HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 05171994 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
101188
Box: 19
Folder. PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1994
Document: PL MINUTES 05171994
• 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
4
5 May 17, 1994
6
7 Chair Gondorchin opened the meeting at 8:01 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance.
8
9 Commissioners Present: Gondorchin, Faust, Thompson, Bergstrom, Horst, Makowske.
10 Commissioner Franzese arrived at 8:24 P.M.
11
12 Also present: Larry Hamer, Interim City Manager
13
14 Commissioner Makowske noted that he would not participate during Agenda Item #6 since he is
15 related to the persons involved and is helping with the project. He will step down at that time for
16 that portion of the meeting.
17
18 APPROVAL OF APRIL 19, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
19
20 Motion by Makowske and seconded by Thompson, to approve the April 19, 1994 Planning.
21 Commission minutes with the following changes:
•22
23 Page 2, line 5: Change "pre-determined" to "pre-approved".
24 Page 7, line 37: Change "Makowske" to "Gondorchin".
25 Page 8, line 36: Add "to" after "suggested
26 Page 10, line 15: Change "Bennett's" to "Beckman's"
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
3o DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE JUNE 14, 1994 CITY
31 COUNCIL MEETING.
32
33 Commissioner Bergstrom will represent the Planning Commission at the City Council's June 14,
34 1994 meeting.
35
36 PUBLIC HEARINGS
37
38 Paul and Susan Johnson. 2800-36th Avenue N.E., fence variance request.
39
40 Chair Gondorchin opened the public hearing at 8:05 P.M. for a petition for a fence variance request
41 for Paul and Susan Johnson, 2800-36th Avenue N.E. Notices of the public hearing had been
42 published in the St.Anthony Bulletin ori May 4, 1994--and-mailed to property-owners within 200 feet- - -—
•43 of the subject property and no letters against the request were received.
44
45
• 1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 2
4
5 Staff Report
6
7 Interim City Manager Larry Hamer told the Commissioners that this is a request for a six foot fence
8 forward to the front yard setback. The lot is an "odd" lot with a 20 foot back yard, which makes it
9 difficult to put a fenced in area there. The 6 foot fence would come to the front yard setback holding
10 it back from the road's right-of-way line. Mr. Johnson stated that they were also asking to have their
11 side yard designated as a back yard. This would let them have the normal function of a back yard.
12
13
14 Interim City Manager Hamer stated that the normal corner lot size is 90 feet; the Johnson's house
15 is facing 36th Avenue N.E., so the configuration is odd.
16
17 Commissioner Makowske asked Interim City Manager Hamer if the Commission can define front
18 versus side yards. Hamer replied that the Commission could recommend to the City Council to do
19 so and that this type of action has precedence.
20
21 Commissioner Horst asked if this was a unique situation. Interim City Manager Hamer stated that
•22 the Johnsons have a 90 foot frontage, and an average back yard is 130 feet by 90 feet. The Johnson
23 lot has 130 feet at the front of the house and 75 feet at the side of the house,which is usually the long
24 end of the lot so the house is sitting in an unusual way. Horst stated that he had seen the site, and
25 it seems to be the only one with the house facing 36th Avenue N.E.. Hamer stated that the house
26 across the street is set facing that street, and other houses are also facing it. The Johnson's house
27 should have faced Harding.
28
29 Commissioner Faust stated the house should have faced the 90 foot side of the lot. Further, he felt
30 that there are two variance requests, one for designation of having the fence in the side yard setback
31 and one for the height of the fence. Interim City Manager Hamer stated that the fence height is
32 related to the setback. The fence cannot be placed forward to the setback and be more than four feet
33 high, and the Johnsons are asking for a six foot fence. Faust asked if the back yard fence can be 6
34 feet high. Hamer stated that a fence from the front setback to the rear of the property can be six feet
35 in height.
