-way there would be either 26 or 28
34 feet between the house and the street;
35 *the City is restricted from piling snow anywhere but the right-of-
36 way in any event.
37 In response to Commissioner Wingard' s question of whether there would
38 ever be sidewalks in that right-of-way, Mr. Childs said the City' s
39 policy for the last 15 .years had been "no more sidewalks" and the only
40 interest he had seen for sidewalks had been in front of the Kenzington.
41 Commissioner Madden added that the County had "shoved sidewalks down the
2 residents ' throats" when 37th Avenue had .been reconstructed past his
3 townhome.
• 1 -6-
2 Mr. Childs said that an example where a swale was required across a
3 property to maintain drainage would be the Nesser property on St.
4 Anthony Boulevard.
5 Hoxmeier Reiterates Neighbors' Opposition to a House on that Corner
6 Jerome and Marjorie Shaddrick, 2510 and 2508 - 37th Avenue N.E. , and
7 Kenneth Hoxmeier, 3657 Roosevelt Street N.E. , were the only neighbors
8 who had accepted the City Manager' s invitation to attend the meeting and
9 only the latter spoke. He said:
10 *he lived just south of the subject property- and perceived a drive-
11 way off Roosevelt would be "awfully close" to the stop sign at
12 that. intersection and any large object like a truck in the new
13 driveway might obstruct the view of the sign;
14 *since his driveway would be directly parallel to the new drive-
15 way, he would expect he and his new neighbors would be fighting
16 over where to .store their snow in the winter;
17 *St. Paul doesn' t permit certain species of trees, including blue
18 spruce to be planted on the City' s right-of-way and any tree which
19 obstructs drivers ' vision is removed with a chain saw in that
•20 City;
21 *the City could also follow St. Paul' s example of sending out
22 someone from the forestry department to assure the right type of
23 vegetation is planted next to the intersection;
24 . *he was still concerned about how the drainage behind his garage
25 would be handled after the lot is built up and wondered who would
26 be responsible for the maintenance of the swale;
27 *continued to perceive there would be a problem with obstruction of
28 view on that corner during a winter of heavy snows if a house is
29 built so close to the intersection;
30 *questioned whether the Supreme Court -ruling meant only a house
31 could be built on that lot;
32 *he understood one of the Flynn relatives were going to contest
33 the will, which could mean the matter could be held up on court
34 for a year or more.
35 Mr. Hoxmeier concluded by saying he was present to represent the
36 concerns of not only himself but of all the neighbors who had signed the
37 petition against the development of this lot which had been presented at
38 the June 16th hearing. He said those concerns continued to be related
39 to the potential for drainage problems and vision obstruction if a house
�0 is built on that small corner lot. He also stated that it was the
•1 -7-
2 neighbors' belief that the denial of a duplex in 1979 should still stand
3 for a single family resident in 1987 because "this is till only a 45
4 foot lot. "
5 The following responses were made to Mr. Hoxmeier' s objections:
6 Wagner -perceived the question of who owned the lot was not really
7 vital in view of the City Attorney' s opinion that the vari-
8 ance went with the land; and
9 -added that construction could not be started anyway until the
10 ownership is settled.
11 Werenicz -told Mr. Hoxmeier the Commission' s hands were "almost tied"
12 by the Supreme Court ruling;
13 -said he also hated to see a house built on such a small lot
14 and wished the City could find some other- use for it; but
15 -perceived the problem would be somewhat alleviated if a
16 longer, narrower house and a deeper setback .from 37th could
17 be required;
18 Wingard -told Mr. Hoxmeier he also wanted to keep St. Anthony "a
2•.9 first class city" but unfortunately this request involved
0 a 45 foot lot which had been grandfathered into the Ordin-
21 ance as buildable.
22 Proponents: Mr. Campbell and Jay Cadwallader of Cadwallader Realty
23 were present but did not speak.
24 The consensus was that the Commission should proceed with the
25 recommendation for approval but that it should not include a variance
26 for a house size which did not meet the Ordinance and that the setback
27 variance should be for a 16 and not a 14 foot setback from 37th Avenue.
28 Commission Recommendation
29 Motion by Madden, seconded by Wingard to recommend the Council grant a
30 variance to the Ordinance requirement for 11,000 square foot lots for
31 single family residences, which would allow a home to be constructed on
32. the 5,648 square foot lot on the southeast corner of 37th Avenue and
33 Roosevelt Street N.E. and a setback variance to the Ordinance
34 requirement for 30 foot setbacks on corners which would allow the house
35 to be constructed 16 feet from the 37th Avenue property line. The
36 Commission further recommends the following conditions be imposed on
37 granting the variances:
38 1. that in response to the neighbors' concerns about drainage,
W9 a 20 foot drainage easement be maintained on the east side of
40 the property;
1 -8-
2 2 . that no vegetation higher than 3-1/2 feet be planted along
3 37th Avenue from Roosevelt Street to the eastern edge of the
4 house; and
- 5 3 . that no curb cut off on 37th Avenue be allowed.
