HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07161996 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101036
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTESAND AGENDAS 1996
Document: PL MINUTES 07161996
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 JULY 16, 1996
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chair Thompson at
6 - 7:01 p.m.
7
8 II. ROLL CALL.
9 Commissioners present: Commissioners Delmonico, Gondorchin, Horst, Makowske, and
10 Thompson. Commissioner Franzese arrived at 7:03.
11 Commissioners absent: Chair Bergstrom
12 Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant; Cathy Sorensen,
13 Recording Secretary.
14 HI. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 16, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
15 Public Hearing Item B, C. William and Susan Lutterman,Rear Yard Setback Variance Request,was
16 requested to be moved to the first item heard. Moved by Gondorchin, seconded by Makowske,to
17 approve the Planning Commission Agenda for July 16, 1996, as amended.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously.
qIV. APPROVAL OF JUNE 18 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
22 Page 1, Line 28, add "due to conflict of interest."
23 Page 8, Line 18, add "recalled proposal was done in the 1980s."
24 Motion by Gondorchin,seconded by Franzese,to approve the Planning Commission minutes of June
25 18, 1996, as corrected.
26
-27 - - Motion carried unanimously, -
28 V. DESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE.
29 Commissioner Horst was appointed as the Planning Commission representative for the Tuesday,July
30 23, 1996, City Council meeting.
31 VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
32 A. Rear Yard Setback Variance Request- C. William and Susan Lutterman, 3433 Croft Drive
33 (96-09)
34 Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes,Management
35 Assistant, read the report to the Commission:
36
37 BACKGROUND:
Mr. and Mrs. Lutterman, owners of the property at 3433 Croft Drive, have submitted a rear yard
setback variance request of 18 feet so that they may be able to build a porch and deck on the back
40 side of their house. The house is situated on a corner lot and also sits in the rear yard setback by two
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• July 16, 1996
Page 2
1 inches. Because they purchased the house as built, they are unable to make any improvements to
2 this side of the house without a variance.
3 The construction of this proposed addition will not impact the lot coverage requirement. Once the
4 project is complete, the total footprint of the residence will occupy 2,861 square feet, or 24.7% of
5 the total property square footage of 11,586.6. The City Ordinance restricts lot coverage to 35%.
6 As indicated in their letter submitted with the application, a porch and deck addition to their home
7 would be consistent with other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. They have contacted their
8 immediate neighbors that would be impacted most by this addition and received favorable responses
9 from them. Staff have not received any information from anyone in the neighborhood who objects
10 to the proposed addition.
11 RECOMMENDATION:
12 Staff recommends approval of the variance request of 18 feet,provided that the applicants complete
13 the porch and deck construction within 12 months as stipulated in the City Zoning Ordinance. The
14 applicants have demonstrated hardships that make it impossible to improve their property in any way
15 that would make it usable. They purchased property that has a residential structure already sitting
16 in the rearyard setback thereby precluding the construction of a porch and deck without a variance.
4N It is also a corner lot which is required by the Zoning Ordinance to have at least 11,000 square feet.
Because of the unusual configuration of the house,they are unable to make improvements on much
19 of their property.
20 Mr. Lutterman reviewed the proposed porch and deck addition for the Planning Commission. He
21 noted the addition would be 24 feet, 10 inches from the property line,and would begin with the deck
22 portion, with the porch being added the first part of next year.
23 Commissioner Makowske inquired if there was any other way the property could be improved. Mr.
24 Lutterman stated there is no potential to enjoy any outdoor activity at the home now due to insects.
25 He stated other homes in the area have similar porches added, and noted if his home was on a
26 standard lot with adequate side yard he would not need a variance request to allow an addition.
27 Commissioner Makowske stated the home is on an unusually shaped lot, which could be viewed as
28 a hardship,one of the criteria for a variance. Mr.Lutterman agreed,and stated the home was already
29 built when he purchased the property and cannot change the placement of the home. He also stated
30 he has spoken with the neighbors and have received their support. He noted the wall that will face
31 the neighbor most impacted by the addition will have no window openings,and the distance between
32 the two dwellings will be 10 feet, four inches.
33 Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m.
0 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Franzese,to approve the rear yard setback variance request for
35 C. William and Susan Lutterman as presented,based on meeting the three criteria for variances and
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 16, 1996
• Page 3
1 that a certificate of survey has been completed. Commissioner Franzese amended the motion to add
2 that the neighbors are supportive of the variance.
