The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 08/16/1989 - 7099PLAI�•7ING C(��SSIOiJ P�E'ITNG ALiGUST 16 , 19 89 7:30 p.m. City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1989 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: COMMI7NITY EDUCATION CENTER, 6085 - 7TH STREET N.E. � CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: July 12, 1989 TABLED: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP 89-08 BY KEITH'S AUTO BODY:. . . Per Section 205.17.O1�C.(9) of the•Fridley'City Code, to allow a repair garage on that part of the East 46 acres of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 46 acre tract distant 623.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 46 acre tract; thence South along the West line of said East 46 acre tract 161.63 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract 538.98 feet, more or less, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 65; thence Northerly along said Westerly right-of-way line 161.63 feet, more or less, to the intersection of a line drawn from the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract; thence West parallel with the said North line 538.73 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, the same being 7570 Highway 65 N.E. � PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP 89-11 BY ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST INC.:. . , 2- 2p Per Section 205.07.O1.C.2 of the Fridley City Code, to allow churches in a residential district, on Lot 3, Block l, Parkview Oaks First Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 - 3C CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHURCHES IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 4 - 4J CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REDUCING THE RE UIRED REAR YARD SETBACK ON CORNER LOTS FROM 25 FEET TO 10 FEET ......... 5- 5G i Planning Commission Agenda August 16, 1989 Page 2 � r 1Gi1111111 �vmmission on a e 4 of the minutes and memorandum from Jack Kirk , � • . . . . . . . . . . . . . GREEN RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 18 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YELLOW RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 1 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . YELLOW OTHER BUSINESS: Senior Housing Memorandum Central Avenue Corridor Memorandum ADJOURN• CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JIILY 12, 1989 --------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the July 12, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Steve Billings, Council Member Jerome Farrell, 5871 Cedar Lake Road, Mpls. Connie Lutten, Conoco - Jet Station Debbie Hammock, Conoco - Jet Station APPROVAL OF JUNE 21 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the June 21, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TIiE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P.S. �89-02, SBF ADDITION BY JEROME FARREL• To replat Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, into two lots, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E. MOTION by i�x� m K�rndr�_ck, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing noti�e� and apen the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTZON CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the site was recently rezoned to C-2, General Business. One of the stipulations of the rezcrning was that the parcel be platted into two lots so the proposed movie theater strip pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JIILY 12 1989 _ PAGE 2 mall complex will be on one lot, and the fr.ee-standing restaurant building will be on the other lot. Ms. McPherson s�ated both proposed lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 sq. ft. However, Lot 2, Block l, does not provide the parking spaces r��uired by code for the free-standing restaurant buiossn arkin a easem nts sha11 be recorded between Lots states that cr p 9 1 and 2, Block 1, of SBF Addition. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending approval of the request, P.S. #89-02, by Jerome Farrell, with the following two stipulations: l. � Cr�ss parking easements shall be recorded between Lots 1 and 2, Block T, S�F Addition. A park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Barna stated that according to code, if parking is up against a lot line, a curb is required. Ms. Dacy state� that with the cross parkir�g easement, that really negates that requirement, because the previous approval was for an overall variance for the entire number of parking spaces on site. It is a mixed use situation, but they are creating a separate lot for the free-standing building. Mr. Dahlberg asked if parking easements ar� dependent upon meeting other code requirements such as setbacks. If this plat is approved, then they would also need additional variances for setbacks for parking as well as the cross parking easements. The varianc�s have been granted for the number of parking stalls for the ent�re development as well as the setback along Osborne Road. Now, with two lots, don't they need additional variances for setback of parking along the common property line? Mr. Dahlberg stated if th� site was two lots and a combination was done �nder the same owner, then there was no issue. However, if there are two separate owners, then aren't the additional variances necessary as well as the cross easement? Ms. Dacy stated Section 205.14.05 in the C'-2 District, stated that parking shall be no closer than 5 feet from any side lot line, except for a common drive approved by the adj oining property owners and the City. She stated this has been done in some industrial districts as well because there is the same language in the M-1 and M-2 Districts. Staff took the interpretation that if there is a common drive or parking aisle, if the lat line falls across the stall, they are still sharing the internal circulation of the PLANNZNG COMMISSION MEETING JOLY 12 1989 - PAGE 3 traffic. So, according to staff's interpretation of this section of the code, variances would not be necessary. Mr. Dahlberg stated his interpretation would be more strict from the standpoint of a common drive. It is not common parking; it is common drive. Ms. Dacy stated they can easily shift the lot line 10 feet to the west to accommodate the plat. Mr. Dahlberg stated maybe an interpretation has to be made and formally attached to this proposal, because he has always been under the impression that each parcel or each development has to stand on its own within its own property line. Ms. Dacy stated that is not true in this case, because a variance has already been granted for the total parking spaces. Mr. Dahlberg stated that is correct, but at that time, it was one project under one ownership with combined parcels. In this case, they are taking a chunk out of the total development. Ms. Dacy stated she understood what Mr. Dahlberg was saying, but staff knew all along that the free-standing building was going to be under separate ownership, and that was the reason for the stipulation for the plat. Mr. Saba stated wouldn't this be a permanent covenant between the two properties, so the properties can basically be treated as one property? Mr. Barna stated the problem is that this is setting a precedent for any future development of this type. He stated that when this goes to Council, the Council should grant a variance for parking at zero lot line or over the lot line, as well as the cross parking easement. They don't want to allow something here that they would not allow somewhere else in the same zoning. Ms. Connie Lutton stated she is the District Manager for Conoco, which owns the Jet Station on the corner of University and Osborne. She stated Conoco's concern all along has been that the ingress/egress from this proposed development will still coincide with the ingress/egress to their property. The concern is that the new driveway not block traffic going in and out of the Jet Station. Mr. Jerome Farrell stated that because of Conoco's concern, they have moved the new driveway 150 north of its present location in order not to affect the ingress/egress of traffic into the Jet Station. C MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Barna stated the Council should be �ncouraged to grant a variance on the parking stalls. Other than that, he had no concerns regarding this plat request. Mr. Betzold stated this might be something that the City Attorney should look at it before this goes to Counc;il. Ms. Sherek stated that in the absence of a variance, maybe the lot line could be moved over 5 feet. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #89-02, SBF Addition, by Jerome Farrell, to replat Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, into two lots, the same beinq 250 Osborne Road N.E. , with the following stipulations: 1. Cross parking easements shall b� recorded between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, of SBF Addition. 2. A park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. The need for a variance be studied by staff prior to the City Council meeting. IIPON A VOZCE VOTE, BETZOLD, RONDRICR, SABA, SHERER, BARNA, VOTING AYE, DAHLBERG VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TIiE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-1. Mr. Dahlberg stated he apologized for any comments he made to Mr. Farrell at the last meeting that might have offended him. However, he still thinks this is questionable p:lanning because of the traffic situation, and he just did not agree with this proposal. He felt the property should not be developed this way. 2. LIGKT RAIL TRANSIT: Mr. Robertson stated that on May 2-5, 1.989, he along with Mr. Betzold, Councilmember Billings, and representatives from Anoka County, Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Coon Rapids traveled to Calgary, Portland, and San Diego to look at three LRT systems which have characteristics similar to what is being proposed for the Twin Cities. Mr. Robertson presented a slide presentation of the three systems. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JIILY 12 1989 - PAGE 5 Mr. Barna asked if any engineering studies have been done of the soil types in these three systems. Are any of them sand like Fridley and Southern Anoka County? Mr. Robertson stated that the Pacific Northwest (Portland) is characterized by sandy gravely soils and hilly terrain. Mr. Billings stated this is a good question to ask when public hearings are scheduled. Mr. Kondrick stated that regarding the Twin Cities' LRT system, has a final decision been made as to the LRT route south of I-694? Mr. Robertson stated no. They are now in the advanced engineering design stage which will take about nine months. The first stage was the preliminary stage for the corridor. The corridor runs from Northtown down the east side of University to I-694; then two alternates are: 1) either switching over and going down Central Avenue, or 2) continuing on University Avenue. There are also alternates when the University route gets down to the Shoreham yards, whether it would go on the Soo Line or Great Northern to get to the final link before crossing the Mississippi River into downtown Minneapolis. At the moment, those two alternatives are being evaluated, because there are some obvious pluses and minuses. The narrower Central Avenue has higher potential ridership, and there are some trade-offs in parking and turning lanes at cross streets. Mr. Robertson stated that within a couple of months, a draft Environmental Impact Assessment will be done. Hearings will have to be held on that. At this stage, each city is being asked how it wants to handle the public input and the public hearings that are required for the assessment in each local government. The options were brought to the City Council on Monday, July 10, 1989, and the option picked by the City Council is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed advanced design at a regularly scheduled meeting. It will probably be late summer/early fall. The City Council is also required to hold a public hearing. Mr. Robertson stated it is important to remember that the final authority is not the City, but the Anoka/Hennepin Regional Rail Authority. Mr. Saba stated he sees the biggest benefit of the LRT system as downtown Minneapolis. Yet the people who are paying for the system are not the downtown Minneapolis merchants, hotel/motels, or convention center people. It is the local property tax, motor vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle excise tax, gasoline tax, 0 local sales tax, etc. The people who are getting the biggest benefit are not the ones paying for it. Mr. Billings st�.ted these are proposed revenue sources. Right now, 70� of the MTC funding comes from property taxes and only 30% comes out of th s t rcan be fundec�Lthroughuproperty tt xes .nl The rest has rapid tran to be funded other ways. Mr. Saba stated he thinks a real emphasis should be placed on getting a greater amount of financing from clowntown Minneapolis to pay for the major portion of this system, not Fridley, Columbia Heights, and Northeast Minneapolis. Ms. Sherek stated that raises another issue that has bothered her during these discussions. Mr. Billings brought up the MTC issue and that citizens are paying for roughly 70% of those costs. That has fallen c�ver the years, but not as fast as it was anticipated originally. The other issue is, she sees all the capital costs outlined, but where are the operational costs? What is it going to cost on a day-to-day basis to run this system, and how much of that cost are the people going to pick up in addition to the capital costs? She did not see the MTC being abandoned. Possibly some of the express routes might be abandoned along the corridors, but cross routes will be added. They are not going to be reducing the ather public transit costs. Yet, they are not going to get ridersh�ip (the MTC proved it to themselves with all the fare manipulations) if the fares are set at a level that is going to cover costs. Mr. Saba stated a big problem is that the LRT system studies are based on old da�a. Why aren't they looking at future statistics? He hated to see an LRT system built, having to pay for it, and then seeing the subsidy get greater and greater because no one is riding it. Ms. Sherek stated the last survey made by t:he Metropolitan Council said only 20� of the total commuting tr:ips are from suburb to downtawn. The rest of the trips are suburb to suburb or city and out. She did not feel the suburb-to-subur�b trips are going to be served by light rail transit. Mr. Robertson stated he will get a summary� table of how the three systems, Portland( Torc�nto, and San Diego, were financed. Ms. Sherek stated that whenever the City wants anything done along University Avenue or Highway 65, it is a perpetual fight with the Department of Transportation. They will get yet another state governing body in the LRT to deal with when. it comes to maintenance issues and upgrading issues. Is the LRT going to be built to the standards Fridley is trying to establish for the University Avenue PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING JIILY 12 1989 - PAGE 7 Corridor, or is this governing body going to build it to its own specifications? Mr. Robertson stated the one hopeful note here is that the proposed landscaping improvements along the Corridor are very pedestrian- oriented, pedestrian-friendly. By its nature, the LRT has the same objective. In all three of the systems visited, there are elaborate crosswalks and landscaping to make a pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-receptive environment. Mr. Barna stated he questioned the ridership projections at 20,000. Ms. Sherek stated that ridership will happen, but it is a long way in the future. Mr. Kondrick asked how �he Commission members can get these concerns to those peo�aie will make the decisions. Mr. Billings stated he assumed that will happen in the public hearings that will be held before the Planning Commission. Mr. Dahlberg stated their concerns will have to be put in writing and then distributed to the committees, so the Planning Commission goes on record as establishing a position. Mr. Betzold stated the county commissioners and state representatives are ultimately the ones who will be making the decisions. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the ridership projections, it is her understanding that BRW got that information from a Metropolitan Council study that was done in 1986. Information like that is easily obtained, and representatives from Metropolitan Council can easily come to a meeting. The Planning Commission's questions and Metropolitar► Cauncil's responses can be discussed prior to any public hearings. Mr. Saba stated that regarding the data, it is extremely valuable to know where and when the data was taken, what type of sampling procedure was used, and what kind of projections were made from the data. 3. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE• Ms. Dacy stated she would like any comments and/or direction from the Planning Commission on the following issues regarding the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Review process 2. Length of planning horizon 3. The Plan approach 0 4, Land Use Map versus Zoning Map 5. Metropolitan Land Planning Act 6, Wi�at are the issues for the 1990's? Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought one of the hardest things will be convincing the general publ�� ha� their �.nP�lt is valuable and that the Comprehensive Plan potentially ��feets �l�em. Mr. Kondrick stated the City should make every reasonable effort to get citizen participation. Mr. Barna stated the best idea is to come up with some options and then hald public hearings for citizen input. on those options. Mr. Betzold stated same thought has to go into how they want to present this informatian ta th� public. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the "Review Process", she would like some concurrence from the Planning Commission on items A- I. When they get through the draft chapters and se.e how much information they have to present, then they can reassess the public hearing process. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to accept the Comprehensive Plan Update as presented by staff. Mr. Saba stated he liked what staff has d�ne. The Comprehensive Plan definitely needs updating. He liked staff's idea of evaluating the Comprehensive Plan every fi,ve years. Ms. Sherek stated she thought the Plan needs to be more focused to look at some of the issues the Planning C:ommission identified a couple of years ago. Examples are: tightening up the idea of land use and projected uses of vacant land. Ms. Sherek stated another. thing that needs to be addressed is some planning, not so much for urban renewal, but looking at some of the city codes and seeing if the codes need to be updated. They need to look at the �tza�e picture as part of th� comprehensive planning for the Gity• Should they be reviewing all the building code ordinances and things like that with an eye towards some of the things that were done in the 1950's and 19h0's that are really not acceptable anymore? Maybe they should be involving even more City staff, such as Public Works, Inspection, Etc. Ms. Dacy stated staff will re-present #6 and the Overview chapter for Commission review at the next meeting. Mr. Saba stated he thought different secti�ons of the Comprehensive Plan can be used by all the commissions to help them develop their agendas and goals. Then, when it comes time to re-review the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JIILY 12 1989 - PAGE 9 Comprehensive Plan in another five years, the commissions can give valuable input. 4. DISCUSS DUMPSTER ORDINANCE: Ms. Dacy stated that staff found two versions o� the dumpster ordinance (Version A, agenda page 4-B and Version �, agenda page 4-G). Staff also discovered some other issues that need to be addressed in the dumpster ordinance. Mr. Barna stated there needs to be definite definitions between a dumpster, a temgorary trash �ecegt�cle, and whether a recycling container is cansidered a �umpster. Mr. Betzold stated that as stated in the memo dated July 7, 1989, staff is currently generating a list of establishments that would not comply with the new ordinance by doing site inspections. Ms. McPherson stated that Version A, under "Performance Standards" states: °'...Within 180 days of the adoption of this chapter, all owners of such establishments must comply to this chapter." Staff has to start somewhere by knowing what establishments would not comply, so they are compiling a list of existing dumpsters and what the enclosures are right now and the need for upgrading, if any. Mr. Betzold asked if Version A and Version B could be distributed to the Fridley Chamber of Commerce and some Fridley businesses to get their input. Ms. Sherek stated Version A came out of previous discussions on the dumpster ordinance and is the most recent version. Mr. Billings stated if there are codes and ordinances relative to trash containers, signs, or anything else, if the property owners of Fridley have to comply, then the City of Fridley should also comply. He would like to see the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the Council that Fridley city properties also be brought up to code. Ms. Dacy stated it was her intent to find out how many property owners in Fridley would not comply if Version A is adopted, and then notify those property owners who are directly affected. They can also contact the Chamber of Commerce, hold another public hearing before the Planning Commission, and then pass any recommendations on to the City Council. Mr. Billings stated that after the list is compiled, but before letters are sent out to property owners telling them they are affected, he would like to see it brought before the Council to get their reaction. Mr. Betzold stated passed to the City Planning Commission public hearings. Mr. Billings is Council and then to reconsider the 0 right. He would like this let tl�e Council direct the dumpsfier ordinance and hold 5, L}'pDATE ON KEITH'S AUTO BODY SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #89-08, TO ALLOFI �, REPAIR GARAGE AT 7570 HIGHWAY 65 N.E.. Ms. Dacy stated t�at staff followed up on thE Planning Commission's direction and found out that the building structurally is in good condition. Mr. Mike Thompson is currently preparing some cost estimates, but because one of the partners is in the hospital, he cannot get a clear concurrence of what the partnership wants to do. She stat�d Mr. Thompson does understand the need to connect to the sanitary sewer as soon as possible and is looking at those costs first. She i��.s t�ld him staff needs those estimates no later than the first mee��g �.a� �August, and the City �will then have to take some action. 