Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 03201979 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 105990 Box: 36 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1979 Document: PL MINUTES 03201979 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES March 20, 1979 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Tem Klick at 7 : 30 p.m. following a film presentation on comprehensive planning. Present for roll call: Bjorklund, Klick, Rymarchick and Sopcinski. Absent: Marks, Jones and Bowerman. Also present: Jim Fornell, City Manager Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant Sally Haik, Mayor The following correction was made to the minutes for the Board meeting held February 20 , 1979: Page 2 , Paragraph 1: " . . .prevention of 'pedestrains ' rather than 'vehicles ' from Apache. . . " Mr. Sopcinski questioned whether Mr. Fiore foresaw the "end of American Monarch in St. Anthony" if the proposed parking plans were not allowed saying he thought Mr. Fiore meant "if the expansion plans for the plant" were disallowed but the reference was let stand as written. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to approve the minutes for the Planning Board meeting held February 20 , 1979 as corrected . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Sopcinski will represent the Board at the next Council meeting March 27 , 1979 . i The March 14, 1979 request from Gordon Hedlund regarding the first of three buildings proposed to be built on Lot 12 , Block 1, Penrod Addition in accordance with the July 12, 1977 Hedlund PUD, Development Concept Plan, had been provided in the Agenda packet. Also included was a blue line drawing which indicated how the 5, 400 square foot building would be sited on the south 230 feet of Lot 12 and another drawing which Mr. Hedlund had submit- ted to indicate the location of the proposed building on that lot. Also included in the packet was a letter from Mr. Hedlund's bank which indica- ted he maintained a low four figure balance in his business checking ac- count. Mr. Fornell told the Board that Mr. Hedlund had presented this material to him the afternoon of March 15th and that he told Mr. Hedlund the Agenda for the meeting went out the next day and there was not time to fulfill the re- quirements of a formal application. The developer asked only that he be allowed to seek the reaction of the Board to the concept at the March 20th meeting. • Mr. Hedlund was not present at the meeting at this time and the Chairman said he felt the consideration should be removed from the Agenda since the .. �l material presented only partially fulfilled the comprehensive planning re- quired in the next phase of the PUD as Detailed Plan. Before such a ruling from the Chair was made, Mr. Rymarchick said he thought the Board should at least spend 15 minutes reacting to the request in an attempt to help the applicant understand which requirements of the second phase of the PUD had not been met. It was agreed that the Board would consider the matter until 7 : 40 p.m. The Board commenced an item by item consideration of the 22 references under Section 13, Subdivision 6, Paragraph two of the City Zoning Ordinance for a PUD which had been listed by Mr. Hedlund. They indicated satisfaction with proof of ownership of the property by Mr. Hedlund but did not have a consensus of agreement that the letter from the New Brighton Bank sufficiently indicated financial ability for the total development of the PUD as required. Mr. Hedlund arrived at 7 :40 p.m. and disputed this conclusion saying he did not believe he was "required to be in a financial position to assume the responsibility for the entire PUD at this time" . He said his attorney, Wymann Smith, whom he had recently retained, "feels you are demanding too much" especially by requiring specific identification of tenants for the three buildings. Mr. Klick told Mr. Hedlund he did not see how the Board could give even concept consideration when they were "seeing only a portion of the PUD requirements in the plans for only one building" . Mr. Hedlund responded by saying the proposed building is "the first of three identical buildings" to be erected on Lot 12 . Mr. Hedlund also said if the Board did not approve of his facing the building towards the resi- dential development on Penrod it could be turned around, although he felt the residents might prefer looking at the front of the buildings to park- ing lots next to their homes. Mr. Bjorklund commented on the fact that the proposal seemed to provide only 27 parking spaces for the first building and said multiplying this figure by three left the PUD very short of the required 95 parking spaces . The developer said he thought that "that much parking was not necessary and it might be better to have greenery instead" . However, his major ob- jection to the PUD requirements was that he has to specify "who's going to be in the building" , which he viewed as "illegal to require" . He added that though he saw the PUD as "too tough" , he was not at this time applying for a variance. Mr. Rymarchick told Mr. Hedlund that he did not believe specific naming of the tenants was required in the Detailed Plan but the PUD had listed the uses which will be allowed in the commercial development of the PUD. How- ever, he saw Mr. Hedlund's proposal as lacking the requirements for speci- fics as to land area, height of buildings, floor areas , landscaping, etc. , for a Detailed Plan which he did not see in the material provided for that meeting. He did not feel a blue line drawing of the building was adequate to give the Board sufficient information on which to base a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Fornell said he did not believe Mr. Hedlund was required to specifical- ly identify the tenants of the building in the Detailed Plan but, said under (2) ■ "F" of the Scheduling Component "the developer must provide a list of ten- ants proposed -to occupy at least 50% of the area of a building and a list of all proposed "C" tenants in the building" before a building permit can be issued. He also said the PUD ordinance requires a review by City staff of the Detailed Plan before action can be taken by the Board. The various requirements which must be met for the Detailed Plan were reviewed with Mr. Hedlund. Mr. Hedlund said he could "abide by providing only the type of business" but did not believe "it fair to require me to have an exact listing of who 's going in there before I can get a building permit" , and said he didn't be- lieve it "can be legally required" . He insisted he was going to "abide by the uses in the PUD" . Because he felt Mr. Hedlund had provided only 20% of the information re- quired for a Detailed Plan of the PUD, Mr. Bjorklund made the following motion which was seconded by Mr. Rymarchick: To table action on the request from Mr. Hedlund for concept approval of plans for one of three buildings to be constructed on the south 230 feet of the Silver Lake Road side of Lot 12 , Block 1 , Penrod Addition, with the re- quest to Mr. Hedlund that he submit the appropriate information which is stipulated as required for the Detailed Plan of the original Hedlund PUD approved July 12, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hedlund then objected to the fact that the Board had not been given copies of the preliminary plat he had given the Manager. Mr. Sopcinski agreed with Mr. Fornell there was no way in which such copies could have been prepared nor opportunity provided for Staff, to review the plat in the half day before such documentation could be put in the Agenda for Board consideration. Mr. Fornell reiterated the PUD requirement that the Detailed Plan must be worked out with City Staff and told Mr. Hedlund it might even be necessary for him to have a planner work on the final draft of the Detailed Plan to aid him in the final deliberations . Mr. Hedlund said he was willing to work with the Staff but objected to incurring additional expenses to pay for a planner. He said the preliminary plan alone had cost him $200 .00 be- " cause of its required size . Mr. Berg then reported to the Board that Elmer Hansen had requested Board review of the City Staff 's interpretation of the actions taken by both the Planning Board and Council regarding the granting of variances for Mr. Hansen' s proposed single family dwelling on Silver Lake Terrace. Mr. Hansen's current plans are to increase the size of the house as compared to the plans he submitted for Council approval . Mr. Berg reiterated his concern as stated in his March 16th memorandum to the Planning Board, that the new proposal will result in a decrease in rear yard setback to within 12 feet of the lakeshore at some points as opposed • to the setback originally proposed by Mr. Hansen which stipulated such a setback as varying from 22 . 5 feet to 40 feet from the shore. (3) Mr. Berg said Mr. Hansen viewed the Board' s January 16th failure to accept ® an amendment to the recommendation of approval of the proposal which would require the building to be constructed with physical size retained as pro- posed in the plans as an indication to him that some modification to the accepted plan could be made. It was the consensus of the Board that the reason Mr. Sopcinski 's amendment had not been accepted was the Board's reluctance to restrict style or type of architecture Mr . Hansen might want to use in the construction of the proposed dwelling provided, however_ , it did not exceed the variance areas he had requested as indicated in the plans he presented. They were in agreement that the revised plans would place the dwelling too close to the lake but said they were willing to entertain a request for an additional variance from Mr . Hansen which must be presented as required in the City's Zoning Ordinance. The opinion of the City Attorney that the new proposal represented a viola- tion of the rearyard setback variance was reported for consideration of Board members . Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski : whereas lot vari- ances, street vacation, easements and platting recommendations were made and ultimately accepted by the Council , the Board finds the siting of his proposed dwelling does not meet those variances and therefore recommends the Council deny a building permit for the proposed house and suggests Mr. Hansen site the house within the variance areas already granted by the . City particularly in regard to the rear yard variance. Motion carried unanimously. Mr . Bjorklund prefaced his response to the synopsis of New Brighton's Com- prehensive Plan prepared by Mr. Fornell with a commendation for its excel- lence. He suggested the City should request New Brighton to provide fur- ther data regarding any projected increases in their sewer inflow/infiltra- tion which might adversely affect the City's overtaxed system as well as any improvements of roadways which might increase traffic through St. Anthony. Mayor Haik invited Board participation in a workshop on traffic problems in the northern suburbs which is to be held April 7th. Mr. Klick said he would assume the responsibility of having at least one Board member present who could relay the City's concerns regarding an increase in traffic which might be experienced by the City if any improvements are made to Silver Lake Road, County Roads D and E and Stinson Boulevard. Mr. Sopcinski sug- gested an investigation of the rapid transit plans for the area should also be pursued. William Weber of BRW, Inc. , 2829 University Avenue, reported his firm's progress on the required Comprehensive Plan they are formulating with City Staff . His presentation was specifically centered on the Kenzie Terrace Report for which he provided revised copies . Through a chart presentation he gave the four alternative courses of action the City might consider to . deal with the problems resulting fromthe deteriorating conditions of the shopping areas and the economic viability of such a usage. (4) Mr. Fornell had provided his March 15th assessment of Mr. Weber 's analysis and alternatives in the Agenda packet. Mayor Haik joined in the discussion of alternative of rebuilding the area through tax increment financing which was the major point of consideration for Board members . The hazards of mismanaged tax increment program were pointed out by Mr. Bjorklund and there was agreement that the community should be involved at the outset in any serious consideration of such an alternative. Motion by Mr. Klick and seconded by Mr. Sopcinski to table action on further consideration of the Kenzie Terrace Study until the next Board meet- ing. Motion carried unanimously . It was also agreed that consideration of the liquor store siting and the Board's role in such determination as well as current violations of the City's Sign Ordinance which were requested by Mr. Bjorklund would be placed on the next meeting's Agenda. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Bjorklund to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 p.m. for consideration and input on the additional material presented by Mr. Berg for the proposed Sign Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Helen Crowe Secretary (5)