Loading...
PL 10/10/1990 - 30726� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETIAT(3, OCTOHER 10, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the October 10, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg, Connie Modig Members Absent: Dave Rondrick, Dean Saba, Diane Savage Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Bob Bushey, Sears Outlet David Slovensky, 7234 East River Road APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 12. 1990, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: ^ MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the September 12, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #90-06, BY BOB BUSHEY OF SEARS OUTLET• Per Section 205.15.01.D.(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. Sherek, seaonded by Mr. Dahlberg, to remove this item from the table and to reopen the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:37 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated that this special use permit request first came before the Planning Commission on May 30, 1990. At that time, the petitioner indicated the existence of approximately five trailers at the rear of the property that were needed in order to provide additional storage area for the Sears Outlet. At that meeting, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request, based on negative impacts to the area and i'� � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN�. OCTOBER 10, 1990 PAGE 2 the inability of these trailers to be screened according to the requirements of the Zoning Code. Ms. McPherson stated that the Planning Commission tabled the item to allow the petitioner time to explore a building expansion alternative to eliminate the need for five trailers. Staff inet with the petitioner and the building owner on June 6, 1990, to discuss the expansion alternative. A proposed site plan was developed to present to the Planning Commission on June 20, 1990. Ms. McPherson stated that on June 20, 1990, the Planning Commission again voted to table the request for 90 days to allow the petitioner to find out if Sears management would authorize the building expansion. Also, at that time, the petitioner indicated they would be leasing additional space in the shopping center across the street. Ms. McPherson stated that on September 13, 1990, staff contacted the petitioner to determine the status of the proposed expansion. At that time, the petitioner indicated that Sears management would not be authorizing any expansions for 1991. The petitioner also indicated that his request would be reduced to one live trailer located at the loading dock and two dropped trailers for storage. � Ms. McPherson stated there is still no effective method of screening the trailers to meet the ordinance requirements. This results in a negative impact on traffic, access, and parking. Staff again recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. However, if the Commission chooses to approve the request, staff recommends the following stipulation: 1. There shall be no more than one live and two dropped trailers located at the rear of the Sears Outlet building. Ms. McPherson stated that in a discussion with staff prior to the September 26, 1990, meeting which was cancelled due to a lack of a quorum, the petitioner indicated that three dropped trailers (low boy-type trailers without wheels) were actually needed in addition to the one live trailer located at the loading dock. Mr. Bob Bushey stated they have opened Sears Outlet 2 across the street and that has helped alleviate some of the need for trailers; however, not totally. Last month, he made a concerted effort to try and eliminate the trailers. He got down to one low boy trailer and one live trailer, but this had a dramatic impact on their business volume. Sales were down 14� which represents about $100,000 in sales. He did not think he can get along without any trailers. � �� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 10, 1990 PAGE 3 Mr. Bushey stated that Ms. Dacy and he have looked at some alternatives to see if there is a way of screening the low boy trailers. Mr. Bushey stated they get loads from Kansas City loaded for one store. So, they are shuttling loads of inerchandise to the Sears Outlet 2 store which necessitates one of the trailers being on wheels. The live trailers are charged trailers; and if he doesn't get rid of those within 48 hours, he has to pay $50/day for rental. He would like to rent trailers from a local rental place and have one on wheels to shuttle merchandise across the street. Mr. Bushey stated one of the reasons Sears management decided against any expansion is because the Sears Outlet store has a four year lease. There is some possibility that in four years, they may not be able to renew their lease. With that possibility, it is very uneconomical for Sears to expand. Also, any expansion would not be big enough to pay for itself. Mr. Betzold stated that if they approve the special use permit, can they limit the special use permit to four years when the lease is up? Ms. Dacy stated the Commission could stipulate that the special � use permit be reviewed in four years. Once the special use permit is granted by the Council, it will run with the property unless the Council finds reasons to revoke it. Ms. Dacy stated it is pretty clear that there is absolutely no way to screen all the trailers from northbound Highway 65 from the Shorewood lot. Some of the things she and Mr. Bushey discussed to minimize the view was a chain link fence with slats or a wood fence in a north/south fashion or at the west end of the building. The problem with the chain link fence is that the trucks need quite a lot of area to back up, so they cannot have any blockage. Some type of fencing at the west end of the building may help; however, it might take away some parking spaces. Mr. Dahlberg asked about the approximate location of the existing trees. Ms. Dacy stated there are three very large trees behind the building. Mr. Bushey stated the trees are about 50 feet from the west side of the building at the rear. Mr. Bushey stated he would not have a problem with building a berna with a fence if that is what the City wants. It would be easy to landscape if it was lined up with the edge of the building. � � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 10, 1990 PAGE 4 Ms. Dacy stated there are three options for the Commission to consider with this special use permit request: 1. Denial of the special use permit 2. Approval of the special use permit with no stipulations or stipulation recommend by staff 3. Approval of the special use permit with two stipulations: (1) the petitioner work with staff to install suitable screening at the west end of the building; (2) the special use permit be reviewed in four years MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC BEARING CL08ED AT 7:50 P.M. Mr. Dahlberg stated screening seems to be a viable option. In lieu of Sear's position with a four year lease, it did not seem in Sears' best interest to spend dollars on a building when the future is uncertain. He believed a landscape treatment in combination with a fence would be more palatable than just a chain link fence � with