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4 Vice Chair Thompson invited Mr. and Mrs. Lutterman to attend the July 23, 1996, Council meeting
5 where a final decision will be made.
6
7 B. Rezoning Request - Howard and Dorene Krueger, 3631 Hardin? Street N.E. (96-08)
8 Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes,Management.
9 Assistant; read the report to the Commission:
10 BACKGROUND:
11 Howard and Dorene Krueger have submitted an application for the rezoning of their property at 3631
12 Harding Street. As they indicated in their application letter,they are requesting this zoning change
13 to accommodate their desire to rent out a portion of their home to unrelated adults. Mr. and Mrs.
14 Krueger explained that their children no longer live at home, leaving them with a space that is
15 available to rent. This request is also being put forward because there is R-2 zoning adjacent to their
16 property on the north side.
Currently,the house has only one kitchen which the share with their tenants. If the are anted
Y � Y Y �'
18 their rezoning request,they would install an additional kitchen facility in the lower level,where their
19 tenants reside. Staff have also spoken to Mr. Krueger about the need to comply with other building
20 and fire code issues.
21 In 1984, Mr. and Mrs. Krueger initially petitioned for a rezoning of this property. At the time they
22 were planning to build their home with an apartment on the lower level to accommodate a parent
23 living-with them. The Krueger's indicated that this-apartment could be later turned into an income
24 producing situation for them. Because of much neighborhood opposition,the Planning Commission
25 recommended denial of the application and the Krueger's withdrew their application.
26 ANALYSIS•
27 The property is in an R-1 zoning district and approving the petitioner's request would result in "spot
28 zoning",which is counter to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Land Use
29 Plan.
30
31 The purpose of the R-1 Zoning District is to create, promote, and maintain areas which have low
32 traffic volumes and because of historical development patterns are best suited for single-family
33 detached residences (1615.01 Purpose). Single family homes are the only residential structures in
34 the R-1 Zoning District of the City.
0 The current Comprehensive Plan shows the area as an R-1 Zoning District. In order to change the
36 Comprehensive Plan, the City is required to file a proposed amendment with the Metropolitan
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 16, 1996
• Page 4
1 Council. This process to amend the City's Plan can take up to six weeks to complete. This is the
2 minimum amount of time required by the Metropolitan staff when evaluating a proposal for minor
3 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
4 Several neighbors have also called City Hall to voice their concern for the neighborhood should this
5 rezoning request be allowed. They feel there will be an increase in traffic causing the area to lose
6 its quiet,residential nature. An R-2 Zoning District currently exists to the north of the neighborhood
7 and the feelings expressed indicate that multi-family dwellings should remain in those areas
8 specifically zoned for them.
9 RECOMMENDATION:
10 Staff recommends denial of the application.
11 Mr. Krueger stated he is currently renting two rooms to tenants and there would be no increase in
12 traffic or any other aspect other than the addition of a kitchen in the lower level.
13 Alice Beerman, 3632 Coolidge Street N.E., stated that in 1984 Mr. Krueger stated the rooms would
14 not be used for rental units, only as a mother-in-law type apartment. She stated Mr. Krueger does
15 not keep his landscaping in good order, and recommends denial of the application.
Mr.John Goering,3615 Harding Street N.E.,stated the zoning will live beyond the property and will
17 affect the City after Mr. Krueger is no longer living there. He stated Mr. Krueger has recently had
18 the property offered for sale,and believes the rezoning request is to help in the sale of the property.
19 Mr. Rick Werenicz, 3606 Harding Street N.E., stated Mr. Krueger requested rezoning in 1984 for
20 financial reasons. He stated the neighborhood helped defeat that request for spot rezoning,but have
21 still seen an increase in traffic in the neighborhood due to people renting at the Kruegers' property.
22 He stated Mr. Krueger did not live at the-address for.a period of time, and-rented rooms to four to-
23 six adults with six cars,motorcycles, and a boat. He stated the three-car garage on the property was
24 not available to the individuals renting at the Kruegers', so the vehicles and other items had to be
25 parked outside.
26 Doris Mancino, 3626 Harding Street N.E., stated she was presenting a petition to the Planning
27 Commission with signatures from the neighborhood opposing this rezoning request.
28 Commissioner Makowske stated the current land use is R-1 with R-2 as a broader buffer area, and
29 that changing a portion would be spot zoning. He stated there are no other plans for the area in the
30 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and that R-1 is the highest and best use for the property area and
31 should remain R-1 in light of this and neighborhood opposition.
Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• July 16, 1996
Page 5
1 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Delmonico,to recommend denial of the re-zoning request for
2 Howard and Dorene Krueger as presented, based on the exemption of spot zoning and setting a
3 precedent.
4 Vice Chair Thompson stated that spot zoning sets a precedent.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 The Vice Chair invited Mr. Krueger to attend the Council meeting on July 23, 1996, where a final
7 decision will be made.
8
9 VII. MISCELLANEOUS.
10 A. Concept Review of Proposed Attached Garage Addition- Mr. and Mrs. Bill Hedberg 2509
11 30th Avenue N.E.
12 Mr. Robert Schmidt, 6001 4th Street N.E., Fridley, stated he is representing Mr. and Mr. Hedberg
13 during this garage addition process. Mr. Schmidt gave on overview of the garage addition plans for
14 the Planning Commission. He stated the side yard setback for the garage addition has been reduced
15 from 15 feet to 10 feet. He stated the west side would be five feet from the lot line, with plenty of
16 setback on the east side but full cement driveway to four to five feet from the lot line. Mr. Schmidt
stated the garage will be a 20-foot wide two-car garage with a 16-foot door in front and nine-foot
41 door in the back. He stated the Hedberg's' granddaughter is moving in and additional garage space
19 is needed for one car and a trailer, with a small workshop area as well. He stated the exterior will
20 be stucco, consistent with the home, with the same roof line. Mr. Schmidt stated he will be doing
21 the construction with the Hedberg's' son. He stated a certificate of survey has been completed, and
22 offered photographs of the current home for the Commission's review.
23 . Commissioner Franzese inquired if a formal survey had been done. Mr. Schmidt stated one was
24 completed three weeks ago. _
25 Commissioner Horst stated there currently is a five-foot setback on the existing home and inquired
26 if a variance had been done at some point. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the home existing before the
27 zoning district was established and would have to research that question.
28 Commissioner Horst inquired if the variance cannot be grandfathered in. Mr. Schmidt stated it
29 cannot as the proposed garage will be attached to the existing home.
30 Commissioner Horst inquired if the existing detached garage will remain. Mr. Schmidt stated the
31 Hedberg's intend to keep the existing garage.
32 Commissioner Horst inquired if the applicants have met the three criteria for a variance. Mr.
40
Schmidt stated they have met the criteria, and will outline the reasons in the application.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• July 16, 1996
Page 6
1 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired what would be on the neighboring side of the proposed addition.
2 Mr. Schmidt stated there would be a small strip of lawn and remaining cement driveway.
3 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if the applicants had any comments from the neighbors
4 regarding this addition. Mr. Schmidt stated the applicants intend to continue to hip style roof which.
5 would not interfere with.sunlight and view from the street for the neighbors, and therefore had no
6 objections to the addition.
7 Commissioner Makowske reiterated Commissioner Horst's comment on the importance of meeting
8 the variance criteria. Mr. Schmidt stated they had met the criteria and have outlined the reasons in
9 the application. He stated the Hedberg's have spent several thousand dollars during this process,
10 and had no choice in how the garage was originally constructed as they purchased the existing home.
11 Commissioner Gondorchin stated a permit process was developed to address garage addition and
12 suggested the applicants follow this process rather than a variance.
13 Commissioner Franzese noted her neighbors had a garage addition built and had only three feet from
14 the setback area from the eave and did not need a variance.
Commissioner Gondorchin.stated the permit process may be more appropriate.
16 Discussion was held on City Ordinance 1650.02 (B). Mr. Schmidt stated the construction would
17 meet fire code standards, with 5/8 fire code sheetrock and a 20-minute fire code door.
18 Commissioner Horst stated that staff and the applicant should review the possibility of the permit
19 process in order to avoid a variance.
20 B. Concept Review of the Proposed Addition to St. Anthony Health Care Center.-Mike Miller.
21 Mr. Michael Miller, Administrator of St. Anthony Health Care Center, Mr. Michael Trossen,
22 Architect, and Mr. Dwayne Warren, Project Manager, presented to the Planning Commission the
23 concept review for the proposed addition to St. Anthony Health Care Center.