36
37 Commissioner Faust asked if the fence would go from lot line to lot line on 36th Avenue N.E.. Mr.
38 Johnson responded that what is allowed is fifteen feet from the curb or thirty feet from the center of
39 the road. Hamer stated that the drawing shows the lot but not the city right-of-way. Commissioner
40 Faust asked how many feet beyond the house the fence extended. Mr. Johnson indicated it was 30
41 feet. Faust asked if that was 30 feet from the front of the house and Commissioner Bergstrom asked
42 if that was from the street. The fence will be 15-feet from the street.- Hamer stated that owners-are - -
•
43 allowed to put a fence up to the right-of-way,the only difference is the height. They are allowed to
44 put a 4 foot fence up without a variance. Chair Gondorchin verified that the issue is the height of
45 the fence, not the placement. When Faust asked Mr. Johnson why he wanted a 6 foot fence rather
• 1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 3
4
5 than a 4 foot fence, Mr. Johnson replied that this would provide more privacy and would make the
6 fence uniform. Mr. Johnson stated his request is for the side yard to be designated as his back yard
7 so he can erect a 6 foot fence.
8
9 The public hearing was closed at 8:20 P.M.
10
11 Commissioner Thompson stated he drove by the property and that the posts were in. The property
12 is beautifully maintained and he thinks Mr. Johnson will maintain the fence the same way.
13
14 Commissioner Faust noted that the three conditions required to grant a variance have not been met.
15 He pointed out that this same issue came up in a concept review for the property on 37th and Silver
16 Lake Road. and the Commission did not recommend approval of that request. Faust indicated he
17 is in favor of recommending the Council decline this request.
18
19 Commissioner Makowske wondered if a hardship would be shown if, under the code, the rear yard
20 must have a depth equal to the greater of 20% of the depth line of the entire lot or 25 feet. Chair
21 Gondorchin stated that according to the strict letter of the law he would have to agree with
•22 Commissioner Faust that justification of this variance is difficult. He doesn't believe that strict
23 enforcement in this case would create an undue hardship to the owner. Gondorchin added that
24 Faust's example of the house on 37th is a good one. On that case,these conditions are unique to the
25 individual lot.
26
27 Commissioner Horst said that if the house was oriented to the other houses on 36th Avenue N.E.,
28 the area of the proposed fencing would be the back yard and the fence would then be in compliance.
29 Horst stated that currently it does not appear to be a reasonable back yard. and that there are peculiar
30 physical surroundings.
31
32 Commissioner Franzese said there is precedence in the City. The interpretation as to the front of the
33 house determines the yard. Commissioner Horst asked if there is a precedent for changing the
34 designation of the yard and Hamer stated there is. Franzese stated that if this is not in the ordinance,
35 it was intended to be in there for that interpretation and that this request is about interpretation.
36
37 Commissioner Horst felt that if there is precedence where the yard can be redesignated, there
38 shouldn't be a problem. Horst asked if the ordinance designates 6 feet for all but the front yard fence,
39 could the side yard fence be 6 feet. Chair Gondorchin stated that the fence from the front setback
40 to the front of the house could only be four feet.
41
42 Mr. Johnson said he applied for a variance fora 6`foot fence to the side-yard setback. Chair
•43 Gondorchin stated the issue is the side yard designation. Commissioner Makowske and
44 Commissioner Faust again discussed changing the designation, and the two-part nature of the
45
• 1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 4
4
5 variance request. Makowske stated that the Commission should first deal with the height issue. If
6 the height issue fails, it then becomes an issue of changing yard designations.
7
8 Chair Gondorchin stated that no letters against the fence have been received. Commissioner
9 Franzese stated that if the front of the house is interpreted to be facing Coolidge for setback
10 purposes, no variance would be needed for the height of the proposed fence.
11
12 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Horst to recommend the City Council designate the side yard as
13 the backyard for the purpose of the fence height for Paul and Sue Johnson, 2800-36th Avenue N.R.
14
15 Commissioner Faust wondered how people can be told this is logical. Chair Gondorchin stated there
16 is no legal or logical reason to support the motion. Commissioner Franzese requested to include the
17 following in the motion: the topography of the current back yard prevents usage as the house is
18 currently sited. This would relieve an undue hardship caused via City Ordinance.