6. RECEIVE JUNE 8 1989 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the June 8, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A�'if)IC� 'i�OTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTIOI41 CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 7. RECEIVE JUNE 27 1989 JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING_: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sher.ek, to receive the June 27, 1989, Joint Environmental Quality Commission/Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the July 1.�� 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:5o p.m. Res ectfully su itted, Ly Saba Recording Secretary � � cinoF FRIDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: SIIBJECT: PLANNING DIVISION MEMO�qNDUM August 11, 1989 Planning Commission Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Special Use Permit for Keith's Auto Body, SP #89-08 , On May 17, 1989, the Planning Commission tabled action on the above referenced item so that a complete on-site inspection of the property could be made to determine the extent of code violations and safety hazards. At the July 12, 1989, meeting, staff advised the Planning Commission that Darrel Clark and Dick Larsen inspected the buildings on Thursday, June 29, 1989. The inspection determined that the buildings were in good condition structurally and could not be considered condemnable. Staff has spoken with Mr. Michael Thompson regarding the Planning Commission's proposed stipulations that were outlined at the May 17, 1989, meeting. Mr. Thompson advised me over the phone that the Planning Commission's recommendation would be acceptable to him and his partners. Attached is the staff report which was presented to the Commission on May 17, 1989. The staff report has not been changed. To follow is the Planning Commission's recommendation for the timetable for compliance amending staff's recommended stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August l, 1991. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1991. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials sha21 be removed from the south side of buildinqs and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn IA Keith's Auto August 11, 1989 Page 2 4. area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed a-s-_s.c>a�-.�,s`possible and no later than August 1, 1991. -- � � .. t,'�Y ,l�fi,�'l�+�v u,� �.,�,,,:i! � '� The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by January 1, 1991. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January l, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. � The special use ��6��-a�e�`�"��T; �9 8 9 , �� ,,�, ..;: �� . � �. s permit shall be reviewed by City staff on and thereafter on an annual basis. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. Staff has no objection to the recommendation by the Planning Commission. The property needs to be improved as soon as possible. BD:ls M-89-468 1B PLANNING COMMISSION I�SEETING I�IAY 17 989 - PAGE S storage of a boat, and they would like to have the hardsurface requirement postponed until next year. The Commissioners had no problem with Ms. Hengel' request and agreed to extend the hardsurface stipulation from ept. 1, 1989, to June 1, 1990. Mr. Betzold suggested that if the petitioner oes not know where the lot line is in relation to the new driv ay that he have the property surveyed. Ms. Dacy stated that because the Code pr ides that driveways must be located 3 ft. from the lot line the petitioner must have permission from the adjacent neighbo to put the driveway at zero lot line. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded b Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI AYE, CHAZRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED IINANIMOIISL . MOTION by Mr. Kondric , seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #89-07, by Paul J. Hengel, per Sectio 205.07.O1.C(1) of the Fridley City Code to allow a second cessory building on Lot 7, Block 4, Bonny Addition, the sa being 5932 - 6th Street N.E., with the following two stipulation : 1. Th access to the accessory building shall be rdsurfaced and shall be placed at the zero lot line. he access shall be hardsurfaced by June 1, 1990. �The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing house. �►Pq1d A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE i�TION CARRIED IINANIMODSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �89-08. BY KEITH'S AUTO BODY• Per Section 205.17.O1.C.(9) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a repair garage on that part of the East 46 acres of the west 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said East 46 acre tract distant 623.5 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 46 acre tract; thence South along the West line of said East 46 acre tract 161.63 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract 538.98 feet, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Highway No. 65; thence IC PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING MAY 17 1989 - PAGE 6 Northerly along said Westerly right-of-way line 161.63 feet, more or less, to the intersection of a line drawn from the point of beginning and parallel with the North line of said East 46 acre tract; thence West parallel with the said North line 538.73 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning, the same being 7570 Highway 65 N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII6LY. Ms. Dacy stated this property is zoned M-1, Light Industrial. To the north and west is M-1 zoning (Lampert Lumber), to the south is R-4 (mobile home park), to the east across Highway 65 is a mixture of C-3, Co�r,mercial, and M-1 zoning. Ms. Dacy stated this property has an extensive building permit file. There are a number of code compliance issues that staff has been trying to work on with the property owner. Also, the ownership issue plays a role in this case in that the property has changed ownership on a number of occasions in the last six years. In fact, there have been repair operations in the second building toward the rear of site since 1983, and the file contains correspondence from City staff to property owners at that time to make them apply for a special use permit for a repair garage as required by the M-1 district. Ms. Dacy stated Keith Poppenhagen, the petitioner, of Keith's Auto Body, was unaware of the special use permit application process. Upon coming to the office for a routine visit, staff discussed with him the necessity of having a special use permit. Staff also contacted the owner of the property who is represented at the meeting. Ms. Dacy stated the main issue with this property is the number of code compliance issues that need to be conducted on the site: 1. There are no paved or hard surface areas between the two buildings on site. 2. There are a number of piles of junk and debris, not necessarily related to the repair operation. 3. There are setback issues. 4. There is pavement in front of the building all the way up to the lot line on the sides and to the front. 1D PLANNZNG COMMI88ION KEETING, IdAY 17, 1989 — PAGE 7 Ms. Dacy stated that also of major concern to the City is that the property is serviced by a septic tank, and the drainfield for that septic tank is located in front of the first building. In 1984, Anoka County determined that the septic system was failing. At that time, the property owner worked with the City to look at connecting the property to City sewer. There are three alternatives to doing that: 1. Sewer exists to the south within the mobile home park; however, these sewer lines are private and permission must be granted by the mobile home park. Further, the proposed length of extension from the mobile home park to the two existing building may be too long for a simple service connection. A larger line and manholes may be necessary. 2. A connection across the Lampert Lumber property to the north is the second alternative. An eight inch line and manhole is located between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco property. An easement would need to be obtained from Lampert Lumber and their pavement would have to be reconstructed and replaced. 3. The third alternative is to extend the eight inch line from the manhole between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco station to the Highway 65 service road, then south along the service road to the front of the subject property. The estimated cost for this alternative is $27,000. Approximately $10,000 of this work would be to replace the bituminous mat of the service road. Ms. Dacy stated staff has tried to put together a list of stipulations that would bring the property into compliance with the ordinance and to work with the property owners to achieve a timetable for compliance. The current property owner states he is willing to agree to a timetable but wants to prioritize the necessary building improvements before doing any site improvements. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP #89-08 with the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1990. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island sha1Z be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1990. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. , PLANNING COMMI66ION MEETZNG KAY 17 1989 - PAGE 8 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. All noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed by September 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by June 1, 1990. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvements including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 7. 8. � A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on an annual basis. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. Ms. Dacy stated that because they do not know the status of the septic system, staff is proposing a holding tank be installed and . pumped on a regular basis so they would not have to be concerned about the effluent coming out of the drainfield. Then, looking at a long term approach, of eventually connecting to the sanitary sewer. Ms. Dacy stated the owner, 7570 Incorporated, is at the meeting to explain the complications with the fee ownership because that has an impact on when they can achieve the site improvements. Mr. Poppenhagen stated his business has been in this building since November. When he was in the process of buying the site, he called the City to see if he needed a permit, and he was told he did not. It was not until he came into the City offices that he found out he did need a special use permit. � 1F PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, KAY 17, 1989 PAGE 9 Mr. Mike Thompson, 7570 Incorporated, stated the person who leased the building before Mr. Poppenhagen applied for a permit but did not follow through. There are vehicles outside the building from the previous tenant that Mr. Poppenhagen is trying to get rid of. There are no certificates of ownership on these vehicles so it has been difficult. Mr. Thompson stated the whole building is a mess, and it is going to take a year to get everything straightened out. He stated he is one of the owners, but there are some real problems on who really owns the building. He stated they bought the building from a company that went defunct. The company that had the building has a C.D. on it. The first mortgage is handled by Midwest Federal, and the C.D. is owned by a company that went bankrupt. Since Midwest Federal has the first mortgage on the property, it is being handled by United Mortgage; F.D.I.C. is handling the first mortgage, and anyone who wants to buy the building has to go through F.D.I.C. to say they own it. That is what they are up against now. He stated that at this point they do not know who owns the building, and after being told what needs to be done to the building, he is not sure they want the property with all these stipulations. Mr. Betzold asked Mr. Thompson if there were some stipulations he did not agree with. Mr. Thompson stated the first thing they would like to do is make the offices and warehouse space livable--putting on a new roof, new garage doors, painting the building. The new sewer is absolutely mandatory, and new electrical service into the front building. So, they are looking at $100,000-130,000 for just the building improvements. Mr. Thompson stated he was at the meeting with Mr. Poppenhagen to get the special use permit, and they will have to let the courts decide who owns the building. Mr. Betzold stated if 7570 Incorporated did get clear title to the building, are there any stipulations that are problems? Mr. Thompson stated before he can look at any of the stipulations, they need to know who owns the building. If the building comes back to them, then they are going to do the improvements to the building he mentioned earlier. As far as the debris, Mr. Poppenhagen will help take care of some of that. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Poppenhagen if he was willing to clean up the area around the building and put up a new fence. 1G �LANNING COMMISSION MEETING, KAY 17, 1989 PAGE 10 Mr. Poppenhagen stated he would get that corner cleaned up, although the fence might be a little more of a problem. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending until September 1, 1989, to have the area cleaned up of debris, inoperable car parts, pallets, semi-truck trailers removed, and a six foot fence installed (stipulation #3). So, the petitioner has almost the entire summer to get it done. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE PUBLZC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:22 P.M. Ms. Sherek stated she thought there were two different issues here. This whole area is a disaster, and Keith's Auto Body has little control over the whole building. She thought all the stipulations should be struck except stipulation #3. The rest of the code enforcement issues should be pursued with whoever the owners are. Mr. Saba stated he thought the stipulations should all be there, but that the timetable be pushed out farther than August 1, 1990, so it gives some time to get the ownership issue settled. Ms. Dacy stated she understood what Ms. Sherek is saying that Keith's Auto Body by itself is not causing the code compliance issues, but the necessary parking and landscaping improvements are all typical requirements for the operation of any establishment for any special use permit. Keeping the stipulations with the special use permit will help the City keep track of the code compliance issues. One year from now if the property owners cannot make the deadlines, they can always request an extension from the City Council. Staff is strongly recommending the nine stipulations remain with the special use permit request. Ms. Sherek stated the only stipulation of immediate concern is the septic tank issue and the timetable of January 1, 1990, for the installation of a holding tank. It might not be a big issue if this is another dry year, but it could be a big issue if they have a wet year. Mr. Thompson stated they have been pumping the septic tank on a regular basis, and it seems to have cured the immediate problem. He agreed that last year was an exceptionally dry year; and if this is a wet year, they will have to pump it weekly. If the City wants the septic system removed and a holding tank installed, that is a lot of capital. Mr. Saba stated he did not want any stipulations removed, but maybe they should put some priorities on the stipulations. He saw IH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. KAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 11 stipulations #3 and �5 as high priorities. He sympathized with Mr. Thompson's situation, and he did not think they should force all these improvements by the dates set forth by the stipulations. Mr. Thompson stated he wants Mr. Poppenhagen to get his special use permit. He wants the building occupied, and he wants the ownership issue settled. The roof repair has to be done right away, because they are losing a tenant because of the leaking roof. He cannot see putting $50,000-60,000 into site improvements and letting the building go empty. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in order to allow Mr. Poppenhagen to operate his repair business and to allow Mr. Thompson time to attempt to find out who does own the building and resolve the issue, it might be prudent for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the special use permit. He did not think they should eliminate any of the stipulations, but they should establish some dates that can be responded to once something has been resolved with the ownership of the building. However, some monies will need to be expended before the ownership situation is settled. He thought the septic system should be dealt with prior to 1991 in some manner, either by pumping the tank on a regular basis or the removal of the old tank and installation of a new tank that will be pumped on a regular basis. Or, the septic system should be investigated to see if there is a potential health hazard. He would like to see the date for stipulation #3 sooner than September 1, 1989. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Mr. Dahlberg. He recommended the following timetable for the stipulations: Stipulation #1: August 1, 1991 Stipulation #2: August l, 1991 Stipulation #3: As soon as possible or August 1, 1991 Stipulation #4: January l, 1991 Stipulation #5: Same as recommended by staff Mr. Saba stated he agreed stipulation #5 with the sanitary has high priority. Ms. Sherek stated she thought an evaluation of the present septic tank system should be done right away. Ms. Sherek stated regarding stipulation #8, she would recommend the special use permit be reviewed by City staff on Oct. 1, 1989, and thereafter on an annual basis. Mr. Betzold stated he had some real misgivings about this special use permit request, even though he is sure Mr. Poppenhagen and Mr. Thompson are doing the best they can to make a bad situation work. He stated he did not think the owner situation is going to be lI PLANNING COMMI88ION KEETING. MAY 17, 1989 - PAGE 12 cleared up quickly, and the potential owners such as Mr. Thompson are not going to want to pour money down a hole in the interim. He stated he is prepared to vote against the special use permit, because he believes that in this case the City's best interest might be served by trying to force the issue--shutting the building down and, if needed, condemning the property. He did not feel any optimism at this time of getting any of these code violations cleaned up. Ms. Sherek asked if the City Building Inspector had inspected the site, particularly for things like the leaking roof, the substandard wiring, bad furnace, to the point where the building might have to be tagged with an eye towards condemnation. She thought that should be done right away, and this special use permit request tabled until such an inspection is done. Mr. Barna agreed. He stated he is very uncomfortable with this substandard property. It could easily be a health hazard and a fire hazard, and it is located very close to the mobile home park. He is uncomfortable with any businesses being in the building without knowing the condition of the building. He stated the ownership is unknown, and no one is going to put money into improvements at this point. A possible condemnation action might straighten the mess out. MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to table Special Use Permit, SP #89-08, by Keith's Auto Body, and to direct staff to complete an on-site inspection of the property at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. for a full determination of the code violations and safety hazards on the property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD, SHERER, BARNA, SABA, DAHLBERG VOTING AYE, RONDRICR VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-1. Ms. Dacy stated this item will probably be back before the Planning Commission in one month. New notices will be mailed to the neighborhood. 4. PUBLZC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PE�,2MIT, SP �89-09, BY PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY: Per Section 205.18.O1.C.(3) of the Fridley Ci ode to allow � commercial retail, with a motor fuel s ion/car wash, on Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. , the same being 7295 University Avenue N.E. OTION by Ms. Sherek, sec d by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public h ing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOT I. VOTZNG AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION Cl�RRI ANZ1dOQ8LY liND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:50 P.M. _ 1J � STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE C��F PLANIVING COMMISSION DATE : 1�ay 17, 1989 F[ZlDLEY CfTY COUNCIL DATE August 16, 1989 AUTHOR BD/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES 8� ZONING UTNTIES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WfTH ADJACENT USES 8� ZONWG ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION sP �� 89�a Keith's Auto Body and 7570 Incorporated To allow a repair garage 7570 Highway 65 N.E. 1,20 acres N; A M-1, Light Industrial North, M-1, (Lampert Lumber; South, R-!+ (mobile hame park) East, C-2, commercial; West, vacant industrial. The site is not serviced by sanitary sewer. u/a None. Yes Yes The site is serviced by a septic system. Approval with stipulations. Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 2 REQUEST The M-1 district requires a special use permit for a repair garage. The petitioner is currently operating a repair garage in the building at the rear of the site. The current tenant, Keith Poppenhagen, was unaware of the special use permit requirement when moving into the building since previous repair establishments have operated from the building. Staff has permitted the continuation of the petitioner's operation until the conclusion of the special use permit process. BACKGROUND The two existing buildings on the subject parcel were built in the late 1960's. The property has been zoned industrial since 1963. The City's building permit file indicates that a repair garage was located in the second building at the rear of the site in 1983. Since that time, three other auto body and repair operations have occupied the building. The City has attempted on several occasions to require a special use permit for repair activities as required by the M-1 district as well as to work with the property owner to make the necessary improvements to the property as required by the City Code. The property has changed ownership several times within the last six year period and has complicated the City's enforcement effort. The ownership issue also appears to pose an issue in this application. The current owner, 7570 Incorporated, stated they purchased the property in December 1986; however, because of several mortgage interests on the property, the title has not been cleared as to who is the fee owner of the property. One of the mortgages was authorized by Midwest Federal, and because of their default, the property owner has to work with the bank's trustee. The petitioner has indicated that it may take several months to resolve the issue. The property owner is claiming that he is unable to make the commitment to improve the property as required at this time, but would consent to a timetable of compliance. The property owner has also indicated that they would prefer to prioritize the building improvements prior to making the necessary site improvements. ANALYSIS The petitioner has indicated that he employs approximately 3 persons. Destroyed or junk vehicles are received on the site and stored at the south end of the building. The vehicles are then stripped and used on other cars for repair or are refurbished. Also at the south end of the building are piles of junk and debris not related to the petitioner's activity, but to the other IK IL Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Aut� Body Page 3 establishments on the site. The storage of materials in this location as well as at the south end of the other building on the site, constitutes a code violation. The City has been unsuccessful in securing compliance with the various property owners and tenants. The area between the two buildings is not paved nor is the site lined with concrete curb. The bituminous surface in front of the first building extends to the service road pavement. Further complicating the site is that the sewage from the two buildings is being handled by a septic system. In 1984, Anoka County determined that the septic system was failing. At that time, it appears that the tank was pumped and the area cleaned as much as possible. Connection to City sewer was investigated with City staff but because of the cost of the improvement coupled with the change of owners, connection to the sewer was not consummated. There are three alternatives to connect into the sanitary sewer system: 1. Sewer exists to the south within the mobile home park; however, these sewer lines are private and permission must be granted by the mobile home park. Further, the proposed length of extension from the mobile home park to the two existing building may be too long for a simple service connection. A larger line and manholes may be necessary. 2. A connection across the Lampert Lumber property to the north is the second alternative. An eight inch line and manhole is located between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco property. An easement would need to be obtained from Lampert Lumber and their pavement would have to be reconstructed and replaced. 3. The third alternative is to extend the eight inch line from the manhole between Lampert Lumber and the Amoco station to the Highway 65 service road, then south along the service road to the front of the subject property. The estimated cost for this alternative is $27,000. Approximately $10,000 of this work would be to replace the bituminous mat of the service road. In the interim, the septic tank should be removed and replaced by a holding tank which should be pumped on a regular basis. There is no effluent surfacing in the small drainfield area located in front of the building. Apparently in 1984 the system failed such that the drainfield area was not treating the effluent properly. Although there are a small number of employees in the two buildings and these two areas are not used regularly by the traveling public, the septic system must be replaced. A holding tank can be IM Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 4 installed and pumped on a regular basis until the sewer connection can be made. A copy of the pumping contract should be submitted to the City to ensure that it is being pumped on a regular basis. �.Yil�l'uii:T`/ It is imperative that the property be brought into compliance with the City Code. Staff has prepared a modified site plan to illustrate the needed site improvements. The City Attorney has also advised that the property owner put into writing the details regarding the title of the property so that it can be researched by the City and verified for City Council review. RECOMMENDATION The subject property, with or without the special use permit for the repair garage, needs to be improved to meet code requirements. Typically, staff would not recommend approval for a special use permit with the number of outstanding code compliance issues. The current tenant, the petitioner Keith Poppenhagen, appeared to be unaware of the problems with the property. He was also unaware of the special use permit requirement because of previous occupancies by other auto repair businesses. Staff has developed a list of stipulations with a timetable for compliance. Staff also recommends that the special use permit be reviewed on an annual basis in order to gauge progress on the stipulations. If progress is not being made, the City can revoke the special use permit and initiate court proceedings to gain compliance. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit, SP #89-08, to allow a repair garage at 7570 Highway 65 N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas shall be paved and lined with six inch poured concrete curb by August 1, 1990. A five foot setback on the north and south property lines shall also be created in compliance with the setback requirements. 2. A 20 foot planting island shall be created along the front property line in compliance with the parking setback requirement by August 1, 1990. The island shall be curbed and planted as proposed in the proposed landscape plan included in the packet. 3. All piles of debris, car parts, pallets and other materials shall be removed from the south side of buildings and either stored within the building, removed off the site or contained within a six foot opaque fenced area at the southwest corner of the site. Al1 noxious weeds shall be removed and the lawn iN Staff Report SP #89-08, Keith's Auto Body Page 5 area maintained in a neat fashion. All semi truck trailers which are inoperable or used for storage shall be removed from the site. This work shall be completed by September 1, 1989. 4. The building shall be improved to meet the Uniform Building Code requirements by June 1, 1990. 5. The property shall be serviced with sanitary sewer by January 1, 1991. In the interim, the property owner shall remove the septic system and install a holding tank by January 1, 1990. The tank shall be pumped on a regular basis and a copy of the pumping contract shall be submitted to the City. 6. A letter of credit in the amount of the outside site improvemenets including poured concrete curbing and landscaping shall be submitted prior to initiation of construction. 7. A letter of credit in the amount of the construction cost for connection to the sanitary sewer shall be submitted prior to construction. 8. The special use permit shall be reviewed by City staff on an annual basis. 9. There shall be no sales of automobiles on the property. I � � r �, , ,, 3 � ` z � � ur �,�� . �"n,` r ��. i i / y � I �' 'f � � '.�O � /4. Jc 6, 3 5� .�. �. l ' , 1` I ' .. �? ■ c C W , C N ¢ �c W �� Y Q m '�. ar �� . �� '. L ,!. � L .. � _ . � n o� i � ,� - � ��i -r-�=--�— �?-#+E ��. " LAI'NPERT ; ��- . ,� � ,�� , � � �� ADQl ION � . . F j i,i. ...o E. ' = s.., r .. _ . .-... � q — � , � �t� sl ~ .� � : �� qy: � . > -.Z ) � — - � . ✓i • �s� . �oo) 27 � �? N //2 SP �� 89-08 Keith's Auto SEC. /2, C/TY OF FR�C, 2 � I I ` N/�'I � AO R � SE� / �� L ; ? .. ` etpBR ,'i .. ' _' ��iTS ,,° ...,"�M � e �� ,..'� `r z. �� z3�� Z� FRIpLEY i , � �� r ' i= ''' °a o �s � A DERSON ' 4; � � , � :,. .,. � . .. � , I . ,i, i'. � ../ ' / . ; •. �c , • � ' (' Y r ,�; . :e � J l- � � ` � 4 •; ' . 1 y'� I 'i1' "� '' ,�4' - �, �� .�.,.. s,» 1 i � _ �; � � � � � � DEVELOPMENT ' ` � � . W 1 �, �i �jQ ! r � � � � e� .��. � ...,.1. . . � .• - ° � �� r � r— �.-�--- - p � •6 � �, o.� .� .`, �-� � . � �M .. ..�r.. 2 '� � . , ,+-.. �.. . . � < � ,� �r , r, �.; -� -L . Y a ------ _---- c?' , : �A . . . w an.,' — *. �D --�--,A . _T _ . —_ -. , . � ,� r � I O < -.+.--r 4 Z o �_: i• w , �`y f r R I --- _ -- ,_ y -I-- _ _ '- V-ti__ y � S ------- .�.>.... ,� _,....� � i 1'� ..... 'O Y', -... . V_ ° Z �.e � ' _'______...... , •. �i . - FIR __ _�--"••-9RW�---.-�— - :FIRESI � wl � Q'. 4 �I � -F.... � i ' ,,.� _ ..,. � ..,_ � ��. 1� '. J � ��.. � - i WAL� CENTRAL o V!£W � p"��` iVANOR ,, ; Y: ' r z„� ' '` ADD/r/ON�? . `�`r�3-�'S� q =� �� y'_�;;lZ; :3`.� ,,.{,�; _ " ' � � P�. � _ ; �� 73 V2 AVE. N.E. . ` . , .2 " � ;�,� , ' i ; � ' V� G-;�r +-.��,��,;;; ��xa��r��,� ��-'��'�� 4, � � .t< i'�� ,at��-�Ea'� ,� ''..�. '� a _.�� . a �o ,, :� 1 i � � ' c ��5��-( -- �Ff:=- - -- — - � — � . ' °[E,v7E M' SEC III-- -1 �� I � � 13 LOCATION MAP � T a' � JC.MUUL ' i'�,� �'' s 7 �� < a i/ � � i � j � � / _ 4 y, � 1 ;� --] ' . :� � �sTH. avE. � � . �- �, ' � ' �:-:� — " ,1 3 �.'�'. - -' ' s •4 • i �1 � ' ' n 1 � , '' /, F � ��, NC� �i �4 h- C % •:�•, "'�,,(� 1 I 75 TH AVE. N E. �y �_ — _� r_ � ' . . �^^ —J W� . ' �, I i•� P�1 4, _ 1 � - --� � .� ZB 3 � �" -kJ � ' '� 1, 1��.� �-� � i � � � I'�Z.'� �; �_ � ' � - � � • �,. ` -- -- � Z� ' •�;-�; ;,;� �� 1J f •'Y.'( � � ' P ___ . _ ° _ � `I � �� _ a - � - 2/ r � _ = __ �W� t�� . . z ::o: m,�� ,� ��v°S'� r --� � f � � i � , p.,r- -k { �t / t� � j//////�/�//��i'/// i��%%j .� � -__ � � � � � � -� � '"' � : f � � !' '!. �" : ( , - , _ l .! ti � ,.. : ' , Q ?`� ��- `t�' �• �� •� � � � c�, �� }� � / , �- � .� � /// ..,�f . , � �, '� '�C ,� ` .r � , � . & , � f r`�' • � � � �; ,. � �; �"'• �.. ,� v, � 1 � � • F'� �� t�; � �i � r �!_ �� . `� • : � � � _ ( ' r � L � :i; � �; tD O Z • :• 1: xeirn s Auto ,F , . �/" x, / f f �j _.�cJ�,�� r_,,.-�_,' '� ,:>>j�>>�=_ : �- _�=�� > >= � �= �_ � �' = = _ �=�>> _ ; ,_, ,---_�,� -_>>: �,'�-_-_ � _ _ _ � � : _ � � - � : �"= � > > �__ Y�' �_, = - � l �J� �- j �`H', ,� '' %'�y-, ! ' L' E k F !� � / � T � / � � � � / � ,f'f /�' ' � � " '�' l � � X` � � , �. rti -• • • � �T��/ � 7 �'4��• •r��W+`4i�i --i ♦ ♦ • s � - • • • • . o.. � aQD . . .� . -�--i . ...------ ., ,.. r / ZONING MAP IP ! � � S Z _ g � �� --� I r , � 0 I�� I ` SP �� 89-08 Keith's Auto � _-� I T f I 1 J I � � � _ � � "° 3 � � �� ._ � J -�`��'1 < �� d , � ?' �' ? � � � -, -, m � , � �1� � s , C � z �� W? Z �� - � �� U � I > ti f- � � ? J O o — � w � a � .�C— ,�i � .� �` IL �J w � � �{�- = N � (� 1v �� N � I� _ � `J PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS i� z � � STAFF REPQRT APPEALS DATE C� 1 I� PLA�1(' COM��SSION DATE : Aug u s t ] 6, 19 8 9 FRlDLEY CITY COl�1qL DATE ,,,,,T,� MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION �ITE DATA .�►zE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES � Z�� UNfEs PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FlNANCIAL KVIPLlCATiONS CONFORMANCE TO cion��r�srvE �.�ni COMPATBILITY WfTH ADJACENT USES � ZONNG ENVfRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION.S STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNNG COMMISSION RECONwVIENDATiON SP 1� 89- 1 ] Father John Magramm To allow a church in an R-1, Single Family Dwelling, district. 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. r�/a R-1, Single Family Dwelling R-1, Single Family Dwelling on all sides On site N/A tv/A No No Potential for increased traffic Denial 2A Staff Report Orthodox Church; SP #89-11 Page 2 REQUEST Father John Magramm is proposing to hold church services on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. SITE The site is a single family residential lot with a detached two car garage and a lot area of approximately 9,600 square feet. The lot has rolling topography, and a grove of trees separates the site from the neighbors to the north. The petitioner is proposing to construct an 18 foot x 18 foot addition over an existing deck. The addition would be used as part of the worship area, including space for the altar. The proposed addition would also include a bell porch. The proposed addition would occur to the rear of the structure. ANALYSIS In order to be granted a special use permit for a church, the petitioner must meet building and site requirements of the CR-1 sections of the code (205.07.O1.C.2.a} These requirements include sections 205.16.3, 205.16.4, 205.16.6, and 205.16.7. Of those requirements, the site does not meet the minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet and would require an additional variance to reduce the side yard setbacks from 15 feet to 10 feet, and from 30 feet to 20 feet (the petitioner is currently applying for these variances). In addition to lot area and side yard setbacks, there is also the issue of parking. Currently on the site is a two car garage with a hardsurface driveway. This gives the petitioner the opportunity to provide four off street parking spaces. This would limit the number of people able to attend the church to 12 (one space for every three fixed seats). There is, however, the question of enforceability of this number. Due to the topography of the lot and the changes to the structure proposed by the petitioner, additional parking spaces cannot be provided. Staff surveyed other churches in the City of Fridley. With the exception of Michael Servetus Unitarian Church, all the churches are located at the edge of R-1, Single Family Dwelling, districts, near major intersections, and on local arterial and collector streets. Each of the churches exceeds the minimum requirements set forth in the CR-1 regulations (see attached chart). The location of the proposed church is in the center of a neighborhood on a local residential street. Although the number of people attending the church will be small in number, it will be difficult to monitor over time, especially if the congregation za Staff Report Orthodox Church; SP #89-11 Page 3 grows. Use of the home as a church begins to change the character of it from a single family residence to a church. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the request, SP #89-11, based on the fact that the lot does not meet the minimum requirements set forth in the CR-1 district. However, if the Planning Commission votes to approve the request, the following stipulations should apply: 1. A three foot high hedge shall be planted or a four foot fence shall be constructed, from the front of the house to the front property line along the west property line. 2. A seven foot screening fence shall be constructed on the west property line from the front of the house to the north property line, and also along the north property line. 3. The parking demand shall not exceed four parking spaces. Foz uses. othez than pzincipal us�s, requir��cnts as to lot size, �etDacics, Duildint, parkina, lsndscaping, sct�ening, •tc., shall be •t least co�parable to si�ilar uses in other districts, but also suDJect to •dditional pzoviaions as provided by the Ciry. 2. t1SES gCIDDED Any u�e •llowed or axcludcd in any othez district nals�s sp�cifically alloved under �s�s P�raitted of this distriet ar• sscluded in CR-1 Diatricts. 3. LOT �EQUIR8�2??S ARD SFTEAt�Cs S/86 A. Lot Atta. A lot azea of not less than 15,000 square feet is equized for one (1) uin building. n. Lot Vidth. A lot vidth of not less than seventy-five (75) feet is required at the requized fzont setback. C. I,ot Coverabe. (1) The �aximum pezcent of the area of � lot •lloved to be cov�red by the sain building and all accsssory buildings is as follovs: (a) One (1) Story - fozty percent (40t) aaximum. (b) hro (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35�) �aximum. (c) Three (3) Story - thizty percent (30�) �aximum. (2) ?he above lot cover�6e vill be sub��ct to other considerations, includ ing pazking and open space zequire�ents� uce of facilities and proxioity to othez distzicts vhich aay deczease the aa�cimum lot cover�ge. (3) The lot covezage uy be teduced by the City if and vhen there is provision for underground pazking vithin the main stzucture, provided that the lot coverage shall not De •ore than thirty percent (30t). D . Se tbaciu . (1) iYoat Yard: A minin� front yazd setback of thirty-five (35) feet is required for all buildings. (2) Side Yard: T+o (2) side �azds ue requiz�d, sacr vith a vidth of not less than fifteen (15) fset ascept: (a) Vhers a driveway is to be pzovided in tha side �ard the �ini�m z�quirtd side �ard inczeases to thitty (30) feet. (b) Tiheze a side �ard abuts a street of a corner lot, 0 205.16.032C USES DICLUDED LOT Rf.QU I RF1iF.trT S AND SFfSACKS 205.CR1-2 2D the sic3e yaro requiresrent increases to a minim�n of thirty-five (35) feet. (c) Ab sic3e yarci is required where a common wall is provided between two (2) buildings which meet the requirenents of the Buwlding Code. (3) Re3r Yard: A rear yaro of not less t;�an twenty-five (25) feet is � rea,ui r ed. (4) Ac3ditional Setback Restrictions: Permitted buildings and uses, except autanobile parking and loading spaoes, driveways, essential services, walks, and planting spaoes shall not be closer to the boundary line of any adjacent residential district than thirty (30) feet to allaa for planting buffers and scre�ening. : � � � � •�� 1 �• � �r �. A. Bei�t. Building height shall be a maximun of three (3) stories, but not to exceed forty-five (45) feet. B. 8cterior Materials. 'I�e type of building materials used on extericr walls shall be face brick, natural stone, specifically designed precast concrete, factory fabricatec and f inished metal frame Fanel ing, glnss or other rrnter ials appraved by the City. • �� • �� • a i� _. .. . • . Reducticn of parking stall� ma�� be allaaed when the pravision of sFace required for parking stall�, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an �azne oessa ry har ci�h i p. Adequa te open spa oe shal l be pr ov i de d t o satisfy the total n�m�ber of required g�rking stalls. B. Additional P�rking. When the provi�ions for parking space required f or specif ic district uses is inadequate, the City may zequire that acditional off-street Farking be provided. C. P�rking Ratio. (1) At least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provi6ec3 for each 250 square feet of building floor area except health care services which shall provi�]e one (1) off-street parking space for each 150 square feet of building floor area. (Ref. 888) (2) At least one (1) handicap off-street parking space shall be pravicied for each fifty (50) spaces or fraction ther eof . 205.16.05. c� � �� • �� 1 1' � 1} ►. � a•�'�� • o� ��: o.i�.��, 12/87 205.CR1-3 2E 205 . 1 E� . 05 A Desig� Requir�ents: (1) Draina�e: All driv�aays and p3rking areas, except those for less than four (4) vehicles, shall be graded acoording to a drainage plan whid� has been apprwed by the City. (2) Lighting: ArTy lighting used to i1l�inate an off-street parking area � shall be shac�d or diff�sed to reflect the light away fror:� the adj oinir,g property and traf f ic. (3) Curbing: � The entire perimeter of all Farking areas in excess of four (4) stalls, access driveways, truck la3ding spaces or other haro surfacae areas that hancile motor vehicle traffic shall be curt,�c with a poured six (6) inch hi.rsh ooncrete curb and rnatter . (a) Curbing shall be required around safety islanci�. (b) Curt� cuts and ran�ps for the handicapped shall be installed as required b�� State law. (c} Construction shall be in aca�r dance w ith curbing specifirations on file at the City. (d} The City may ex��pt curbing: ((1)) Where the parking lot directly abuts a sidewalk which is sufficiently higher than the c�ade of the Farking lot and satisfies the curbing require:�ents. ((2)) Where the City has approved future ex�nsion. ( 4 ) Dr ivciaay Requirenents : (a) A maximun ariveway width of thirty-twe (32) feet at the curb opening, excluding the entrance radii can be o�nstr ucted. (b) The parking aisle shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in wic�th for twa-way traffic and eic�teen (18) feet in wic�th for one-way traffic. (c) The ecige of the curb opening shall not be closer to the nearest portion of a street right-of-way intersection than.seventy-five (75) feet or two-thirds (2/3) of the lot width whichever is smaller. (d) Where a'T" intersection exists, a drive may be located opposite the end of the intervepted street. (e) The minim�n driveway angle to the street shall be sixty (60) dec�ees. (5) All parking and hard surface area shall be: (a) I�b closer than twenty (20) feet from any street right-of-way. 12�8� 205.CR1-4 (b) No closer than five (5) feet from any side lot line, except for a common drive approved by the adjoining property owr�ers and the City. (c) N� closer than five (5) feet from any rear lot line unless adjacent to an alley, then the setback shall be increas�d to f ifteen (15) feet. (d) No closer than five (5) feet from the main buil c3ing. , (e) Curbed with minii►um driveway access radii of ten (10) feet to match the existing street curb. (6) Load.ing Docks: (a) OUt�i6e loading docks shall be located in the rear or sioe }•aro and be proper2y screened. (b) The sgace neeoed for the loading docks must be aoeouate to handle the loading and unloac3ing neecis, without ot�structing the public ricsht-of-May. (7) Off-strc�t parking shall be praviaed for all vehicles oonc.