Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 06191979 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 105996 Box: 36 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1979 Document: PL MINUTES 06191979 CITY OF ST . ANTHONY PLANNING BOARD MINUTES • June 19 , 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7 : 31 p.m. by Chairman Pro Tem Rymarchick. Present for roll call: Bjorklund, Rymarchick , Sopcinski and Bowerman. Absent: Marks, Klick and Jones. Also present: Jim Fornell , City Manager Ron Berg, Administrative Assistant. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr . Sopcinski to approve as submitted the minutes for the Board meeting held May 15 , 1979 . Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Bjorklund will represent the Board at the next Council meeting to be held June 26 . At 7: 35 p.m. Mr. Rymarchick opened the Public Hearing on the request from Paul Eid, 3416 Belden Drive for a front yard depth variance to the City Zoning Ordinance for a garage and deck to be built in front of his home. The Chairman read the notice which had gone out to all property owners within 200 feet of the Eid residence and Mr. Berg confirmed that the proper notification requirements for such a hearing had been met and a $15 application fee paid. No one present reported failure to receive the notice nor objected to its content. The ap- plicant was the only proponent for his proposal . He said he is the only resident on Belden without a garage and decided in order to com- plete the symmetry of the garage with the rest of the house, a free standing deck should be added just off the dining room on the south side. Both additions will extend 10 feet beyond the front of the existing home and will require a variance of that dimension to build. Because of the slope of his backyard, Mr. Eid said placing the garage farther forward will reduce the construction costs considerably ac- cording to his contractor who had given no firm figures to support this estimate. Adjacent houses on both sides of him and down Belden are "in line with our house" , Mr. Eid insisted and most neighbors have at least six feet of shrubbery in front of their homes so the garage will protrude only four feet beyond these . Evergreen plantings the Lee' s have put in along their lot line to the street will make his addition almost impossible to see when coming down Belden from the north and he plans to plant shrubbery on the south side of his property which will make visibility on that side almost minimal . The deck addition he plans for the back of the home behind the garage will be within the required setbacks . -2- Under questioning by Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Sopcinski, Mr. Eid con- firmed that economics involving the cost of fill and foundation had prompted his request and the garage was his primary concern with the deck secondary. He also told them there is a general drop from his front door to his backyard of six to eight inches. The drive- way will be combined with the walkway to the house, but Mr. Eid said its size could be modified to accommodate only two cars . Eight of Mr. Eid's neighbors were present to oppose the granting of the variance. Chiung P. Lee , 3420 Belden, the neighbor to the north, said she felt all the homes on Belden should have the same amount of front yard so "you can see down the whole street" . Marge Kocon, 3409 Belden, across the street from the Eids , was concerned that drivers coming down Belden might have their vision obstructed to the point they would not see the children who cross the street and use her yard to reach the tennis courts and park. Her concern was shared by Richard and Betty Jo Giesel , 3425 Belden, who fear for the safety of their children and other pedestrians and bikers , "if the teenagers who scoot down that street can' t see where they' re going" . Mrs . Roy Peterson, 3430 Belden, felt even extending the driveway five feet farther from the street might provide better visibility for drivers and' Mrs . Peterson said might make the addition more aesthetically appealing. This would lower costs somewhat and "even Mr. Eid might be happier with the results" . Mrs. Ada V. Kedrak, 3424 Belden , disputed Mr . Eid' s contention that • other homes along Belden are in alignment with his saying "Our houses are six feet back from Eid' s now. " She doubted placing the garage in line with the house would be so costly since "it will cost much more to build the deck. " She and Elaine Cobourn, 3429 Coolidge Street N.E. , were convinced the new addition "will be an eyesore" . Written opposition to the proposal from Mr. and Mrs . George Erickson, 3412 Belden, the next door neighbors , was read by Mr. Berg. The Ericksons felt the addition would be "too far out" and "would lower the value of their property" . They wanted Mr. Eid to "keep the addition in keeping with the other houses. " Mr. Eid responded to the question of safety by saying he felt greater concern should be shown about the shrubbery which is planted right up to the curb all along Belden which he felt were "more of a menace to children ' s safety" . Mrs. Lee responded that she had not realized the spruce she had planted are a "menace" and will be glad to remove them if there is a City ordinance against them. The public hearing was closed at 8: 05 p.m. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Bjorklund thanked the residents who had parti- cipated in the discussion saying often such direction from residents is missing at public hearings . • -3- Mr. 3- Mr. Sopcinski commented that after viewing the homes along Belden, it appeared that all the others had, with similar topography, managed uniformity of front yard setbacks . He did not feel it had been demonstrated that it would be a hardship to add five feet to the back of the addition to bring it in conformance with the City require- ments and since they are of secondary consideration to Mr. Eid, be- lieved that the "protruding decks will unbalance the rest of the neighborhood and do not appear to be in the best interest of the next door neighbor" . He also saw a height of ten feet as too high for the garage. Mr. Bowerman agreed there had been no great hard- ship deminstrated and Mr. Bjorklund felt any hardship would be outweighed by the potential damage. He cited his own difficulties in jogging down the street with cars parked on the street and on driveways blocking visibility and he asked whether "once you get a variance for a deck, can it be transferred to an enclosed room?" , to which Mr. Fornell responded, "Any structural projection can be enclosed without a variance" , based upon past practice . Mr. Rymarchick gave the history of the City' s granting variances saying most of them have been for odd-shaped lots , lots remotely located or with unique topography and said he did not feel it would be any great hardship to fill in the back for the addition , viewing cost as not being a viable hardship in this case . No action on the part of the City to make changes had caused Mr . Eid to make this improvement, and Mr. Rymarchick did not believe the City ordinance should be varied for mere convenience. • Motion by Mr. Sopcinski and seconded by Mr . Bjorklund to recommend to the Council that they not approve the petition for the front yard variance for the property at 3416 Belden Drive, which will permit the addition of a new garage and deck set ten feet forward of the present house line because: 1. The physical surroundings , shape and topographical conditions of the parcel of land involved does permit the garage front to be in line with the house, the only hardship being added foundation expense over that if the lot were level. 2. The adjoining property has similar topographical conditions with garages attached to the houses . 3. The City ordinance does not create an unusual hardship. 4 . Homes on either side of Belden between 33rd and 34th Avenues are within the prescribed front yard setbacks . Before voting, Mr. Bjorklund offered an amendment which would address the question of safety, but when Mr . Sopcinski did not find this • \acceptable, withdrew his suggestion and the motion passed unanimously. Mr. Doug Jones arrived at 8 : 20 p.m. -4- • At 8 : 21 p.m. the Chairman Pro Tem opened the public hearing to consider a petition for a variance to permit construction of a duplex on a vacant lot at approximately 2500 37th Avenue N.E. Mr. Berg confirmed that all notification requirements had been met for such a hearing and no property owner reported failure to receive same. The $25 application fee had been paid. In his June 13 memorandum to the Board, Mr. Berg had advised them that before the duplex could be built on that corner lot, it would be necessary for the City to grant a lot area variance of 8 , 352 square feet; a front yard setback variance of 15 . 6 feet, and a rear yard setback variance of 20 feet, had indicated on a plat of the site how the proposed building will be out of alignment with other buildings along the block and informed them that the City staff felt the lot is substandard and unsuitable for building. The applicant, Andrew P. Kociscak, 5131 3rd Street N.E. , was not in attendance and the Chairman wondered if it would be fair to hold the hearing without him, but Mr. Bowerman felt the petition and the written statement he had given constituted Mr . Kociscak ' s position and the hearing should proceed on them. Spokesman for the opponents of the proposal was Kenneth J. Hoxmeier, 3657 Roosevelt Street N.E. , who said the reason the lot has been vacant for 15 years is that it is too small , and objected to placing a duplex on a lot that 's too small for a single residence. The • building will be 13 feet by 80 feet, with a 26 foot wide building and a garage 20 more feet wide. He said the duplex will not fit into the neighborhood, it will destroy the neighbor' s view of the landscape, and its height will cut down on the sunlight for the neighboring structures . He felt the structure would affect the re-sale value of his property, as well as that of his neighbors and. he cited the water problems in the area which drains into that lot; and said if the grade were changed, all the water would end up in his yard. He told how the snow is all piled on that lot and felt the salt would ruin any-shrubbery in the front yard because it would be planted so close to the street, and this distance could be cut down even further if 37th is ever upgraded. He also saw traffic vision being blocked by this high structure and said all his neighbors shared his opposition to the proposal . When Mr. Bjorklund asked if he had ever considered buying the land himself since it had recently gone for tax forfeiture, he said he had in- quired when he built his home about it, but had been told the City owned it and it was too small to build on. He later mentioned that power lines are joined at that corner and might prove hazardous to the building, and said he believed there must be a utility ease- ment on the property because he had recently gotten a notice that the power line is four feet within his property line . The hearing was closed at 8: 44 p.m. • -5- The Manager said they had tried to discourage Mr. Kociscak ' s applying for the variances . He agreed that the snow plowing on 37th will put snow right on the duplex front step and there will be difficulty opening the back door without banging the fence . He felt the lot was unbuildable. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded by Mr . Bowerman to recommend Council denial of the variances necessary to build a duplex on Lot 32, Block 1 , Soo Line Addition, because of the gross incon- sistencies with the requirements set by the zoning code finding that: no hardship can be shown to have resulted from City action since 1) the applicant was not the owner of record when the lot was plotted our, and 2) there are no extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Mr. Bjorklund saw the next step an attempt to build a single family dwelling and wanted the Board' s objections strengthened to include the adverse drainage conditions which are possible with development of this property, increased hazards on 37th Avenue and probable conflicts with the property setbacks and easements for utilities on 37th. The maker disagreed that "you can' t tell someone he can' t develop his land because he ' s going to block traffic" , and Mr. Sopcinski suggested it' s conceivable that in the future, when space becomes scarce, this proposal might be allowed and therefore did not want to interfere with the owner' s right to at least request • variances for any proposal . Mr. Bjorklund disagreed he was addres- sing anything more than the requested variances with his suggested amendments . Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones, Bowerman, Sopcinski and Rymarchick Nay: Bjorklund Motion carried. Following this action, Dan Shaddrick, 2510 37th Avenue N .E . , who with James Matu, 2508 37th Avenue N.E. , and another unidentified property owner were present, commented that it "would have been better business sense for the contractor who bought this tax for- feited property to have checked the City' s building codes before he bought" . Mr. Jones suggested to staff that if the property owner should contact them again regarding the development of this lot, he should be asked to comment on the objections to the lot' s development raised at this hearing. Mr. Hoxmeier described the flooding problems the neighborhood had experienced last July, and Mr. Fornell told him the City is well • aware of the drainage problems of the area since water had to be trenched through the back yards onto the vacant lot during the crisis. y y -6- John R. Penne, 5617 133rd Street N.E. , appeared to discuss the conceptual feasibility of zoning and use change for the existing • structure on the southern portion of the Hedlund property so his firm can remodel it for a realty office . Mr . Penne said he did not want to interfere with the existing PUD for the property; and if it posed a problem for the City, his firm could seek other sites in the City. He did not anticipate there would be more than 15 to 20 associates of the firm in his office at one time. He said the garage on the lot will probably be eliminated and there might be a wing attached on the side. He saw no problem with conforming to the PUD requirements for parking and screening on the north and showed site plans for reconversion plans . This concept had been discussed by City staff in their memo of June 15, and their recommendation , and that of the City Attorney, had been the Penne proposal could be considered under the existing PUD, but must be considered at a public hearing on the Detailed Plan, Mr. Fornell said. A telephone conversation with the contractor' s wife confirmed that five of the eight houses required by the PUD have been built on the Penrod portion of the property and two others started, with the last house to be started in August in compliance with the agree- ment Mr. Brickner has with Mr. Hedlund. Problems with the development of this PUD were reiterated with agree- ment that this is the first proposal made by Mr. Hedlund which had • conformed to the Conceptual Plan for the PUD. Mr . Fornell confirmed that a Detailed Plan is not required for the entire western portion of the development, as long as the requirements for one building are met following with which the City has to entertain as application for that building. He reiterated one proposal can be developed without seeing plans for the remainder of the undeveloped site. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend Council approval of a public hearing to consider the Penne Proposal subsequent to fulfillment of-Condition 6B of the Scheduling Component of the Hedlund PUD, since the Board' s general consensus is that this proposal is essentially in conformance with the PUD requirements . Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was recessed from 9 : 25 to 9 : 30 p.m. and when it was re- convened, the discussion on the Open Meeting Law was continued by Mr. Bjorklund. Each member gave his views as to how the law applied to each personally regarding private conversations . Mr. Jones was concerned he had been misquoted in the minutes for the hearing on the liquor operation, May 30 , since he had not endorsed the Silver Lane location for a liquor store. Mr. Bjorklund then suggested the BRW, Inc. attempt to get more pro- fessional projections regarding population projections for St. Anthony • suggesting ISD #282 had searched many sources for their figures and might react critically to the figures used by BRW. -7- It was agreed that the public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan • will "wash out differences. " When the meeting was hurriedly adjourned later because of storm conditions, the Manager was directed to send the Board ' s comments on the school ' s Capital Improvement Report, as they had been pre- pared by the staff. Mr. Rymarchick felt that no letter should be sent. All Board members, except Mr. Rymarchick, favored #7 of the City Hall Alternatives presented in Mr. Fornell ' s memorandum to the Council May 15, when the Manager asked for their reaction in context with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rymarchick favored #1, which he felt would delay expenditures until exact figures had been presented to him which proved moving the Fire Department to Parkview and seeking a long time lease or purchase of the building would result in better economics for the City. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Jones to recommend to the Council that #7 of the City Hall Alternatives be pursued, since this concept is in general terms consistent with good planning and with the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Expenditure program. Voting on the motion. Aye: Bjorklund, Jones, Sopcinski, and Bowerman Nay: Rymarchick Motion carried. The number of businesses which seem to be operating out of the Walbom property on Old Highway 8 were pointed out by Mr. Bowerman and he wondered if there might not be a violation of the zoning for that property which had been grandfathered in with the new zoning ordinance. Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to suggest the Council direct the Building Inspector or other appropriate staff members to examine the Walbom property for potential non- conformance with the existing City regulations . Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Rymarchick and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn the meeting at 10 :10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Helen Crowe pjr