HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09161997 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
100961
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1997
Document: PL MINUTES 09161997
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Bergstrom at
6 7:05 P.M.
7 H. ROLL CALL.
8 Commissioners present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Delmonico, Franzese (arrived
9 at 7:07 P.M.), Gondorchin, Horst, Makowske (arrived at 7:15
10 P.M.), and Thompson.
11 Commissioners absent: None.
12 Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant.
13 III. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
14 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Horst, to approve the Planning Commission Agenda for
15 September 16, 1997 as presented.
16 Motion carried unanimously.
W IV. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 19, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES.
19 Motion by Gondorchin, seconded by Bergstrom, to approve the August 19, 1997 Planning
20 Commission Meeting minutes with the following changes:
21 Page 2, Line 19: Replace "Chair Bergstrom" with "Vice Chair Makowske";
22 Page 3, Line 25: Replace "Chair Bergstrom" with "Vice Chair Makowske";
23 Page 6, Line 27: Replace "Chair Bergstrom" with "Vice Chair Makowske";
24 Page 12, Lines 11,12: Replace "to sell the center" with "the eventual intent of the St.
25 Anthony Shopping Center owner to sell the center." and strike
26 the sentence "He commented...locally-owned."
27
28 Commissioner Franzese arrived at 7:07 P.M.
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 V. DESIGNATE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR SEPTEMBER 23,
31 1997 COUNCIL MEETING.
32 Chair Bergstrom was appointed as the Planning Commission representative for the Tuesday,
33 September 23, 1997, City Council meeting.
34 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
1. 97-10, Bernard Preussner, 3209-Skycroft Drive, Request for Variance to Fence Size.
W Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:12 P.M.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 16, 1997
Page 2
1 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported the property owner, Mr. Bernard Preussner, 3201 Skycroft Drive,
2 is requesting a variance to the height limitations that the City Ordinance places on residential
3 fences. The City Ordinance restricts the height of a fence to six feet.in height and no fence
4 in a front yard shall be over four feet high, (Section 1320.03(3)).
5 Mr. Preussner is proposing to construct a wooden fence that will be 18 feet high and 125 feet
6 long, to act as a noise barrier between his property and the property directly to the north of
7 his. As Mr. Preussner states in his request letter, noise from the neighbor's air conditioner
8 apparently became disruptive to Mr. Preussner when the neighboring property owners
9 removed a metal shed that existed between the properties. He apparently asked the neighbors
10 to do something about the noise but no acceptable solution has been agreed.upon.between the
11 neighboring property owners.
12 In order for a variance to be granted, the Planning Commission needs to consider evidence
13 presented by the property owner to determine if the topographical layout of the property
14 creates a hardship making it difficult to put the property to a reasonable use or that the City's
15 ordinance creates a hardship that precludes reasonable use of the property. The question here
16 appears to be more of a dispute between neighbors than the inability to use property in a
17 reasonable manner.
Minnesota statute defines hardship as a situation whereby strict enforcement of the City's
19 zoning ordinance would not allow the property to be put to a reasonable use; that the
20 circumstances creating the hardship are not caused by the owner; and the variance, if granted,
21 will not alter the essential character of the area.
22 Mr. Preussner, 3201 Skycroft Drive, stated he would call his request for a fence a request for
23 a noise barrier. He stated he had contacted the lady next door in a pleasant manner and asked
24 that something be done to protect him from the noise.
25 Commissioner Makowske arrived at 7:15 P.M.
26 Mr. Preussner stated his neighbor came over after three days and brought him ear plugs and
27 told him to move out of his master bedroom. He stated he has tried to keep this issue low
28 key and contacted the Public Works Director who stated he would handle it. It is now
29 September and nothing has been solved. This means he will have to live under the same
30 conditions next year. He questioned if he had done something wrong, stated he felt that he
31 had done something wrong. He asked what the Commissioners would do in this situation.
32 He stated he can't force this lady to do anything but that he has to protect his mental and
33 physical health. He needs his sleep to stay healthy.
34 Mr. Preussner reported he had contacted the Pollution Agency and they would be able to offer
assistance if he was located in a commercial area. He stated he had spoken with Mayor
Ranallo and his air conditioner contractor had advised him that certain locations would result
37 in the unit being more noisy to neighbors. Mr. Preussner explained that in his case the air
38 conditioner was at a right angle and located under an overhang. The noise didn't have
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 16, 1997
Page 3
1 anywhere to disperse. He stated he had to go to the expense of the noise barrier, what the
2 City calls a fence to protect his property and health.
3 Mr. Preussner stated that if the Commission had a better solution, he would accept it. He
4 stated his property value had dropped and he would not be able to sell his home without
5 revealing this problem.