� rr,�d with ar�� t�e on the lot. (8) F11 g3rking facilities of 100 contiguo�.�s spaoes or more �hall be subject to interior landscape improverlents as ap�>rrn�ed by the City. (9} Parkina lots with rr:ore than fo�r (4) parking stalls sh�ll be striped. (10) S1�fficient ooncrete area may be requireo for motorcycle F.arkina in acidition to the required vehicle Fnrking stalls. (11) Bike racks may be required by the City in an area that is o�nvenient to each major building entrance and will not ai�rupt peciestria.n or vFhicular traffic or fire lanes. (12) Safety signs, markings and traffic oontrol aevices may t�e reouired to prar�ote vehicular and pedestrian safety. . • �. �• . • s• �• � � A. A11 cpen areas of any site, except for areas used for F�arking, drivewa}•s or storaoe shall be lonoscaped and be incorporatec in a lanc�cape glan. B. The lanascape plan shall be submitted for aFproval by the City and inciicate the location, size and species, and method and quantity of all proposed plants including desi5nation of any existing vegetation which is to be retwed or which will remain with construction. C. Unc3ergroimd lawr. sprinklinc� systems shall be provided to maintain the lawr�s and landsc�►ping within the boulevards, front and sic3e yaro areas. ► :�: �� i..� �v..��: : ! � A. Parking Facilities. 205.16.07 2F • �. �• . .��, .� •�,� �•• � v n • • �. 20S.CR1-� P11 drivc�•ays, �rking areas and loading docks shall be surfaaed r.ith blac�top, �ncrete or other hard surfaoe matezial aFproved b}� the City. B. bcterior Storage. (1) t�othing shall be stored in the required front yard. (2) All �raterials and oonrnercial eguipnent shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened, so as not to be - visible frcn any public rir,ht-of-way or adjoining propezty of a c:ifferent district. (3) The City shall require a Special Use Permit for any exterior storage of materials. C. Refi.LSe. P11 waste r�aterials, refuse or garbage shall be contained in closed containers as reo,uired unoer the chaFter entitled "i,�aste r�i�i�osal" of the Fridley City C.ai�. D. Screening. (1) Screening shall caonsist of a solid fence or wall not less tr,an six (6) feet high in the sic3e and rear }•ares and a rr�xin.� of four (4) feet high in the front yard, and shall not extend to within fifteen (15) feet of any street ric�ht-cf-w�ay line. Plantings may also be required in adcliticxi to, or in lieu of, fencing. The type, size and location of such plantinc� must be apFraved Ly the City. (2) Plantings shall not be placed so as to obstruct lines of sic�;t at street o�rners and driveways. (3) The screening requireaents shall be satisf ied by the �e of a screening fence or planting scre� accord.ing to the f ol la.�ir.g standa rc1� : (a) A screening fence shall be attractive and compatible with the principal building and the surrounding lano use. (b) A planting screen shall oonsist of a closely graan hcdoe, a row of trees, evergreer�s or other vegetation a�raved by the City. (c) If the top�graphy, natural growth of vegetation, perm�nent buildings or other barriers meet the standarcls for screening as approved by the City, they ray be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or planting screen. (4) Screening of off-street parking shall be required for: (a) Ar�� off-street parking area which requires more than four (4) spaoes or a�joins a resioential district. (b) A�� driveway to a Farking area of four (4) oz morE spaces is within thirty (30) feet of an adjoining resioential district. (c) Any parking facility between the building and 205.]6.07 205.CR1-L 2c frontage street must be screes�ed from the street by a hedoe, solid fe�ce or closely grown planting strip at least thirty-six (36) inches in height. (5) All laading docks mu�st be located in the rear or side yarc�s and be screened with a six (6) foot high minim�m solid screening fence if visiLile fran public right-of-ways or if witi�in fifty (50) feet of adjacent residential districts. (6) w'here any general offive district, is adjacent to ariy - resioential district,there shall be a miniminn fifteen (15) foot ��ide screening strip to ptovide for aphysical se� � on. (7) t re any general office district is adjacent to a �l ic � icht-of-way or acrass f rcm any resic3ential district, tt�e £ollcr�ing require�ents must be met: (a) There shall be a five (5) foot sidewalk ease�rent �ravioed along the property line. The Council rr�ay allow the applicant to delay the ir�tallation of the sioeti:alk if the applicant signs an acree;�ent that it will be constructed when the City rEOUites the irtstallation. (b) There shall be a fifteen (15) foot glanting strip located behind the requ:ied sidew�alk that is substantial enough to create a physical se�:aration betweer; the public ric�fit-of-way ano the c�eneral of f ice groperty• (S) All trash or garbage storace receptacl es must be locateo in the rear or sicie yaros ano be totally screened frcr� vi�a frcm ar�� pub.lic right-cf-way. Pravisions must be t��:er. to �rotect scrc--Ening fra*� vehicle damage• (9) t�;otor vehicles necessary to the operation of the princiFal �e may be storeZ, without screening only within the �rrr�itted rear yar� area, if they are not reaoily visit�le fran a public ric�ht-of-raa}�. (10) All roof equignent, except alternate energy devices, �rust be screened frar� public view unless the equi��ent is desioned as an integral part of the building and is oomFatible with the lines of the build.ing as detern�ined by the City. E. Dra.inage And Grac3e Requir�ents. A finished gro�md grac3e shall be estat�lished such that natural drainage away fran all buildings is provided. The follawing minimun criteria shall apply: (1) The minimtan elevation of f inished crade shal l not be less than one-fourth (1,/4) i.nch rise per horizontal foot of setback measured fran curb grade. (2) The City nay specify a m-inim�n finished ground graoe foz arry structures in order to allaw proper drainage and cnnnection to City utilities- 205.16.07 2H 20S.CY.] - / F. Landscaping. Zhe follawing shall be minimun criteria for lar�caping: (1) It shall be the aar,er's responsibility to see that all required landscaping is ma.intained in an attractive, Well kept c�ond.itian. (2) All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shall be properly maintair,ed in an oroerly �raru�er free of litter and jtmk. (3) All uses shall Frwic3e water facilities to yard areas for maintenance of landscaping. G. Mainte�ance. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that : (1) Every exterior wall, foundation and roof of any building or structure shall be reasonably watertiSht, weatherticht and rodentproof ano shall be kept in a good st�te cf rraintenance and repair. Extericr Malls shall be rr�intained free fra;� exter�ive dilapia�tion due to cracks, tears or breaks of cieteriorated plaster, stucco, brick, w000 or G�"lEL rr�terial that gives evic3ence of long neglect. (2) The protective surfaoe on exterior walls of a builoing sha11 be tnaintained in c�ood reF:air and pravic3e a suf f icient covering and protection of the structural surface against its oeterioration. Without lirr:iting the generality of this Section, a protective surfaoe of a building shall be dee.rr�ed to be out ofre�air if: (a) Nore than twenty-five peraent (25$) of the area of ar�� plane or wall on which the protective surface is Faint is blistered, cracked, flaked, scaled or chalked �,��, or (b) M.ore than twenty-five percent (25$) of the pointing of ariy br i c k or stone wal l is 1 oosE or has f al l en out . (3) E,Ver�• yarc and all structures, walls, fences, walks, steps, drivewa}•�, lanci�caping and other exterior develognent shall be maintained in an attractive, well kept oondition. (4) The boulevaro area of a preir;ises shall be properly naintained, groomed and cared for by the abutting pro�erty vwner. H. Essential Services: (1) Connection is required on each lot served by City sanitary sewer. (2) C.anr�ection is required on each lot served by a City water lir�e. 205.16.07 205.CF.] -F 2I S //2 .:�e' ��„ _ ' � : � -�_ �' . • � . � ..1rr10E DarvE r� _ . =:�_, , -'tt Tu" . ��n,niri �. t- . 3I '�-� _ - ' � 8 M �.� -- �� l = .. �' t �-�.----� --�=�'._. . �'�.'1� -�_ SP �f89- ] ] Orthodox Church SEC. 24, T. 30, R. 2� � C/T Y OF FR/OL EY : r , s' . , , � r-� ' �. ��.. � W ��1_f � ��M • � •. '1' � p� � �' - � � :j ; �_-..�-r_---7-.��-. � ��!,F�R �� . � � . � X - . ",y . __ �.._ ,__-� , ,� • . �: . _ „ - 24 c�N *eA sec t. 42 ,, y.+_� •�; � , �'�'.�i�,ss '_ Y I� � � - , J � � , - NORTH �.� . - . �` �. �-!�-s--�': _. r i 'L', ;�. ':'- �, a ,_i_1 ?; � `', � ' L � N�RU. _ _ � 'NQ� ,. r+oRT++ 3, `,,;��.: : ` �� - _!'+• v' J ;% - �. .s,ti , � � 3'.;� � �K"�,�' � �N.:,� z: � N� .rrs.,� .�� 0, � ��;T�l� .�_"�� . . �"°�g i .�'`' �Y. � ** �, r r. 'l r•;�+''+�� .��x� ��'�� .. wf51F�v'�a'' . � S �R/OF J �' •, . ---- � J ' 'E' `�-s'A"�� ;,� ,'+ oer.o wo �s �'�''' s r.�£s , _ � � . > � L�f^ K�L� � 4 ' _ ` * ''' �• • �..._ _ �_ � ' z � � � -. � _-.,. .., � �I" � cwvo �0�9- - '�- �� S•� ' q E/GKTS r � ~I ° � `� rsr suP cavDO �3s �'- _ _ "�"�-..� . • e _ . � i ti=� - � IMO P � _ . ... � � � .�Wa .___fj� �,�-_.--� �.� , � •c .`,I� 1�.� � '. ____ ,� � �Vi�j. I�G� _�1.� ' • ' ,V. L'' „ � ��i �� ..,� ��'��`�� • 1 - . _ . r __' ��'-. ' •.w�. _�--=STAT Hw � � � - ��, �,� .''�� . . 1��^ � _ Y ��_6 g= ; '� ' � : — ; � `�_.; • � . . � . _ • , , - . _�� L _ �� __ : �'j` -+�. � �� ' i �� -�� - r'�-_� �,+' - � : _ �rC'� 1 ' �0 • car �t S�Afs �R� '$ � '�-� - — - — ' 1••'"a �' ' �rWOOO COURT ' SU� t V�f7 LQT� �O,• ; ��+a±• ' I �` ,' "�_ � R • `l- A, ' � a �� f , � ,'��,� +`•~ � �r �� 4 ' ��[� '�� { �� ' .� ' i� � � 4 � �, ''te�- � r� � ` � SKY1M000 IANE +r- � � `• • � • � - iM . f SttYM000 U1 � - ��.O�g �!�v �n �� '�� O�I.� �e:-�Z, � r � ; ,�.``- _ � . t,L�,'� ' � ,► ._ o� .��.��.i:��"1' � '� '�" �' � '� ' - .,� ., — t, , �• r- •' '�,''� :• - . . , , ,. . , , ,_, , , � , • • ,_ .: " ' _— �r' a -.— -�iiv— ' ".'�_ � - _*-+ _. �-;f .. •—�. " � " I—r(—� � �-1 f�'� �� i-- , .,.,,` • j . � �d.� ,�. , _ y ,�. � ��'� 43 � � 26 \ LOCATION MAP 2J i � • �-•'• . • � i • » • • • • • • • . '�i •, •�i,• • • • • • • ' V/NO /ON rR� �--_ _ - -� H Nt� �_� _ �c _'°�_ � �–� —�(Q �n., 'c ,� SP 1�89- 1 1 Orthodox Church 2K s -�' � � � � i � �� ; � - . `; � � � ,. -� � . _� �_ CiRC^LE M.' J_ � � � i ,��J�ll� L _ lI � • ��r �, �_ H'�T�'� �� L�� f}(�ch� tec:,�" M,,, � i� Sha ho�s Koy �� q 2cI�, rcctS f—f u- /-� ��,, � MuRMo�/ ��. SP ;�89—] ] �� POS E� G Ftr�P6 c_ fy flD r�c d-� �r�r `=7,S�T i��. 33L-3��r� [noaox l;hurch �t ! i 7 SITE PLAN 2L SP 9i89— 1 ] Orthodox Church � - � � . . �� N - - %8'= � _o�, — � — M 0►� AS �" � C� K 0 U 5 e. C�ta p e. � I 2, o� HA T!-(�} �1�4 Y Uv F r � �l k�,, D-t,v. s. I Oc��loK �,In�U�k o-� i�c �eSC.�Y�cct� oN of Chris� C��I 13 �ve, SC MP�S .,-,,. .. _�.. FLOOR PLAN N � � � � O U � • � ?i O +� O � •� U w +� ••-1 +� •� O I � U � � O rtJ � U7 U) 3� w aJ � a�i a ��' •� a�i a ��cn>O. •rl 1 �-I .0 Ul o � � 0 3 z•� •n RS •rl � VI N • � �w v � U b�a1 O LL � � � U1 rd A.� � •rl +� b� tvll � w G�1 O � � � CT G � '� '� r-I � •� U +� a) N �C ••1 � N � +� .� •r-1 'ti � O rd +� U � v N O +� f]., � U •� O �l rCC4A m�w +� w � z r� x ° b `� aa � o xa � N U � � � O O � � u a � � � .� C". O N N � a, � � b � \ � U �a � � U M i a a� � � a� � N +��C,M N �t' '� ir Lf1 �� a �.� ro� � a�i � +� > N •ri � � � U .--1 'ts �n 'LS O � •rl 0 CO �-1 3 � Gr '� � ro � � S-1 • }� �a�+�� '� U O 3i�•�� t�A � N O td •�1 � • Q � � � �--1 41 b � � � ��a N t� tn � � 3-� � > 027•� '� � � +� � � ro 1� • rC � � N 1� U � f-i b� N �-] U C1� � N +� w � � 0 0 0 N � � � N r-1 C1 M � � d' U � u1 •� G� �n �> a� � �� b� W I� ?� � 1 /--1 U 'L3 � tt1 -� �i � � C9 I� Gr �b Q) t� • � � N U •rl � � � W N I) � U '� •rl U1 a�i a u� 'tf > .,-1 ro� � obv a� '� � � � � U RS � a°�° � 1 a N � c� UI � d' � � � +� N tn a� > >Q ai ,� � �� e--1 l0 '� N N .� � 'LS U O •� -'-1 00 �-I �rnG� '� �A r-1 «S ia i � I (Y, � U tC 3-i U aJ � � O U1 � �wz� •�+ w rts � � � � � O � •rI � A.� •n b� r-I •.� O R! 'L3 � � � .rl � • rt3 � c� i� +� .0 ,C U O ia+�U N� � +� � LP � tC • � � +� -�r -� • 'Cf � U +� ,sC � � O •� t� fa S-� +� •� �+ +� RJ r� td J� +� N f.lr U O �•� � � b �7 N Ll > O T3 +� w � m 0 � rn �O � � 1 x � a� a� � � N fn fh � �f' N •�-i lf'1 •� a �n ba o •�+ � �� c� •� � N � N � r-1 +� '� •rl �D •'-1 � � � D�ot� � O � �'+ td � c •rl •r-1 � ��c� � � •rl � � � � N � O O O •� z � � _ � � � O +� G � •�+ o 0 � +� i-�1 •.� U � '� � b� rC � N � +� 1� �I •rl � rt! N .�G � U +� S-+ ••� o�ro� a��+ ao +� w tr � 0 � r� N N M M I u v � � a� � N iQ,' M ci' �, u1 �� n •� � � �+ z .;� j � r-1 -r1 � � � 3�� . � .� }1 r-1 �1 cn �O Gv 2N � N 1 � � � a� � O U 0 O +� z � � O • U i� � �d U O A �-�+� � � � '-�1 U U1 O � U U] +� s� o �a�o rtt a..� w U � • o•� �.� � � Ei � �� o � o�� ro � o �+��N ��a�v t� N G1 !n U S-i � � O +� U O �7 N N � � w b' N � 41 CO � � � � � � O N a � � .r., � � N � � a, � b '� Q \ � U � � .C; u � I a N � M � � � � �� + z a�� d � � a�ob v1 0 -rl O M 3.� a�w � N � � o O � G1 ••i � i-i 9 � 3a G! •r1 U O +� +� � .� �1 td N 3-1 tlS +� i-1 C1 � � a�\b� � � � v ��> •�+ � ro ��a � � b � b �a°��a, �ba � �•��w 3 � �� N � r-1 • �.. +�•�a�a�v RS ;� > > � U •� •.i S-� O W !� � U a o00 �n � w tJ' N �D � � O� � � � I a N �, � a� �, �� b a 3 z a� � � •,� •,-1 � � � � a a, � � �o2s r-i CO •rl IC N i�-1 ��w � '� � � •.i td �G .-� fa � r�i � a � � tC Ri O U Z r� 'tf � � � �� U O � a° + � aUi � w+� �•� w ai i.°�i v o3�a� ?� N �� U � �► O N G1 •n +� � O RJ O a� ��, M I a � 0 N c� ,sC �r a �n �, N � - � woz �� •� ?� .G 3 d a � ob • lIi •r� �-1 O � ��w � t� � � a! U +� Ul � •rl � S� � � d) +� 4l O ��a-� +� a� m � a� � al � � A.� a� � k � > � � +� � •� s� � �,vw o +� n, •.� tn � � � � � > f]� � U •� � tT' O � cd � a�� +� w i7' N O O � d' � � a� � � v ,'� N rc(; M � � � � �, ��, C •ri a� � > s� z U > � .,� � G � GY � N � � bob •ri Ql •�'i s� r1 ia w�w � � � � •� •�+ x � � � � 1-� �'L! c� w � o> �, o � � a � -� � U � � ?� �� b � o r+ ro � v +� U � � � «S 't3 U 3�+ � 3a O +� � O a u� b �a � i x 'ir N �ro� �3� � � a� •� �n � a +� a a n� � � •� � N � � N � a�i � b ''� •rl a� � � a�ow � O .� i� U W a� � o N � �.1 •rl CT � � � � � •r1 � 1� � •�+ � v ro a� O ?� U .��N � ob • RS U � � +� � z �+ ro o �a 'L3 b • b� Q� � :-� % c�C r� � x U S-i � O � +� � aou,a, +� w �' N O O O O N r-I I a � � •� +� � a� .� a, U 3-r }.� N wcnr, O � •� �, .c a �n U D. s� -.� �� U •rI N � N � � •r1 d �� '� 't3 •''1 r'I •rl �o � w�w 20 � PLANNING DIVISION 3 � MEMORANDUM CITY OF fRIDLEY DATE: August 11, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SU&7ECT: Comprehensive Plan Update At the July 12, 198y meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to review the Overview chapter and the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and to recommend changes that should be incorporated into the revised draft. In reviewing the Overview chapter, we determined that the intent of the Overview chapter was to summarize the goals, policies and strategies in each of the Plan chapters. Therefore, at this time, we will identify issues that will be addressed in the Plan chapters and return to the Overview section at the completion of the Commission's initial review of all of the chapters. Pending Issues for the 90's Staff identified major issues which will need to be addressed during the Plan review. Undoubtedly, there will be other issues that will come up during our research. 1. Light rail transit. 2. Solid waste policies. 3. Changing demographics of Fridley's population. 4. Aging housing stock. 5. Blighted residential, commercial and industrial areas that should be redeveloped. 6. Proper balance of land uses. 7. Target best uses for vacant properties. Land Use Chapter Until we have completed an updated inventory of the existing land 3A Comprehensive Plan Update August 11, 1989 Page 2 uses and performed other analyses, we will not address the goals and objectives that are currently in the Plan. Our research may determine other goals or may dictate that the existing goals be revised. We have identified the following items that should be updated in the Land Use chapter: 1. Subtracting the pages dedicated for goals and objectives, there are only seven pages analyzing the City's existing and future land uses. This is a significant chapter. We recommend updating the land use map shown on page 1-9, the comparison table on page 1-10, and inclusion of a year 2000 land use map. 2. Each type of land use identified on the existing land use map should be defined and discussed. The residential uses should be divided into single family, low density, medium density and high density. There should be guides in the Plan for densities for each of these areas. Along with each definition of the land use categories, an analysis of the acreage and their relationship to the overall land use balance should be analyzed. Business and commercial uses should be further analyzed as to redevelopment centers, transportation impacts and location adjacent to residential uses. 3. Land use strategies for each are3 of the City similar to the work that was done with Old Central Avenue should be included in the Chapter. In this way, when future land use proposals are reviewed by the City, the plan truly acts as a guide as to whether or not the proposal is consistent or contrary to the Plan's goals. The Land Use chapter should also contain policies for implementing some of the land use recommendations such as rezoning of properties or redevelopment policies. 4. The Plan should contain a map showing existing vacant parcels and recommendations for potential land uses for each area. 5. A socio-economic discussion should be added either within the Land Use chapter or separately to introduce the concepts of population, employment and its relationship to land demand and consumption. The Plan should act as a guide to basic socio- economic data. Typically, this information has been included in the Housing chagter; however, it deserves to be highlighted early in the Plan text or in a chapter of its own so that it can be easily referred to when needed. We have prepared the attached outline for the Land Use chapter. Please review the attached and make any comments. BD/dn M-89-470 3B LAND USE CHAPTER OUTLINE , f � � , ( � �-s I . Introduction � ,� ` '-�� f�,.��.;,f r ��..� .��k._ � '�� ' j ;; w ;f. � „�.-,. ,, , ZI. Existing Land Use Inventory A. Residential 1. Single Family 2. Low Density 3. Medium Density 4. High Density B. Commercial 1. Office 2. Neighborhood Commercial 3. General Commercial 4. Shopping Center 5. Multi-tenant buildings C. Industrial 1. Light 2. Heavy �� D. Public/Q��s�-Public � -,/ � t t � � A4 ``7-`�{''�`��,� � !✓�l �,, ,1�^a,. J�� ,c�� _ ,_ E. Parks/Open Space ' F. Inventory Vacant Parcels 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial G. Nonconforming Uses H. Inventory Blighted Areas I. Redevelopment Areas III. Define Land Use Goals and Objectives IV. Analyze Neighborhood Areas A. Reevaluate Perceived Neighborhood Map B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area 3C Land Use Chapter Outline August 11, 1989 Page 2 V. Analyze Commercial and Industrial Corridors A. Identify Corridor B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area VI. Visual and Aesthetic Policies VII. Implementation Strategies A. Update City Codes B. Redevelopment Projects C. Systematic Code Enforcement � PLANNING DIVISION i MEMORANDUM CITY OF f Rl DLEY Dl�►TE: August 11, 1989 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SIIBJECT: Consideration of a Request to Modify Commercial and Industrial Districts to Allow Churches On June 21, 1989, the Planning Commission discussed a request by Steiner Development, Inc., to amend the M-1 District to include a church as a special use permit. The City Council discussed Steiner Development's request at the July 10, 1989, meeting (see attached minutes). The Council reviewed the request and determined that further study by the Planning Commission should be pursued; however, Steiner Development withdrew their request since the proposed tenant could not wait the additional time period necessary to officially amend the ordinance. The City Council wanted the Planning Commission to review the analysis prepared by Steiner Development's consultant, John Uban. Mr. Uban prepared 15 standards to include in the ordinance revision. The City Attorney is currently reviewing Standard #9 regarding restrictions for funerals, weddings, and major religious events to be prohibited during normal business hours. He is also researching whether or not we can require that property owners cannot file for tax exemption status. �2ecommendation Staff maintains its original position that a church use would not be appropriate in the industrial district. Amending the ordinance to permit churches in the commercial zones would broaden the ability of a church organization to find either a temporary location before building a new church, or to rent a small tenant space to accommodate a smaller congregation. As the Planning Commission previously discussed, churches as a special use in the commercial districts would be appropriate. Further, staff recommends that the commercial districts be amended to permit a church a5 a free-standing use. Commercial districts permit assembly and other uses (lodges, theaters, etc.) which could be interpreted as a similar use to a religious gathering. Secondly, the commercial district standards would be adequate to regulate the location of churches in relation to both residential and non- residential uses. 4A Modify Commercial and Industrial Districts August 11, 1989 Page 2 Finally, staff recommends that the proposed standards be amended as follows, and that they be required as part of the review of the special use permit for churches in a multi-tenant building. 