HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 05181999 1
Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
100786
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1999
Document: PL MINUTES 05181999
r
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
• PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4 MAY 18, 1999
5
6
7 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
8 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair
9 Bergstrom.
10
11 II. ROLL CALL.
12 Commissioners present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Horst, Hanson, Stille, Melsha,
13 Hatch, and Tillman.
14 Commissioners absent: None.
15 Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant.
16
17
18 III. APPROVAL OF MAY 18, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA.
19 Motion by Horst, second by Stille to approve the May 18, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting
20 Agenda with the following change:
21
22 New VI. Election of Planning Commission Vice-Chair
23
0 Motion carried unanimously.
26 IV. APPROVAL OF MARCH 16, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
27 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Hanson to approve the March 16, 1999 Planning Commission
28 Meeting Minutes as presented.
29
30 Motion carried unanimously.
31
32 V. DESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CITY
33 COUNCIL.
34 Stille agreed to attend the May 25, 1999 City Council meeting.
35
36 VI. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION VICE-CHAIR
37 Bergstrom nominated Horst for the Vice-Chair post. The nomination was seconded by Hanson.
38
39 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Stille to close nominations for Planning Commission Vice-
40 Chair.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Hanson to elect Dick Horst as Planning Commission Vice-
Chair.
47 Motion carried unanimously.
r
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 2
1
2 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
3 A. 99-02 Sunset Memorial Cemetery, Sideyard Variance for Sidewalk around Mausoleum.
4 Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:07 PM.
5
6 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that representatives from Sunset Memorial Park, Ted Dirkman and
7 Dennis Bridges, are requesting a five-foot variance to allow Sunset to construct a five-foot
8 sidewalk in the setbacks on the northeast and northwest sides of the recently constructed
9 mausoleum. Staff had noted the lack of sidewalks when the original plans were reviewed with
10 the architect and construction company representatives. At the time,the representatives
11 indicated that sidewalks would not be necessary because the grounds of the mausoleum were
12 going to be sodded.
13
14 As Mr. Dirkman stated in his application letter, he was under the impression that these sidewalks
15 had been planned for and approved at the original approval process. In meeting with Staff, he
16 was surprised to learn that sidewalks had not been planed for all around the building. Mr.
17 Dirkman states in his application letter that having no sidewalks makes it very difficult to clear
the area of snow and ice in the winter,it can be muddy in the spring or after a rain, and it
40 becomes a safety issue for employees interring caskets into exterior vaults located higher up in
20 the mausoleum.
21
22 This variance request would not alter the essential character of the area and strict enforcement
23 would cause undue hardship to employees in the performance of their job and to those people
24 visiting the mausoleum. As such, this property could not be put to a reasonable use without the
25 variance because the nature of a mausoleum requires most visitors to be outside. Economic
26 considerations do not appear to be an issue with this variance application.
27
28 Bergstrom welcomed Dennis Bridges and invited him to address the Commission. Mr. Bridges
29 stated the building permit process was not completed correctly and no provision was made for
30 sidewalks which are necessary for the operation of an hydraulic lift which lifts caskets up to 18
31 feet in the air and weights in excess of 1,000 pounds. He stated the lack of a sidewalk presents
32 accessibility problems for families visiting the mausoleum.
33
34 Stille asked whether the facility could have been built on the site with proper setbacks if the
35 owners had originally tried. Mr. Bridges stated that it was anticipated that the 5-foot setbacks
36 included a sidewalk.
37
38 Horst asked whether the owners had been under the impression that sidewalks were not part of
39 the structure and therefore not subject to the ordinance. Mr. Bridges confirmed this, stating that
some municipalities do not consider this an encroachment. He added that much consideration
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 3
l was given to the design of the structure, which incorporates architectural elements of an
2 amphitheater previously located on the site.
3
4 Hanson asked for an approximate distance between the proposed sidewalk and the sidewalk on
5 St. Anthony Boulevard. Mr. Bridges estimated a vertical distance of 15 feet.
6
7 Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:16 PM.
8
9 Bergstrom stated the Sunset Park had a concept review recently and the issue presented no
10 particular concern to him. Hatch asked whether a heavy snowfall would affect the structure as it
11 relates to city ploughing. Bergstrom stated this was not the case due to the slope.
