The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 05/30/1990 - 30720� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, MAY 30� 1990 Mw�MMMNNNM�YNMNIY�Y��MM�MMMMMMMMMMMN�YtiMMr�YMMMArrNNNNNNMrMNMNNNMtiIrM��1VM CALL TO ORDER• Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the May 30, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg, Diane Savage Members Absent: Don Betzold Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Bob Bushey, Sears Outlet Store Ms. Pat Bozony, 479 - 79th Way N.E. Doug Erickson, Fridley Focus APPROVAL OF MAY 16. 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: '^` MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the May 16, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #90-06, BY ROBERT BUSHEY FOR SEARS OUTLET STORE: Per Section 205.15.1.C.(8) of the Fridley City Code to allow exterior storage of materials on Lot 1, Block 1, Shorewood Plaza, generally located at 1000 East Moore Lake Drive N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THL MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32. Ms. McPherson stated this property is located at 1000 East Moore Lake Drive, at the corner of the intersection of East Moore Lake Drive and Highway 65. The entire site is zoned C-3, General Shopping, as is the Northwest Racquet and Swim Club to the east and the old Shorewood Shopping Center to the north. ,--.� %--� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 2 Ms. McPherson stated the special use permit request is to allow the outside storage of up to five semi-truck trailers at the rear of the Sears Store. Mr. Robert Bushey, the Sears Outlet Manager, has indicated to staff that the semi-truck trailers are an integral part of his day-to-day operation. Ms. McPherson stated that on October 26, 1989, Mr. Bushey signed a building permit which stipulated that the trailers be removed on or before November 17, 1989. Mr. Steven Barg, Code Enforcement Officer, has been working with Mr. Bushey and Mr. George Applebaum, owner of the parcel, on the removal of the trailers. Mr. Bushey was given the option of either removing the trailers or applying for a special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated Section 205.15.07.D.(5) of the Fridley Zoning Code requires that loading areas be screened from the public right- of-way. As the rear of the Sears building can be seen from the public right-of-way of Highway 65, the code requires that this area be screened. However, since this area also serves as a parking area and a drive-through area for people accessing the site, there is really no efficient way to screen this loading area from the public right-of-way. The location and the way the trailers are arranged on site make it difficult for drivers to negotiate along the rear of the Sears building. "� Ms. McPherson stated another section of the zoning code, Section 205.15.07.D.(10), does allow for the overnight parking of motor vehicles necessary to the operation of a principle use without screening if they are not readily visible from a public right-of- way. Again, this is not the case, because these trailers are very visible from the public right-of-way; and the code would require that this area be screened. These trailers are also parked overnight consistently, not on a temporary basis. Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to the code noncompliance situation, the storage of these trailers is inconsistent with the goals and objectives for Tax Increment District No. 2, within which this parcel is located. One of the goals of the tax increment district is "to promote sound land use development procedures, including area design standards, landscaping, and lighting standards, architectural review of new developments, and such standards that may be developed that promte sound land resource management". The existence of these storage trailers is inconsistent with the surrounding area, as both the Shorewood Shopping Center and the Sears building have recently received facelifts through architectural refinements and outside improvements. There is also the new shopping center to the east and the racquetball club which are consistent with the redevelopment standards for the district. The semi-truck trailers are a direct contrast; an example of what the redevelopment ;� district strives to remove through the district's goals and objectives. PLANNING CONII�tIBSION MEETING. MAY 30. 1990 PAGE 3 � Ms. McPherson stated that because of the high visibility of the trailers from the pubic right-of-way and Shorewood Inn, the negative impact on traffic, access, and parking, and no effective method of screening, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the special use permit request, SP #90-06, to the City Council. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if adequate screening was provided, would the storage of the semi-truck trailers be an acceptable use on this site in terms of the special use permit? Ms. McPherson stated it would be an appropriate use if the loading area is not seen from the public right-of-way. The other sections of the zoning code do require that loading areas be limited to the side and rear yards of businesses so that they will not be seen from public right-of-ways. Ms. Dacy stated staff would also want to seriously evaluate even the construction of a fence in this area, because they want to project a certain image and architectural styling in this particular area. Staff could take the interpretation that a fence could be just as offensive as the trailers. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if fencing or screening could be '^� accommodated and was acceptable to staff, then, in effect, parking would be reduced on site. If that happened, would this property then be in noncom�liance in terms of the required number of parking spaces on site for this use? Ms. Dacy stated she did not have that information available at this time. Staff would have to check into that. Mr. Saba stated this situation is similar to the Holiday Plus store, and the only thing that separates the two situations is the fact that the Holiday Plus store is not in a tax increment district and does not have the special restrictions imposed on this particular tax increment district. Ms. Dacy stated that is correct. However, the City is also evaluating the potential of a tax increment district along University Avenue to include the Holiday Plus site. So, the goals would still be the same. Ms. Sherek asked that if the area was walled so that the trailers were not visible from the public right-of-way, is there still enough space to maneuver vehicles behind there and for vehicles to drive around the building? Ms. Dacy stated, yes, there is adequate space to drive around the ,�"`� building. � PLANNINd CON�IISSION MEETING, MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 4 Mr. Bushey stated the Sears Outlet store has been in Fridley for 20 years. In those 20 years, they have paid over $1/2 million in taxes. They spent over $700,000 in payroll last year, and a majority of their employees come from the City of Fridley. This is one of the most profitable outlet stores in the 121 outlet store chain. They couldn't do that without the support of the City of Fridley and the people of Fridley. It has to be a relationship that works both ways. Mr. Bushey stated that Sears is going through some tramautic changes right now. They are evolving from a very strong catalog base to more retailing and other facets. As they make that change, there are lot of things involved. The Sears Outlet organization is liquidating its catalog problems. When he applied for the new dock facility at the Sears Outlet store, he did it because their business was growing and with the understanding that in this next year they probably would not have quite as much merchandise to liquidate because of the reduction of the catalog business. The Minneapolis plant where they get most of their business was supposed to close on January 1, 1990, so when he signed the building permit in October, it was his feeling at that time that they would not have any problem in reaching the November deadline for the removal of the trailers. ^ Mr. Bushey stated, however, that in the process, Sears found they had to get the old merchandise out faster in order to get the new � merchandise in. That caused the Sears Outlet store to become overwhelmed with trailers. He stated that at this time, it does not look like they will be able to do business without having those trailers. Mr. Bushey stated that, in the meantime, Sears is actively looking at different locations, and one location is the old 100 Twin property at Highway 65/I-694. More recently, they have been looking at using the space across the street where the Hardware Hank store was located until recently. The idea behind that is to eliminate some of the trailer backup. It costs them money to have those trailers parked there, but trailers are also a very integral part of their business. This space would be used for secondary retail. They plan to use it for a catalog department and furniture and appliances. This merchandise would be received at the original outlet store and then anything that is to go across the street will be loaded and unloaded, so that trailer will not stay. Mr. Bushey stated they hope they can work something out. He stated the trailers do move fairly quickly; however, two trailers are needed for extra storage and he hoped they can work something out to keep those two trailers there. He stated they are willing to do whatever landscaping or fencing that is required. �"`� r"� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 5 Mr. Bushey stated the Sears Outlet store is an important part of this shopping center. They are working together as a group to make it a healthy shopping center. Ms. Sherek stated maybe Sears should consider building some permanent storage space on site or moving to a larger site. Mr. Bushey stated they were told by George Applebaum about 1 1/2 years ago that with the advent of the racquet club, they would not be allowed to put additional selling square feet on this building, because of the parking spaces required by the City. More recently, Mr. Applebaum presented a proposal to Sears about adding warehouse space. Mr. Dahlberg stated the ratio of parking required for retail floor area versus storage is so much different that the number of parking spaces required for storage is going to be signficantly less than the number of spaces required for retail sales floor. So, if warehouse space was added onto the store, would that alleviate the problem of having trailers stored on site, except for the one coming and going? Mr. Bushey stated that was a fair and accurate statement. ^ Mr. Dahlberg asked staff it was possible to add warehouse space relative to site coverage, parking, etc., for this site. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as parking spaces, she believed a warehouse addition is possible. Mr. Dahlberg stated that with the two trailers, that is 240 sq. ft. in storage. A 1,000 sq. ft. addition of warehouse-type space could be constructed at a fairly reasonable cost. Mr. Dahlberg asked if Mr. Bushey had discussed this situation with Shorewood Inn, and was there any objection to the trailers parked there? Mr. Bushey stated he could talk to them, but he thought any problems could be worked out. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if it is possible to put an addition onto the building to alleviate the need for the trailers parked on site, then that should be pursued. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 �"� P. M. � PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 6 Mr. Saba stated they are looking at a situation that has been created by the development district, and he did not think it is fair to force the Sears Outlet store out of business because of a development plan created by the City. Right now those trailers are essential to the Sears Outlet business. He thought the Planning Commission should be patient in any action they recommend in giving Mr. Bushey time to look at a warehouse plan and to see the effect of the expanded retail space across the street. Ms. Savage stated that, on the other hand, Mr. Bushey knew that the trailers were supposed to be removed by November 1989 and was put on notice that if he couldn't, he should be considering some other alternatives. Mr. Saba stated he works in an industry that changes monthly. They spend a lot of money on plans and make decisions with the best information available at the time, and that is what Mr. Bushey did. He did not think Mr. Bushey is storing these trailers out of malice. Sears has been a good neighbor and a good merchant in the City of Fridley for a long time. Ms. Savage stated she agreed, but it just seems that Sears should be looking at alternatives, rather than assuming they will be allowed to keep the trailers. And, there does appear to be some � alternatives. Ms. Sherek stated she agreed with Mr. Saba. Mr. Bushey has moved trailers off site, and he has tried to lease additional retail space. She agreed that she did not like to look at those trailers; but, on the other hand, there are a lot of worse spots in the City of Fridley. She asked if there is a way to grant a temporary special use permit. Ms. Dacy stated that if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the special use permit, she would recommend that there be specific timetables for accomplishments; or maybe this request should be tabled until Mr. Bushey has an opportunity to look into the possibility of a building addition. Ms. Sherek stated she would like to see a proposal by Sears of what is needed after the additional retail site across the street is open and operating. She would definitely rather see a plan for an addition for continued storage than the continued warehousing of items in the trailers; and she would rather have those trailers sit there another 3-6 months short-term while some long-term solution is being discussed, than to put up fences for screening. She did not think a fence is the answer to the situation, particularly when dealing with truck trailers. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like the petitioner to discuss with � City staff the possibilities of an addition on this site taking � �^� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 30. 1990 PAGE 7 into account the lot area coverage allowable, parking requirements, etc. Mr. Bushey stated he is willing to pursue whatever they need to do. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table consideration of special use permit request, SP #90-06, by Robert Bushey for Sears Outlet Store until July 25, 1990, in order to give the petitioner time to come up with a new site plan or other alternatives. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 2. CONSIDERATIOAT OF A LOT SPLIT L.S #90-02 BY MILAN BOZONY: To split Lot 2, Block N, Riverview Heights, in order to create the following two parcels: East Parcel: Lot 2, except the East 10 feet thereof, and all of Lot 1, Block 1, Springbrook Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, except for the South 25 feet thereof for 79th Way N.E., and Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2 lying Easterly of the Westerly 10 feet, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot 2, all in Block N, Riverview Heights, Anoka, Minnnesota. West Parcel: Lots 3, 4, and 5 and the Westerly 10 feet of Lot 2, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot 2, all in Block N, Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota. All generally located west of 479 - 79th Way N.E. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CBAIRPER80N RONDRICR DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:25 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner owns not only Lot 2, Block N, Riverview Heights, but also the three adj acent lots to the east and the three adjacent lots to the west of Lot 2. The site is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are the parcels to the north, east, and west. Riverview Heights Park is located to the south. Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Bozony is proposing to split off 10 feet of Lot 2 and combine it with Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block N, to create one buildable lot. The remaining 15 feet will be combined with Lot 1 of Block N, Riverview Heights, and also Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, � Springbrook Park. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa, MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 8 r"1 - Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Bozony is proposing to relocate a single family dwelling unit that was constructed by the Fridley High School students to the new lot to the west of his current dwelling unit. The two proposed lots meet all the requirements for lot size, lot width, and access to a public street. There are utilities available for the new dwelling unit. Ms. McPherson stated a portion of the westerly lot is crossed by the flood fringe line that is designated by the National Flood Insurance Program. The lot would then be governed, not only by R- 1 district regulations, but also by the O-1, Overlay District, regulations, for construction within a flood plain. Ms. McPherson stated the zoning code contains four provisions in order for a subdivision to be approved in a flood plain area. In this instance, the two lots will meet all these provisions: 1. No land shall be subdivided which is held unsuitable by the City of Fridley for reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, water supply, or sewer treatment facilities. 2. All lots within the flood plain districts shall contain a building site at or above the Regulatory Food Protection Datus. ^ 3. All subdivisions shall have water and sewer disposal facilities that comply with the provisions of this Chapter and have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two (2) feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Datum. 