6 In recommending these variances be granted, the Planning Commission
7 finds that:
8 *other uses of the lot seem to be limited;
9 *the extent of the variance request presented at this time dif-
10 fers greatly from the variances which were denied in 1979 for a
11 duplex;
12 *all three conditions required by statute to be satisfied affirma-
13 tively before these variances can be granted have been met and
14 satisfactorily addressed by the applicant in his petition.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 MISCELLANEOUS
17 Dairy Queen Owner Explains Signage
1018 In his July 17th memorandum to the Commission related to the signage on
19 the above, Mr. Childs reiterated the differences in. perceptions which
20 had arisen since the Dairy-Queen had been remodeled with two identifying
21 signs in the mansard and retention of the revolving roof sign, which had
22 been "grandfathered in" with the 1973 City Ordinance. As indicated in
23 the minutes of the October 21, 1986 Planning Commission hearing on
24 proposed signage for the establishment, the City Manager reiterated
25 that he had not been in attendance, but rather the Public Works
26 Department Director had given the staff report on the signage request.
27 The Manager said what he had perceived from hearing all sides of the
28 question was that members of the Planning Commission, the Dairy Queen
29 owner, Al Plaisted, and Mr. Hamer was that "evidently not everybody
30 functioned on the same wave length related to understanding that
31 meeting" because the Commissioners believe they werefirmabove only two
32 signs being erected and Mr. Plaisted thought he was allowed three and
33 went ahead and put up all three when the facility was remodeled to match
34 the new design adopted for all Dairy Queen stores. A copy of the June
35 28, 1987, letter to Mr. Plaisted from Charles Anderson of the Blue Line
36 Construction Company, contractors for the project had been included in
37 the agenda packet and set forth the contractor' s understanding of the
38 events which led to the erection of three signs on the store. The
39 Commissioners had also been provided with copies of the pertinent
40 minutes of the October 21st meeting in their agenda packets.
0
1 -9-
2 A sketch of the elevations of the new store which, it was agreed, had
3 not been presented at either the Commission hearing or Council
4 consideration October 28th, was also included.
5 The informal discussion which followed brought out the following
6 comments:
7 Madden -said he had been very surprised when what he thought was a
8 "remodeling project" turned out to be a complete removal of
9 all but the foundation and floors of the existing store.
10 Childs -gave the Chair Pro Tem the signage which the store would be
11 allowed under the Ordinance and added the instances where the
12 City has allowed a second sign when a store fronts on two
13 streets. Mr. Childs later confirmed that the store is be-
14 tween platted streets, a service road Sunset and Highway 88;
15 -also confirmed that the store size had gone from 693 square
16 feet to 1,100 square feet with the new addition;
17 -estimated the total current signage to be about 150+ square
18 feet which is not much above what would be allowed by vari-
19 ance for two signs.
00 Plaisted -said the sign on top of the building is 6 X 8. The sign on
21 the back of the building before the remodeling was 8 X 10 and
22 the signage on front was a "Blizzard" sign which was up for
23 many years;
24
25 -agreed the plans which had been given the Commission at the
26 October 21st meeting were a sketch of the remodeling plans
27 and not the sketch in the agenda packet that night;
28 -insisted the Commission had been shown pictures of another
29 Dairy Queen store showing both sides of the proposed build-
30 ing, including two signs in the mansard roof, during the
31 hearing;
32 -insisted pictures had never been returned to him.
33 Werenicz -said his recollection of the October 21st meeting was that
34 the big issue had been whether the rotating sign would
35 remain;
36 -said he certainly hadn' t envisioned the extent of the "remo-
37 deling" which had followed and had come away from the meeting
38 thinking only the rotating sign and one other wall sign had
39 been agreed to;
0 -said he was certain _ "no one in the Commission had envisioned
1 the building coming down. "
•1 -10-
2 Plaisted -certainly wouldn' t have spent $9,000 on those signs unless he
3 was certain the . City was going to allow them;
4 -considered the building permit he was issued as the authori-
5 zation of the signage as well as the construction project.
6 Childs -indicated he was also surprised when he saw the entire build-
7 ing gone but upon looking at the sketch the City had been
8 provided at the hearing could see where with the elimination
9 of the space within the dotted lines "there probably wasn' t
10 much left of the old building in that sketch either. "
11 Wagner -said he could see that where the City could say that, with
12 the building gone, the rotating sign was no longer "grand-
13 fathered in" and would require a variance to put it back, as
14 stated by Commissioner Madden during the October 21st hear-
15 ing.
16 Childs -said from an objective view, since he was not present at the
17 hearing, the reality of the situation was that there were
18 obviously differences of opinion of what happened at the
19 hearing; the building and signs are up; and it now remains to
20 determine. what the City' s position is related to the signs
411 that are there.
