PL 04/22/1987 - 30662��
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1987
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Billings called the April 22, 19�7, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Steve Billings, Dave Kon�rick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek,
Donald Betzold
Members Absent: Richard Svanda
Otfiers Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator
Richard Haarstad, 2265 Leone Dr., idew Brighton
Don Ri�ken, 3413 Georgia Ave. PJ., Crystal
Jim Determan, 1780 - 118th Ave., N.E,, Blaine
APPROVAL OF APRIL 8, 1987, PLANNING COPIMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY NIl4. SABA, TO APPROVE THE APRIL 8� 1987�
%� PLANNING COMMISSZON MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER50N BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
l. CO�JSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #87-02, BY DON RIEKEN:
To split Lot 1, Auditor s Su ivision No. 89 into three separate
parcels. The first parcel being that part of the East 25 feet of the
West 500 feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the South-
west Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County,
P7innesota. The second parcel being that part of the East 225 feet of
the West 475 feet of the PJor.th Half of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying north of the south 405.60 feet of said North half of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. The third parcel being
that part of the South 405.60 feet of the East 225 feet of the West 475
feet of the North Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter
of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Pqinnesota, the same
being 1131 - 72nd Avenue fJ.E.
Mr. Robinson stated this parcel of property was located east of Highway 65
between 72nd Ave. and 73rd Ave. It was presently one large parcel of
land, approximately 250 ft. by 655 ft. Zoni�ng was light industrial, as was
the surrounding pro�erty.
� Mr. Robinson stated the proposal, in concert with a proposal by
, Mr. Jim Determan, was to split off the easterly 25 ft. of the lot to be
sold to f�r. Determan who will utilize that portion for drainage improvements.
�
�} PLANNIfJG COMMISSION P�IEETING, APRIL 22, 1987 PAGE 2
Mr. Robinson stated that, in addition, the petitioner, Mr. Haarstad, was
requesting to split the northerly 1.2 acres. Mr. Haarstad had no plans to
expand"on his own business and would like to seil that property for further
development.
Mr. Robinson stated that in conjunction with the lot split proposal, two
variances were heard by the Appeals Commission at their last meeting. One
dealt with the fact that the split-off lot would be less than 12 acres which
was required by Code. However, when the property was purchased, the Code
only called for .75 acres. The other variance was to reduce the rear yard
setback from 25 feet to 5 feet to bring the property into legal conforming
use. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of both variances.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations:
1. Lot split approval is contingent upon City Council approval of variances.
2. Park fee on total subdivision is $3,405.61. Petitioner requests that
$3,065.05 (amount less 25 foot strip) to be deferred to building permit
on proposed Parcel 2.
3. Easements for drainage per Rice Creek Watershed approved plan to be
^ granted prior to recordinq lot split.
4. Freestanding sign to be upgraded by staining trim and refacing
deteriorating sign faces.
5. Slats to be installed on north and south storage yard fence, including
gates.
6. Shrubbery and trees to be installed along 72nd Avenue and west of park-
ing lot by June 30, 1987.
7. Twenty-five foot strip to be combined with Determan lot and filed with
lo�t split. ,
8. Petitioner to stripe parking lot.
Mr. Billings asked the reason for selling the 25 ft. strip of land to
Mr. Determan.
Mr. Robinson stated it has been the City's position for a number of years
that Norton Creek might be better served if it were piped. One reason for
that was the heavy industrial use on both sides of the Creek and the concern
about pollution and run-off into that Creek. The feeling was that if the
Creek was piped, they could better control the run-off into the ditch section
which ultimately runs into Rice Creek. This is in the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
�
PLANNING COt�MISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1987 PAGE 3
Mr. Robinson stated Mr. Determan has been working for a number of years to
get Rice Creek Watershed District and City approval to put that section of
the Creek into pipe. An added benefit to Mr. Determan was he would be able
to place parking along the left side of his existing fenceline which was his
storage yard. So, the agreement with Mr. Determan to put that portion of
Creek into pipe was all part of the drainage plan.
