Loading...
PL 06/04/1980 - 30537""'1 CITY OF FRIDLEY FLAt��TING COI+�lISSION MEETING, JUfdE 4, 1980 C?.LL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the June 4, 1980, Planning Coumnission meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL• ' Members Present: Mr. Harris, Mr. Treuenfels, Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Langenfeld, Ms. Hughes, Mr, Wharton, Mr. Oquist (arr, 7;30 p.m.} Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, C%ty Planner Jacki,e Judlicki, Administrator, Fridley Convalescent Center Charles E. Johanson, 424 Rice Creek Blvd. Lloyd Larson, 7549 Lyric Lane � James Summers, 7553 Lyric Lane Bruce Barsness, 7589 Lyric Lane Edna Barsness, 7589 Lyric Lane Elsie Nielsen, 7583 Lyric Lane . Je�ome W. Buhn, 7573 Lyr.ic Lane LaRue Buhn, 7573 Lyric Lane Janice Carroll, 7567 L3Tric Lane Dcaight K. Beglau, 7563 Lyric Lan.e . . Mr. & Mrs. Julian Bopdo, 7593 Lyric Lane �'!x'. McKabow, 7593 Lyric Lane APPROVAL OF MAY 21 1980 PLANN:CNG CONNIl�ISSION MTNUTES: MOTION by Mr, Langenfeld, secanded by Mr. Treuenfels, to approve the May 21, 1980, Planning Cammission minutes as �+rrirten. IIpon a voics vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. 1. RECEIVE PIAy 13 1980 CQMMiJNITY DEVELOPNLFNT CONI�ZISSION MTNUTE$; MOTTON bq Ms, Hughes, seconded by Mr, Treuenfels, to receive the May 13, 1980, Community Development Co�ission minutes, Mr. Langen#eld stated that on�page 4 of the uiinutes, regarding Ms. Modig's concern that ttie letter City Council sent to MPCE1 supporting a noise regulation such as NPC-5 did not reflect what was intended in the Planning Commission's motion, Mr. Flora had suggested that the Planning Commission write up a sample letter of transmittal for the City Council's signature and approval to avoid misunderstandings. Ms. Schnabel stated that before a letter is written, perhaps Mr. Flora, if he was the oiZe responsible for car3ting the �etter, should check wi�h the appro- � priate staff people involved to get all the pertinent details that should go into the letter. PLANNING COMMISSION MEE1'ING, JUNE 4, 1980 ' PAGE 2 Mr. Treuenfels asked Mr. Boardman if he would obtain a copy of the letter �� written by the City Council with reference to this subject. . Mr. Boardman stated he ��ould try to get a copy of this letter for the Planning Commission members. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE M(�ION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: 2. RECEIVE MAY 14 1980 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Hughes, seconded by Ms. Schnabel, to receive the May 14, 1980, Parks � Recreation Commission minutes. Ms. Hughes stated she wanted to point out that the Parks & Recreation Cammission did give preliminary approval to $117,�599 in Proposed Capital Outlay for 1981. The Coumnission will take final action at their June llth meeting. Ms. Sughes stated that on page 12, there was a motion to recommaend agproval of �a test toumament by Bob's Produce softball team. In the vote in the third paragraph, it should be changed to�read, "Chairperson Hughes declared the motion failed because of a tie." She stated this item was taken to the City Council on Monday, May 19, and the City Council approved that particular tournament �on a test basis without setting a.ny kind of precedent. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CAAIRMAi�T HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED �� Ui�iAN.CMOIISLY. 3. RECEIVE MAY 20, 1980, ENVIRONMENTAL QIIALITY COMNLLSSION MI1�T[JTES : MOi'ION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Treuenfels, to receive the May 20, 1980, Environmental Quality Coffinission minutes. NIr. Langenfeld stated that the Environmental Quality Co�ission was going to beeome involved again with the noise ordinance. They will probably gat involved in clean-ups. They also talked a_little about the feasibility of using cable TV to discuss some of these items. Mr. Langenfeld stated that an article by Charles Weaver, Metro.politan Council Chairperson, regarding the Anoka County Airport was included for the Planning Commission's inforsnation. fle stated he was very disgleased with.that article. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CI�AIi2MAN HARRIS DECLARED TI� MOTION CARRIED UNAN'IMOUSLY : 4. RECEIVE MAY 27 1980 APPEALS CONIMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Ms. Hughes, to receive the May 27, 1980, Apgeals Commission minutes. �, , � �� _., �. � PLANNING COP'�LCSSION MEETING, JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 3 Ms. Schnabel stated that on the requesC for a variance at 5%50 Main Street on pages 1-3, it should be noeed to the City Council that the drainage situation was a real concem to the neighborhood. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CH�IRMAN HARRIS DECLARED TI� MOTION CARRIED UNAI�IIMOUSLY: � 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP ��80-Q4, FRIDLEY CONVALESCENT HOME: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3, F, to allow an entrance from Lyric Lane because of expansion of the nursing home, to add clerical, office and classroom-meeting space, located on Lot 1, Block l, Maple Manor Addition, the.same being 7590 Lyric Zane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to open the public hearing on SP ��80-04 by the Fridley Convalescent Home. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the public hearing open at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Boardman stated that he would give a little background on this item. When the nursing home was proposed on this site in 1968, the Planning Commission and City Cc3uncil recommended a special use permit with'�he determination that there be no access off Lyric Lane. The reason this has come back to the Planning Commission for a special use hea.ring is because what is being proposed is samething that was suggested not take place in the orig�nal special use � permit. This special use permit request is ior a modification of that reco�en- dation or stipulation on the 1968 special use permit approval. The Fridley Convalescent Home is proposing an addi�ion to the office administra�ion area with.an access road comin.g in to the parking area that goes past the front of the building as a drop-off point. This access road would be a one-way in o=f of Lyric Lane. This is.in violation of the original special use permit. Mr. Boardman stated that Staff has several problems with this, primarily access problems. If this is approved for any reason, Staff feels this drive, instead of coming in at an angle onto Lyric Lane, should be dropped back a little bit more and brought more out on a right angle onto Lyric Lane. Regard- less of whether or not the driveway is approved, Staft feels that additional plantings and screening should be put around the parking lot to screen it from the resiclential neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel asked if Staff had any other alternatives to reco�end. Mr. Boardman stated the only other alternativ.e witliout access to Lyric Lane would be a.roadway that would completely circle the building. He did not know if that was the best alternative, because there are residences all along there. Mr. Johanson stated he was sitting on the Planning Cou�ission 15-17 years ago, and he was the one who made the motion not to a11ow access onto Lyric Lane. However, at that time, the area was being zoned for apartments, and now it is ^ a nursing home. He stated there is a real need for the access, and parking PLANNING CO1+�Il�LLSSION MEETING JUNE 4 1980 PAGE 4 is a real problem. He stated they could be very proud of the parents and �� relatives who visit the older people in the nursing home and getting in and out of the nursing hame is very hard. At this time, they cannot drive up to the front door. They have to drive to the back of the building and walk around � to the front door. � Mr. Johanson stated there really is no outside recreation area for the residents, and t�e could not see where this would hurt the neighbors on the other side. He felt they have done a good job with screening, and what they have�done in protecting the neighbors should speak quite well. Yc`^ Ms. Schnabel stated she had read a11 the minutes and information attached to the agenda, and she could find no reference where it specifically stated that there shall be no access off iyric Lane. Ms. Aughes stated that on page 19 of the agenda (RQgular Council meeting of � Oct. 21, 1968, page 24), there is a motion made by Councilman Samuelson to "concur with the Board of Appeals with the exception that the egress and exit should be on Madison St. and upon submitting more cosouplete plans showing just what land was involved". She thought that sounded like a stipulation. She wondered if the Planning Co�ission couldn't proceed on the basis that there was such a stipulation. Did Mr. Johanson agree th�re was a stipulation of no egress onto Lyric Lane? ' Mr. Johanson stated he did remember the stipulation, but did not remember the � dates. � Mr. Aarris asked if there was anqone in the audience who would like to speak to the item. Mr. Buhn, 7573 Lyric Lane, stated he thought"he was at the meetings when that stipulation was made that there be no egress onto Lyric Lane. He didn't think the traffic has decreased any on Lyric Lane and felt that a driveway into the nursing home would only increase the traffic. fle was in complete agreement wiCh the nursing home wanting a nice area outside for the residents, but why clutter it up with a driveway? Mr. Johanson stated that to put in a circle driveway, they would have to come in off Madison and go all around the building. They would like to be able to have some of the people come in off Lyric Lane, discharge a resident at the � fxon t d oor, drive to the parking lot, and exit onto Madison. They are having very heavy traffic access on Madison becaus�e of Unity Hospital and the doctors' parking lot. Because of the nursing home's sma11 parking 1ot, a lot of people are parkO�gfriends.StHeereallyididhnot�believeptheiaccess ontorLyric Laneiwould parents increase tra£fic on Lyric Lane. Ms. Nielsen, 7583 Lyric Lane, stated she lives almost across the street from the proposed driveway. Righe now they have more traffic than they can bear. Unity Hospital has an entrance Snheav��u i�etheichangesuin�shiftsan Sheloyees' ^ parkin� lot, and that traffi i y � . -- • .