The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPL MINUTES 02151977 Meeting Sheet I IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 105652 Box: 35 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1977 Document: PL MINUTES 02151977 • CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES February 15, 1977 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hiebel at 7 :33 P.M. Present for roll call: Johnson, Marks, Rymarchick, Hiebel, Letourneau and Bowerman Absent: Cowan Also present: Jim Fornell, Administrative Assistant Larry Vickrey, City Attorney Harry Lekson, Building Inspector - Assessor Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to approve the minutes for the January 18, 1977 Board meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The Public Hearing scheduled for 7 :30 P.M. was not opened because the applicant was not present. • The Chairman and Mr. Rymarchick offered to represent the Board at the March 1st meeting of the City Council since they have other business to present at that meeting. Mr. Fornell asked for the names of Board members who will attend the Planning and Zoning Institute and the Chairman said Councilman Stauffer had offered to report on any matters in which they would be interested. �Mr. Hedlund, his attorney and planner arrived and the meeting was recessed from 7: 37 P.M. to 7 : 51 P.M. to allow them to set up for their presentation. At 7: 51 P.M. Mr. Hiebel opened the Public Hearing on Mr. Gordon Hedlund's request to rezone from "R-1 and R-2" (residential) to "C" (commercial) the west 147 feet of Lots 11 through 16 and the west 187 feet of Lot 10, Block 6, Moundsview Acres , Second Addition. Mr. Fornell confirmed that all legal procedures had been complied with regarding publication and notices of the hearing with the required application made and fee paid. When Mr. Hiebel inquired whether all residents living within the required 350 feet of the site had been notified by mail prior to the meeting, Mrs . Richard Hansen and Richard Pettijohn who live at 4009 and 3913 Penrod Lane, said they had received • no such notices. Mr. Fornell then explained that the addresses are • taken from the City tax rolls which are published each May and since both had moved into their homes since last May the notice had been sent to the owner of record. The Staff memorandum of February 11th containing an administrative review of the proposal as it conforms with the City zoning ordinance was noted and John Daubney, Attorney for Mr. Hedlund, presented the request and introduced Carl Dale of Design Planning Consultants , 4826 Chicago Avenue South, who the attorney said would present the plan and a schematic design for the residential and commercial development of the 5 acre tract of land owned by Mr. Hedlund. Mr. Carl opened by his presentation by telling the Board he had been hired by Mr. Hed- lund "not to promote the proposal , but to give his objective view as a planner" . He discussed his Planning Report of February 9 , 1977 which gave his recommendations for a development which he said would satisfy the developer's interests at the same time it would protect the residential neighborhood. His site design of February 3 , 1977 was intended to be a part of Mr. Hedlund 's application form but con- tained only conceptual drawings of the three commercial buildings which would be a part of the proposal . The planner said the first of the two basic plans which he had presented at the Board 's January 18th meeting had been eliminated following the meeting with residents at a poorly attended meeting January 27th. That plan had proposed commer- cial development for the entire tract to which the residents had voiced their opposition. Mr. Dale said that as a result of that meet- ing and suggestions by the City Staff, the three buildings proposed in the second plan had been turned around to allow more parking spaces and a frontage driveway and the elimination of a roadway to the rear which the planner felt allowed more buffer area to screen the resi- dences on Penrod Lane. At that point and later, in answering a question from a resident, Mr. Dale said he felt that at least 20 feet of buffer should be provided and, though 10 feet of this would be from the 120 foot dept residential lots, with the landscaping of the entire area to be done by the "commercial who would create the need" . The slides he then showed depicted the examples of permitted and prohibited architectural styles which he had included in his plan and Mr. Dale said Mr. Hedlund was willing to be bound by this listing. He also restated the permitted and excluded uses which he envisioned for this proposal under the classifications listed in the City zoning ordin- ance. The Planner said he believes the existing City zoning ordinance does not provide the necessary districts for the development of Mr. Hedlund's land. He felt the "B" classification is too restrictive, and the "C" is too liberal, allowing many uses which would not be desirable for this particular development. The PUD was not set up in a manner which would allow a planner to make a viable proposal because of the low percentage (20%) of commercial it allows. Mr. Dale°s site design had considered the curb cut in front of the existing structure as an al- ternative access for