3. The language should be amended to merely state that churches would be permitted only in a multi-tenant building. The issue of landscaping would be addressed during plan review. 4. The language should be amended such that the standard would dictate location of a church in a multi-tenant building which is adjacent or has direct access to an intersection of a major collector or arterial road system as identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 5. Staff recommends reducing the proposed percentage of square feet to be used by a church from 15� to 10�. In the case of Steiner Development's property, 15� would permit 12,000 square feet of space to be used by the church facility. It is recommended that a maximum of 10� be utilized in order to maximize the amount of space that would be available to industrial users. This would also limit the number of church tenants to one or two per building so that the entire building is not occupied by churches. 6. The City has few redevelopment districts. A number of the industrial and commercial buildings are located in the industrial or commercial zoning districts. It is recommended that this standard be deleted. The other standards serve to restrict the activity so that it is compatible with the other uses in the building. BD:ls M-89-469 4B ;ti� ..�.ti�� co=�� _. , LA':D�i=.�.F'� ARCHiT�:`. iUt) FiR�' .�.�''t,'i'��j. "�O'r.T`? SL;-•'t _,. '�" �. _ '�' " - . . 28 June 1989 Barbara Dacy Planning Coordinator City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridlev, MN 5�432 RE: Steiner Devzlopment Inc. Request for Special Use Permit to Allow an 8,OOC Square Foot Church �T�acility at the University Business Center, 8000 L;niversity Avenue N.E. Dear Ms. Dacy: As the property is now zoned M-1, it does not specifically allow churches through the Conditional IJse Permit. However, the M-1 does permit commercial recreation with certair_ conditions centroLling parking, signage, traffic, and general compatibility. The commercial recreational uses would include such things as health clubs, bowling alleys, roller rinks, and bingo parlors. All of these uses have significant similarities to a church facility, esgecially when located in a mixed-use commercial �uilding. The acti��ity of people congregating in a large room to bowl, exercise, roller skate, or play games Ls quite a similar land use to a congregation oi worshipers. In addition, the parlcing de.mand is different from the uses that are norr*�al]y permitted. 'I'he cherch facility obviously has its parl:ing demand peak during the Sundzy worship hours and on Wednescia}� niglit fellowship. What is encouraging about including churches with:n the inter�retation uf commerc:al recreaiion, is that it allows the daytime parkir:� to be used by the other commercial facilities in tbe mixed-�se building. With the conc�itions th,at I listed �elo��, I believe i �..• a:., � ..,00� .. �1.. • .l..-. L...� 1 t ]7 `" ' 'li. ^ t?; ; I.:r•tr.=.� i.unotr�ai vu�l:r.�� =�'�.. „a _. 11lC L.11\+ l.1tUl V{! l4�rLla; � ll• 411 4�r �ltl..4 S•v�u�v�+ •• • � O definite need and be a bene�t to the City of FricJl�}�. Having churches restricted to residential properties provides little opportunity for normal church formation and expansion. Churches today are looking more for commercial settings because of cornmunity visibility, ease o1 parl:ing, e.�►se of access, and service to employees, as well as the residents. With a need for church formation, growth, and expansion, the abilit}� to lease temporary space in an of�ce/industrial building is critical. 4C Barb Dacy Letter, 39 Jun2 1989 Page 2 To allow a worship facility in the M-1 zone, wc suggest the following conditions or guidelines that can be used in determinu�� the a�,propriate special use permit process. 1. The church shc,uld provide an over�ll plan for theu membership projections and direction of their permanent building pro�a�. 2. The church should provide plans that accommodate the associated activities if they are part of the church program, such as day-care, and so forth. 3. The church should be located in a general multi-use building that is built to at.ract the general puhlic. The m��lti-use building should be landscaped to f::ltlaatP 8TI O�PTI� :nductria! an_�earancz. 4. The location oI the buildina should be adjacent to an arterial roa;3 system � ith reasonably �asy access. 5. No m�re t:�an 15 percent of the mixed-use building sh�uld be used for church acrivities. b. "I'he M-1 propert}' and the buildu�g sh�uld be included in a redevelopment district which ento�ra�es mixed-use which is usually built to a higher, more attractive star.card then other industrially zoned areas. 7. No reeular meals are to be ser.�ed in ihe ct:urch other than �cc.asicr.al �hurch servings- 8. No stand al�ne buildings or sigr�s associated with a church would bc allawed. 9. I�'o funerals, weddings, or othe, r:�ajo: religious events woulc3 be nllowed du.ring nurn�al business h�urs. 10. 1fie religio�s faci',ity cannot be located within 100 feet of a bar or tavern. 11. No permane.^.: resi�er.ce is permit:ea within the church. 12. No overnight guests are allowed ex�ept under emergency conditions declared by eithe: tt�e City �f Fridley or the Red Cross. 1?. Only a minimal (32 square feet j display of reli�ious symbols would be allov��ed on the e�erior of thP building. 14. I�Io ex-terior sound device would be allowed. 15. No bingo or other pubi_ic fund raising events are to be held at the worship facility. Sincerely, riAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, . U AN, INC. � � � C. J Uban, A Vice President 4D � � cinroF f Rl DLEY DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT : PLANNING DIVISION lVIEMOR,ANDUM July 14, 1989 Virgil Herrick, City Attorney Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Church Uses in M-1 and M-2 Districts Councilman Billings requested an interpretation of our zoning ordinance regarding the above referenced issue. Please address the following items: 1. Review the existing M-1 and M-2 zoning district requirements. Is there an interpretation available, using the existing language, which would allow a church use? 2. If the City were to amend the ordinance to restrict churches to a multi-tenant building, can the City as a standard of approval require that real estate taxes be paid and that an exemption cannot be filed? 3. Review the attached letter from John Uban regarding the proposed 15 standards. In particular, item #9 prohibits funerals, weddings and other major religious events. Would this provision restrict the rights typically held with freedom of religion? Would inposition of any other standard be legally unproper? The petitioner in this case, Steiner Development Inc., has contacted us that they are withdrawing their petition. However, I would still like to pursue research on this ordinance amendment process since the City Council and Planning Commission appeared to agree that at least the commercial districts should be permitted to allow churches. Therefore, some of Mr. Uban's proposed standards could be incorporated into an ordinance for the commercial districts. BD/ dn M-89-406 4E CITY OF FRIDLEY M e m o r a n d u m Tp: Barb Dacy, Planning Coordinator lROM: Leon Madsen, City Assessor BIIBJECT: Taxability of Church te�nant in privately owned building DATE: August 9, 1989 It would be my opinion that a church, as a tenant in a privately bwned building, would not be exempt from property taxation. The only u�ay I can see the property being exempt would be, if th� church owned it. In a multi-tenant building, it would be conceivable that it could be condominiumized and the church could apply for exemption for it's parcel. 4F �k�� . ,�:: . �t� 11 �lE' 1� De��elo�n�ent, Ir�c. :i��lu S��uth } ii�h�� 1�)1 ��'<i�z��t��. �1\ ;�:�;3��1 �(�l?1 �-1�i3-;>E�5O Jul� 11, 1989 ��ls. Barbal-a Dac�� Ylanning Direct��r Cit�� of I� ridle�- 6-�31 lini�ersit� .'1��enue \.E. Fridle��, :�linnesota 5543?-438-� RE: Petiti�rl for Chur�h use in �1-1 District Dear Barb: �fter last nigl�t's council meeting, ��e have discussed the viability of proceeding ��ith our effort to change the :��I-1 ordinance to allo�� church use under a special use permit. Thougl� the council appeared open to further e�ploration, the length of time f��r a definiti��e ans��r, ��hich �nav or mav not be in our fa��or, lea�°es us �ti�ith the regrettable decision to �ti�ithdra�� our petition.� In lieu of placing the church in that space, ��e �1 ill proceed to lease the space to a user ��ith more immediate occupancy and use compatible ��ith eaisting zoning guidelines. ��e appreciate your efforts in this endeavor. Hopefully the time w�as not v��asted and I� ridle�� ma�� find our consultant's suggestion of some use. Sincerely, STEI'�ER DE\'ELOPIIE:�T, ItiC. �� J �� V�� '�� . °�� Y � Da��id L. Kordono�o�� i, / DLK/��sc 4G RIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF JOLY 10, 1989 PAGE 11 B. C�NS 89- M_1, �_� MOTION by Co ilwoman Jorgenson to set the public hearing for this rezonin July 24, 1989. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a vo' e vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried nimously. C. CONSIDERATION OF A RE UEST TO MODIFY M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRZCT TO ALLOW CHURCHES: Ms. Dacy, Planning Coordinator, stated Steiner Development, Inc., owner of the University Business Center at 8000 University Avenue, has requested a church be permitted to occupy space in their building. She stated the property is zoned M-1 which does not permit churches as either a permitted or a special use. Ms. Dacy stated Steiner Development has requested the City consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit churches as a special use within an industrial district. She stated the Planning Commission has recommended the Council not consider an ordinance amendment as they felt to include churches in an industrial district would be contrary to the intent of the district to provide areas for light industrial uses. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission requested staff evaluate if this site could be rezoned. She stated the majority of the uses in the building are industrial in nature. She stated the building was constructed and parking spaces provided for industrial uses so rezoning to commercial is not an option. Ms. Dacy stated since the Planning Commission meeting, the petitioner has submitted a letter from their Consulting Planners, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., outlining conditions or guidelines that could be used in determining the appropriate special use permit process to allow a worship facility in an M-1 zone. Ms. Dacy stated staff still maintains its original recommendation that the M-1 district not be amended to allow churches as it will result in loss of industrial uses that may be located only in designated areas of the City. Mr. John Uban, Vice President of Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., stated his consulting planners firm was representing Steiner Development, Inc. in their request to allow churches in an industrial district. 4H FRIDLEY CZTY COIINCIL KEETING OF JIILY 10, 1989 PAGE 12 Mr. Uban stated this area along Highway 47 and University Avenue is heavily traveled and, basically, commercial. He stated it is hard to determine what is commercial and what is industrial. He stated it does not have the appearance of an industrial park and churches are attracted to this type of development. Mr. Uban stated churches are located at the heart of activity and to say they belong only in residential areas is not the case. He stated they are interested in ease of access and attractiveness. Mr. Uban stated Northland Church Alive International has about 80 members and wish to grow. He stated they are looking for space to lease in order to begin their growth. He stated the use of this space would be temporary. Mr. Uban stated he felt it was important to create an avenue for churches to start and allow them to build. Mr. Uban stated they w�uld be willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the Council: He felt the location of�the church in an industrial area is a good use, as parking is available, and the times they meet do not conflict with the normal hours of operation of the businesses located in an industrial area. He felt these parking lots should be used, rather than build more parking lots in a residential area. Ms. Dacy stated the past policy was churches could be located in any zone and the Zoning Code was amended to allow churches only in residential zones with a special use permit. Mayor Nee stated he could see where churches probably should not be located in an industrial zone, but questioned the rationale for not allowing them in other zoning districts. Ms. Dacy stated neighboring cities have found churches were occupying land that could be better utilized for industrial purposes. She stated if the community has a policy of establishing a certain amount of tax base, eaquate areas need to be provided for industrial and commercial uses. Ms. Dacy stated even as a tenant, the church could petition the State of Minnesota for a tax exemption and it could be the State's decision on whether to permit that exemption. Mr. Uban stated the City of Minnetonka leases industrial space for a church and has found it works well. He stated there is no loss of tax base and they would be willing to make sure no taxes would be lost. Mayor Nee stated if the ordinance is changed, it would open up the entire M-1 districts for church uses. Mr. Uban stated the conditions and guidelines they submitted would eliminate most M-1 districts as they would have a front on a main FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF JIILY 10 1989 PAGE 13 arterial and be built attractively. He felt there were enough conditions that would control where churches could be located in these industrial districts. Councilman Billings stated his first instinct is he does not see anything wrong with it. He stated, however, there are a number of issues to be considered and if there is a need for making a change. He stated there is also the questi�n if this use is allowable under the amendment to the industrial district which was made in 1987, which permits commercial uses within multi-tenant buildings. Councilman Billings stated there are a number of issues he would like staff to address including an opinion from the City Attorney � if they can maintain their tax base, if churches were allowed in an industrial district. He did not feel, however, this should be the sole deciding factor on whether or not churches should be allowed in an industrial district. He stated he would like staff to review the pros and cons and submit this to the Planning Commission as soon as possible for their review. He stated he was willing to make a commitment to review this request from Steiner Development, Inc. Mr. David Kordonowy, Steiner Development, Inc., stated one of their tenants in an industrial building in Minnetonka is a church organization. He stated they have their fellowship on Wednesday evenings and services on Sunday which does not conflict with the hours of other businesses located in the industrial center and the arrangement has worked well. He stated they have not received any waiver of their taxes due to this church being located at this site. Councilwoman Jorgenson questioned if condition No. 9, as outlined in Mr. Uban's letter, could be imposed as it states that "no funerals, weddings, or other major religious events would be allowed during normal business hours". Mr. Herrick stated this would have to be reviewed along with the other conditions suggested by Mr. Uban. Mr. Herrick asked if the Council was considering allowing churches only in existing industrial buildings or would they allow churches to buy vacant industrial land and build churches. Ms. Dacy stated the intent of the petitioner's request is the Council to pass an ordinance that churches be located in an industrial district as only part of a multi-tenant building. Mayor Nee stated the arguments are quite convincing to allow this use, however, he would certainly want to have the Planning Commission review this further. He stated the whole question of limiting churches to residential zones concerns him. 4I 4J FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF JIILY 10, 1989 _PAGE 14 MOTION by Councilman Billings to table and request staff to study this question further reviewing the pros and cons and submission to the Planning Commission for recommendation as soon as possible. Seconded by Councilman Fit2patrick. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Uban's letter could be presented to the Planning Commission and a follow-up on some of the other issues when this matter was first discussec3. She stated it could be submitted to the Coaunission at their August meeting and to the Council at their August 28 meeting. Councilman Billings felt it should be done as soon as possible and reviewed by the City Attorney. He stated he appreciated the information submitted by Mr. Uban and this will probably serve as a good nucleus for the presentation to the Planning Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAKEN ON THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. D. RESOLUTION NO. 59-1989 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRZDLEY AND RECZPIENTS OF 1989-90 FEDERAL CDBG FUNDS FOR HUMAN SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS: Mr. Barg, Planning Assistant, stated the Human Resources Commission reviewed the applications received for Coaununity Development Block Grant Funds. He stated 14 applications were received which totaled $53,124. Mr. Barg stated the Human Resources Commission held a special meeting to review these applications and receive input from those who submitted applications for funding. He stated the Commission could only recommend funding about 65� of the total requests since only $34,068 is available. /. Mr. Barg stated the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the Human Resources Commission's recommendation for distribution of these CDBG Funds with no rec9mmended changes. He requested the Council consider this recommendation and also adopt a resolution for the City to enter intoicontracts with the recipients of these funds . / Mr. Roger Blohm, Vice President of the North Suburban Consumer Advocates for th Handicapped, stated he was asked by Jesse Ellingsworth to eak to the Council regarding their request for funding, as Mr,l Ellingsworth recently had surgery and could not attend the � eting. Mr. Blohm� stated the North Suburban Consumer Advocates for the Handicapped (NSCAH) requested $1,500 of the CDBG Funds which was not approved by the Human Resources Commission. He asked that the Council reconsider their request. Mr. Blohm stated it is possible that at least $500 may be needed in order for them to complete � � c�nroF FRIDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM August 11, 1989 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SU&7ECT: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Change the Required Rear Yard Setback on Corner Lots From 25 Feet Minimum to 10 Feet Minimum in R-1, Single Family Dwelling, Districts. Attached is the memorandum to the Appeals Commission regarding the above-referenced subject. The Appeals Commission voted to recommend that the Planning Commission and the City Council consider the proposed ordinance amendment (see attached minutes). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the Appeals Commission and recommend that the City Council consider the proposed ordinance amendment. MM/dn M-89-471 _ _ c��r oF F�� PLANNING DIVISION MEMOR,ANDUM DATE: June 23, 1989 TO: Appeals Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Consideration of an Ordinance Amendment to Change the Required Rear Yard Setback on Corner Lots from 25 Feet Minimum to 10 Feet Minimum in R-1, Single Family Dwelling, Districts As per your request, staff has researched the issue of front yards and required rear yard setbacks on corner lots in R-1 districts. ANALYSIS Staff spoke with planners in communities neighboring Fridley to compare front yard definitions and required rear yard setbacks for corner lots in R-1, Single Family Dwelling, districts. The comparisons are illustrated in the chart (attached). As illustrated by the chart, the communities neighboring Fridley have similar definitions and setback requirements, with the exception of Blaine, who recently changed its zoning ordinance. Staff proposes that the Appeals Commission consider an ordinance amendment to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots to ten feet for living space and five feet for attached accessory uses. These requirements would allow the defined rear yard to function either as a rear yard or as a side yard, contingent upon which frontage the structure faces. In the instances of the most recent variances to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots, VAR �89-05, VAR �89-10 and VAR #89-09, all requests would have been unnecessary with the proposed rear yard setbacks. In addition, the proposed rear yard setbacks would also assist staff to interpret when the defined rear yard is actually functioning as a side yard. This occurs in instances where the structure faces the longer frontage. Staff requests comments and direction from the Appeals Commission on this proposal. MM/dn M-89-354 5A � � � � � � d � d w�� w w w w w � F+ `-' 111 t[1 N Itl tll H W � � � b 3 � � � o aG G'�i � � � a�i d -� � �+ U CY � � G) C1 GJ .0 � W� a w w w w w w 3 � [� E-� �- o 0 0 �n o o � w ►-� W � � � � .-r p � � C 3.+ Q1 i-� 't7 o aG a�i a�i d � a�i .� 3 �+ U � � G1 d d ► Q1 a m ,Q w w w w w � ,� _ � ww z o 0 0 � � � o a cn w +� � � � � � � •.� W U 'p H � � +� +� � +� +� y •� � cn E-� � � a� C� v � � � E• vWi w w w w w w w p� � z ,� � o• o �n �n o 0 0 0 � ,[ . R: ❑ N t'7 N N e-�1 N e-�i � �.7 '� LL i+ o v �►-+ U O � � t 4-+ � � �4 � d � �4J � 41 Gl •� p W E-+ Q w w w w w w w '[ � zw 3 v O E-� �n tn �n ir1 tn u1 �n tn 0�i A ��W c� �f c� c� t� c� ri � �l +� -r+ O � r � U Z E+ � � +� 3 b � � +� +� � � � � 3� U O p G rt3 � E-+ ia vl W OJ v1 W d N w � tA W G1 N W d � CJ �0 � H a -•� ?, O �0 � O�+ 41 O O� Ql O LT C� O b� d O O� 'Li '� .f� �+ F+ �-+ �+ •- >, 3 ro 3 ro 3 �a 3 �a 3 ro • r+ +� � a a� +� w cn o ,c � o .c � o .c +� o .