�� ,� PLANNING COP�'RSSION MEETING, .TUDTE 4, 1980 PAGE 5 stated that their children all walk to school as there is no bus service on the area from Madison to Jackson on Lyric Lane. The children have to walk in the street because there are no sidewalks until they get to Osborne. Her . main concern was the children, and she would hate to see a child hit by a car because of that driveway into the nursing home. Mr. Langenfeld asked how Ms. Nielsen felt the traffic would actually increase. He had the impression from what he had alreadq heard �hat the traffic already existed, and this access would not necessarily increase the �raffic. Ms. Nielsen stated that right now the heaviest traffic occurs during the �"` � changes in shifts at the hospital. It was her feeling that by putting in a driveway to the nursing home, there would be visitors coming and going all day long and it would increase the traffic. The employees would also use that entrance. Mr. Buhn stated that a good portion o�f the traffic now going off Madison, that drops off people at the nursing home and the nursing home employees would start coming in through the driveway on Lyric Lane. He asked if it was possible to change the entrance to the nursing home as long as they would be remodeling and continue to use Madison as the main entrance? Mr. Johanson.stated it was not possible to rearrange administration, plus the fact that there was a setback needed from Madison. The setback fror� /"'� Lyric Lane stiil meets city code. He stated there is no basement under a good share of the building, and the building was not really built to increase the size of it. By•adding on to the front, they don't have to depend on the �other utilities in the nursing home and cari build on for less money. He stated the nursing home really cannot afford even this. The State sets the rate they can charge for a patient and the nu.rsing home has to live within that budget. Mr. Su�ers, 7553 Lyric Lane, stated he has lived on Lyric Lane siuce 1968 and watched the nursing home being built. He stated the nursing home does not use the front door at all. �s he has observed,��the traffic for the people coming to the nursing home comes off Osborne, goes down Madison into the ���� nursing home parking lot, and leaves on Madison. This new proposed driveway would increase fihe traffic in front of their homes. He was also concerned about the children who have to walk. Ms. Judlicki sta�ed, that as Mr. Summers has stated, most of the traffic does come off Osborne Road. She sfiated the only people using the Lyric Lane access would be relatives of residents in order to drop the residents off at a central location. Right now all the residents have to co�e "through the west entrance. That means all the traffic is coming through the living quarters of the residents which makes privacy almost impossible. The new driveway would take the traffic to the main area of the nursing home. The employees and staff wouid continue to use the parking lot off Madison. ^ Mr. Langenfeld asked Ms. Judlicki approximately haw many people she felt tvould be dropped off at the main entrance in a day. PLANNING COMNLCSSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 PAGE 6 Ms. Judlicki stated it would be 4-5 residents at the most. Th is access would � also be easier for outings when they hire a bus or a van, because it would be easier for the residents to get on and off a bus. Mr. Barsness,7589 Lyric Lane, stated he was concerned about the traffic. They would like to think ot Lyric Lane as a residential street, and now it was in danger of being•a too heavily traveled street. He siated he also had a second concern noC yet mentioned and that was the fact that directly east of Che nursing home is a large apartment complex. The apartment complex has a parking lot running north and south with one entrance onto Osborne. He did not live in the neighborhood at the time the complex was built, but he under- i-v,. stood that the apartment caanplex also came before the Planning Commission to have an access onto Lyric Lane, and that access was denied. fle stated there are still a number of cars who use Lyric Lane to get to the apartment complex parking lot anyway. He stated they do not want to deny anything to the elderly, but if an access is allowed onto Lyric Lane for the nursing home, it would be pretty hard to deny the easement for the people in the apartment complex. The neighborhood definitely does not want an easement for the apartment camplex. Ms. Hughes stated that if there was a front entrance, was it the intention of the nursing hame to close off the west entrance? Ms. Judlicki stated they would not close that entrance because of the employees and other people who regularly use it now. Ms. Schnabel stated she was not totally convinced that putting