24 Mr. Miller stated the property was subdivided in March to prepare for the expansion and to meet
25 financing needs. He stated the Center received the rights to expand on March 11, 1996, and was the
26 first of 19 submissions to the State for a moratorium on expansion. He stated the addition would
27 include 12 rooms on the lower level, with four-bed wards for residents. Mr. Miller stated the
28 addition would be a two-story, 16,000-square foot addition, for a total of 32,000 square feet on the
29 existing parking lot. He stated the pine tree circle drive at Chandler Place would be eliminated for
30 a 30-foot wide bituminous entrance to the garage area for drop-off and pick-up of residents. He
31 stated that code required 144 parking stalls for this addition, which have been designed.
is Mr. Miller stated that variances will likely be needed for the following:
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• July 16, 1996
Page 7
1 1) Parking in the Setback. Parking in the setback at Foss Road and Chandler Drive. He stated
2 the ordinance requires a 30-foot setback when the sideyard is adjacent to a public right-of-
way.
4 2) Lot Coverage. Mr. Miller stated the ordinance calls for a maximum of 50% lot coverage for
5 R-4, and that the proposed addition required an increase in parking will cause lot coverage
6 to increase to 56%
7 3) Rear Yard Setback Variance. Mr. Miller stated the addition will require a 25-foot variance
8 in the rear yard due to the close proximity of the existing St. Anthony Health Care Center
9 and Chandler Place. The ordinance requires a rear yard setback of 40 feet.
10 4) Side Yard Setback Variance. Mr. Miller stated the southwest corner of the addition requires
11 a seven-foot variance. The ordinance requires a 15-foot setback for each side.
12 Mr. Miller stated a Conditional Use Permit may be needed to allow a nursing home, but his staff is
13 still unsure. He stated a Conditional Use Permit was not required in 1967 when the facility was
14 built, but is required now.
Mr. Miller stated another issue may be the square footage of the proposed rooms. He noted City
Ordinance 163 0.05,Page 1621, states that regular efficiency units be a minimum of 500 square feet,
17 and one-bedroom be a minimum of 650 square feet. Mr. Miller stated the proposed addition will
18 have units of 260 square feet for efficiency units to 380 square feet for one-bedroom units. He noted
19 the residents of these units will have housekeeping and laundry services provided as well as three
20 meals per day. He stated there have been a number of these types of units built in the Twin Cities
21 area and none approach the 500-square foot size.
22 Mr. Miller noted a neighborhood meeting has been.scheduled for Wednesday; July 24th at 6:30 in
- 23 the community room at the Center to inform the neighbors of the proposed addition and to answer
24 any questions they may have.
25 Commissioner Franzese stated she had seen a recent article that the Center had obtained approval
26 by the Rice Creek Watershed District. Mr. Miller stated he was misquoted, and will soon begin the
27 approval process, but has not as of yet.
28 Commissioner Franzese inquired if the neighboring school will still allow parking on an as-needed
29 basis. Mr. Miller stated he will verify with the new principal, but did not anticipate any problem
30 with his staff parking in the school lot on evenings and weekends when special resident events are
31 being held in order to allow room for additional visitor parking.
Commissioner Franzese stated that approval from the Rice Creek Watershed, lot coverage, and the
46 catch basin are all mitigating factors in the approval process. He stated the new addition will allow
34 for all deliveries to be sent to the loading dock.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• July 16, 1996
Page 8 -
1 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if Mr. Miller has spoken with Mr. John Madden regarding his
2 concerns for the addition. Mr. Miller stated he has spoken with Mr. Madden on several occasions
3 regarding the project.
4 Mr. Miller noted the catch basin has been sufficient even during hard rains.
5 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if the additional parking has raised any fire protection issues
6 by Chief Johnson. Mr. Miller stated he has received approval by Chief Johnson for fire vehicles to
7 drive in the circle area and back out.
8 Commissioner Horst inquired how emergency calls are handled at the Center. Mr. Miller stated that
9 the drop-off area is used for emergencies at Chandler Place and the Foss Road entrance is used for
10 emergencies at the Center.
11 Commissioner Horst inquired how main traffic flow is handled. Mr. Miller stated traffic goes
12 diagonally to Foss Road. He stated the main entrance on Foss Road is used for traffic flow.
13 Commissioner Franzese congratulated Mr. Miller on receiving approval by the State for the
14 expansion.