emergency vehicles and Mr. Daubney presented draw- ings which depicted three more suggested methods of handling traffic under this proposal. The attorney said the Hedlund tract would be re- platted so that single family dwellings could be built on the nine lots (2) • along Penrod Lane which are 76.6 x 120 feet with the Lot #10 to ac- comodate a house on a lot which will be 115 feet wide and 80 feet deep so that the existing house on Silver Lake Road can be converted for a beauty shop or similar business and to provide the required parking spaces for this use. In addressing the problem of how the City could control the usages if the development is zoned commercial he said that, although it is illegal to have "controlled zoning" he felt the owner could place deed restrictions on the property which could be enforced by the City or the residents. Mr. Dale told Mr. Marks the buffer area between the commercial and residential would probably be planted with coniferous and deciduous trees to provide all-season screening with segmented fencing archi- tecturally matching the buildings serving as a shield of the parking lots. He told Mr. Rymarchick that he felt buildings in the develop- ment should be no higher than two stories . The planner also told him that the list of uses he felt should be allowed had been confirmed by the reactions of the residents who attended the January 27th meeting and many of the changes in the plan had also been made after that meeting. Mrs . Chester Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, later challenged this statement saying he had omitted restaurants from this list and this was one of the uses to which there had been unanimous opposition from the residents. • Mr. Bowerman was concerned that Mr. Hedlund's application did not give the precise description of the zoning changes which the Board was asked to consider. It was agreed that the description carried in the published notice and on the site design established an accurate de- scription for the request. Mr. Johnson questioned Mr. Vickrey about limiting the uses by deed re- strictions and the Attorney's response was that there is nothing il- legal about the owner doing this nor the City becoming the third party beneficiary but felt a less difficult vehicle for accomplishing the same purpose would be to amend the City zoning ordinance to provide the different districts or to allow the variances to the PUD which would make it workable, should the Planning Board and Council so choose to do so. Mr. Daubney replied to Mr. Rymarchick 's query as to what specific busi- nesses and how many of them were contemplated for the project by saying Mr. Hedlund doesn' t know either since both will depend on the parking requirements but noted that the buildings were conceived to have 4800 Square feet of space in each in Mr. Dale's schematic drawings. He agreed with Mr. Vickrey's assessment that the most effective method of allowing the project would be to amend or grant a variance to the City P.U.D. ordinance as create another commercial classification. In answer to Mr. Hiebel 's questions, Mr. Daubney said Mr. Hedlund • would not oppose sidewalks along Silver Lake Road and Mr. Dale said he felt only underground utilities would be acceptable. When Mr. Marks said he did not believe architectural constraints could be legally (3) • enforced, Mr. Dale agreed that the City did not have the vehicle for such constraints in its zoning ordinance but felt the most effective method of accomplishing this would be to amend the PUD classification to provide for restrictions on type of buildings and exterior finish. Mr. Fornell and the City Attorney then reminded the Board that though there were such possibilities under a PUD, the official purpose of the hearing was to consider Mr. Hedlund's request for rezoning. Mr. Bowerman asked what timetable could reasonably be expected to be followed with the construction as proposed and Mr. Daubney replied that is is Mr. Hedlund's intention to proceed at once with the sale of the lots along Penrod Lane for single family dwellings and might even participate in their construction. However he could offer no specific timetable for the construction of the commercial buildings which might be built by other developers . The attorney said Mr. Hed- lund was seeking concept approval of the proposal from the Board with the request that the Board suggest to the Council that revisions to the City zoning ordinance be made which would allow the concept to be practically accomplished. He said his client had no choice but to request the "C" zoning which was the only vehicle existing under the ordinance which would cover all the necessary uses contained in this proposal. None of the more than dozen residents present for the hearing spoke as proponents of the proposal but several voiced their opposition. • Mr. Pettijohn felt no rezoning should be granted until the Council had made a decision regarding changes in the zoning ordinance but it was his contention that "the ordinance should stay the same" . Mrs. Nelson added to her previously voiced objection to a restaurant as a permitted usage by saying "If you can 't uphold your PUD require- ments now, how will you be able to prevent further changes later?" She felt there was a great need for residential