HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09171991j
Meeting Sheet
IIIIII IIIII�IIIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
ioiais
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1991
Document: PL MINUTES 09171991
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 SEPTEMBER 17 , 199. 1
6-
7
8 1 . CALL TO ORDER
9
10 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m. by Chairman
11 Madden who led the Pledge of Allegiance .
12
13 2 . ROLL CALL
14
15 Present : Franzese, Gondorchin, Murphy, Werenicz,
16 Brownell and Madden
17
18 Absent : Faust
19
20 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and Management Assistant
21 Urbia
22
23 3 . APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 20, 1991
24
25 Motion by Brownell , second by Franzese to approve the minutes
26 of the August 20 , 1991 Planning Commission meeting with the
following corrections :
_ page 2 , line 49 : change the verb "were" to "was"
30 page 7 , line 25 : delete "rewrote" and replace with "reworked"
31 page 8 , line 24 : delete "has been" and replace with "will be"
32 page 9, line 12 : . delete "Road"
33 page 9 , 1-ine 52 : should read, "of Stinson Boulevard and Silver
34 Lake Road on 37th Avenue was an"
35 page 10 , line 30 : insert between "ambiance" and "that" "due to
36 special unique demographic composition"
37
38 Motion carried unanimously
39
40
41 4 . DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO OCTOBER 8 , 1991
42 COUNCIL MEETING
43
44 Commissioner Werenicz will represent the Planning Co:rJnission
45 at the October 8 , 1991 Council Meeting.
46
47 5. PUBLIC HEARING
48
49 A. Garret Preussner - Setback Variance Request for 2917 31st
50 Avenue
51
52 The applicant, Garret Preussner, is requesting a variance of 13
feet, 3 inches to allow for a front yard setback of forty feet
(ordinance requires either thirty feet or equal to the average of
the adjacent property whichever is greater) for the construction of
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
3 PAGE 2
4
5
6 an addition to the existing single family . dwelling at 2917
7 31st Avenue.
8
9 Chairman Madden reviewed the process for considering this
10 request .
11
12 It was noted that the forty yard setback for the existing
13 structure is allowed as it has been "grandfathered in. "
14 However, the proposed addition is subject to the provisions of
15 the ordinance, which would require a. fifty-three foot , three
16 inch front yard setback (as adjoining property is the average
17 of fifty feet and 56 . 5 feet ) or a variance request .
18
19 Urbia distributed copies of the blueprint of the addition for
20 the Commission members ' perusal . He noted that there have been
21 no corrections nor additions to the plan and that there are no
22 changes to the plans which were included in the agenda packet
33 regarding footage. It was noted that there are minor changes
24 to the windows in the addition.
25
26 Urbia advised the Commission that the addition had been
considered for the back as requested by staff . The property
owner stated that it would be difficult , if not impossible, to
29 construct the addition onto the back of the structure and that
30 the neighbors ' lots are built up and drain into his backyard,
31 therefore, an addition would interfere with existing drainage.
32
33 It was stated that staff did not view the property after a
34 heavy rainfall but were dependent on the property owner ' s
35 statement that an addition onto the back would interfere with
36 existing drainage.
37
38 The City Manager advised that to place the addition on the
39 back of the structure would be more costly and considerable
40 additional work. He noted also that the proposed bay window
41 would extend out from the house and may need a variance.
42
43 Murphy inquired if any information has been gotten regarding
44 the topography in the area. The City Manager responded that
45 the topographical study has not been completed by Barr
46 Engineering at this time but it will be soon.
47
48 The City Manager observed that this is the oldest home on the
49 block. Franzese stated that this situation is just the
50 opposite of what is usually found , that being that the oldest
51 home is located farther back on the lot than any of the others
in the area.
4#4
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
_ PAGE 3
4
5
6
7 Gondorchin inquired if the property owner plans to re-side all of
8 the house as well as the addition. The City Manager responded that
9 it is the intention of the property owner to re-side the front of
10 the home and the addition. and to re-side the west and north part of
11 the old portion of the house. A neighbor had requested that it all
12 be re-sided at the time the addition was put on. The property owner
13 had indicated to staff it would be too costly at this time to re-
14 side all of the structure.
15
16 Brownell, quoting from Section 1655. 03A of the ordinance, noted that
17 allowance for the bay window to project within thirty feet into
18 the yard was acceptable so long as it does not project further
19 than three feet from the property line. The City Manager
20 mentioned this is not law yet and that the old ordinance must
21 be followed until the new ordinance has been approved.