22 Plaisted -reiterated that the building permit he held in his hands was
23 "your OK of these plans" ;
24 -said his perception was "I 've been there since 1974. I up-
25 dated the store to make it a respectable place and since
26 I 've done this, I 've gotten nothing but heat from the City. "
27 Werenicz -said he wanted to be the first to compliment Mr. Plaisted on
28 the remodeling job with which "I couldn' t be more pleased" ,
29 but the fact remains that the Commission had come away from
30 the October 21st hearing believing they had only approved the
31 retention of the rotating sign on the roof and one other
32 additional sign.
33 Madden -told Mr. Plaisted he perceived part of the confusion came
34 from the construction letter to the store owner which said
35 that "at some point after starting construction, they were
36 notified by someone from the City that this building could
37 have two signs" ;
38 -asked who that someone was and how that had come about.
39 Plaisted -indicated he had come away from the hearing with the impres-
40 sion his signage was alright and had talked to Larry Hamer
a1 about it later;
42
• 1 -11-
2
3 -added that the matter had been checked with two people from
4 the City before ordering the $9,00 signs;
5 -said he recognized there could have been some misunderstand-
6 ing about the signs, but there was certainly none in his
7 mind when he ordered those signs because experience with
8 other stores had taught him to be sure he had City approval;
9 -said he never understood thee was a misunderstanding until he
10 got the City' s letter about the signs;
11 -said he had consulted a lawyer after the letter arrived and
12 had been told to "cooperate with them. "
13 Wagner -assured Mr. Plaisted that was what the Commission was also
14 trying to do;
15 -was told the rotating sign is now 6 X 8.
16 Childs -indicated that if the City gives Mr. Plaisted a variance for
17 the second sign because the store fronts on two streets, he
18 could have 144 square feet total signage under the Ordin-
19 ance and has about 150 square feet now (based on a rough
•20 estimate) .
21 Plaisted -complained that he had to remove his new window .signs even
22 though the City' s liquor warehouse windows are "plastered
23 100% all over with signs" ;
. 24 -indicated he had concluded "it' s OK for you to operate that
25 way but not for me. "
26
27 Werenicz -told Mr. Plaisted that if he had seen the sketch provided
28 that night at the Commission hearing, he would clearly have
29 voted against the extra sign and he still perceived the
30 request had been somehow misrepresented at the hearing;
31 -added however, that the question before the Commission was
32 what do we do now?
33 Wagner -pointed out to Mr. Plaisted that the Commissioners perceived
34 the building had been altered more than 75% which had been
35 quoted as the point past which the rotating sign would not
36 have to be allowed;
37 -told the store owner the City had used this same formula for
38 not allowing the two florist companies to rebuild after the
39 tornado.
00 Werenicz -assured Mr. Plaisted that this was not the first time where
41 the City had written letters to businesses about non-conform-
42 ing signage.
-12-
2 Childs -said if there is a Commission consensus the City could make
3 arrangements to have Mr. Plaisted apply for a variance for
4 the second mansard sign;
5 Wagner -said he would support a variance for two signs.
6 Werenicz -said he didn' t think the proposal had been presented to the
7 Commission as it should have been and next time he would not
8 be satisfied with "letting the City look at it later,"
9 however, indicated he couldn' t see forcing additional costs
10 to rectify . the mistakes; and
11 -said he would recommend approval of the necessary variances
12 for the additional signage when it came before the Commis-
13 sion.
14 Plaisted -told Commissioner Wingard the shopping center owners are
15 responsible for resurfacing the parking lot around his
16 store. He said he has a letter from Eberhardt promising
17 the center would be updated if he rebuilt his store to
18 match their renovation plans. A threat to take legal action
19 against the owners had resulted in the attorney who is
20 supposed to be responsible for the center promising to come
21 to visit the store owner in July. The attorney had also
0-2 indicated the owners would not want the City to condemn
23 their property;
24 -said the business leaders were 100% behind the City taking
25 firmer measures against the center owners.
26 Childs -told the store owner he had certainly been more successful
27 in getting a more positive response than the City had been.
28 Mr. Plaisted was thanked for coming in and giving his side of the
29 controversy.
30 OTHER BUSINESS
31 The June 23rd advisory on recent U.S. Supreme Court case affecting
32 municipal zoning practices and the article from the Engineering News
33 Record on the same issue_ which had been provided by Commissioner Madden
34 were discussed briefly.
35 Before the meeting was adjourned the new retail center near Apache and
36 the proposals the H.R.A. anticipates receiving from various developers
37 related to finishing the Kenzie project were reported on by the City
38 Manager.
39 The Stonehouse project also reported on including the possibility of
0 Mannings taking over the food service in the remodeled bar and the long
1 amount of time it takes to get steel roof trusses for the warehouse
42 portion.
• 1 -13-
2 The possibility of the medical building next to the Kenzington being
3 constructed soon was also explored.
4 Commissioner Madden announced he understood Hennepin County Commissioner
5 Sam Sivanich was going to move into the Village, which might be a
6 benefit for the City.
7 ADJOURNMENT
8 Motion by Wingard, seconded by Madden to adjourn the meeting at 9: 25
9 P.M.
10 Motion- carried unanimously.
11 Respectfully submitted,
12 Helen Crowe, Secretary
13 :cjk
14
15
•