12
13 Horst stated the hardship is the apparent danger to employees, heavy equipment access, and the
14 inconvenience to families. He expressed understanding that there was some question in the
15 original plans as to whether sidewalk would be considered part of the structure.
16
17 Motion by Horst, second by Bergstrom to approve a five-foot variance to allow for construction
8 of a five-foot wide sidewalk in the setbacks on the northeast and northwest sides of the
mausoleum as this does not alter the essential character of the area and strict enforcement would
20 cause undue hardship.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 Bergstrom stated the Commission would make its recommendation to the City Council at their
25 May 25, 1999 regular meeting and encouraged representatives from Sunset Memorial Park to be
26 in attendance.
27
28 B. 99-03 Dave Sperry, 4004 Fordham Drive Lot Width and Lot Area Variance Requests.
29 Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:19 PM.
30
31 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Arvid and Eleanor Johnson, owners of 4008 Fordham Drive,
32 recently filed a lot split and replat with Ramsey County that had been approved by the City
33 Council twelve years ago. They had delayed this filing because they felt that they would be
34 adversely affected by property taxes and they were not ready to sell the resultant vacant parcel.
35 Staff called the property offices in Ramsey County and verified that they had recorded the lot
36 split and replat.
37
38 Mr. and Mrs. David Sperry, currently residing in New Brighton,have a tentative purchase
39 agreement with the Johnson's, to purchase the lot that was resultant from the split of 4008
Fordham Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Sperry would like to build a$130,000 home for themselves on
1 this vacant lot but would like to have the variances approved before they close on this property.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 4
1 Staff has advised them that they also need to be aware of the setbacks and lot coverage
2 restrictions for this zoning district. As their letter indicates, they are aware of the need to address
3 those issues without requesting additional variances.
4
5 The lot in question is 60 feet wide and its area is 7,985 square feet and as such, not considered a
6 buildable residential lot according to City Ordinance. The Ordinance states that a residential lot
7 in the R-1 Zoning District must be at minimum 75 feet wide and an interior lot must be not less
8 than 9,000 square feet. The Sperrys are asking for a lot width variance of 15 feet and a lot area
9 variance of 1,015 square feet.
10
I I In granting the variance,the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered and
12 would be in keeping with the intention and spirit of the Zoning Code. It is also possible that this
13 lot can not be put to reasonable use without these variances.
14
15 Mr. and Mrs. Sperry contend that there is a hardship in that the owner did not create this situation
16 and that the Council had approved this lot split in September 1985.
17
Horst asked whether the Ordinance regarding minimum lot size was written prior to 1985 when
49 the Johnson's original lot split was approved. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the Ordinance was
20 written in 1978 when many 60-foot wide lots existed and the City wanted to set a new tone for
21 available vacant property.
22
23 Stille asked how old the community was, and when the plat was originally filed. The Johnson's
24 confirmed their house was built in 1963 and was one of the first on the block.
25
26 Melsha noted a question had been raised with regard to storm water issues in that neighborhood
27 and a building moratorium which had been imposed. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that moratorium
28 was no longer in effect.
29
30 Bergstrom invited the Johnson's and Sperry's to address the Council. Mr. Sperry presented
31 plans for his proposed home, adding the home fits in with the style of homes in the neighborhood
32 and falls within the 35% lot coverage.
33
34 Tillman noted a petition signed by neighbors in support of the request, and asked whether all
35 surrounding neighbors were included on the petition. The Johnson's confirmed that all the
36 surrounding neighbors have signed the petition.
37
38 Bob Graham, 4020 Fordham Drive, expressed concern over flooding issues in the neighborhood
39 which the City has done nothing to rectify after promising to address them before any
construction could commence. He requested that the City understand that continued deviation
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
Page 5
1 from its policy by the continued issuance of such variances affects other resident's rights in
2 regard to storm sewers and flooding.