4. All subdivisions in the flood plain district shall satisfy the requirements of this Chapter. The City shall evaluate the subdivision in accordance with procedures established in this district. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's surveyor has plotted the 823 foot contour, the elevation at which residences need to be built at or above in order to be constructed within the flood plain. As proposed, this contour does not fall within the area where the dwelling is to be located. Ms. McPherson stated that because the lot split creates lots which conform to the zoning and subdivision codes and because the subdivision meets the flood plain district criteria, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot split as proposed to the City Council with the following recommendations (stipulation #1 in the staff report no longer applies, and staff is recommending a new stipulation #1): � 1. The first habitable floor elevation of the proposed dwelling unit shall be constructed at an elevation of PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING. MAY 30. 1990 PAGE 9 � - 824 feet or greater to ensure that the first floor is not within the flood fringe. 2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The petitioner shall apply for a moving and building permit prior to placing the house on the property. Ms. Patricia Bozony stated her husband was called away from the meeting, and she is representing the petition. She stated they want to go forward with this and are willing to do whatever the City recommends. She stated they are very excited about putting a house built by Fridley High School students on this lot. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of lot split request, L.S. #90-02, by Milan Bozony, to split Lot 2, Block N, Riverview Heights, in order to create the following two parcels: East Parcel: Lot 2, except the East 10 feet thereof, and all of Lot 1, Block 1, Springbrook Park, Anoka County, Minnesota, except for the South 25 feet thereof for 79th Way N.E., and Lot 1 and that part of Lot 2 lying Easterly of the Westerly ^ 10 feet, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot 2, all in Block N, Riverview � Heights, Anoka, Minnnesota. West Parcel: Lots 3, 4, and 5 and the Westerly 10 feet of Lot 2, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the Westerly line of said Lot 2, all in Block N, Riverview Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota. All generally located west of 479 - 79th Way N.E. This lot split request is subject to the following stipulations: 1. The lowest habitable floor shall be constructed at an elevation of 824 feet above sea level or higher to ensure that the first floor is not within the flood fringe. 2. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The petitioner shall apply for and receive a moving and building permit prior to placing the house on the property. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. � � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 10 Ms. McPherson stated this item will go before the City Council on June 18, 1990. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING SECTION 205.17.03.0 (THE M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT), AND SECTION 205.18.03.0 (THE M-2, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT) OF THE FRIDLEY ZONING ORDINANCE, BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE REGARDING LOT C�VERAGE REQUIREMENTS: (4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be increased up to a maximum of ten percent (l00) of the permitted lot area with a special use permit. In addition to the requirements of this Section and the factors indentified in Section 205.05.04 to evaluate special use permits, the City shall consider the following factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage. (a) For existing developed properties, the total amount of existing hard surface areas shall be evaluated to determine whether a reduction in the total building and parking coverage can be achieved. (b) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, including, but not limited to, � parking, storm water management, and landscaping. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE `10TE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:45 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission's recommendation on the lot coverage amendment was discussed by City Council, and the Council decided they wanted to only amend the industrial districts and require a special use permit to enable either existing developed property or a developer of a new industrial property to petition for an increase in lot coverage up to a maximum of l00 of the lot coverage ratio. The Council asked staff to prepare two standards to help the City evaluate special use permits. Staff did that and developed Standard (a), that if a developer is going to be proposing an increase of up to 100, staff will t�ke a total look at the site and determine whether or not they can achieve an overall net reduction in hard surface areas. Standard (b) came from a reiteration of the existing ordinance requirements. Mr. Dahlberg stated that as was amply stated by Councilmember Steve Bilings at one of the Planning Commission meetings when this was discussed, this may not be as originally recommended by the Planning Commisison, but it is at least a start in terms of looking ^ at appropriate sites and developments in the City that potentially � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 11 could be better served if a greater area of lot coverage is allowed. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYEi VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of amending Section 205.17.03.0 (the M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District), and Section 205.18.03.0 (the M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning District) of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance, adding the following language regarding lot coverage requirements: (4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be increased up to a maximum of ten percent (100) of the permitted lot area with a special use permit. In addition to the requirements of this Section and the factors indentified in Section 205.05.04 to evaluate special use pernaits, the City shall consider the following factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage. ^ (a) For existing developed properties, the total amount of existing hard surface areas shall be evaluated to determine whether a reduction in the total building and parking coverage can be achieved. (b) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, including, but not limited to, parking, storm water management, and landscaping. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE FRIDLEY ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT NINE FOOT WIDE PARKING STALLS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS, AND TO REQUIRE PARKING SPACES TO BE DOUBLE-STRIPED: 1. DEFINITIONS 205.03.55. Parking Stall A ten (10 ) foot wide by twenty ( 2 0) foot long area to store one (1) automobile, which has access to a public street or alley and permits ingress and egress of an automobile. Parkina stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for uses specified elsewhere in this code. Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk, the length n may be reduced to eighteen (18) feet. Parking stalls shall be n PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 30, 1990 PAGE 12 striped in accordance with the desian on file in the office of the City Engineer. 1. R-3 District 205.09.07.A.�3) Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width. 2. M-1 District 205.17.05.D.113) Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for manufacturina uses, warehouse and storage uses, speculative industrial buildings, and parking lots for long term employee parking. 3. M-2 District 205.18.05.D.(13) Parking stalls may be nine �9) feet in width for manufacturing uses, �arehouse and storaae uses, speculative industrial buildinas, and parking lots for long term emplovee Aarking. 4. s-2 District 205.22.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ^ All performance standards for uses in this district shall be comparable to other similar uses that are allowed in other districts. Parking space sizes may be reduced to nine l9) feet in width upon approval of a special use permit. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIiJG AYE, VICE-CBAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:53 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission recommended that the parking stall width be reduced to 9 feet for all uses; however, the City Council preferred to reduce the parking stall width to 9 feet only for long term employee parking, industrial uses, and for multiple family developments. The City Council also recommended that all parking spaces, both 9 feet and 10 feet, be double striped. Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission might want to consider additional language to the R-3 district to limit the width of the parking stalls to only multiple family developments to avoid a potential conflict with other uses in R-3 district, such as that discussed regarding the recent Moose Lodge rezoning application. � � � n PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING� MAY 30. 1990 PAGE 13 Possible language is as follows: "Parking stalls may be 9 feet in width for multiple dwellings and multiple dwelling complexes, including rental and condominium apartments." Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed parking space width amendment with the additional language in R-3 clarifying that the 9 foot wide stalls would only be for multiple family dwelling complexes. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPE1tSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC BEARING CL08ED AT 8t57 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of amending the following sections of the Zoning Code to permit nine foot wide parking stalls in certain districts, and to require parking spaces to be double-striped, with the additional language in the R-3 district limiting the width of the parking stalls to only multiple family developments, as recommended by staff: 1. DEFINITIONS 205.03.55. Parking 5ta11 A ten (10) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long area to store one (1) automobile, which has access to a public street or alley and permits ingress and egress of an automobile. sAeciriea etsewhere in this code Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk, the length may be reduced to eighteen (18 ) feet. Parkincr stalls shall be striped in accordance with the desian on file in the office of the City Engineer 1. R-3 Distriat 205.09.07.A.(3) Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width Parkina stalls may be 9 feet in width for multiAle dwellings and multiAle dwellina complexes including rental and condominium apartments. 2. M-1 District 205.17.05.D. a.a1 Y \. i �I G industrial buildinas and parking lots for long term employee parkin,g. �"'� �� PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING, MAY 30. 1990 PAGE 14 3. M-2 Distriat 205.18.05.D. 13) Parkinq stalls mav be nine (9) feet in width for manufacturina uses. warehouse and storage uses, speculative industrial buildings and parking lots for lona term employee parking. 4. s-2 District 205.22.6 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Al1 performance standards for uses in this district shall be comparable to other similar uses that are allowed in other districts. Parkincr sAace sizes mav be reduced to nine t9� fP_P_{' ;r IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. RECEIVE MAY 22. 1990. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the May 22, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, vice-chairperson Rondrick declared the May 30, 1990, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourne� at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, Lynn Saba Recording Secretary