this driveway ^ in was going to increase the traffic that much. As she saw it, the driveway would be used on two occasions. One woul d be for dropping off the handicapped or elderly person at the front door, and the other would be in inclement weather when there are several passengers in a car and those passengers are dropped off at the front door. Otherz�i.se, if she were a visitor who had a relative in the nursing home, she would not use the front entrance at all, but would always take Madison, park in the lot, and walk to the easiest or closest entrance. From a practical standpoint, she could not see �iow this proposal would increase the traffic that much over what currently existed. From what she has heard so far, the traffic is really related to hospital traffic or possible apartment traffic. . � Mx. Harris asked how many residents are intize nursing home. Ms. Judlicki stated there are 129 nursing home residents. . Ms. Hughes asked Ms. Judlicki what happens to the people visiting the residents who are handicapped. Ms. Judlicki stated they are dropped off at the west entrance. They have a handicapped parking slot by the west entrance, but it is on a slope so it is very difficult for a person handicapped in any way. Ms. Hughes stated that with the driveway being one-way to the west, this would require anyone using the driveway to make a.left turn aff Madison and ^ a left turn off Lyric Lane unless the traffic was coming from the easC on Lyric Lane. This could be a dangerous traftic situation if there are people stacked up to turn left. She was also concerned about whether school buses or vans could make that turn easily. , ,.,,�,,,� . _ �.� P'LANNING CONIMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 • PAGE 7 Ms. Nielsen stated there was also the probleni in the wintertime when the snow is piled up. This would make visibility very difficult and could be an even. greater danger to the children. Mr. Buhn stated that Mr. Johanson had said that the reason for enlarging the nursing home parking lot and getting more parking at Unit� is because they can't handle the amount of cars they have now. That has to be proof that the neighborhood is going �o be subject to more traffic than it has now. Ms. Carroll, 7567 Lyric Lane, stated she lives practically across the street from the nursing home. Her children walk to sc�.00l, play and ride bikes in the street, and she is concemed about �he traffic. Mr. Johanson stated that ra�her than do any�hing to upset the neighbors across the street, they would rather do nothing. He has been on the Hospital Board since the day the City put him on the Norfih Suburban Hospital District. They have worked wifih the people on Lyric Lane and have planted trees and done everything to keep good relations with the neighbors and would like it to stay that �vay, He was concerned about the children also, but he could see a real benefiC to the older people living in the.nursing home to have that entrance. That entrance would be very little used. Ms. Barsness, 7589 Lyric Lane, stated she was also concerned about tlze traffic and the children wallcing. She works at Unity and walks to work. Tt is ,'-1 especially dangerous in the wintertime. She. is opposed to the access off Lyric � Lane. �"1 . N1'r. Oquist stated that the concern expressed by Mr. Barsness was something the Planning Commission should discuss, and that was regarding the apartment building comglex. Tf they allow the entrance for the nursing home, they cvould have to consider the apartment complex a1so. Mr. Treuenfels asked anyone in the audience to answer a question and that �aas how much they would estimate the traffic to increase if fihis particular drive- way ofi' Lyric Lane was put in? Ms. Nielsen stated that, after the nursing home addition, she would estimate an increase of 50 or more cars in a 24 hr. day, Mr. Summers stated he agreed with that figure and further stated that most of those cars would probably come off Madison, make a left-hand turn onto Lyric Lan�, and a left hand turn into the nursing home driveway, which would put traffic across the westbound traffic that is coming down Lyric Lane right no�a. The comment was made that this would be a one-way entrance, but he felt that even though you pu� up signs, people are going to go both directions. Mr. Harris asked �,rhere the deliveries are made noca. Mr. Johanson stated that a11 deliveries come to the rear of the building. All mail deliveries come to the west entrance. PLANrTING COMMISSION MEETING, J[JNE 4, 1980 PAGE 8 � �� Mr. Sun�niers stated that most of the neighbors have expressed their opinions that they are concerned about the traffic. They do not look forward to seeing a driveway added and not one of them is in favor of the driveway. Mr. Johanson had already stated thaC if this was not agreeable to the neighbor- hood, he would go along with that. � Mr. Johenson stated that, yes, they probably would; however, if they spend money to go around the back, they will not have the money to spend on the land- scaping they had planned. They are trying to do the nicest thing for everyone. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Johanson that if the driveway was not agreed upon, ---�_�-- how great a hardship would it be for the nursing home? Mr. Johanson stated they have been planning this for close to a year, and they would probably try to come up with an alternative plan. They feel there is a real need for the expansion. Ms. Hughes asked about the Hospital Board for the nursing home that Mr. Johanson had talked about. Mr. Johanson stated the Hr�spital Board consists of three members who run the nursing home. They are Betty Wall of the North Suburban Hospital District, Dean Tollefson of the First National Bank in Blaine, and himself. MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr.Langenfeld, to close the public h esr3.ng on SP ��80-04 by the Fridley Convalescent Home. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting '�^� aye, Chairman Sarris declared the public hearing closed at 9:07 p.m. Ms. Aughes asked if there was enough access to the building for fire emergencies. , Mr. Boardman stated that fire access is made primarily from the street, and there is no problem with that. MO'tION bv Ms Hughes, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to recommend to City Council denial of the amendment to Special Use Permit, SP ��80-04, by the Fridley Convalescent Home• Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 3, F, to allow an entrance from Lyric Lane because of expansion of the nursing home, to add clerical, office and classroom-meeting space, located on Lot 1, Block 1, Maple Manor Addition, the same being 7590 Lyric Lane N.E., Fridley, Minnesota, for the following reasons: ' .__.Y. There appears to be no overwhelming need for the access as �._. presented by the petitioners. ___ _.__. 2. There are some potential problems with the one-way configuration in terms of a traffic danger because of a left turn required off �ric Lane . 3. The precedent that might be set for other apartment buildings that have been denied access onto Lyric Lane. n ,� � FLANN'LNG CONIMISSION MEETING, JU1VE 4, 1980 PAGE 9 N1s. Hughes state�l that it appeared to her Chat the parking lot that is being considered to be added only encourages the use of the west entrance in the back. If Chey really want to encourage use of the front door, they should consider using the large area to the easC in some kind of a parking lot that would include a driveway turn-around. The concerns oi a disturbance to the nursing home residents by havin� a drive close to them can easily be accommo- dated on that 1ot by moving the parking lot away from the residents and having a large grassy area between the building and the parking lot. They .could sti11 have the drop-off by having a one-way drive that comes in close to Lyric Lane. This should all be considered by the traffic people. Mr. Langenfeld stated it was his opinion that the traffic was definitely a problem. The petitioner has stated he may consider an alternative method. At this point in time, he could see the feasibility of such a drop-off for the residents; however, he was inclined to go with the motion to deny en�trance off Lyric Lane. . Mr. Treuenfels stated that one of the reasons for denial in the motion was the possible precedent they would be setting ftor other driveways onto Lyric Lane. He would like more information on what they would be getting into with some- thing like this. � Mr. Boardman stated that the reason this driveway petition was brought to the Planning Connnission was because of some quesfions in the original special use � germit as to whether a driveway would or would not be allowed to Lyric Lane. In reviewing the previous �ninutes and iniormation, Staff fel�t this would require an amendment to the special use permit approved at that time. That is why it is before the Planning Cammission. He sCated that anyone has the right to have access onto a street. If the apartment building wants access to Lyric Lane, the Staff �aould most likely say "no" to that access. There is nothing in the city codes that can stop that access. It is primarily an administrative judgment, and if the apartment building disagreed with that judgment, then they can appeal the staff judgment. Mr. Harris referred to page 15 of the agenda (Minutes of the Board of Appeals, Nov. 6, 1968) noting the second stipulation in a motion mac3e by himself: "The new plot plan is agreeable with egress on Madison St." It was the Board of Appeals feeling at that time, and he has not seen any reason to change that feeling in the past 12-13 years, that they wanted accesses to the project off Madison St, because they felt any turning on Lyric Lane would present a safety hazard. That was the reasoning for the "no egress" for the apartment building and the nursing home. Under the presen.t proposal, it was his opinion that the turning from either direction would create a traffic hazard with the amount of traffic already on Lyric Lane. It was the Board of Appeals feeling, and was still his opinion, that they wanted to see