3
4 Horst asked whether Mr. Graham believes that the addition of a new home on the resultant lot
5 would mean less impervious surface and cause more run-off. Graham stated that none of the
6 neighbors know what it will take to cause flooding, but every inch of water is of concern. Horst
7 stated that he was unaware that area was under consideration for flood correction. Ms. Moore-
8 Sykes stated this area is still part of the overall plan for flood relief in the City.
9
10 Keith Gordon, 4012 Fordham Drive, expressed support of the Johnson's planned lot split, stating
11 he has been their neighbor for 30 years and is a civil engineer. He added he had done some
12 calculations and noted that flood problems in the neighborhood would not be caused by this new
13 construction but because the Silver Lake Road watermain is undersized to handle flooding from
14 major storms. He noted that constructing 1 home is insignificant in terms of water added to the
15 storm sewer system.
16
17 Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:38 PM.
4 Horst stated that in his opinion the City would not have approved the lot split in 1985 without
20 also approving of the intention to put a home on the resultant lot. He added the request is in
21 keeping with the current goals of the City, including the improvement of housing stock and
22 increased tax revenues.
23
24 Horst expressed his support of the request, stating the only negative aspect of the request is the
25 creation of a less than ideal-sized lot, although no further variances would be required and there
26 is strong neighborhood support.
27
28 Hanson expressed concern that a precedent would be set for lot size, adding the Ordinance
29 pertaining to lot size might need to be revisited. He added the lot in question is a beautiful treed
30 lot and could present a potential flood situation. Bergstrom stated a precedent has already been
31 set and where appropriate the City is willing to consider and approve such requests.
32
33 Stille stated the hardship issue is not caused by the Johnson's who obviously did their homework
34 when they purchased the lot.
35
36 Motion by Horst, second by Bergstrom to approve the lot width and lot area variance requests for
37 4004 Fordham Drive as it would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and is in
38 keeping with the intention and spirit of the Zoning Code.
39
9i Motion carried unanimously.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes .
May 18, 1999
Page 6
1 Bergstrom stated the Commission would make its recommendation to the City Council at their
2 May 25, 1999 regular meeting and encouraged the Sperry's and Johnson's to be in attendance.
3
4 C. 99-05 Coppo Partners, 2837 Anthony Lane South, Rear Yard Variance,
5 Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 7:51 PM.
6
7 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that Mr. Geoffrey Benedict of Vanguard Construction, Inc., and as agent
8 for Coppo Partners, 2837 Anthony Lane,has submitted a request for a rear yard variance in order
9 to construct a proposed addition. The current principal structure already sits five feet into the
10 rear yard setback. The proposed addition is planned to be constructed along the same line as the
11 rear of the existing building and as such requires a five-foot variance to the City's rear yard
12 setback ordinance for industrial properties.
13
14 The proposed 200 foot by 84 foot addition will be constructed on the northeast side of the current
15 principal structure and will provide an additional 16,800 square feet of warehouse. The proposed
16 addition will also allow for the construction of four additional loading docks. As the site plan
17 indicates, the owners intend to also reconfigure the layout of the parking area to allow for an
18 additional curbcut, drive and parking stalls. If their request for a variance is approved, they will
be required to install additional parking spaces. By ordinance they are required to install 32
20 parking spaces and the site plan indicates they will provide 38 parking spaces.
21
22 Staff researched the file to determine if a variance was granted for the existing structure and
23 found that the original building was constructed in 1972, which was before the Zoning Code was
24 codified. With this being the situation,there was no variance required in 1972 because the
25 building is considered "grandfathered" in.
26
27 Staff received no comments regarding this variance request.
28
29 Bergstrom invited Mr. Geoffrey Benedict to address the Commission. Mr. Benedict stated he
30 represents Coppo Partners who own the operating companies that occupy the existing building.
31 He added the owners have a need for more warehouse space, docks and additional parking to
32 carry out their business.
33
34 Horst asked what was the type of business in which the owners are involved. Mr. Benedict
35 stated the structure is a warehouse distribution facility for automotive specialty adhesives. Horst
36 noted that the petition for variance was not entirely completed. Mr. Benedict noted that an
37 economic hardship would exist if the owners were not permitted to build the addition.
38
39 Tillman asked whether the addition could be moved in 5 feet. Ms. Moore-Sykes noted the
variance is for the existing building as well. Bergstrom asked what would be the structural
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 7
1 effects if the addition were moved in 5 feet. Mr. Benedict stated that debris would accumulate
2 and maintenance issues would arise.
3
4 Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:56 PM.