22 Franzese recalled a' situation similar to this one where the
23 matter of encroachment was not clear.
24
25 The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 48 p.m.
26
Preussner advised the Planning Commission it is his intention
to put this addition on to make it a more family-oriented
*2_9 home. He wants the addition with the windows and the siding to
30 make the house conform more to the neighborhood. He noted that
31 his backyard is very wet after - a * heavy rain and the only
32 appropriate place for the addition is on the side of the
33 house. His associate stated that it is their goal to reside
34 the entire structure.
35
26 The City Manager had reviewed the Building Code and it stated
37 that a bay window is permitted if it does not extend more than
38 three feet . Preussner ' s window will extend two feet , from the
39 house so a variance is not necessary.
40
41 Anthony Dady has lived at his home at 2900 31st Avenue for
42 thirty years and stated that putting the addition on the back
43 of the home would be a mistake because of the drainage
44 problems . He noted that the previous owner has continual water
45 problems and had run a sump pump constantly. He felt that the
46 other homes which were built around this one were the cause of
47 the water drainage problems . He does not object to the
48 addition nor to its placement on the side of *the home.
49
50 Roman Rossa, 2915 31st Avenue, stated he and his wife have no
51 objections to the project . He inquired as to the intended
extension of the bay window. Werenicz advised it will extend
two feet to the south. Mrs . Rossa noted that all of the
surrounding properties go downhill to that of Preussner and
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
3 PAGE 4
4
5
6- that all of the water from surrounding properties is deposited
7 in his backyard. She felt the drain tile which was installed
8 by the previous owner has helped to some degree. Mr. Rossa
9 noted that the hedge stops some of the water from draining to
10 the street and that some of the spring runoff is also
it redirected by this hedge. He suggested some landscaping would
12 help.
13
14 Gondorchin inquired if anyone took exception to the siding not
15 being done when the addition Ls completed. He had noted some
16 anxiety from the neighbors regarding this matter.
17
18 The City Manager suggested this could be made a condition for
19 granting the variance but wondered how the variance could be
20 revoked if the siding were not completed.
21
22 Brownell reviewed with the neighbors the chronology of the
23 house building in that area, particularly the three houses
24 adjacent to- Preussner ' s . It was noted that his house was built
25 in three different stages . Madden inquired how much of his
26 house had a basement under it . Preussner responded that the
west two-thirds of the house has a basement and the rest has
0— crawl space as will the addition .
29
30 The Public Hearing was closed at 8 : 00 p.m.
31
32 Brownell stated he is strongly in favor of granting the
33 variance as he feels the need for the variance is caused by
34 the ordinance since other homes adjacent to this one were set
35 farther back on the lots .
36
37 Werenicz is also supportive of granting the variance as the
38 ordinance created the hardship and the water prob-lems are also
39 hardships .
40
41 Madden is in favor of granting the variance but noted he is
42 troubled with the siding not being completed at the time the
43 addition is put on.
44
45 Murphy is in favor of granting the variance and feels all of
46 the conditions for granting the variance are in evidence in
47 this case. He also felt the comments of the neighbors affirmed
48 the history of water prob.l-ems and that it would be ill-advised
49 to build the addition onto the back of the structure.
50
51 Gondorchin stated his concern with the siding not being
completed in a timely fashion . He referred to a problem of
this kind at a home on 3.3rd Avenue. He inquired how the
requirement of completing the siding in. one year could be
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
PAGE 5
4
5
6 enforced. The City Manager stated this requirement could
7 be made a condition of the granting of the variance and if it
8 were not met , then staff could proceed through the courts
9 which is being done with the home on 33rd Avenue.
10
11 Franzese complimented Mr . Preussner for aesthetically
12 improving the neighborhood. She would favor allowing one year
13 to complete the siding.
14
15 Motion by Murphy, second by Gondorchin to approve the variance
16 of thirteen feet , three inches for 2917 31st Avenue as the
17 request does meet the three conditions necessary for approval ,
18 water is a hardship, no one appeared in opposition of the
19 request , and the distance from 31st Avenue is not greater than
20 what it is currently with the existing building. The variance
21 is contingent upon the siding of the south and east sides
22 being done on the new construction at the time it is completed
23 and the north and west sides will be done within one year of
24 the granting of the variance.