19
20 Chair Gondorchin reviewed the motion: to recommend Council approval of Coolidge as the front
21 yard,which makes the height variance a moot point. The Commission is also asking that the City
•22 re-examine codes and past presidence regarding interpretation of side yards and front yards.
23 Furthermore, the topography has made the backyard of limited use and has created an undue
24 hardship.
25
26 Hamer stated that the current house is a nonconforming use- it is not in step with today's rules and
27 regulations. The nonconforming use will exist as long as the house is there. If the house were to be
28 damaged, removed, rehabilitated, etc.,that nonconforming use would be addressed at that time.
29
30 Commissioner Thompson asked how long the Johnsons had owned the property. Mr.Johnson stated
31 that they owned it for 14 months.
32
33 Commissioner Franzese asked to add nonconforming use with an abnormal lot size to her motion.
34 Chair Gondorchin stated that the motion had been made and seconded. Commissioner Horst
35 withdrew his second to the motion. Chair Gondorchin requested a second to the motion. None was
36 received.
37
38 The motion failed due to lack of a second.
39
40 Commissioner Bergstrom stated that he has no problem in the areas of aesthetics and safety if the
41 _ fence is 6 feet in height. However, in keeping with the mission of the Commission, he cannot
42 recommend the variance. Chair Gondorchin asked fora recommendation from the Commission.- - - -
•43
44 Motion by Faust, seconded by Bergstrom to recommend the Council deny the request for a fence
45 variance from Paul Johnson,2800-36th Avenue N.E. because the three conditions in the Minnesota
• 1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 5
4
5 statutes cannot be met. Faust noted that the Commission has to comply with the Minnesota statutes;
6 no variance of this nature has occurred during his tenure on the Commission;there are no compelling
7 reasons for a 6 foot fence height rather than a 4 foot fence; a 4 foot fence would give the family
8 privacy and maintain safety for the family and others who use the street.
9
10 Commissioner Franzese stated that she feels a 6 foot fence would be safer than a 4 foot fence. She
11 stated that staff will have the opportunity to research this issue. Commissioner Makowske asked
12 Commissioner Faust if he would amend the motion so that if some legitimate route can be found
13 through the code,the City staff would be able to take that into consideration with regard to further
14 requests. Commissioner Faust stated that he would not accept that as an amendment, however, as
15 the variance process continues,and more information is received between now and the City Council
16 meeting, he assumes that that will happen. Chair Gondorchin asked for a vote on the motion.
17
18 Aye: Makowske, Bergstrom, Faust, Horst
19 Nay: Thompson, Franzese
20
21 Motion carried.
•22
23 Chair Gondorchin suggested that Mr. Johnson attend the June 14th Council meeting.
24
25 Commissioner Makowske stepped down from the Commission at this time and left the room. Chair
26 Gondorchin announced the concept review for MAKO, Inc..
27
28 Staff Report
29
30 Interim City Manager Hamer stated that the concept review being presented tonight is for the
31 MAKO, Inc. properties, represented by Mr. Chet Makowske. The property would need to be
32 rezoned from R2 to R4 for possible development. The owners want to be reasonably sure they will
33 be able to rezone before they proceed. In addition,there would be a need for variances for front and
34 back yard setbacks.
35
36 Commissioner Franzese inquired about the alley involved. Interim City Manger Hamer stated that
37 the alley is privately owned by the property owners, the City has never had control of that alley,
38 and that the alley would be removed. Another entrance/exit into the complex is part of the concept
39 review. Commissioner Horst asked why the request is to change the zoning to R4 and not R3.