� +� o .� +� � a� -.� �, Fzw �vc vv s+�c �++�� ++�� s�+�� c ro��n z H z o o�+ �s s� v o s� b o �+ �a o s� b o � b o -� ro.� o w a o s� �a •.� b-� s� �a •.� s� b-.� s� a•.� �, �a -.� s� � w � t� Wn O Z w ��, u� Z 3 w Z 3 w Z 3�+-+ Z 3'+�+ Z 3 �-+ w>, O O O � �+w � iT N � � � � aaaa3i -�cov o a aa� ov a,� N .�C N r-i .0 C c 10 i�l -.a � C 4� d � l� �-�i A� tn � a .�C .�4 w,C � � at � x � t TS G E+ ►�-� +� a� -.� -�, o� o x � a� �-.� �, m H �a a o� o s� �-.� o a N.�c � �+ � �+ a t� b o a, o a a +� u co aa mu wa ux ux cn� � � 5B ROV�LD F. MEYER IJND SURPE70R t�►MO iunve�n�+s •v�orv�s+or� Ol�1s+� Tas...ow� rlt.as�s ��s �[sa�� sT. • !T. �nuL. M�iw+. s1tOt I hereby certify thct this survey wos prepared by me nnd that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. � l'— Reg. No. 9051 Dote : NO'e�b.r 4, 1984 ,ye . L.. c: .r�oy ,g ,9� I i � � � -� 97•3 .. � i �, � i� � �N � � j � �'s 1 � �s.: 1� V� O ��.' :I` ' '1 � N : - 1q .: 1 `' � ' � �� . � �� $Cil� 1 1� s j0 • 1 �- ��'op . ,� . ;. �zs yB �r-- �' s.ya_ j.S� .� �• �� o 0 0 ~,�� s.�� 0 � I � ' � i � � � � � t y.� �' � d. • s. � Iy7 � 0 � � w� � � �',f !/f. /��y �E'��• � I - ' � rf ,� �—f� �0 62. 32 ti� i Z�� 30 � �, � � � � V jo �l ^ \ �/ Q� � ' �0��7`, ••' r 1 � �'4� � M '� K � f�RK L ANE N E. R��- � C/ , o Zndicat.�s iroa son�snt plac�d � Lot 11. Block 2. rC�F�RIDGS. Ladu lfina�aota. � � S ITE PLA N 5C [I � � ---- v�«tr �r•��i� / �as «�., �+..•s � �. f • • �� M:ww��N�� 1�w1 1n�.�1"7 ` f.:k r..�:.� (�!/%('tll�'(�%!lIQ� • . M�... a�.�i c�.;� e�+...:..� �i v �.+.�.�. �s..�e�• �+M� �«�� a�ine�rs k 6ur�eyors •� �µ •» nsortee�e �.oan suroey for %1�ALlACE NEISON � - pc � �� MERCuRY DR�vE � � . _ - 59 96 - _ � � 0 0 � � I ., 0 � � K M� � i �S 0: . � � N . O 0 FOUNDA710N ON�Y � .� � q.�� ` i ( 1f1 �Z' � � � I . ' ' ,.r� . , •.� �, ; 1. , I '° � _ . , N i ` � z � � � �- � .["r�� ArOi�o�i � Ufr/ify ° � �/ �v fOtl?1�lff � ---•------------------•- h �9.95 � � W � � W �i r`�� v / W Z �•, d �-- � � W � Z � 0 ��aIQ� l�"�30r'«� i - _� � U ST I 74 LoT 1, 6�QCK 2 SYLVAN . NIllS PIAT 4 �� Tlrs ir •�.�e �wf o.re�� n�w��:M d• wrw�r � t►� MowM.ws � �M hw1 ��w /NS.iM� �/ d A» IK��i� �I •11 w:yiwf�. :! wf. �►�.��w. � �11 .Iw�i� ��cM��►� N �w�, Ir�w r �w Ni� bw�. fAit ��•w� � �M �wlp iw t�.w�sr��w �itA ��rrf��r I»w r� �:w� �1�� w M� �.�rr�� w� 1:�►:IC�� n•��iw�� •u� � Hr Iw►M. �1 wcA �r��y� r w� NAH iw�� «��n� �� eM� ��s�w �I •�sA w�.h�. �e :� wi�►�ti�1 �w/'�+N w, w«rw�w�s ►��• ►M• �I�i� h� Mr M►/�w �1 �sN�li►►:w� b� liw�s �. ►wwir� tMwM. M�N Ni��M� •1i4�g�t�. 1�� T �l1al��Y •YR�Ytt�IYA •YI SITE PLAN I 5E � ••rC 7e�r�•��+t � ! � f�arrJ �S.' Joh�rso�i �irrveyor s Ce�<<licQte • SSOCZat es •�;tu .�o� ; � G.�! : . �C1tr,G.t,t �, .1�rya�Lt.��Lt.[�r. l ,�� •. a � •.. r e s • r � . • O V � N . �i�wc��e��• •�. r�.■a�oT. ♦ Y 1 [ � O • - � 1 � • NARRr � JOMNfON MOl1�NT 1 M[REDRN N l� 1 �� s��- 1s' s,,;t� 1 �. _. � � . 1 �� p � � � ' ,p / � i� L. ti � � r�vo � — - �- UI �� I"- . � v v � � J �------� � �, � ,l, � � �� i � L� .� / / 'l � ��. J ft.0 o i ��I i�. _ . •�- �i ii � � , �. • � ! � �`� , � . � -- - ; � . � . . . ; ,,� � . - �s� . . , � ; . _ - . . � _ � .�:___ _ _.�� . ,. _ � �- � � p 0 -- - — _- � : .,r, . . . _ ,�, .. . . , . • . �. _ . . . - . , - - � • • r Y j• � • ' - f , . � � ` � ' ` I � • _ 1 . � . . . ' ' • .-♦ ` - � � `- � • ` �Y� ' .J�a_Y� ( � � � �• - � �{� �'T`! - : �' •��T � � . '�� ,-', '� ' I : . �� . _ '":�� .t., _�;-!-;. _ .. . ;.Fr� c, + :. _ - --'_ �. ; , � ` . !' -: •*,.-•�:�'•- u : c . ..t..'�..'.__ SD .r__ � � .. � • ' � +'� ._ -� _._.. - - .: _ . . c . __.: y - v__ , ` �- , , - : � • .: ' 1� ��_r�4,t.i.tML �Qr{d 2._� .. .. , .,,.. ... i, t - t' . .: -,�<� •"'i�L D WtrfC�tt,td • y - - - _ _ - _ ,�, � . �� - � S r4ff�LD�1(� 03 , � ,ti � _��.��.ROOKU9:F�_.�;�RIQACF � ]H� .��iDD ��ON,�A�o�aC�.:7 ' � `- ;� . �! :��tr�r- �• -' � �.and ot, tJia lacat.iai� ot sL( 'aKe,td�;�ye„- -a,�ia�; : #l�s�sa.i,` ;,lrr�d "�{,�. ,��ls �� _ a . 1 - � •� -- ,� �,_.-„�. i ,! ��,,.x^_ 7. _ . •. at OK z�did �. �Z i:.�0• �%1o�K �i�L _ i.0!'dl.�Ont �O� 4�O�Lt,d~pwt,�{Ii�y�I AO � I�i�a � �os�awr�i � � '�ocdt:a�7-""` s:re,usysd 6`y'ie`�i,a�Zilh :�� A : •: � ��',' , = : r �.: � ,. _ R a !� �� f►�=. � f � r. . F� f ,_ -.�' ,� ± � ��'-._ �v�1hi-�� : rr�:*�.- - >� t5 � 3�� t� � �... � . ��1�ti- xr ' .•�_ ..� � .\- .~�~..� _�_ .L � - J1i' _ 'J_�� •'�1- .��/��i1� �_1 `�Li'�_. � .�. __� SfTE PLAN 5F APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JIILY 18, 1989 - PAGE 9 Ms. McPherson stated staff will inform Mr. Brody that he will have to apply for a variance if he wishes to pursue this. 5. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE REOUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK ON CORNER LOTS FROM 25 FEET MINIMUM TO 10 FEET MINIMUM IN R-1 DZSTRICTS: Ms. McPherson stated a survey was done of front yards and required rear yard setbacks on corner lots in R-1 districts in other cities. With the exception of Brooklyn Center and Bloomington, most of the cities maintain a more restrictive rear yard setback than Fridley. If the ordinance was to be adopted, many of the variances the City has had within the last three months would not have been required. Also, in looking at past rear yard setback variances, many of them have been approved by Council. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending an ordinance amendment to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots to ten feet for living space and five feet for attached accessory uses. This would allow the defined rear yard to function either as a rear yard or as a side yard, contingent upon which frontage the structure faces. So, essentially there would be a front yard of 35 feet, a front side yard of 17 1/2 feet, and two remaining side yards at 10 feet each. If there is a garage, then one of the two remaining side yards would be 5 feet. Mr. Barna stated that in some instances on corner lots, especially with larger houses, the proposed change could give people the opportunity to have more of the lot covered. Ms. McPherson stated the 25o maximum lot coverage requirement for the principal building and all accessory buildings would not change. Mr. Barna stated that, technically, with the proposed setbacks, it almost gives people permission to exceed the 25% lot coverage. They will have to be very careful in the wording of the ordinance change that one part of the code does not violate another part of the code. Ms. McPherson stated it should not. What they are doing by proposing this ordinance change is allowing a building to encroach closer than it can right now, but the 25% lot coverage requirement would still have to be met. The purpose of updating the code in this manner is to alleviate the problem of trying to interpret the previous interpretations of the Zoning Code. Ms. Dacy stated between now and the Planning Commission meeting, staff will evaluate different existing situations on corner lots to determine the separation between houses. � APPEALS COMMI88ION MEETING, JULY 18, 1989 - PAGE ld Ms. Savage stated she feels an ordinance amendment should be considered to help alleviate some of the problems they have had with corner lots. O ION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council consider an ordinance amendment to change the required rear yard setback on corner lots. Ms. Dacy stated staff will bring back the proposed wording for the ordinance amendment for the Commission's review. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Barna declared the July 18, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . � ; / � � � % ��,° ,�r �� , �a, �L �.� Lynn Saba Rec_ ding Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, JOLY 10, 1989 ----------------.,__-----------____-----------------__________---- CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Kondrick called the July 10, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: David Kondrick, Mary Schreiner, Dick Young, John Gargaro, Tim Solberg (arr. 7:25 p.m.) Members Absent: None Others Present: Rick DeGardner, Program Supervisor Marcia Etlicher, 6870 - 7th Street N.E. Kurt Schrupp, 6171 Kerry Lane N.E. APPROVAL OF JUNE 5, 1989, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr: Young, to approve the June 5, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to move the "Redeemer Lutheran Church Parking Request" under "Old Business" to the first item on the agenda. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. 1. REDEEMER LUTHERAN Ci�£URGH �1�RKING REQUEST - EDGEWATER GARDENS: Mr. DeGardner stated Mr. Kirk is on vacation, but Mr. Kirk had written a memo to the Commission members regarding his feelings and recommendation on the sale or lease of park land to Redeemer Lutheran Church for a parking lot expansion. In the last paragraph of his memo, Mr. Kirk stated: "...based on the best interest of our park system and the people of Edgewater Gardens Park neighborhood area, I have to recommend that the City not enter into a lease or sell arrangement for any of the park land tr� Redeemer Lutheran Church for parking purposes." PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - PAGE 2 MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Young, to receive the memo from Jack Kirk to the Parks and Recreation Commission re: Edgewat�r Gardens Park. IIPON A VOICE �TOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE IrIOTION CARRIED QXANIMOIISLY. Mr. Kondrick stated he had discussed this with Mr. Kirk about one week ago. He stated he felt very much the same way as Mr. Kirk in that he, too, did not want to give up any park land. Mr. Kondrick stated his main concern is setting a precedent, and that perhaps Redeemer Lutheran Church could handle the parking situation by addireg another church service. Ms. Schreiner stated she feels open space is necessary. As Mr. Kirk stated in his memo, there is more to a park than developed or built-up areas or playground equipment and that open space, trees, grass, and plantings are all important. Even though there is no playground or other park equipment in this area, the open space is attractive and adds something to the Church as well as to the neighborhood. Ms. Schreiner stated that when this request was first presented to the Commission, she had thought something might be worked out, but after visiting and walking the site, she did not feel comfortable with giving up any park land and she is in agreement with Mr. Kirk's recommendation. Ms. Schreiner stated Mr. Kirk's memo also indicated that many of the people involved believe the parking problem is more pronounced in the wintertime because of snow storage. Maybe Redeemer will have to consider adding more services. Mr. Gargaro stated he would like to see if there is any possibility that the park land could be utilized as park land and as parking lot area. He stated Ms. McPherson had discussed alternate forms of parking lot support--concrete pads that allow the growth of vegetation and will support the weight of automobiles. He stated he is not quite as adamant against the selling or leasing of park land because there might be some technology out there that could or should be pursued that would benefit both the Church and the City. Mr. Young stated that, as the Commissioners remembered, he visited Redeemer Lutheran Church on three Sunday mornings, including Easter Sunday, to observe the parking situation. On every occasion, there were a number of empty parking stalls in the parking lot. Mr. Young stated another thing he would like to bring up is the fact that Redeemer does own the vacant lot across Mississippi PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 3 Street, and they have not given any indication that they will use that lot for parking. It was his understanding that the lot was purchased for a parking lot. He would encourage Redeemer to pursue rezoning that property and using it for overflow parking. He felt strongly that when there is a piece of property that can be developed as a parking lot, it should be pursued. Mr. Young stated that regarding the question of safety for those people crossing Mississippi Street from the vacant lot, maybe the Fridley Police Department could be asked to have an officer at the crossing to direct traffic. He stated Epiphany Catholic Church in Coon Rapids has a Coon Rapids police officer directing traffic on Sunday mornings, and Emmanuel Christian Center in Spring Lake Park has a Fridley police officer directing traffic onto Osborne Road. Another suggestion would be flashing lights that could be activated on Sundays. Mr. Young stated he is also concerned about relocating the skating rink. When the Commission members looked at the site, Mr. Volkman, Superintendent of Public Works, indicated that an excessive amount of grading is necessary to move the skating rink to the north end of the park. The north end is the only area in the park that has nice grass, and it is a fact that grass will never grow where there is a rink during the winter. Mr. Young stated Ms. McPherson had talked about some kind of parking lot surface that could accommodate parking automobiles and still remain as a grassy area ; however, she did say she was not familiar with the technology. Ms. Etlicher stated she could certainly understand the Commission members not wanting to give up park land; however, she would like to respond to some of the comments made by the Commission members. As she had stated at an earlier meeting, churches benefit the community as well as park land, and the park land can be used for serving people, both as park land and as parking for their church. Ms. Etlicher stated Redeemer tried to purchase the Edgewater Gardens park land from the County 10 years ago for additional land for parking and were told that the County could not sell the land to a private party or a church; it could only be sold to a city. So, the Church was trying to get additional land long before the City purchased the property from Anoka County. Ms. Etlicher stated that regarding the vacant lot across the street, it was owned by a member of Redeemer. Since the Church was not able to purchase the property from the County, the Church purchased the lot because they thought it was the only option available to them at that time. She stated it is possible the lot can be rezoned, but it is right next to two single family homes. One home's living room and kitchen face the lot. Parking cars on PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - PAGE 4 this lot is certainly not the most ideal situation for the neighborhood, particular for the one home. (Mr. SoZberg arrived at 7:25 p.m.) Ms. Etlich�z- stated that as far as moving the skating rink to the north end of the park, it was never their intent that it would be at the City's expense. She stated if the park land is leased or sold to Redeemer, Redeemer would pay for the cost of grading and relocating the skating rink. Mr. Salberg stated that after visiting the site and because of the results of the survey and the size of the park itself, he had to agree with Mr. Kirk's recommendation to not lease or sell any park land to Redeemer Lutheran Church. MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Young, to recommend to the City Council, through the Planning Commission, that the City not lease or sell any portion of Edgewater Gardens Park to Redeemer Lutheran Church for parking purposes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, RONDRZCR, SCHREINER, YOIING, SOLBERG VOTING AYE, GARGARO VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1. 2. STAFF REPORT• a. Summer Proqram Report Mr. DeGardner stated the summer program is well under way. The playground program has almost 300 children participating. He stated they offered an evening playground program at some of the playground locations, but very few registrations led to cancellation of the evening sessions. Mr. DeGardner stated the Jaycees donated a new puppet wagon and PA system for the puppet wagon. The puppet shows and movies are being very well attended. Burger King is sponsoring the movies and providing orange drink. Mr. DeGardner stated the Northwest Tennis Association offered a grant to Fridley if they would run a teen tennis program with the north metro area. Fridley offered the program and 16 teens, aged 13-16, signed up. He stated the tennis teams play area communities in organized tennis matches. Fridley will be hosting the tennis carnival on Aug. 3 at Commons Park. He stated the emphasis of the program is to have fun. PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 5 Mr. DeGardner stated a Tennis Camp is starting this week. Mr. DeGardner stated the T-ball program is well underway. He stated last year they started an evening program which went so well they had to add an additional session. This year, they ended up with two full sessions and an almost full third session. There are 100 children in the evening program and 85 in the day program. Mr. DeGardner stated Moore Lake swimming beach is open and is being heavily utilized, especially during the hot weather. Mr. Young stated he had received a complaint about the change in ages of the playground program and the park location for the Tiny Tot playground program. The mother's complaint was that the Tiny Tot program (4 year olds - formerly 4-5 year olds) has moved to Commons Park only. The mother works and she cannot let her child walk to Commons and cross Mississippi Street. Also, last year the program was divided into 4-5 year olds and 6-11 year olds. Her daughter (now 6) was looking forward to being with the older children, and the ages were changed to 7- 11 year olds. Mr. Young stated were other people their children up same reasons. this mother had indicated that there in her neighborhood who did not sign with the playground program for the Mr. DeGardner stated the changes to the playground program were discussed thoroughly last year. The playground leaders had a very difficult time instructing the � year olds for 3 hours. Ms. Heiman, the Program Specialist for the playground program, also has an education background, and she agreed that although there are some 4 year olds that are mature enough to handle that length of time, there are a lot of 4 years olds who cannot. So, it was decided that rather than eliminate the 4 year olds, a program would be held for them at one central location. Mr. DeGardner to the new age children who guidelines. stated because this was a transition year guidelines, some exceptions were made for were eligible under last year's age Mr. DeGardner stated it was also felt the 6-11 year old group was difficult to work with because of the wide range in ages, so that was the reason for the change to 7-il year olds. PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - PAGE 6 Mr. DeGardner stated Fridley State Bank will be providing the buses for the T-ball and FYSA baseball participants to attend the Twins baseball game on July 27. b. 49�er Days Report Mr. DeGardner stated 49'er Days went extremely well. Mr. Gargaro stated they averaged 2,000-3,000 people Friday and Saturday nights during the first annual "Taste of Fridley". It was the largest attendance 49'er Days has ever had. There were 7-8 vendors selling food products. On Saturday, the Dairy Queen made the world's largest milkshake, and it was featured on KSTP television. All proceeds went to the Children's Miracle Network. Concerts were held in the Showmobile. He stated the Plaza is the perfect place for all the 49'er Days activities. Mr. DeGardner stated 62 children signed up for the Fridley's 40th birthday party. c. Hockey Rink Location Mr. DeGardner stated that since the hockey rink cannot be placed at either Totino Grace or by the Satellite Fire Station, preparations are being made for the hockey rink to be installed at Moore Lake on the north side of the tennis courts. 2. NEW BUSINESS• a. Reqion 5AA Softball Request Mr. DeGardner stated Totino Grace is requesting the use of the Community Park ballfields for their 1990 Region 5AA Softball Tournament on May 24, 25, 29, 30, 1990. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to approve the softball tournament request from Totino Grace for the use of the Community Park ballfields on May 24, 25, 29, 30, 1990. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. b. Tarqet Softball Tournament Request PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - PAGE 7 Mr. DeGardner stated Target is requesting the use of the Community Park ballfields for a tournament on Sept. 9- it�� 1989, at a facility fee of $1,000. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to approve the request by Target for the use of the Community park ballfields on Sept. 9-10, 1989. Mr. Young stated he thought the Commission had a policy that the fields cannot be used on two consecutive weekends and not more than two tournaments a month due tca excessive wear on th� fields. There is a tournament scheduled for Labor Day weekend. Mr. DeGardner stated one tournament was scheduled in June, one i� July, one in August, and one tournament on Labor Day weekend. If the Commission goes with the guideline of no more than two tournaments in one month, this request would fall under that guideline. But, if they do not want tournaments on two consecutive weekends, then this tournament cannot be held. He stated the Community Park ballfields have not been as heavily used an the weekends as they have in the past, and the fields are in better shape. Mr. Kondrick stated this is certainly a good policy, but they should be somewhat flexible, depending upon the fields' condition. Mr. Young stated he was in favor of approving the tournament request, because of the fact that this will be towards the end of the softball season, and the growing season is coming to an end. However, if it had been for the middle of July, he would not be in favor of tournaments on two consecutive weekends. Mr. Gargaro asked staff to provide the Commission members with a copy of the policy for the next meeting. IIPON A DOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. Schreiner stated that she likes to take her granddaughter to Commons Park playground, but there are no portable bathroom facilities at the park. She stated there are always a lot of children at the Commons playground. Mr. DeGardner stated it is City policy to provide portable bathroom facilities only at park program locations. He stated PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING - PAGE 8 staff would investigate this to see if there was enough demand to provide the facilities. ADJOURNMENT•_ MOTION by Mr. �argara, s�conded by Mr. Solberg, to adjourn the meeting. Opon a aoiae vc�te, aII votinq aye, Chairperson Rondrick declared the Juiy 10, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission meetinq adjourned at 8:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � Ly Saba r Recording Secretary � _ U7Y OF F[Z[DLEY CIVIC' CEtiTE�R •(r�i?1 Cti[�'ERSITY ,aVE. N.E. FR(DI.E�", 1�1I?v'NESOTA 5��13� • p}{pN� �� S,�_,y�� To: Parks and Recreation Commission Members Fr: Jack Kirk Director of Recreation & Natural Resource Department Re: Edgewater Gardens Park For several months now the City of Fridley and the Parks and Recreation Commission has been studying the request made by Redeemer Lutheran Church to utilize a portion of Edgewater Gardens Park for a parking lot expansion. A survey was sent to the immediate Edgewater Gardens Park neighborhood area and approximately 500 of the surveys were returned, which represents an excellent percentage for a survey of this nature. The survey showed us that the residents of this area feel that the Edgewater Gardens neighborhood park is important and that they are concerned as to what happens in the future with this park land. Although this survey was very helpful to point out the significant interest that this neighborhood holds for this park, it wasn't conclusive enough in its results to aid in a easy decision on this parking problem. I think it is important to look at a couple of the items that the survey pointed out to us, however. One being the question that addressed the current size of Edgewater Gardens Park. 77% of the respondents felt that the current size of the park was adequate, that it was not too small or too large. A second question that I would like to point to from the survey was whether or not the respondents agreed or disagreed or had no comment on the statement Redeemer Lutheran Church parking on the streets of 65 1/2 Way or Ashton Avenue was a problem. Less than half of those who responded felt that parking was a problem. Although the survey was completed in January of 1989 I still am receiving regular phone calls and inquiries as to the status of this parking expansion request and the vast majority of the people contacting me are adamantly against giving up any park land. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the City of Fridley not lease or sell any park land to Redeemer Lutheran Church for a parking lot expansion at the current time. The people of the Edgewater Gardens Park area waited for a long time to have a neighborhood park and selling of or leasing of the park land at this time would reduce an already limited space and future park potential developments. I do believe that the City of Fridley has been cooperative with Redeemer Lutheran Church as evidence by a long term lease that we entered into in 1982 for 35 feet of the park land that the church was able to use for a previous parking lot expansion. When addressing this problem we must realize that there is more to a park than developed or built up areas or playground equipment. The open space, the trees, grass, plantings are all important and many people want some open, unstructured, undeveloped space in their neighborhood park. Comments that we received on many of the completed surveys addressed this issue and stressed that just because there's not a ball field, tennis court, or playground equipment in all portions of the park doesn't mean that the park land is expendable or less important. Another issue that several of the surveys responded to and I have to agree with is the fact that this parking problem is at the most one or two mornings a week at certain times of the year and if we give up park land, we are giving it up all day, seven days a week, all year long, and I don't believe that that is a good trade. Through out this process of looking at the parking lot expansion request, many of the people involved believe that the problem is most pronounced during the winter months when parking lot size and street width seem to lessen with every snow fall. It is very likely that in order to alleviate this problem, additional snow removal would be required and I'm not opposed to allowing some of the excess snow to be pushed onto the non-skating rink portion of Edgewater Gardens Park. More intense efforts at snow removal may in fact alleviate some of the problems at the most difficult parking time of the year, the winter. Once again based on the best interest of our park system and the people of the Edgewater Gardens Park neighborhood area, I have to recommend that the city not enter into a lease or sell arrangement for any of the park land to Redeemer �Lutheran Church for parking purposes. CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Barna called the July 18, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 8:02 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Alex Barna, Diane Savage, Jerry Sherek, Ken Vos Members Absent: Larry Kuechle Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant William Carlson, 1495 Creek Park Lane J. Guy Reithmeyer, 1809 Northwestern Ave. Stillwater, MN APPROVAL OF JUNE 13, 1989, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to approve the June 13, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST, VAR #89-05, BY WILLIAM E. CARLSON AND CARROLL A. BRENNAN: Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 13.8 feet in order to construct an enclosed 16 ft. by 16 ft. porch on Lot 11, Block 2, Creekridge, the same being 1495 Creek Park Lane. Public Hearing Open. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to remove VAR #89-05 from the table. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 18 1989 - PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated this item was first before the Appeals Commission on May 9. Because the petitioner could not be present, it has remained on the table since that meeting. Ms. McPherson stated this is a corner lot, and it is in an R-1, Single Family Residential District. The petitioner is proposing a 16 ft. x 16 ft. enclosed three season porch which would require a rear yard variance from the required 25 feet to 13.8 feet. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending denial on the basis that a variance would greatly r�duce the separation between the petitioner's house an� �he single family house to the north. Also, the house is oriented �oward the long side of the lot, therefore creatin� a short lot depth which leads to an encroachment of the proposed porch. Ms. Savage stated that because of the corner lot situation, if the back yard was considered a side yard, would a variance be required? Ms. McPherson stated if the rear yard was the side yard, then a variance would nc�t be needed because the required side yard setback is 10 feet. Ms. McPherson stated a 35 ft. front yard setback is maintained on the Creek Park Lane side, leading staff to believe the Creek Park Lane frontage is the front yard. Ms. Savage stated that later in the meeting the Commission will be considering an ordinance amendment to change the required rear yard setback on corner lots from 25 feet minimum to 10 feet minimum. If this amendment is approved, then a variance would not be required. Ms. McPherson stated that is correct. Dr. Vos stated that in the staff report, staff is suggesting that a 9 ft. by 24. ft. addition can be constructed to the rear of the garage without a variance. Ms. McPherson stated this alternative is not as appealing as what the petitioner is requesting because of access to the house, but it is a potential alternative. The petitioner would -ti11 have the concrete patio for r�creational p�?�poses. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner's opinion of the alternative suggested by staff. Dr. Carlson stated if he did not get the variance, he probably would not construct a 9 ft. by 24 ft. porch. For one thing, they would have to access the porch by either going outside the house or going through the garage. Their family room is on the north APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 1989 - PAGE 3 side with access through the patio door to the concrete patio. They would like to remove the patio door and put in French doors to the porch from the family room. Also, 9 feet is not very wide. He did not know how truly functional a porch of those dimensions would be, other than just for some chairs. There is also a mature tree in the back yard, and an addition off the garaqe would come very close to that tree. Dr. Carlson stated Sue Jackson, 6616 Arthur Street, the immediate neighbor to the north, and other surrounding neighbors do not have any objections to this variance and the construction of the porch. Mr. Sherek stated he is a little concerned about the sight lines for the neighbor on Lot 12. Ms. Savage stated that viewing the property from Arthur Street, the back yard looks c�owded now. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Dr. Vos, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Sherek stated that, in general, he does not like houses close together. He likes open space and sight lines. The fact that there is a hardship in the way the property and house were arranged was not enough to convince him to vote in favor of the variance. However, the fact that the neighbor to the west who is the most affected by this addition does not object and the fact that the Commission will be considering some changes in the ordinance for rear yard setbacks on corner lots made him more inclined to vote in favor of the variance. Dr. Vos stated if the change to the ordinance had been done before this petition, the variance would not be needed. Also, the neighbor to the north has no sight line problems, and there are no windows on the south side. He stated this is not his favorite place to put a three season porch, but he will vote in favor of the variance. Ms. Savage stated her first impression when visiting the property was that the houses are very crowded, which is not the petitioner's fault. In view of the fact that staff is recommending an ordinance change, it did not make much sense to deny this variance request. She, too, would vote in favor of the variance. Mr. Barna agreed. In this situation, he sees the hardship as the fact that the builder oriented the house with the frontage on Creek Park Lane. If the house was turned and fronted Arthur Street, then this would be the side yard, and there would not be APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 18 1989 - PAGE 4 any problem. He stated he is in favor of the variance. However, because of staff objection, this item will go on to City Council for final action. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-05, by William E. Carlson and Carroll A. Brennan, pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(3).(a) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 13.8 feet in order to construct an enclosed 16 ft. by 16 ft. porch on Lot 11, Block 2, Creekridge, the same being 1495 Creek Park Lane. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated this item will go to the City Council on August 14, 1989. 2. TABLED CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST VAR �89-11, BY NORDQUIST SIGN COMPANY: Pursuant to Section 214.09.O1.B of the Fridley City Code to increase the square footage of a free-standing sign from 24 square feet to 40 square feet on Lot 1, Block l, Grace High School Addition, the same being 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. (Totino Grace High School). Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner was not at the meeting. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive into the record a letter dated July 11, 1989, addressed to the Appeals Commission members and a letter with a survey addressed to the neighbors of Totino Grace High School dated June 22, 1989. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANZMOUSLY. Ms. Dacy stated staff will contact the petitioner, and the item should remain on the table. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REQUEST VAR #89-12 BY GUY REITHMEYER (CORTRON CORPORATION): Pursuant to Section 205.18.03.C.(1).(a) of the Fridley City Code to increase the required maximum lot coverage from 40% to 47% to allow the construction of additional warehouse/ manufacturing and office space on Lot 7, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, the same being 7855 Ranchers Road N.E. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 1989 - PAGE 5 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLZC HEARING OPEN AT 8:28 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located in an M-2, Heavy Industrial, Zoning District and is surrounded by additional M-2 zoning and a C-3, General Shopping, Zoning District to the east. The request is to increase the maximum allowable lot coverage from 40� to 47%. Ms. McPherson stated that currently the building covers 35% of the lot. As pointed out in the staff report, a 4,000 sq. ft. addition would bring the building coverage to 40o and would allow for extra open space. Staff also suggested a second option of constructing a two-story addition with the office space on the second floor and the warehouse space on the first floor. This would allow for the addition of 8,000 sq. ft. (4,000 sq. ft. on each floor), 300 sq. ft. more than the petitioner is requesting. Ms. McPherson stated staff did some calculations, and the addition as proposed by the petitioner will reduce the amount of impervious surface (with building and parking) from 79% to 750. Currently, the parking lot covers the entire front area up to the required 20 ft. parking setback and far exceeds the parking requirement. They will exactly meet the parking stall requirement with the proposed addition. The petitioner is also proposing extensive landscaping in the expanded green area. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Appeals Commission recommend denial of this variance request because there are other alternatives that can be pursued that will not exceed the 40% maximum lot coverage. Mr. Reithmeyer stated stated the current building is 24, 000 sq. ft. In his calculations, with a 40% lot coverage, they could have a building footprint of 27,342 sq. ft., which leaves them with an actual expansion of only 3,342 sq. ft. The business is really in need of more warehouse/ manufacturing space. A 3,342 sq. ft. addition would only be a temporary fix at best plus it doesn't meet what they need to do for their long range planning. He stated Cortron Corporation makes electronic computerized machines. They process computer parts and sell computer parts. It is an extremely expensive product. Mr. Reithmeyer stated staff's observation was good in order to meet the City code, but as far as the type of space that is necessary for them to operate and to make the expansion economically feasible, they need 7,700 sq. ft. of warehouse/manufacturing space. Mr. Reithmeyer stated if Cortron Corporation cannot obtain this variance, they will have to look at other alternatives, possibly APPEALB COMMISSION MEETING JULY 18 1989 - PAGE 6 moving to another location. A move is a major thing and they would like to stay in Fridley. Mr. Reithmeyer stated they can make the addition work as far as the parking requirement. They are reducing the total impervious surface on the site and will be improving the landscaping and drainage on the site. They understand the storm sewer system is pretty full in this area, and they will be providing a retention area that will take the run-off from the roof and allow it to percolate into the ground which will relieve the storm sewer system. Mr. Reithmeyer stated they can meet all the setback requirements. The only requirement that is not met is the lot coverage for the principal building. They feel their proposal will improve the present appearance of the building. Mr. Sherek stated that other than expense, what is the problem with building a two-story addition as recommended by staff. Mr. Reithmeyer stated the company is in need of warehouse/ manufacturing space. With a two-story addition, the additional footprint to the building would be only 3,342 sq. ft. They could gain the 2,500 sq. ft. that is currently office, making a total gain in warehouse/manufacturing space of only 5,842 sq. ft. That would also mean the entire office space would have to be on the second floor. The company wants a reception area and demonstration area on the first floor, so that would take up a good portion of the 5,842 sq. ft. Mr. Sherek asked about the discrepancy in the calculations made by staff and the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated it was an estimation on staff's part, and the petitioner's calculations were probably more accurate. Mr. Barna stated the two-story proposal seemed sensible because there is then the potential for expansion in the fu�ure. Ms. McPherson stated that a condition of any future expansion would be that the company would have to meet the off-street parking requirements, and that might prevent them from any future expansion. Mr. Reithmeyer stated staff is correct. He would not recommend the building expanded beyond what they are proposing because of the amount of surface parking they now have. The existing parking meets what the code requires and meets the needs of the future employees they propose to add with the addition. Right now the parking is more than adequate. They are proposing to upgrade the parking surface as well. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 1989 - PAGE 7 Dr. Vos stated he did not see any advantage in adding a second story at this time, because any future expansion would be limited by the number of parking spaces that can be provided. Dr. Vos stated that with the proposal, there are two entrances, one for the shipping area and one for the office area, and he saw that as an advantage. MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:53 P.M. Dr. Vos stated he is in favor of the expansion to 47% on this lot for two reasons: (1) The proposed addition will enhance the area rather than detract from it; and (2) There will be more green space. Ms. Savage stated she liked the proposed plan. She did not like the way the building looks right now and the large parking area. The proposed plan should improve the property a great deal, and she liked the idea of the improved landscaping and green areas. She stated she is in favor of recommending approval of the variance. Mr. Sherek agreed. Mr. Barna stated he also agreed. The heart of the code is being met with the western site line still being in line with the building to the north. They will gain a better site line, facia, a better looking building, and more green space. The amount of impervious surface will be reduced which is really a prime concern in this area. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-12, by Guy Reithmeyer (Cortron Corporation), pursuant to Section 205.18.03.C.(1).(a) of the Fridley City Code to increase the required maximum lot coverage from 40� to 47% to allow the construction of additional warehouse/ manufacturing and office space on Lot 7, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, the same being 7855 Ranchers Road N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The drainage plan shall be approved by City staff. 2. Underground sprinkling shall be installed. 3. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 18 1989 - PAGE 8 4. 5. The Appeals Commission does not recommend further expansion on this site. A dumpster enclosure shall be constructed, if necessary. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRZED IINANIMOUSLY. Mr. Barna stated this item will go to City Council on August 14, 1989. 4. CONSIDERATION OF AN INFORMAL REOUEST BY MEYER BRODER FOR A VARIANCE IN ALLOWED FENCE HEIGHT: Pursuant to Section 205.04.06.(7) of the Fridley City Code to increase the height of a fence in the front yard from 4 feet to 7 feet on Lot� 1, 2, and 3, Block 27, Hyde Park, the same being 278 - 58th Avenue N.E. Ms. McPherson stated this informal request came about from a telephone call received by Steven Barg, Code Enforcement Officer. Currently on the lot there is a duplex, a garage which accesses 58th Avenue, and a garage that accesses 3rd Street. Mr. Broder lives in half of the duplex, and his front window faces Frank's Used Cars. Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Broder asked Mr. Barg if it was possible for him to install a 7 ft. or 8 ft. fence in his front yard. Staff's interpretation is that both street frontages are within one foot of each other, and both could be considered front yards. Staff agrees with Mr. Broder that 3rd Street is his front yard. Staff told Mr. Broder he would have to apply for a variance, but that perhaps it would be better to informally get a feeling on the success of such a variance from the Commission. Ms. Savage stated she would rather have the petitioner go through the variance process than have the Commission make an informal decision. Mr. Barna stated there is no reason for anyone to stockade the street side of a lot. He stated he is very irritated that Anoka County allowed people along East River Road to put up 7 ft. fences on the street side of their yards. He stated a 7 ft. fence does not belong in the front yard. Dr. Vos stated it would be best for Mr. Brody to go through the variance process. That way the property owners and the owner of Frank's Used Cars are notified of the request. Mr. Sherek stated that despite the opinions of the Commission members, these opinions should not be relayed to Mr. Brody without going through the formal process and notifying the neighbors. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 18, 1989 - PAGE 9 Ms. McPherson stated staff will inform Mr. Brody that he will have to apply for a variance if he wishes to pursue this. 5. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE REOUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK ON CORNER LOTS FROM 25 FEET MINIMUM TO 10 FEET MINIMUM IN R-1 DISTRICTS: Ms. McPherson stated a survey was done of front yards and required rear yard setbacks on corner lots in R-1 dist.ricts in oth�:r cities. With the exception of Brooklyn Center and Bloomington, mast of the cities maintain a more restrictive rear yard setback thar� Fridley. If the ordinance was to be adopted, many of the variances the City has had within the last three months would not have been required. Also, in laoking a� past rear yard setback variances, many of them have been approved by Council. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending an ordinance amendment to reduce the required rear yard setback on corner lots to ten feet for living space and five feet for attached accessory uses. This would allow the defined rear yard to function either as a rear yard or as a side yard, contingent upon which frontage the structure faces. So, essentially there would be a front yard of 35 feet, a front side yard of 17 1/2 feet, and two remaining side yards at 10 feet each. If there is a garage, then one of the two remaining side yards would be 5 feet. Mr. Barna stated that in some instances on corner lots, especially with larger houses, the proposed changP could give people the opportunity to have more of the lot covered. Ms. McPherson stated the 25% maximum lot coverage requirement for the principal building and all accessory buildings would not change. Mr. Barna stated that, technically, with the proposed setbacks, it almost gives people permission to exceed the 25% lot coverage. They will have to be very careful in the wording of the ordinance change that one part of the code does not violate another part of the code. Ms. McPherson stated it should not. What they are doing by proposing this ordinance change is allowing a building to encroach closer than it can right now, but the 25% lot coverage requirement would still have to be met. The purpose of updating the code in this manner is to alleviate the problem of trying to interpret the previous interpretations of the Zoning Code. Ms. Dacy stated between now and the Planning Commission meeting, staff will evaluate different existing situations on corner lots to determine the separation between houses. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING JULY 18 1989 - PAGE 10 Ms. Savage stated she feels an ordinance amendment should be considered to help alleviate some of the problems they have had with corner lots. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend that the Planning Commission and Ci�y Council consider an ordinance amendment to change the required rear yard setback on corner lots. Ms. Dacy stated staff will bring back the proposed wording for the ordinance am�nam�nt for the Commission's review. OPON A�IOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRP�RS�JN BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOTJSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Barna declared the July i8s 1989, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully subnlitted, � _ '' ,/ .. � �„ .-, ,, /;' � , �; �,�nn Saba ;eca�ding Secreta�y CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 1, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Barna called the August 1, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Alex Barna, Diane Savage, Jerry Sherek Members Absent: Kenneth Vos, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant David Nigon, Totino Grace High School Greg Balego, Totino Grace High School Jerome Farrell, 2908 Jersey Ave. N. Crystal, MN 55427 APPROVAL OF JULY 18, 1989, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to approve the July 18, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, C$AIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. l. TABLED: CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #89-11 BY NORDQUIST SIGN COMPANY• Pursuant to Section 214.09.O1.B of the Fridley City Code to increase the square footage of a free-standing sign from 32 sq. ft. to 40 sq. ft. on Lot l, Block 1, Grace High School Addition, the same being 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. (Totino Grace High School). (PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.) MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to remove the item from the table. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED iTNANIMOIIBLY. Ms. McPherson stated the site is located in an R-1, Single Family Dwelling district. The petitioner is proposing to construct a new APPEALS COMMISSION KEETING AUGIIST 1 1989 PAGE 2 sign, 5 ft. high by 8 ft. long, for a maximum of 40 sq. ft. The old brick facia sign located at the intersection of Gardena and Matterhorn Drive, with the words, "Jim Totino Field", at the bottom of the sign, was removed during this permit process. She stated the old sign also had overgrown shrubs that hid the sign from view. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Appeals Commission recommend denial of this sign variance request on the basis that 32 sq. ft. is an adequate size for the sign and that with proper illumination, low shrubs, and with lettering at the top of the sign, the sign can be visible from Gardena Avenue. Mr. Barna asked if the petitioner had contemplated removing one foot from the bottom part of the sign, converting that one foot to pedestal, thereby meeting the Code? There would be no visual or architectural change in the face of the sign. There would just be an additional foot of pedestal. Mr. David Nigon stated the designer of the sign maintains that this size of the sign would be the most legible and most aesthetically attractive. Mr. Nigon stated the way the old sign was set up did not allow for any visual opportunity for the back side of the sign. The sign was not visible at all to people driving up Gardena towards the School. They are suggesting that the sign be put perpendicular to the street so that it will be visible from both sides. It will be aesthetically attractive in proportion to the corner of Gardena/Matterhorn and will enhance the corner of the Totino-Grace facility. The sign will be lit from the ground level. The area will be completely redone and relandscaped. Mr. Greg Balego stated he understood what Mr. Barna was saying about eliminating one foot of the bottom of the sign and adding one foot to the pedestal; however, the person who designed the sign is an artist and is very touchy about spatial arrangements. According to the school bylaws, the high school logo and crest have to be put a certain distance from the edge of the sign. They are following the recommendations of the designer. Mr. Nigon stated the School Superintendent is very adamant about visuals, wants the facility to look good, and wants to stay within the specifications of the artist. He stated they also contacted a large number of the neighbors through a letter and survey and for the most part the neighbors responded in a positive way. Mr. Barna stated the Commission received the letter and survey dated June 22, 1989, at the July 18, 1989, meeting. Mr. Sherek asked that if the variance request is denied, what will Totino Grace do about the sign? APPEALS COMMISSION MBETING. AIIGIIST 1. 1989 PAGE 3 Mr. Nigon stated they would have to honor the Code. They would ask for the artist's opinion and probably ask him to redesign the sign. Ms. Savage asked if there were any restrictions as far as the materials for the sign. Ms. McPherson stated the City has no design standards that specifically address signs. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAZRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:45 P.M. Mr. Sherek stated this is a residential neighborhood, and the traffic does not go by so fast that it is necessary to have an extremely large sign, particularly for the nature of the business that is done there. Thirty-two square feet is more than adequate for a sign in a residential neighborhood. He stated he will recommend denial of the variance. Ms. Savage agreed. She stated she is opposed to any large signs. They are very aesthetically detracting in a community, parti�:alarly in a residential area. She did not think the hardship qu��iifies the petitioner to construct a sign larger than the ordinance allows. She is opposed to any sign larger than 32 sq. ft. Mr. Barna agreed with both Mr. Sherek and Ms. Savage. The petitioner can construct a sign that is within code. A church is located on Gardena across the street, and any variance would set a precedent in this residential area. MOTION by Mr. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council denial of variance request, VAR #89-11, by Nordquist Sign Company, pursuant to Section 214.09.O1.B of the Fridley City Code to increase the square footage of a free-standing sign from 32 sq. ft. to 40 sq. ft. on Lot 1, Block 1, Grace High School Addition, the same being 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. (Totino Grace High School). IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Barna stated this item will go to the City Council on Monday, August 28, 1989. APPEALS COMMISSION ME$TING AOGIIBT 1 1989 PAGE 4 2. CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE RE4UESTS VAR #89-13 BY JEROME FARRELL (SBF DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION): Pursuant to Section 214.11.05 of the Fridley City Code to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign from 205 sq. ft. to 1,185 sq. ft. to allow for additional signage for a movie theater on Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARZNG OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated this request is for four sign variances to the City's Sign Code related to the proposed movie theater at 250 Osborne Road (old Cub Foods site) as follows: 1. 8- 4 ft. x 4 ft. poster containers 2. 1- 9 ft. x 82.5 ft. marquee for advertising current films 3. 1- 9.33 ft. x 33 ft. vertical sign to advertise "Movies 8n 4. 1- 4 ft. x 4 ft. readerboard for Perkins Restaurant An analysis of each of the four types of signage was included in the staff report. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding #2, the petitioner indicated a signage width of 9.33 feet. When measured on the building elevation plan, the actual width indicated seven feet. However, three of the seven feet includes the neon band tubing on each side of the tower. The band area where the "Movies 8" letters will be placed only measures four feet in width. Because the four foot wide area is used to support the letters stating "Movies 8", this should be used as the dimension to calculate the sign square footage. The sign area for this portion should be calculated as 4 feet by 33 feet which equals 132 sq. ft. Ms. Dacy stated the City's ordinance does not address movie theaters. The most applicable regulation was the wall signage requirement in commercial districts. The wall signage requirement is 15 times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. The intent of that requirement was to allow a typical business to advertise its name, and she believed the writers of the sign ordinance were not thinking of a movie theater. Ms. Dacy stated staff contacted other communities and a survey of sign ordinances for movie theaters was included in the agenda. Of APPEALS COMMISSION I�iBETING, AIIGDST l. 1989 PAGE 5 the communities, Coon Rapids and Brooklyn Center were the only ones that specifically provided for movie theaters. Brooklyn Center's sign ordinance is quite liberal as far as signage. Not only does Brooklyn Center allow a free-standing sign pylon sign up to 250 sq. ft., but also allow 30� of the wall area. Using that standard against this proposal for 30�, it would equal about 1,500 sq. ft. If they used Brooklyn Center's requirements for this proposal, the petitioner's request represents about 11� of the wall area. Coon Rapids' sign ordinance allows a combination of wall and free- standing reader board with an overall maximum of 600 sq. ft. Ms. Dacy stated that in reviewing the criteria in the Sign Ordinance, staff determined that in this case, the ordinance would impose a hardship on the petitioner. To force the petitioner to comply with the wall signage requirements would be inappropriate. Looking at the scale of the signage, staff determined it was not overburdening the site. The petitioner will not be using the free- standing sign to advertise the movie signage. Ms. Dacy stated staff analyzed each of the criteria listed in the Sign Ordinance, and staff's recommendation is that the Appeals Commission recommend to City Council approval of the variance request for installation of the following signs with special conditions: 1. 8- 4 foot x 5 foot poster containers; the poster container material shall be consistent with the architectural styling of the theater; 2. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee; however, movie names, times, and other messages shall only be displayed on the 9 foot x 18 foot readerboards on either side of the "Movies 8" tower; 3. 1- 4 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to state "Movies 8" 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant, to be located on the all facia of the movie theater, and subject to receiving a sign permit. Further, the signs shall be consistent with the plans which are part of the staff report dated August 1, 1989. Finally, there shall be no flashing or motion signs. Mr. Barna asked if they should be talking, not only about the signage for the theater, but the sign square footage for the whole development. Ms. Dacy stated they are just talking about the square footage for the movie theater. According to the Sign Ordinance, the r� APPEALS COMMISSION KEETZNG AIIGIIST 1 1989 PAGE 6 Comprehensive Sign Plan is reviewed only by the City Council. Each individual tenant will have to meet the wall signage requirements as well as the Comprehensive Sign Plan. Mr. Barna stated all the wall signage for the Skywood Mall and Skywood Inn was all taken together, and since the Skywood Inn took up most of the square footage, the tenants ended up with no wall signs. This is a similar situation with one central tenant with a number of smaller tenants. The signage for the movie theater is already exceeding the amount of square footage allowed for the development. Ms. Dacy stated they are only using the wall length of the theater. The wall lengths for the tenant spaces are exclusive of that, so that doesn't apply in this case. Zf the lengths of the tenant spaces were included, the allowable square footage would be a lot greater. It was staff's interpretation of the Sign Ordinance to keep the tenant spaces and the part of the shopping center separate from the movie theater, because they are only talking about the movie theater signage. She did not think it was correct to include that square footage as part of the shopping center, because the ordinance does not address a movie theater. Mr. Barna stated he believed the previous interpretations of the Sign Ordinance for a strip center like this included the whole development. He suggested the City Attorney check the interpretation of the Sign Ordinance before the City Council meeting. Ms. Dacy stated that interpretation is unfair to the tenant spaces, especially in this case. With a hotel, the ordinance is providing for that type of wall signage. But, in this case, there is no mention of a movie theater in the ordinance. Mr. Barna agreed this is a different, but not totally unique situation. He had no objection to the 600 square footage as long as they are not penalizing the tenants' signage. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M. Ms. Savage stated she personally liked the design of the signage. She thought the theater and signage will be an asset to the community. She agreed with the recommendations made by staff, and would be in favor of approving the variance request with those recommendations. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AIIGUST 1 1989 PAGE 7 Mr. Sherek stated this looks like a good plan considering the size of the building and the type of business. Mr. Barna stated staff has changed the square footage of the variance from 1,185 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. If the Commission recommends approval of the variance to 600 sq. ft., he wanted to make sure this square footage was for the movie theater only and did not include the signage for the remainder of the strip center. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of variance request, VAR #89-13, by Jerome Farrell (SBF Development Corporation), pursuant to Section 214.11.05 of the Fridley City Code to increase the maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign from 205 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. to allow for additional signage fo� a movie theater on Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. 8- 4 foot x 5 foot poster containers; the poster container material shall be consistent with the architectural styling of the theater; 2. 1- 9 foot x 82.5 foot marquee; however, movie names, times, and other messages shall only be displayed on the 9 foot x 18 foot readerboards on either side of the "Movies 8" tower; 3. 1- 4 foot x 33 foot vertical sign to state "Movies 8" 4. 1- 4 foot x 4 foot readerboard for Perkin's Restaurant, to be located on the all facia of the movie theater, and subject to receiving a sign permit. 5. The signs shall be consistent with the plans which are part of the staff report dated August 1, 1989. 6. There shall be no flashing or motion signs. 7. The allowable square footage is for the movie theater only and does not include the wall signage for the other tenants. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated this item will go to City Council on August 28, 1989. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING AUGOST 1 1989 PAGE 8 ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Barna declared the August 1, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Res , ctfully sub �itted, , '� . � ��- , ;, ��--" ' i /�_ �- Lynrie Saba Recording Secretary � � cinoF FRl DLEY , DATE: TO: � FROM: sus.7ECT: PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM August 11, 1989 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator City Council Conference Meeting on Senior Housing On July 31, 1989, the City Council discussed potential policies regarding senior housing. The City Council wanted further analysis regarding the types of financial tools that are available to assist senior housing, and they directed staff to prepare an analysis matrix with costs and risks to the City for each option. The City Council also wanted further information as to the availability of Federal and State senior housing programs. Attached is a memorandum to the City Manager regarding the items we need to research for further Council consideration. BD:ls M-89-448 � � cinoF FRlDLEY � DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT : PLANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM August 3, 1989 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator City Council Conference Meeting on Senior Housing In order to address the City Council's comments and questions regarding senior housing, we will investigate the following items (I have referred to the item number from your list of comments from the July 31, 1989 meeting): TASK 1. 2. 3. Obtain written explanations of federal senior housing programs (comment #8, #13, #14) and state programs. Obtain written explanation of the "tax abatement" for Golden Pond project (comment �9). Obtain explanation of the use of Columbia Heights zip code (comment #11). 4. Did we consider condominium projects in forming options for senior housing (comment #10) and have we inventoried other housing sites (comment #16)? Also, develop options to keep seniors in their house as long as possible (comment #20). 5. How many Section 8 certificates are available on an annual basis? Are there people with Section 8 certificates that cannot find housing in Fridley (comment #17)? � 7. Develop list of financial tools and prepare an analysis matrix with costs and risks for each option (comment #12 and #18). Obtain written statement from St. William's as to what type and what amount of assistance St. William's is providing (comment #19). Senior Housing Discussion August 3, 1989 Page 2 8. Obtain current rental policies and Section 8 certificate policies at Village Green. 9.� Mail survey report to HUD and MHFA to receive comments. 10. What type of assumption as to income can we make about 18� of seniors who want to move to senior housing (Mayor Nee's comment). We anticipate these items to be completed by the end of November 1989. BD/dn M-89-444 � � c�nroF FRlDLEY DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PI-ANNING DIVISION MEMORANDUM August 11, 1989 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator City Council Conference Meeting on Central Avenue Corridor Study On July 31, 1989, the City Council reviewed the Central Avenue Corridor Study. The City Council directed staff to return with a recommendation for items which could be implemented in the immediate future versus projects which should be considered for future goal setting sessions. The City Council agreed with the concept of having an overall plan to guide decision making. Nowever, the Council was concerned about the cost of boulevard improvements. A number of the land use recommendations raised a significant amount of concern (relocating mobile home parks); however, the Council discussion identified other areas for more intensive review such as the future land use of the southwest corner of Osborne Road and Central Avenue. The Council agreed with the concept to pursue policies which would encourage removal of the junkyards within the corridor, but recognized that the HRA has other immediate priorities for tax increment monies (Onan and Moore Lake Districts). BD:ls M-89-449