uninterrupted traffic flow down Lyric Lane. Mr. Boardman staeed he had a question which dealt with the code requirements on setback of parking as compared to setback of driveway. Tn a driveway ^ situation, there is no setback from the right-of-way, primarily because that drive��ay has access/egress off the street and therefore allows a driveway to go to the property 1ine. When they run into problems is when a driveway PLANNtNG CONQ�LSSION MEETING, JUATE 4, 1980 PAGE 10 -- - - i 1 becomes part of a parking loC and there are no accesses off to the street. Therefore, they look at it as a setback of 20 ft. from the property line. . If this driveway is noC accessed off onto Lyric Lane, then would the Planning Commission view it sCi11 as a driveway or a driveway as part of a parking lot and therefore have to meet the 20 ft. setback requirement? If it has to meet a 20 ft. setback requirement, then it cannot be located in the front yard without a variance. He posed this question for the Planning Co�ission's consideration, because the Planning Commission may or may not have to act on it at sometime in the future . �,�_��. Ms. Schnabel stated that in thinking about the motion, she had decided she would vote against the motion for the following reasons: 1. She did not think the circumstances of the handicapped have been . truly addressed in trying to decide how these people are going to be easily picked up and dropped off at the nursing home, specifically if the entrance is not permitted. The petitioners have indicaCed they are having diffieulty currently with their handicapped people trying to get them in and out, and she did not think they have really addressed the needs of those residents of our city. She has had quite a bit of experienc.e recently with nursing home patients and can relate to the prorlems these people are experiencing in trying to provide al1 services to their residents. She found the best argument against the driveway was the argument of additional deYiveries,� the mail, United Parcel Service, etc. She agreed with that concern, but perhaps those issues could be solved by specifically delineating special areas for package deli va�ies, other than mail. Z. In talking about putting oae drive��ay on that side of the street, they fail to realize that across the street each one of the people in the audience represents a driveway that does come out on Lyric Lane, maybe another ten driveways coming out on that side of Lyric Lane, with thz same situations existing--that there are children walking in the street, there is traffic, and the many other things brought up at the meeting. Because of that, she felt it was hard to find a real reason not to provide the access to the nursing home via only one driveway. She could not, in good conscience, deny the nursing home that easy access. Mr. Wharton stated he agreed with Ms. Schnabel and would also vote against the motion. He felt this driveway off Lyric Lane is a very prudent driveway. He felt the petitioners have shown a need and he has not been convinced during the meeCing that the traffic is going to increase ori Lyric Lane to any degree over what residences.on the nursing home side of the street would have or what he has on the other side of his street by having residents who back their cars out of the driveways. Children run a much g�ceater risk by having neighbors across the sCreet with driveways into each home than he felt the residents along Lyric Lane would 'have �aith one driveway across from them going into the property only. �� �� PLANNING CONIMLSSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 PAGE 11 Mr. Wharton stated that the idea of a driveway going over to the east end of the property witii a cul-de-sac or parking lot is not going to be a convenience, because cars out of necessity �aould be going east, discharging their passengexs on the south side of the drive�ay. The passengers would have to walk across the driveway to get into the building, or else the car would have to proceed to the cul-de-sac to turn around and come back west to discharge the passenger. This could be more of a hazard than a benefit. Mr. Oquist stated he did not think the question had been answered about the precedent setting regarding the possibility of the apartment complex wanting access onto Lyric Lane. Mr. Harris stated that from a practical staitdpoint, he felt if they start allowing accesses, they wi11 be setting a precedent. Staff can say "no", but the apartment people still have the right to come in and ask for a variance or mitigation of the circumstances. Ms. Schnabel stated she disagreed with that. It was a completely different situation with a whole different set of hardships. The apartment complex would, in effect, be creating a whole new street from Lyric Lane to Osborne, which would be a completely different situation from that of the nursing home. Mr. Boardman agreed with Ms. Schnabel. different situations with two different � requires proof of a hardship, whereas, is required. � He stated there are two completely procedures--a variance procedure under a special use permit, no hardship Mr. Langenfeld stated this was a very diff'icult thing to make a decision on. 