25
26 Motion carried unanimously
9 Madden noted this item will be on the October 8th Council
30 Meeting agenda . He suggested to Mr . Preussner it may be
21 advisable for him to attend the meeting.
32
33 6. REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE FOR RECODIFICATION
34
35 The City Manager inquired if members of the Planning
26 Commission wished to review the proposed zoning ordinance page
37 by page . This appeared to be the choice of the Commission
38 members . The City Manager advised that Commissioner Faust had
29 phoned in his comments previously.
40
41 The following are the concerns and discussions of the members
42 of the Planning Commission and staff regarding the proposed
43 zoning ordinance:
44
45 1600 . 04 : Franzese noted that the word "building" includes the
46 word "structure. " The City Manager felt these two words could
47 be interchangeable. Madden disagreed as did Brownell who noted
48 that the word "building" includes the word "structure" but .not
49 vice versa.
50
51 1600 . 03 : Franzese observed that the date of adoption should be
examined regarding the status of the house on 33rd Avenue
which is presently involved in court proceedings . It is non-
conforming.
' PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
3 PAGE 6
4
5 1605 . 01 : Gondorchin noted that the. definition of an alley
6 width was thirty feet . He stated that there are streets in the
7 City which are narrower than that . Madden noted that smaller
8 dimensions could be considered as there are some alleys in the
9 City of Minneapolis which are fourteen feet . Gondorchin
10 suggested width may not need to be included in the definition
11 nor even be an issue .
12
13 1605. 01: Franzese noted that "apartment" includes in its definition
14 that it is designed for use as an independent residence. She
15 observed that this conflicts with Chandler Place. Madden stated
16 that an occupant of Chandler Place must have a doctor' s statement
17 saying they are capable of independent living to reside there.
18 Murphy observed that an apartment could also be in a single family
19 district, such as a mother-in-law apartment. The City Manager
20 advised this type of arrangement must be labeled as "shared" rental
31 property. Madden recalled there is a property locate don Foss Road
22 which has rental property and is considered a tri-plex. He inquired
33 as to the zoning for this building Werenicz thought it was zoned R-
24 2 .
25
2
Gondorchin stated that duplexes and multiple family are used
interchangeably and should not be . These terms are defined on
29 page 4 of the Zoning Ordinance .
30
31 Referring to the definition of a "deck" , Gondorchin stated he
32 feels this should be reviewed as decks are much more prevalent
33 since the ordinance was first written .
34
35 Murphy observed that "carport" was included in the former
36 version of the ordinance but is not included in the ' new
37 version . Carports were discussed and a number of the
38 Commissioners expressed their dislike for these structures .
39
40 Brownell felt the difference between screening and fencing
41 should be included in the fencing section of the ordinance.
42
43 Murphy suggested that "dwelling" and "dwelling unit" be
44 consistent with the census . The City Manager noted that this
45 portion of the new ordinance is the same as the old ordinance,
46 but he will find out what criteria was used.
47
48 Werenicz stated that the definition of "garage sale" clearly
49 needs further clarification, noting this would not include any
50 items for sale on a given property which could constitute a
51 yard sale or an estate sale. He feels the present definition
is too narrow.
'r PLANNING COMMISSION
_ SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
3 ME 7
4
5
6 Murphy noted that the definition of "patio homes" in the old
7 ordinance needed to be reviewed as the condos on Foss Road and
8 the Harstad development do not meet the current definition .
9 Madden explained that owners of condos do not own the land
10 under their building. Townhome owners own the building as well
11 as the land . Brownell felt the term "patio home" was a
12 marketing term.
13
14 Werenicz felt there was a typographical error in Section
15 1615 . 01 referring to "Purpose. " The City Manager agreed and
16 said it should ' be "R-1" not "R-2" .
17
18 Murphy noted that in the single family district there is a
19 reference to "detached housing." and that a carport is
20 considered -an accessory use . It was understood that carports
21 can be removed .
22
23 Franzese observed that permitted conditional uses previously
24 included day care facilities . . It has been omitted in the new
25 draft of the ordinance. Brownell stated that this type of
facility is referred to in the state licensed facilities
section of the ordinance. The City Manager noted that the City
060
has no control over state licensed facilities .
29
30 In response to a question regarding structural damage, Urbia
31 advised that if over seventy-five percent of a structure which
32 is being used in a non-conforming use is destroyed, the owner
33 would not be allowed to rebuild with the intention of using
34 the building in the same manner .