Commissioner Franzese inquired of the moratorium approval list. Mr. Miller stated there were four
17 . approved of the 19 applications; three in the metro area and one in northern Minnesota. He stated
18 there will likely be 25 new applications this year, with only three or four approved due to limited
19 resources.
20 Vice Chair Thompson stated this will be a nice project and admired Mr. Miller's ambition. Mr.
21 Miller stated that footings are scheduled for this fall, then a temporary reconfiguration of parking
22 during construction with a first course of blacktop and fence on the lot-perimeter. He stated the
23 construction should be complete within one year,then remodeling of the lower level rooms will take
24 place so no residents will need to relocate.
25 C. Letter from Ramsey County RE: Bridge Renovation on Silver Lake Road.
26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated a letter was received from Ramsey County regarding planned renovations
27 of the bridge over the railroad tracks on Silver Lake Road. She stated the Council asked that it be
28 shared with the Planning Commission for their consideration regarding any streetscaping ideas for
29 the area, such as lighting, decorative sidewalk surfaces,plantings, etc.
30 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired who would pay for the streetscaping costs. Ms. Moore-Sykes
31 stated the City would pay for the costs.
32
Commissioner Gondorchin stated that a vibrant, inviting color should be incorporated into any
streetscape plan as the area could serve as a gateway to the new Apache Plaza.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 16, 1996
• Page 9
1 Commissioner Gondorchin stated that any landscaping must be maintained in order to remain
2 attractive. He cited Hiawatha Avenue streetscape as an example of landscaping not maintained.
3 Commissioner Franzese stated this is a"Catch-22" situation,as it is a priority item because of traffic.
4 She stated she encouraged Ms. Moore-Sykes to contact Ramsey County to obtain their five-year plan
5 for projects such as these.
6 Commissioner Gondorchin cited Trillium Park as an example of a good visual impact.
7 Commissioner Makowske inquired who would maintain any streetscaping project. Ms. Moore-
8 Sykes stated it would be the City's responsibility to maintain the areas.
9 Commissioner Delmonico noted the area from the railroad tracks goes from businesses to parks,
10 encompassing Rapid Oil,Amoco, Taco Bell, etc. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the area could be made
11 more aesthetically pleasing.
12 Vice Chair Thompson noted the area near Silver Lake Road and County Road D is very nice, as
13 Silver Lake can now be seen.
D. Comments.
Ms. Moore-Sykes noted a letter was included in the Commission packet regarding the Verkins
16 Addition. She stated Mildred Verkins would like to sell the property adjacent to Highway 88 for use
17 in construction of twin or town homes, and would like to know what position the City will take on
18 a project such as this. She stated the current R-1 zoning district use was grandfathered in during the
19 1960s, and if not used for a 12-month period then the rights are lost.
20 Commissioner Gondorchin stated a concept review would be needed. Commissioner Horst stated
21 this would be similar to the rezoning request earlier on-the agenda. - -
22 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Mr. Larry Hamer, Public Works Director, received a letter from Tom
23 Schroeder, 3929 Fordham Drive, stating he is planning to complete the work on the exterior of his
24 home by mid-August. She stated staff was not sure what prompted the letter.
25 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated a preliminary site plan was included in the packet for a proposed SAVII
26 Liquor store. She stated that the City and First Bank had renegotiated the existing lease until the
27 new store could be built. She stated the plan placed the liquor store in the back third of the building,
28 and noted one or two variances may be needed.
29 Commissioner Franzese noted that vibrations generated by the adjoining automotive shop may be
30 an issue to the liquor store with the bottles on site.
is Commissioner Franzese inquired if anyone attended the Metropolitan Livable Communities
32 workshop. No one stated they attended.
i
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
July 16, 1996
• Page 10
1 Commissioner Franzese stated an article was written in the Bloomington newspaper regarding
2 control tower issues and regulations on placement and height limitations. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated
3 that TEA Group of Atlanta, the company looking to lease tower space in St. Anthony, went
4 elsewhere when the City stated that the lease would be $1,000 per month.
5 Commissioner Franzese inquired of the progress of CUB Foods. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated there was
6 now a large retention pond in place, with the building pad beginning August 1 st.
7 Commissioner Horst inquired why the 60-foot glass section of the current plan differed from the
8 original plan. He noted it appeared to now be an additional entrance into the mall.
9
10 VII. ADJOURNMENT.
11 Motion by Horst, seconded by Delmonico, to adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously.
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Sorensen
TimeSaver-Off Site Secretarial
•