40 Hamer explained that that was due to the population density of a townhouse structure. Hamer stated
41 that the original concept was for one structure,which would have been R4, but they are now asking
4 2 for townhouse zoning, which is R3-.-
0 43
3.•43
44 Chet Makowske spoke to the Commission, representing Don Makowske, Elaine Olson, who owns
45 the third property, and himself. He stated that he understands the Commission will not be actually
• 1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 6
4
5 voting on the project,the conditional use or the variances, and that this is a concept review prior to
6 getting a developer and to find out if any objections are present before proceeding. He corrected
7 some items on his letter of May 9th, they are: zoning changes from R4 to R3; density changed
8 from thirteen to twenty-three units,not twenty-eight as stated in the letter; under the conditional use
9 perr it,the townhouses would be owner-occupied; under the variances,the front yard setback from
10 30 feet to 20 feet and the back yard setback from 40 feet to 20 feet to maximize land use and to
11 provide more green and common areas to deal with the unusual topography and lot configuration.
12
13 'Mr. Makowske stated the shape of the land is unusual which makes it difficult to put the units in
14 without the variances; the alley is privately owned and is a waste of property behind the buildings
15 now. If parking lots and driveways are added the coverage will exceed the required 50 percent. They
16 anticipate one identification sign near the driveway entry and possibly directional signage to identify
17 the buildings locations. The St. Anthony Development and Redevelopment Task Force has this
18 property on their list. Handouts regarding the alleys were distributed to the Commissioners.
19
20 Mr. Makowske was asked to clarify the status of the proposed buildings. He stated they would be
21 for sale, and that there would be no rentals. Commissioner Faust asked the price range of the units.
22 Mr. Makowske stated about $100,000. Commissioner Faust asked why the density was lowered
23 from twenty-eight to twenty-three. Mr.Makowske stated that the first proposal for the condominium
24 building was scrapped, and all the new units would be uniform. Commissioner Faust asked what
25 the new plan is and Mr. Makowske responded that the drawing the Commissioners have is only a
26 concept;the number of bedrooms and garages is not set yet. Faust asked if the owners have talked
27 with the neighbors. Mr. Makowske stated they had and the neighbors were in favor of the site being
28 developed. Faust asked if the neighbors knew that townhouses were being planned for the site and
29 Mr. Makowske stated the neighbors did not know that because the owners still don't know what will
30 be going in there.
31
32 Chair Gondorchin stated he doesn't like variances for new construction and that he is not in favor
33 of rental property in that location. Gondorchin asked how many buildings are being proposed.
34 Interim City Manager Hamer stated that there would be six buildings. Commissioner Thompson
35 commented that even finding the property is currently difficult because of the brush.
36
37 Commissioner Franzese asked for a history of the current houses. Mr. Makowske stated that they
38 were single family homes. The 1800's house had been purchased by his parents while he was away
39 during the war. The building itself is stone and lime blocks, substantial but old. Chair Gondorchin
40 asked if complete demolition was planned versus upgrading. Mr. Makowske stated yes, and a small
41 retaining wall would be built on the street side. Hamer distributed a copy of the current plat to the
4 2 Commissioners. Commissioner Thompson asked if the rest of the buildings were owner-occupied.
�43 Mr. Makowske stated they were.
44
45
• 1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 7
4
5 Chair Gondorchin discussed parking spaces. Mr. Makowske stated that their developer, Schotzlein,
6 couldn't make this meeting, but would have more information on the proposal. Commissioner
7 Franzese stated that this was an exciting project, and would increase the City's tax base.
8
9 Commissioner Bergstrom asked about the property being on the Economic
10 Development/Redevelopment list. Interim City Manager Hamer stated that the property was not on
11 the Top Ten as an immediate priority. Commissioner Horst stated that this was an exciting proposal
12 but the Commission needs more information. He asked Hamer if the new drive would be a City
13 street. Mr. Hamer said it would be a private drive.
14
15 Faust counted twenty-three units and twelve parking spaces, which he doesn't feel is going to be
16 enough as required by ordinance. Also at issue is the two-car garages because the City is currently
17 against single-car garages in new developments. Mr. Makowske said they had planned on enclosed
18 garages for one car and parking. Faust stated a whole new ordinance was created to allow for older
19 houses with single garages. Mr. Makowske said he will pass these concerns on to the developer.