'He was very much aware of the needs of the handicapped people by nature of his profession. Tt was his hope that some alternative decision might be made that �aould meet the needs of the citizens as caell as the handicapped and the nursing home. Ms. Hughes stated she works with handicapped p ersons every day und is we11 acquainted with some of the problems they have in gaining access to buildings. She did not think any of the considerations suggested in the motion.were an imposition on the handicapped. What the petitioners presented was not informa- tion about how desperately they needed access for the handicapped,with the exception that they don't want them coming in the �aest door because of the. problems mentioned. She felt it was not the Planning Commission's job to plan the access to the building, but to let the petitioner go back and make some new plans and arrangements. UPON A VOICE VOTE, OQUIST, HUGHES, HARRIS, AND LANGEiVFELD VOTING AYE, WHARTON, SCI�IABEL �AND TREUENFELS VOTIIVG NAY, CHAIRMAN HARRIS DECLARED THE MOTION TO DENY' SP ��80-04 CARRIED WITH A 4-3 VOTE. Mr. Harris thanked everyone for coming and stated this would go before the City Council on June 16. � PLANNtNG CONII�IISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 _ • PAGE 12 Ms. Hughes stated she would suggest that the Energy Co�nission meet with someone f rom Unity Hospital to encourage carpooling and vanpooling by their employees. (Ms. Hughes left the meeting at 9:48 p.m.) Chairman Harris declared a ten-minute recess at 9:49 p.m. 6. CO_TZTINUED: PROPOSED CHANGES TO CHAPTER 205. ZODTING Page 5 0 205.12 P DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.121 IIses Permitted �, � Mr. Harris stated that at the last meeting, there was same discussion regarding Item 1, Principal Uses, and that some of these uses should require a special use permit. He had suggested that the Commissioners think about this and bring back suggestions and concerns at this meeting. Ms. Schnabel stated that since this particular item did refer to parks and � the development of parks, she would like to delay the item until Ms. Hughes could be present to discuss the item. • ,� , � MOTION by Ms. Schnabel, seconded by Mr. Langenreld, to table�discussion on "Principal Uses in P District Regulations" until such a time as Ms. Hughes can be present for the discussion. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion carried unanimously. Page 51 205.122, 205.123, 205.124, 205.125 �1. Change "any other district" to "those districts" P_age 52 , 205.13 C-1 DISTRICT REGULATTONS 205.131 Uses Permitted � 3-D. Change to -"Banks, finaucial institutions, and other uses having drive-in facilities." 205.133 Lot Requirements and Setbacks 1. Lot Area - should read: 'rNiinimum lot area of 20,000 square feet is required." Delete "Lot Width" - ICem 2 %`1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 - PAGE 13 Page 53 205.135 Parking Requirements �1. Delete "and that those stalls be provided upon request of the City when and if a parking problem occurs". � Ms. Schnabel suggested that "at the discretion of the City" b� inserted after "reduction of parking stalls would be allowed". � Page 54� �2. "tit3,11 be required" should be changed to "wi11 be provided" . Delete all of first Ttem ��4, "Design Requirements" Page 55 �4-F-1. "minimum should be changed to "maximum" Page 56 MO'.�ION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Wharton, to delete �4-H "Parl:ing sta11 designation." Upon a voice vote, al1 votia�.g aye, Chairman Harris �r—� declared the motion. carried unan,imously, � Page 56 Change a11 of Item I�as follows: I. Loadin Docks The space needed for the out�ide loading and unloading faciliiies must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing public right-of-caay J. Change "Zoning Administrator" to "City" K. "to be approved by the Zoning Administrator" should be.changed�to "to be approved by the City" ��5. Change "Zoning Administrator" to "City" and delete "striping" in $th line. 205.136 Performance Standards �1-A. Put a period after "zoning" in first sentence. Add Item B as fol].ows; "The City Council shall require a Special Use Permit for any exterior storage if it is demonstrated that such storage is a hazard to public health, safety, and general welfare. PLANN'LNG COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 4, 1980 � PAGE 14 MOTION by Mr. Langenfeld, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue discussion on Proposed Changes to Chapter 205. Zoning. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the motion ca.rried unanimously. The Planning Commission set Monday, June 9th, at 7:30 pm,as a special meeting to discuss Chaprer 205. Zoning. • ADJOiTRNMENT • MOTION by Mr. W'harton, seconded by Mr. Langenfeld, to adjourn. the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the June 4, 1980, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L Saba Recording Secretary 0 �� � �