slats or a wood fence. He is not sure where this screening should be located. The farther away the fence is located from the element being screened, the less effective it is. To be effective, the fence should be right next to the element being screened. If staff is able to work with the petitioner to determine the most appropriate location for a screening element, that would be an option to consider. Ms. 5herek stated the other option is reviewing the special use permit in four years. Normally, a special use permit runs with the property but in the past, the Commission has stipulated that a special use permit be limited to a certain tenant. Ms. Dacy stated the Commission could do that if they wanted. Mr. Betzold stated he certainly does not like the existing situation at Sears. The rest of the area is looking very nice, and this is an eyesore. He would like to see the trailers eliminated; but if that shuts down the business, then that is too drastic. Based on Mr. Bushey's comments that the store may not be able to renew its lease in four years, he could put up with this a little longer and would be in favor of some type of screening. However, he would not support it if he knew the store was going to be there 10 years from now. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would be in favor of the stipulation for � the special use permit to be reviewed in four years. Then, if the - tenant is able to renew the lease and remain in this location, it � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 10. 1990 PAGE 5 might be profitable for Sears or the property owner to add onto the building and correct the situation. Mr. Bushey stated there are a lot of lives involved, he and his family included, and he is going to be trying very hard in the ne� four years to make it work. But, right now, they do not know what will happen in four years. In the meantime, Sears management is also pursuing another Fridley location. Mr. Betzold stated that maybe the Commission should deny the special use permit, and that will force the issue with Sears. Ms. Modig stated she did not agree. This is a business that has been in Fridley for 20 years. If they deny the special use permit and force the issue, they may lose Sears altogether. There are too many vacant buildings in Fridley now. She would be in favor of approving the special use permit with the stipulation that it be reviewed in four years, and then maybe something more permanent can be done at that time. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #90-06, by Bob Bushey of Sears Outlet, per Section 205.15.O1.D.(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., with the following stipulations: 1. There shall be no more than one live and three dropped trailers located at the rear of the Sears Outlet building at any time. 2. The petitioner shall work with staff on appropriate screening and landscaping and the appropriate location for the screening at the west end of the building. 3. The special use permit shall be reviewed in four years or sooner if the tenant leaves or any expansion of the building is undertaken. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on Monday, October 15, 1990. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #90- 16, BY DAVID AND VALERIA SLOVENSKY: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 29, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition, generally located at 7234 East �''� River Road N.E. PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING OCTOBER 10. 1990 PAGE 6 � MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:05 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of a second accessory building over 240 sq. ft. The property is located at the intersection of East River Road and Logan Parkway. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. Currently on the site is a single family dwelling with an attached two car garage. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed second accessory building will be located adjacent to the garage area of the existing dwelling unit and will be used to store the petitioner's boat, trailer, lawn mower, and miscellaneous items. The petitioner will be accessing the second accessory building from the existing driveway which currently accesses East River Road. The petitioner's driveway is only partially paved and should be paved based on the Zoning Code requirements. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner's lot is larger than the average lot in the City of Fridley. The lot coverage with the � proposed accessory building is approximately 8.6%. !'1 Ms. McPherson stated Anoka County has been slowly improving East River Road to accommodate increased levels of traffic. The improvement requires an increase in the amount of right-of-way from the existing 50 feet to approximately 100-120 feet. In speaking with Anoka County staff, this is actually a federally funded improvement project, and they have not yet started the construction drawings for this portion of East River Road. The amount of additional right-of-way that will needed is not known at this time. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will need to grant easements for the additional right-of-way for the expansion of East River Road at some point in the future. The expansion has been scheduled for either the 1992 or 1993 construction season. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request as the proposed second accessory building will have a minimum impact on the petitioner's lot and on adjacent properties. Staff is recommending five stipulations: 1. Access to the second accessory driveway shall be through the existing driveway. 2. The petitioner easements needed County to expand shall work with staff to grant the for additional right-of-way for Anoka East River Road. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. OCTOHER 10. 1990 PAG� 7 r"1 3. There shall be no home occupation in the second accessory building. 4. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit. 5. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway for the existing garage by September 30, 1991. Mr. Dahlberg asked about the intent of stipulation #2 relative to easements needed for additional right-of-way for the expansion of East River Road. He stated the reason he is asking this is because he lives on East River Road, and the County actually purchased property from him to expand the road. It was not a question of an easement. Because of the expansion, his property is now nonconforming as far as the front yard setback. Ms. Dacy asked if Mr. Dahlberg is saying that it could be inferred from this stipulation that the property ot�ner would grant easements with no compensation from the County? And, by eliminating that stipulation, then there is no issue and the County has to approach Mr. Slovensky? � Mr. Dahlberg stated that is correct. He stated it is in Mr. Slovensky's best interest to have the County come to him. If this stipulation runs with the special use permit, then potentially the City has to be involved in whatever negotiations occur relative to the County acquiring property or acquiring easements. He did not think that type of City involvement is suitable. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Dahlberg has a very good point. She stated staff�s intent was to make sure that the easement is somehow conveyed, but she agreed that the City may not want to be caught in the middle of any acquisition issue. Mr. Betzold agreed. The County can always go through the condemnation process if they cannot acquire the property. Mr. Dahlberg stated it might be appropriate to have something in the stipulation relative to noncompliance to setbacks, because of the property taken by the County. As in his case, if he wants to put on an addition to his house, he is restricted because he is now nonconforming relative to the front yard setback. Mr. Slovensky stated he would like to address stipulation #5. He added onto his garage about six years ago. He added on a 12 ft. x 20 ft. gravel section for parking his truck. The fifth stipulation is requiring him to hard surface his driveway by September 30, 1991. He would prefer to wait until the County /� widens East River Road so that he can tie his driveway in at that - time. He stated he could hard surface his driveway now, but would PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� OCTOBER 10. 1990 PAGE 8 � -- - have to tear it up again when the County expands East River Road. The County resurfaced East River Road about 6-8 years ago, and the pavement is 2-3 inches above his driveway now. Mr. Dahlberg stated Mr. Slovensky has certainly done a nice job of being conscious of how his property looks and in screening outside storage items. He did not have a problem with delaying the completion date for the hard surface driveway. Mr. Betzold suggested that staff review the status of the East River Road expansion in two years and then put a cap of one year after the expansion is completed for the driveway to be completed. MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #90-16, by David and Valeria Slovensky, per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a second accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 29, Block 1, Oak Creek Addition, generally located at 7234 ,.� East River Road N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. Access to the second accessory driveway shall be through the existing driveway. 2. There shall be no home occupation in the second accessory building. 3. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit. 4. Staff shall review the driveway issue in two years, and the petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway for the existing garage within one year after the completion of the East River Road upgrade. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on Monday, October 15, 1990. 3. ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 24 1990 FOR LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: Ms. McPherson stated a public hearing has been established for the ^ October 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. She stated Mr. - Robertson and she will be presenting a summarized version of the PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING� OCTOBER 10. 1990 PAGE 9 r"1 ordinance amendments at the full Chamber of Commerce membership meeting at noon on October 11. Staff inet with the Chamber of Commerce Board on September 27, 1990, and answered questions. Staff has made some slight changes to the original draft. Ms. McPherson stated that as part of the presentation, staff took some slides of some existing developments staff has determined comply with the new requirements. These will serve as examples for the new Landscape Ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated staff had not received any controversial comments. Most people support the concept and have made some suggestions on clarifying the readability of some portions of the ordinance amendments. 4. ESTABLISH PUBLIC HEARING FOR OCTOBER 24 1990 FOR MOTHER-IN- LAW ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDPiENT: Ms. Dacy stated a public hearing has been set for the October 24, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Betzold stated it might be a good idea to get some information out to the public regarding this issue. He suggested staff contact the Fridley Focus and have an article published in the Focus. ^ 5. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ON CONTROLLING SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESSES• Ms. Dacy stated the City is evaluating the adoption of an obscenity ordinance, an amendment to the zoning ordinance controlling location and placement of sexually oriented businesses, and requiring a licensing procedure for these establishments similar to the process used for liquor establishments. Ms. Dacy stated this ordinance amendment will be coming before the Planning Commission in December. 6. REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCHEDULE• Ms. Dacy stated that the City Council has directed staff that the Council wants to review the proposed drafts of each chapter prior to distribution to the advisory commissions. She stated her memo dated October 4, 1990, outlined the new schedule of the chapters and dates they will be submitted to Council prior to distribution to the advisory commissions. 7. RECEIVE AUGUST 6 1990 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the � August 6, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETING. OCTOBER 10. 1990 PAGE 10 r"1 IIPON A VOICL VOTE � ALL VOTIN(3 AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 8. RECEIVE AUGUST 21, 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINLTTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the August 21, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL oOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 9. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 6 1990 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the September 6, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes. QPON lml VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 10. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 10 1990 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSIOPT MINUTES: �,.,1 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the September 10, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 11. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 11 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the September 11, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 12. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 13 1990 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the September 13, 1990, Housing and Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 13. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 25 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the '""� September 25, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. PLANNING COMMI88ION MBETINa. OCTOBER 10, 1990 PAGE 11 r"1 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPSRSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 14. RECEIVE OCTOBER 2, 1990, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the October 2, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the October 10, 1990, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, �U � Ly e Saba Recording Secretary � �