Mr. Determan stated some years ago, Mr. Flora and Mr. Burch of the Public
Works Department had said they would like to close the Creek. But, astro-
nomical numbers would have bee n assessed against the two property owners
along the Creek. He had asked �hy he couldn't do the work himself as he had
the ability, the people and equipment to do it. So, 7ast fall he had gotten
approval from the City and the Rice Creek Watershed District to do it.
Mr. Haars�ad stated their building was bigger than they need. They are
presently leasing 10,000 sq. ft. to The Lif t for warehouse space. So, they
have 10,000 sq. ft. of expansion space should they ever need it. If they
had known that the lot split would have been at 12 acres, by not putting that
extra 10,000 sq. ft. on the end of the building, at�c� building just what they
needed, they could have accor�nodated that 12 acres. As it was, with the
building there, there was no way to accommodate 12 acres.
Ms. Sherek stated that if the lot a�,a� ��lit off, whai would they do as far as
^ the access they have to the north? Would they attempt to retain an easement
for access to their parking lot?
Mr. Haarstad stated they did not need to. They can get in and out as it is.
Their yard is large enough for a truck to come in and turn around. They do
have some people interested in purchasing the lot. At the present time, the
prospecti ve buyer has �sk�ci pe�rtti�ssi e�ri- to��d�i ��-���g�:-�t�i�° p;r�perty i f the
drive is left open. Mr. Maarstad stated he had no problem wit�h that.
The one problem he would have was on selling the 25 ft. When they sell that
25 ft., it comes right up t� the edge of the property they are presently using.
If they have to back off that eas� line, then there was no way he could go along
with it. - �
P7s. Sherek stated her concern would be with the parcel that was already smaller
than 12 acres. She was concerned that if they try to maintain an easement
and if the new property owner was required to have setbacks and adequate park-
ing, that new lot might become an unbuildable lot.
Mr. Robinson stated the Code clearly requires a setback of 5 ft, for a parking
lot. On the east side was a Class V type of staging area descr�ibed to him as
a storage yard for equipment and trucks to be worked on, not a parking lot.
The City currently allows storage yards to be fenced right up to the property
line. So, if they can make the dis�inction that it is a storage yard and not
a parking lot, they could utilize the area right up to the fence.
^ Mr. Billings asked if the parking lot on the south side of the building now
meets the City's requirements for the existing building.
Mr. Robinson stated he assumed that when the building was built, the parking
lot did meet Code. The building was not a very old building.
PLANNING COMMISSION P7EETING, APRIL 22, 1987 PAGE 4
Mr. Haarstad stated the building was built in 1979. He believed they had
4 or 5 more parking spaces than were needed by Code. He believed there were
about 36 parking spaces.
Mr. Robinson stated that as far as parking, Staff could prepare a memo for
City Council review. They would analyze the interior use of the building
and look at th e percentages of warehouse versus office and see how it compares
with today's Code.
Mr. Haarstad stated they were asking that the park fee (stipulation #2) be
deferred to the building permit on proposed Parcel 2. Once the piping was
done and the run-off ponds were in and acceptable, both his total property
and Mr. Determan's property would be totally taken care of and anyone wanting
to buy the north parcel and build a building would be assured that nothing
else would have to be done as far as drainage.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY NIR. SABA, TO RECOM�1"END_TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT, L.S. #87-02� BY DON RIEKEN, WITH THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND TO ASK STAFF TO PROVIDE THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A FURTHER
STUDY.REGARDING PARKING 5PACES:
1. LOT 5PLIT APPROVAL IS CONTI111GENT UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF VARIANCE5.
^ 2. PARK FEE ON TOTAL 5UBDIVI5ION I5 $3,405.6I. PETITlONER REQUESTS
THAT $3,065.05 (AMOUNT LE5S 25 FOOT STRIP) TO BE DEFERRED TO
BUILDING PERMIT ON PROPOSED PARCEL 2.
3. EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE PER RICE CRE�IC WATERSHED ,�,PPROVED PLAN TO
BE GRANTED PRIOR TO RECORDING LOT 5PLIT.
4. FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE UPGRADED BY STAINING TRIM AND REFACING
DETERIORATING SIGN FACE5.
5. SLAT5 TO BE IN5TALLED ON NORTH AIUD SOUTH 5TORAGE YA.RD FEIUCE,
INCLUDING GATES .