35
36 Gondorchin referred to a permitted accessory use regarding
37 swimming pools . The City Manager stated that the fifty foot
38 requirement has already been challenged by the Watershed
39 District and the City -Council has acted on this matter. It has
40 been suggested that the setback be seventy-five feet and the
41 City Attorney is working on language to accommodate site
42 lines , screening, and fencing concerns .
43
44 Franzese had concern with the front yard setback requirement
45 of thirty feet . She specifically noted this would be a problem
46 on Silver Lane . The City Manager acknowledged this could be a
47 problem especially with lots located on Silver Lake. He stated
48 that language which noted a requirement of "depth of at least
49 thirty feet" is a consideration , otherwise unbuildable lots
5_0 could be created.
ap Kennels were discussed and the amount of animals which could
be kept on a person ' s property was also discussed. Kennel
5_4 control is a concern of the Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
3 PAGE 8
4
5
6 The issue of carports was again discussed. Some of the
7 Commissioners felt this type of structure should be removed
8 from the Code and not allowed.
. 9
10 1625. 05: Height dimension stated that no dwelling may exceed
11 thirty feet in height nor contain more than two stories .
12 Franzese observed that there are townhouses in the City which
13 exceed this height limit and this appeared to be a
14 discrepancy.
15
16 1635. 01 : It was noted that there are no areas presently zoned
17 B Service/Office District in the City. The City Manager
18 inquired if the Commissioners felt this section should be kept
19 or deleted. Brownell felt something should be included to keep
20 commercial zoning for the ease of the sale of property.
21 Gondorchin agreed and noted this could be a protective
22 purpose.
23
24 Those sections which address commercial properties do not
25 address adult bookstores nor bingo halls . These matters will
be referred to the City Attorney.
There were questions regarding the floor area ratio not
29 exceeding 1 . 0 . The City Manager felt this was really saying
30 building could be done on green space.
31
32 Brownell felt there were contradictions for minimum setback
33 requirements between subdivisions . The City Manager said this
34 section needs to be made more understandable. He also noted
35 that the definition of "slope" must be clarified.
36
37 Gondorchin had concern regarding the number of parking spaces
38 required for fast food, take out and convenience restaurants .
39 Madden shared this concern and also mentioned parking
40 requirements for travel trailers and campers . He cited an
41 instance where some citizens routinely allowed relatives to
42 live in their motor home . He felt the term " living" should be
43 defined.
44
45 Brownell felt curb cuts should be reviewed.
46
47 1655. 07 : It was noted that truck trailers are not allowed to
48 project into the public streets . It was suggested that "any
49 portion thereof" be included in this section.
50
51 Some members of the Planning Commission requested the history
of permitted trees and tree planting be obtained. The City
Manager mentioned the reforestation program presently going on
in the City.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
• SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991
PAGE 9
9
5
6 One of the comment.s received from Commissioner Faust was
7 regarding soil removal and filling. He suggested that beaches
8 be added to the section which requires an application for a
9 permit must be made before this procedure is conducted.
10
11 The City . Manager suggested that a public hearing be held
12 before any structure is permitted to be moved into the City.
13 He referred to the problems encountered with the home which
.14 was moved onto a lot on 33rd Avenue.
15
16 16`60 .06: Submission of Final Plan was discussed and it was
17 felt that the plan received by the Planning Commission was not
18 actually the final plan but rather the preliminary plan and
19 that additions and changes can be made to these plans after
20 they have been viewed by the Planning Commission. The City
21 Manager advised that the final plan is viewed by staff and the
22 Planning Commission holds the public hearing regarding the
23 plan. Brownell stated he prefers that the Planning Commiss,ion
24 be the body which views the final plan initially.
25
26 Franzese observed that the Planning Commission approved the
continuation of a non-conforming use with the approval of the
go Preussner variance at tonight ' s meeting.
30 The City Manager noted that Councilmember Wagner had requested
31 that the City Attorney include in the ordinance revision an
32 expiration time for variances which have been approved. He had
33 suggested that one year from time of approval would. be
34 appropriate.
35
36 The City Attorney will be working on the Sign Ordinance when
37 the Zoning Ordinance revisions have been completed.
38
39 7 . ADJOURNMENT .
40
41 Motion by Franzese, . second by Murphy to adjourn the Planning
42 Comission Meeting at 10 : 02 p.m. .
43
44 Motion carried unanimously
45
46 Respectfully submitted,
47
48
49
50 Jo-Anne Student , Planning Commission Secretary
51
52