5
6 Bergstrom stated that the eastern edge of the site is a fence and a steep slope of 6 or 8 feet, so
7 topography must be considered.
8
9 Horst stated a hardship must be identified, which might be the fact that since the structure is
10 grandfathered in, a variance would have to be obtained on the entire building. He added that it is
11 to the City's advantage to encourage its businesses to expand and grow, and to promote the
12 revitalization of the industrial park.
13
14 Hatch asked whether any additional City services would be required for the larger structure. Mr.
15 Benedict stated the required services would not change.
16
17 Stille stated a hardship issue might be potential drainage problems and maintenance issues.
it Hatch asked how parking would be accommodated when the new docks were constructed. Mr.
20 Benedict stated the 2 existing docks would be abandoned and parking spaces put in that spot
21 while the new docks would not have parking in front of them. He added this will account for the
22 additional required parking.
23
24 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Horst to approve the rear yard variance request submitted by
25 Coppo Partners as 1) the topography with respective drainage is a significant consideration and
26 unique to that property; 2) the proposed construction is consistent with the existing building
27 constructed prior to City Code enactment; 3) a hardship is caused by the setback ordinance; 4)
28 the existing building requires a setback variance regardless of the proposed addition; and 5)the
29 proposed construction is consistent with the redevelopment of the City.
30
31 Drainage measures must be installed to decrease potential stormwater damage and approved by
32 the Public Works Director prior to construction.
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Bergstrom stated the Commission would make its recommendation to the City Council at their
37 May 25, 1999 regular meeting and encouraged the a representative from Coppo Partners to be in
38 attendance.
39
Q1 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEW-None.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 8
1 IX. OTHER BUSINESS.
2 1. Report from the Council Liaison.
3 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that Councilmember Faust was unable to attend the meeting due to
4 another commitment.
5
6 Horst stated that he understood Councilmember Faust would attend quarterly or as required.
7 Bergstrom agreed, stating a Council representative could be requested as needed.
8
9 2. Report from the Parks Commission.
10 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that no Parks Commissioner was present.
11
12 Bergstrom noted that the Parks Commission had originally been charged with reporting through
13 the Planning Commission to the City Council, although recently they have reported directly to
14 the Council. He stressed that while the Parks Commission's report is interesting to the Planning
15 Commission it may be unnecessary and places a burden on Parks Commissioners to attend
16 Planning Commission meetings.
17
Ms. Moore-Sykes agreed, stating the Planning Commission could continue to receive Parks
it Commission meeting minutes. Tillman stated that seems sufficient.
20
21 Bergstrom noted that the Parks Commission was directed by the Council to report to the
22 Planning Commission, adding that the Council would need to undo that arrangement. He
23 requested feedback from the Parks Commission on this issue. Ms. Moore-Sykes agreed to
24 present this issue to Staff and the Council.
25
26 3. Discussion of a Special Project.
27 Bergstrom reviewed Richard Krier's St. Anthony Shopping Center redevelopment project for the
28 benefit of the new Commissioners, stating Mr. Krier had arrived at the conclusion that the
29 shopping center could be a viable retail area with some modifications or upgrades. He added Mr.
30 Krier is currently involved in determining what structural or promotional modifications might be
31 effective.
32
33 Bergstrom stated Mr. Krier would be present to discuss his land use plan at the Commission's
34 June meeting. Ms. Moore-Sykes encouraged the Commissioners to write their comments
35 regarding the land use plan on the posters provided by Mr. Krier for that purpose. Bergstrom
36 requested that the new Commissioners receive a copy of Mr. Krier's original report.
37
38 X. COMMENTS.
39 Bergstrom welcomed the new Commissioners and thanked them for their participation. He
invited them to introduce themselves and provide some background.
1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 9
1 Hatch stated he has worked with regional government in California and his wife is a City Planner
2 for Shoreview, through whom he has gained an interest in planning and ideas for community
3 development. He added he is very interested in the redevelopment of the shopping center. He
4 expressed a desire to offer something unique and be of service to the community.
5
6 Tillman stated she saw the Commission openings in the local paper and was interested in getting
7 involved, stressing the importance of community involvement.