6. SHRUBBERY AND TREES TO BE INSTALLED ALONG 72ND AVENUE AND WEST OF
PARKING LOT Bi' JUNE 30, 1987.
7. TWENTY-FIVE FOOT 5T.RIP TD BE COMBINED WITH DETERMAN LOT AND FILED
WITH LOT 5PLIT.
8. PETITIONER TO 5TRIPE PARKING LOT.
Mr. 6illings stated he had a little reservation in terms of the size of the
northerly lot. The City has gone from 3/4 acre to 12 acres for a reason--
so the lots were large enough to be buildable for industrial uses. He
rea�liz�d.that if the petitioner had come in for a lot split in 1977, he
could have done so under the old Code and it would have been all right, but
times change and needs change, and that is why codes change. He just wanted
to make sure they knew what they were doing.
Mr. Kondrick stated he had that concern also, but s.i_nce �{a� new lot would still
be 30% larger than what used to be allowable under the old Code, he would
feel comfortable in granting the lot split.
��
PLANNING COMPIISSION �EETING� APRIL 22s 1987 PAGE 5
f�
^
Ms. Sherek stated there were other properties in the immediate area that
were too small. One of the conclusions she came to was that closing over
the Creek and that not being a roadway through there changed the setback
requirements. It was not like they were putting it out in the middle of
three streets where there would be setbacks �o be cons�der�� �n all sides.
So, she felt they could put a fair-sized building on the new lot and still
maintain off-street parking and meet setback requirements.
Mr. Robinson stated the new lot would be 48,753 sq, ft. With the present
code, they could build a 19,500 sq. ft, building.which was a good sized
building. That was 40% lot coverage and, depending on the components in the
building, there would be enough room for parking also.
Mr. Robinson stated he did not know if the Appeals Commission had addressed
this or not, but p��haps �o��t��r� tha� should go on record was that a
legitimate hardship in the future would not be that the lot was less than
1 2 acre.
Mr. Billings agreed. One of his concerns was that they were not creating
a situation where a person purchases the lot, puts up an 8,000-10,000 sq. ft.
building and then when expansion is needed, the hardship stated is that the
lot is smaller than it should be. They should be trying to stay away from
these kinds of situations.
UPOA1 A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV BILLING5 DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOU5LY.
2. RECEIVE MARCH__12, 1987, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY P�INUTES:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MS. SHEREK, TO RECEIVE THE MARCH Z2, 1987,
HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, A71L VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE MOTION
CAR.RIED UNANIMDUSLY.
3. RECEIVE APRIL 14, 1987, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY 1�2. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE THE APRIL 14� 1987,
APPEAZ�S COMMI5�.TDA1 MINUTES.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLING5 DECTIARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. OTNER BUSINESS:
a. Coaches Training Program
'_ Mr. Kondrick stated the Parks & Recreation Department had instituted a
^ coaches' training program for all coaches of the various athletic programs
in the City. The coaches would be trained, not only in �ar�ious aspects
of the sport itself, but also in the psychology and needs of children,
� PLANNING COM�7ISSION P�EETING, APRIL 22, 1987 PAGE 6
and safety--prevention and care of athletic injuries, etc. The training
clinic would involve tape presentations of these things. Upon completion
of the training, each coach would get a quarterly newsletter, a member-
ship card in the National Youth Sport Coaches Association, a patch, a
certificate of completion, and a$300,000 liability insurance coverage.
Mr. Kondrick stated the whole program seemed very worthwhile, and he
thought it was going to be a very positive thing for all athletic programs
in the City. The fee for this training vaas $15/coach, and the City would
be funding the training program for a 2-year period.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION BY MR. BETZOLD, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BILLINGS DECLARED THE APRIL 22, 1987,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:30 P.M.
-#I�s�eet�f�-1-1y submitted,
G�-�
� Lyn Saba
� Recording Secretary
�
/�`i
G�'�'x-e-
��
�n.��� � � c
�/ V !�./
��, I��%
,
�
,
� `, - ; ,
�� �� �� �� ��-w � �
� �/� � i� ��s� C� �
�%�
�
� � �-� - ii �- .� � C rr� , � �� ; � e �