6 Chair Bergstrom confirmed that Mr. Preussner wanted to install an eighteen foot high fence.
7 Mr. Preussner stated this was the only way to keep the noise out. He stated he has the same
8 situation as people next to a freeway except their barrier is paid for by all the tax payers and
9 he will have to pay for the cost of the barrier himself.
10 Commissioner Gondorchin asked Mr. Preussner if he was aware that the neighbor was
11 planning to install a new air conditioner that would be considerably less noisy.
12 Mr. Preussner stated he had heard that many times but she had not done so. He stated he
13 wanted someone to give him a guarantee that the new unit would be quiet. He noted the
14 neighbor to the south has two air conditioners but they are located in the middle of the house
5 and he cannot hear them on his property, even in the backyard.
16 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he understood the situation but challenged the effectiveness
17 of the fence as a noise barrier. He recommended that Mr. Preussner wait for the installation
18 of the new air conditioner and ask the neighbor to install a berm of shrubbery, etc. around the
19 unit to serve as a barrier and see how the noise level is then.
20 Mr. Preussner stated he had checked the decibel level of the current air conditioner unit and it
21 was over 60 decibels.
22 Commissioner Gondorchin commented that a noise level would not be investigated unless it
23 was over 80 decibels.
24 Mr. Preussner stated the Pollution Agency in St. Paul had stated that in a commercial district
25 they do not allow over a 50 decibel noise level. He noted a new air conditioner may only be
26 40 decibels but located in this corner that would still be very annoying. He stated he had
27 checked the whole neighborhood and no one had an air conditioner located in the corner of
28 the house which reflected the noise to their neighbor.
29 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if this had been a problem for many years.
30 Mr. Preussner stated the problem had started this year.
•1 Commissioner Gondorchin asked why the problem had started this year.
6A
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 16, 1997
Page 4
1 Mr. Preussner stated that previously the noise had been deflected by a big metal shed which
2 was about this high (he stood and held his hand in the air above his head).
3 Commissioner Gondorchin suggested that installation of a new air conditioning unit and a
4 berm may restore this to the identical situation Mr. Preussner had before the removal of the
5 shed. He stated he could not personally endorse or support a variance request of this nature.
6 He stated there were other solutions available. He suggested that the neighbor could move the
7 unit to another area of her house.
8 Chair Bergstrom explained that in order for the Planning Commission or the City Council to
9 approve a variance request, a hardship has to be defined. By State Law a variance cannot be
10 granted unless all three conditions of the variance are met. He stated this did not mean that
11 Mr. Preussner was not inconvenienced or less than happy with the relationship or negotiations
12 with the neighbor, but the requirements of the variance have to be met. He stated he agreed
13 that there may be other solutions, such as continued negotiations or other options to block the
14 sound. He explained that this is a process the Planning Commission must go through
15 regardless of how they would feel if they were in Mr. Preussner's place.
16 Mr. Preussner stated he did not know anything about the law. He is 75 years old and does
not want to live under these conditions for the next ten years. He questioned that the
Planning Commission did not have the power to require his neighbor to move the unit.
19 Chair Bergstrom stated the Planning Commission did not have that authority.
20 Mr. Preussner again stated he had tried to keep everything low key. He had spoken with the
21 Public Works Director and it is already September and he has achieved no results. He stated
22 his only option was to hire a law firm and sue. He did not want the same condition next
23 year.
24 Chair Bergstrom stated he was not unsympathetic but there are certain things the Planning
25 Commission can and can't do. Granting of the variance requires a hardship and that has not
26 been demonstrated.
27 Commissioner Thompson stated he did not believe the expense of the fence would be worth
28 it. He cited the barriers on Highway 694 and their ineffectiveness.
29 Mr. Preussner stated he had checked this out and those barriers did work.
30 Mr. Thompson suggested an arbor vitae may be a better solution. He stated a barrier eighteen
31 feet high in a residential area would be hideous.
Mr. Preussner stated he had trees in the front and back but had to cut them back because they
were ruining his roof and gutters.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 16, 1997
Page 5
1 Commissioner Thompson stated he could not see that an air conditioner would make that
2 much noise unless there was something radically wrong with the unit.
3 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:37 P.M.
4 Commissioner Horst stated he agreed that the fence was much too high and would look
5 hideous and that there was not evidence to grant the variance.