8
9 Melsha stated he wanted to become involved in the Village and expressed his pleasure at finding
10 that the Council and Commission are working on exciting issues such as the redevelopment of
11 the shopping center.
12
13 Bergstrom stated that government training services will conduct planning training.for the new
14 Commissioners and other interested participants on site, and thanked Ms. Moore-Sykes for
15 arranging the sessions. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the training will consist of 3 - 2 hour sessions on
16 May 24 and 26 and June 2, 1999. She stressed that anyone interested in the training is welcome
17 to attend. She noted that the May 24 and June 2 sessions will be held in the conference room
4 while the May 26 session will be held in the employee lunch room.
20 Hatch stated he is unable to attend the May 26 session but requested the training materials for
21 that session from Ms. Moore-Sykes.
22
23 Hanson welcomed the 3 new Commissioners, adding he looks forward to working with them in
24 the future and is awed by the intellectual power represented.
25
26 Hanson noted he had read with interest that a resident addressed the City Council recently with
27 regard to the hiring of a Staff Economic Developer which does not appear to be of interest to the
28 Council. Bergstrom agreed with this assessment.
29
30 Hanson noted the Salvation Army property sale had been discussed by City Manager Mike
31 Momson at a recent Chamber of Commerce luncheon and expressed concern that the Planning
32 Commission is being left out of the loop.
33
34 Hanson asked whether any developments with regard to Apache Plaza could be related. Ms.
35 Moore-Sykes stated that Opus did not renew their contract, and two theater companies are
36 interested in constructing a complex there. She added that plans presented by one of the
37 companies includes an Applebees Restaurant.
38
39 Hanson stated he and Stille had attended the basic planning session, and he asked how much
authority was available to the Planning Commission. He expressed his opinion that the
00, Commission should be called the Zoning Commission as the City will not give the Commission
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
May 18, 1999
• Page 10
1 the authority to deal with the issues identified in its 1999 goals, and stated his opinion that the
2 Commission is restricted.
3
4 Bergstrom stated the Salvation Army camp property is not officially for sale, and a recent
5 stakeholders brainstorming session was held to identify possible land uses and funding sources
6 for the property. He requested that Ms. Moore-Sykes provide copies of a report document
7 prepared as a result of that session.
8
9 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated an offer for purchase of the property had been made for$14.5 million
10 by Heart of the Earth. She added the Council had recently put a moratorium on the property
11 which precludes development for a period of 1 year. She added that Heart of the Earth has
12 indicated they can use the existing buildings.
13
14 Tillman stated she had heard that Ramsey and Hennepin County had expressed interest in the
15 property. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated Hennepin Parks Commission is very interested but money is
16 an issue and the property is smaller than they are chartered to deal with. Horst stated that the
17 City loses control over the property when the issue is opened to more organizations.
6 Horst welcomed the new Commissioners, adding the post can be very rewarding and it's nice to
20 be a part of City planning.
21
22 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that the two upcoming neighborhood meetings will be held May 19 and
23 May 26, 1999, both at 7:00 PM. She added the meetings were brought about by the sex offender
24 notification issue and Neighborhood Night Out.
25
26 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated a local firefighter had passed away and the funeral would be held May
27 19, 1999 at 1:30 at Nativity Church. She noted traffic will be heavy around the community
28 center which will be staffed, although many City staff will attend the funeral.
29
30 Hatch expressed interest in the Commission focusing its attention on the shopping center
31 redevelopment.
32
33 Hatch asked from which laws the Planning Commission gets its authority. Bergstrom stated the
34 City by-laws and State statutes provide the Commission with its authority. Hatch asked whether
35 there might be some basis for more authority than the Commission currently has. Bergstrom
36 stated the Commission has as much authority as the Council will delegate. Horst stated the City
37 has been more willing to delegate recently and this is an on-going process.
38
39 Hanson suggested the Commission might focus on redevelopment of the properties near the
shopping center which is being purchased by the City. Ms. Moore-Sykes expressed concern that
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
• May 18, 1999
Page 11
1 caution should be used when developing a particular parcel before a cohesive idea for the rest of
2 the area is discussed.
3
4 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
5 Motion by Horst, second by Stille to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 P.M.
6
7
8- Respectfully submitted,
9
10 Mary Mullen
11 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
12
•