20 who will be at the next meeting. Chair Gondorchin indicated the unresolved issues are: visitor
21 parking, double garages,reduction in density to avoid variances and increasing the green space, as
22 well as more detailed plans. Commissioner Faust suggested that the owners look at the Harsted
23 development, which was one the Commission found acceptable. The Fire Chief should drive
24 through the area checking for ingress and egress of the property. Chair Gondorchin noted the green
25 space in the drawing is just at the circumference of the property.
26
27 Commissioner Franzese asked Mr. Makowske about the target dates and population of the project.
28 Mr. Makowske said that originally they designed condominiums in front, but the owners didn't like
29 that so it was redone quickly last week. Commissioner Bergstrom asked their roles as property
30 owners. Mr. Makowske stated that they had sold the property and had to repossess it. Over the
31 twelve years the other owners had it the property became run down. Mr. Makowske and his brother
32 Don live behind the property and hope to turn it into something nice. Chair Gondorchin asked about
33 the Makowske's alternatives if the zoning is not changed. Mr. Makowske indicated the houses are
34 obviously old,the six-plex was built in 1952,the farmhouse in the 1800's. Chair Gondorchin asked
35 about selling the lots as is and Mr. Makowske responded that the land is worth more than the
36 buildings. Commissioner Horst asked if all of the rentals were rented now. Mr. Makowske stated
37 they are. Horst asked what would happen to the current rental occupants if the development
38 proceeds. Mr. Makowske stated the renters would be given a thirty-day notice and possibly receive
39 some rent support.
40
- -41 -Gondorchin--asked Interim City_Manager Hamer if R2 zoning can have multiple family with fewer
42 homes. The Interim City Manager stated yes, that that was the zoning for double bungalow type-
43
ype43 homes, which results in fewer units. Gondorchin commented that these were premium lots.
44 Commissioner Faust stated that lot 20 could be an executive style on the point. He pointed out that
45 2930 Old Highway 8 is currently Rl, and the other four lots are zoned R2.
1 Planning Commission
2 May 17, 1994
3 Page 8
4
5 Commissioner Bergstrom stated he is generally cautious about changing zoning, but it might be a
6 better use in this instance. Commissioner Thompson stated he was in favor of the rezoning.
7 Commissioner Franzese stated that looking at the unusual dimensions, R3 was a much better use
8 of the land. Commissioner Horst stated he had seen the property,and would consider R2 rather than
9 R3 zoning. Horst stated one concern is that it may be difficult to get out of the drive, and the drive
10 would be hard to find unless the road was improved.
11
12 Commissioner Chris Makowske returned at this time.
13
14 Miscellaneous
15
16 Interim City Manager Hamer stated that regarding the 37th Avenue (Stop N Go) issue, the owner
17 withdrew his request.
18
19 Commissioner Bergstrom stated he had heard from Mr. Jake Cadwallader regarding signage. Hamer
20 stated that Mr. Cadwallader doesn't have to remove the frame. Hamer indicated he has been dealing
21 with this property's temporary sign since the business opened. The sign is nonconforming, and the
22 owner has had several letters from the City regarding this. The owner does not have a permit for the
23 sign. Hamer stated he has written the owner four letters in two years. Bergstrom asked about a
24 historical grace period. Hamer stated that the owner has indicated he will comply but never does.
25 The owner has not removed the temporary sign and Hamer said he is about ready to issue a citation.
26
27 Commissioner Thompson stated he had read about the financial problems of Apache Plaza. Hamer
28 indicated he understands that Cub's, lawyers and Apache's, lawyers are meeting, NewMarket is
29 leaving, and there will possibly be a Knox lumber on the north side of the mall. This will probably
30 be settled by October. Hamer stated the Cub store could be an 85,000 square foot store.
31
32 Commissioner Makowske indicated he had attended the last Economic Development/Redevelopment
33 meeting. The Task Force has prioritized undeveloped and underdeveloped lots and is discussing
34 proposed uses.
35
36 Motion by Franzese, second by Makowske to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 P.M.
37
38 Motion carried unanimously,
39
40
41 Respectfully submitted, _
42
�43
44 Lois J. Bjelke
45 Secretary