6 Motion by Horst, seconded by Delmonico, to recommend denial of the variance request to the
7 height limitations of the City Ordinance on residential fences for Bernard Preussner, 3201
8 Skycroft Drive, as it does not meet the conditions required to grant a variance.
9
10 Vote on the motion: Bergstrom, Delmonico, Franzese, Gondorchin, Horst, Makowske, and Thompson
11 voted aye.
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13 Chair Bergstrom noted this request will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on
14 September 23, 1997.
•5 VII. CONCEPT REVIEW - None.
16 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS.
17 1. Comprehensive Plan Update Process.
18 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that a copy of the draft Comprehensive Plan had been submitted to
19 all surrounding jurisdictions and communities. The only response received was from the City
20 of Minneapolis and she had reported on that response at the August Planning Commission
21 meeting.
22 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported she had received a call from Suzanne Rhees stating that the draft
23 was almost ready to'be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Rhees stated she is
24 awaiting the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Upon receipt of the CIP, she will complete the
25 Indexes and submit the draft Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council. Ms. Moore-
26 Sykes stated the CIP will be submitted to Ms. Rhees shortly.
27 Chair Bergstrom noted that it is a State Regulation that the Planning Commission review the
28 CIP.
29 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she would supply the Planning Commission with a copy of the CIP
30 in October and also a complete copy of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
There was Commission consensus that they did not require a copy of the entire
Comprehensive Plan Update, only the Appendices.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 16, 1997
• Page 6
1 2. Proposed Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Churches,
2 Temples and Synagogues.
3 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported this proposed amendment is a result of the recent variance request
4 application of St. Charles Borromeo Church to be allowed to proceed with a construction
5 project. The Church currently has a 65% coverage of impervious surface and is located in a
6 Residential District which requires a 35% lot coverage. The Church existed before the
7 Zoning Ordinance was codified. The Church would also be required to provide 360 to 400
8 parking spaces and currently only have 200 parking spaces. City Attorney has advised the
9 City to consider making an amendment to the zoning ordinance to address churches, temples
•10 and synagogues.
11 Ms. Moore-Sykes reported she has contacted other churches in the area and they all exceed
12 the lot coverage requirements in an R-1 District and all but one require on-street parking.
13 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she called several cities she knew that had dealt with a similar
14 situation including Arden Hills, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, and New Brighton. She also
15 contacted the League of Minnesota Cities. A suggested solution was that a Planned Unit
16 Development (PUD) be created for churches. But the City of St. Anthony's Ordinance states
17 that a PUD must be more that 3 acres so that would limit some churches in the City. Most
18 cities suggested a building to land coverage of 40%. This calculation would not include other
19 impervious surfaces.
20 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the proposed amendment was a compilation of the information she
21 had gathered. She suggested that St. Anthony amend the zoning ordinance to restrict the
22 building to land ratio to between 30 and 40%. This ordinance amendment would also include
23 schools, publicly owned recreational facilities, some essential service structures, and City
24 buildings. She suggested that in regard to parking, the City Ordinance could be amended to
25 add that parking for R-1 Permitted Conditional Uses will be set by the Council according to
26 the expected demand for the particular facility.
27 Chair Bergstrom asked the what the current building to lot ratio is at St. Charles Borromeo
28 Church.
29 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that with the new construction the building to lot coverage will be
30 26%. She did not have that information available for the other churches in the City. She also
31 recommended that the amendment include the requirement of a parking, landscape and
32 drainage plan for Planning Commission review.
33 Chair Bergstrom asked if the proposed language would allow for expansion of an existing
34 facility.
35 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that was correct. Most of the churches in St. Anthony have a
problem with parking on site. If the building to land lot ratio was utilized, the churches
would be able to provide more parking without exceeding the lot coverage requirements.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 16, 1997
Page 7
1 Chair Bergstrom noted that the current physical constraints of the churches was that they did
2 not have enough property. He questioned if expansion of all of the churches in the City of
3 St. Anthony would be at the expense of parking area.
4 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that would depend on the type of expansion of the property. She
5 noted that some of the cities limited parking as tied with the size of the sanctuary. The
6 expansion at St. Charles Borromeo Church consists of a Fellowship Hall that will be used
7 after service when most of the people are already there. The expansion will not necessarily
8 require more parking.
9 Commissioner Horst stated he was concerned that the Fellowship Hall will be built where
10 parking spaces are currently located.
11 Commissioner Makowske stated the Fellowship Hall will be built on the property as a
12 connection between the current sanctuary and parish center. It will primarily take up sidewalk
13 space. It will also require three parking spaces and will move the current large parking area
14 back to allow for wheelchair access.