development in St. An- thony and could see no need for further commercial development in this particular area where there are now vacancies in both the shopping center and the medical center. Mrs. Kathy Cooper, 3908 Macalaster Drive, was opposed to any business which would stay open past 9 :00 P.M. , especially restaurants , because of the proximity to homes on Penrod and said she believed that, since none of the restrictions mentioned by the proponents were backed by legal written agreements , there could be not guarantee that undesirable uses wouldn't develop there later. Mr. Vickrey reminded the residents that the Board's only function is to make recommendations to the Council and there could be no permanent changes in the zoning ordinance made during this hearing. Marie Sult, 3909 Penrod Lane, saw no need for more commercial develop- ment in the area and felt there was no way of enforcing the architec- tural standards which had been suggested. She felt there had not been (4) • enough specifics in the proposal regarding the tenants of the build- ings, the parking or the landscaping. She lives behind the "little green house" owned by Mr. Hedlund and said she has for 33� years had to look at junked cars, trucks, garbage and general untidy appearance of the property which in fact left her sceptical regarding the sin- cerity of Mr. Hedlund's intentions when it came to landscaping and keeping up the appearance of the project he proposed. Eugene Thomas , 4029 Penrod Lane, was adamant that allowing commercial development of the west portion of Mr. Hedlund 's land would decrease the value of the residential property on Penrod. He said the "area will go down if the zoning changes" . Mrs. Hansen also referred to vacancies at Apache and the Apache Medical Center as well as the building north of Silver Lane and felt this meant any businesses which might start up in the proposed development would probably also fail leaving an area of abandoned buildings. Ruth Thompson, 3015 39th Avenue N.E. , said she did not think any of the plans for handling traffic in the plan would provide the necessary access for emergency vehicles and said the new plan of positioning the proposed buildings would now allow them to be plainly seen after dark from the residences to the east. She felt sufficient concessions towards the development of this land had been made when the "light office" classification had been set up in the new zoning ordinance. • She said "Apache hasn't kept the stipulations regarding appearance which had been included in its building approval, so why should this project?" It was her contention that rather than a "negative" list- ing of uses which would prohibited as proposed by Mr. Dale a specific list of uses which would be allowed in this project should be agreed upon to avoid an undesirable usage coming in when tenants change. Her husband, George Thompson, also said he was opposed to the proposal . Mr. Daubney answered Mr. Thomas ' objections by saying the undeveloped lots on the west side of Penrod Lane are larger than most of those on the east side and he felt Twin City Federal had indicated its confi- dence in the economic health of the area when the decision was made to build a branch office in the block just south of Mr. Hedlund 's pro- perty. Mr. Thomas still insisted that there would not be a market for homes adjacent to a commercial development which would be as expensive as those which are built on the other side of the street or the neigh- borhood. Mr. Hiebel closed the Public Hearing at 9 :45 P.M. and the meeting was recessed from that time until 9: 52 P.M. when the Board reconvened to consider the rezoning request. Mr. Rymarchick commented that the plan Mr. Dale had presented provided a sound concept which was well thought out but said he shared the neighbors ' concern about what uses would develop for the project. He felt the City would have more control under a PUD but could not recom- mend approving the "commercial" zoning which had been requested. (5) • Mr. Letourneau said he was not convinced that the property could not be developed for some type of . residential use which the City needs . He also felt the Board had a responsibility to protect the economic health of the businesses in operation in the area now especially in view of the problems which are besetting the Apache Shopping Center and other businesses in the City. He definitely opposed rezoning to "commercial" . Mr. Marks was also concerned whether the long term effect of segmented shopping areas might lead to the degradation of one or both shopping centers. However, he said he could also see some possibility that if this project were developed in the manner suggested by Mr. Dale it might influence Apache to follow suit. He said he could favor the development only if he were certain that the usage could be governed by legally viable agreements but feared just placing trust in the developer and the planner, speculating that financial pressures might later force them to back on any verbal agreements . Mr. Johnson did not feel the Board should concern itself with trying to legislate architectural style but should only be considering the land use. He agreed with Mr. Vickrey that the City could better con- trol uses through a PUD but pointed out that the City's PUD had not been written exclusively to deal with this property but was geared more to the possible redevelopment of much larger tracts of land in the City such as the Salvation Army grounds and the mobile home park. • He said he could think of a number of other uses than those listed by the planner which would be objectionable for this development and felt it would be very dangerous to go to a "commercial" zoning for this proposal. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to recommend to the Council denial of the Hedlund request for rezoning to "C" (commercial) the west187 feet of Lot 10 and the west 147 feet of Lots 11 through 16, Block 6 , Mounds View Acres , Second Addition because the specific land uses are unknown and no provisions have been offered for controlling the type of tenants who may use the proposed buildings and in the absence of a construction timetable. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Marks asked the City Attorney whether it was appropriate for the Board to indicate to the Council the aspects of the proposal which they felt had merit, and Mr. Vickrey said that, though they could only officially respond to the request for rezoning, they could let the Council know they might favor an attempt being made to work with the developer to accomplish some controls over the uses for the land and phasing in its construction. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to indicate to the Council that the Board believes the concept as proposed by Mr. Dale • in behalf of Mr. Hedlund appears to deserve consideration subject to ordinance modification or variances (especially the PUD section) and (6) • to suggest that the Staff be requested to work with the developer to see if a proper vehicle for controlling the usage can be worked out. Voting on motion: Aye: Johnson, Marks , Rymarchick, Hiebel and Bowerman Nay: Letourneau Motion carried. Mr. Letourneau then explained he had voted against the motion because he opposed any change in the City zoning ordinance to accomodate this proposal. Mr. Johnson replied their intention involved supplementing or modifying by addition rather than changing the ordinance. Mr. Marks added he felt the landscaping proposal made by Mr. Dale might provide a better barrier between the residential area to the east and the shopping center across Silver Lake Road than the present unkept property. Mr. Fornell suggested that the Council can suspend PUD regulations under Section 13, Subdivision 8, No. 2 , if desired. r -'John Murlowski of Belair Builders appeared next to seek concept ap- proval for a warehouse addition to the Berger Trasnfer Company building on 37th Avenue N.E. He presented the site plans for the proposed addition and said there would be a brick facade on the front of the • addition to match that of the existing building. There will be a common wall between the two. The width of the building was proposed to be reduced from the original plans to conform with the City zoning ordinance which requires at least 15 foot interior side yards . Board members questioned whether there would be adequate off-street parking for the additional employees which the staff had understood were being added with the addition but Mr. Murlowski said he had been as- sured by Mr. Dirks of Berger that there would be no new employees added. The builder said he thought the employees who now use Macalaster Drive to park are doing so because it is more convenient to reach the office area from the street and said the company has property elsewhere to park trucks. Mr. Fornell 's memo of February 11th said although the City zoning or- dinance requires a forty foot front yard setback, this building would conform to the front yard setbacks of the adjoining structure on the corner and with Norb's Purity Dairy Store, and thus be permissible. The builder was advised by Mr. Fornell that Ramsey County will prob- ably be taking additional space for its proposed reconstruction of 37th Avenue N.E. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Marks to recommend concept approval to the Council for the addition to the Berger Transfer Com- pany building on 37th Avenue N.E. as presented, subject to the front • facade matching the existing building; the front yard setback being compatible to the adjacent structures and allowance of a 15 foot side (7) • yard with the final review of the building plans to be made by City Staff to assure they comply with all City and State codes, regula- tions and ordinances. Motion carried unanimously. No one appeared to present the request for concept approval for an addition to the Poppin Fresh building on Stinson Boulevard and no action was taken. If time allows, the Board will hear at their next meeting from a former Minneapolis sign ordinance inspector regarding possible modi- fication of the City's sign ordinance and get reports from the sub- committees considering the modification of that ordinance and that which is studying the possible renovation of the St. Anthony Shopping Center area. Mr. Fornell advised them that there might be a Public Hearing scheduled for that evening. Motion by Mr. Marks and seconded by Mr. Letourneau to adjourn the meeting at 10 :40 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. • Helen J. Crowe Secretary (8)