15 Commissioner Horst and Chair Bergstrom questioned how this amendment would help.
•6 Commissioner Makowske explained that currently churches, schools, and public facilities in
17 R-1 District are required to follow the parking code of the R-1 District. Permitted
18 Conditional Uses in that District do not require the same standards as the standard R-1 uses.
19 This proposed amendment is an attempt to accommodate a larger facility, similar to a facility
20 found in a Commercial or Industrial District, which is permitted in an R-1 District. This
21 amendment will not create more parking spaces but will allow more spaces by ordinance
22 rather than by variance.
23 Commissioner Franzese stated she was concerned with the amendment to Section 1615.05
24 Dimensional Regulations. She stated the language should be changed to note that lot
25 coverage in this Section only referred to building to lot coverage and not to total lot coverage.
26 She suggested it may be appropriate to state that Permitted Conditional Uses are not covered
27 by the Lot Coverage Ordinance. She also questioned the wording with regard to impervious
28 surfaces. She suggested that the second sentence of Section 8 be deleted and state that "with
29 the following exceptions" or that "for these uses identified, a building to land lot coverage is
30 utilized".
31 Commissioner Makowske noted the impervious surface coverage still needed to be controlled.
32 Commissioner Horst noted that traditionally churches do have more coverage than residential.
33 He suggested 65-80% of coverage including the impervious surface be allowed.
Commissioner Gondorchin expressed concern with the subjective nature of the parking
35 requirement.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
September 16, 1997
• Page 8
1 Chair Bergstrom and Commissioner Horst agreed.
2 Ms. Moore-Sykes suggested that the current requirement could be utilized for parking unless
3 there was rationale that the required number of parking spaces per the ratio was not necessary.
4 Commissioner Gondorchin stated he hoped this was a forward looking amendment as each
5 situation is unique.
6 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated this amendment was not meant to be a reaction to the needs of St.
7 Charles Borromeo. She again noted that all the churches in St. Anthony have parking and lot
8 coverage problems.
9 Commissioner Horst questioned how this amendment would change the parking situation.
10 Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that this amendment would allow for bigger parking lots as the
11 parking lot would not be considered as part of the lot coverage.
12 There was Commission consensus that the concept of the proposed amendment was good.
13 There was concern about the impervious surface and the terms of building to land lot
coverage and lot coverage being used in the same paragraph. There was concern with the
need for a formula to determine the amount of parking required.
16 Ms. Moore-Sykes.suggested language be added to specify that the drainage plans meet the
17 Watershed District requirements.
18 Chair Bergstrom suggested Staff obtain the existing building to land lot ratios of the permitted
19 and permitted conditional uses in the ordinance amendment and see how that compares to
20 what Staff is proposing.
21
22 There was Commission consensus to direct Staff to redraft the proposed amendment and
23 present it for consideration at the October meeting.
24 3. Discuss Designation Planning Commission Representative to the Storm Water
25 Management Task Force.
26 Chair Bergstrom noted the minutes of the two previous meetings of the Storm Water
27 Management Task Force were included in Commissioner's packet.
28 Commissioner Makowske volunteered to be the Planning Commission Representative to the
29 Storm Water Management Task Force.
30 4. Split Liquor Information.
Ms. Moore-Sykes reported the City Clerk had informed her that it is too late for this issue to.
be included on the election ballot.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• September 16, 1997
Page 9
1 Commissioner Gondorchin stated that the first step with regard to this issue would be to hire a
2 consultant to investigate this issue in terms of revenue, control, feasibility, etc.
3 There was Commission consensus to direct Staff to investigate the issue further and report
4 back at the October meeting.
5
6 IX. COMMENTS.
7 Commissioner Franzese requested an update on Apache Plaza.
8 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she had received a call from Jay Scott, OPUS, three weeks ago in
9 regard to a meeting with WalMart but she has not received any further information. She
10 stated Freedom Gas has started construction and the walls are going up on the SAV II Liquor
11 Store.
12 Commissioner Makowske reported his attendance at the August 27, 1997 Storm Water
13 Management Task Force meeting. He stated the Task Force has appointed two co-chairs and
14 have increased the frequency of meetings to bi-monthly. He believed they intend to present
15 short-term options for relief to the City Council on September 23, 1997.
Chair Bergstrom proposed that the Joint Work Session with the City Council be scheduled for
January or February 1998.
18 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she will forward that to the City Council for consideration.
19
20 X. ADJOURNMENT.
21 Motion by Horst, seconded by Delmonico, to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 P.M.
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 Respectfully submitted,
24 Lorri Kopischke
25 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
•