Loading...
PL 12/12/1990 - 30729CITY OF FR2DLSY PLANNING COMMISSION M�LTINa� DBCEAS�LR 12, 1�9A ... «...........,.. ..............«......................................a...............a..............«.......................r..........................r.►:...r....�.....a..... CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the December 12, 1990, Pian��ng Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Paul Dahlberg - Members Absent: Others Present: Dave Kondrick, Cannie Modig Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Humberto Martinez, 7786 Beech Street N.E. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 14 1990 PLAI�TNING COMMISS�ON M NUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, t� approve the November 14, 1990, Planning Commission minutes as t�itten. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BLTZOLD. DECI�ARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATIOAI OF A REZONING ZOA #90 06 BY CRYSTEEL TRUCK EOUIPMENT• To rezone that part of the east 225 feet of the west 475 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12,�T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Niinnesota, lying north of the south 405.60 feet of said north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Bu�iness, the same being 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CQNSSI3ERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #90-19: BY CRYSTEEL TRUCK EOUIPMENT: Per Section 205.17.01.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow exterior storage of materials and equipment on that part of the east 225 feet of the west 475 feet of the north half of the northeast quarter af the southwest quarter of Section 12, T-30, R-24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying north of the south 405.60 feet of said north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, the same being 1130 - 73rd Avenue N.E. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, DECEMBSR 12, 1990 PAGE 2 Ms. Dacy stated that the petitioner has requested that these two items be tabled untiZ January 9, 1991. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table rezoning request, ZOA #90-06, and special use permit request, SP #90- 19, by Crysteel Truck Equipment until January 9, 1991. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #90-18, BY HUMBERTO MARTINEZ: Per Section 205.18.03.C. (4) of the Fridley City Code, to allow the lot coverage to be increased from 40o maximum to 50% maximum, on Lots 1 through 5, Block 6, Onaway Addition, generally located at 7786 Beech Street N.E. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a lot coverage increase from 40�5 maximum to 50a maximum. This increase would allow the petitioner to construct a 3,500 sq. ft. addition onto the existing building. The property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are th� properties surrounding this property. Ms. McPherson stated a two story single family dwelling unit is located on the property. This dwelling unit is attached to a concrete block building which serves as a warehousing and assembly facility for Mr. Martinez' business, which is Food Process Control. An existing fenced outdoor storage located to the rear and side yards is where the petitioner is requesting to construct the addition. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council recently adopted an ordinance amendment which would allow a 10� increase in lot coverage in industrial districts with a special use permit. There are two standards that need to be evaluated prior to the issuance of a special use permit. Those standards are: 1. For existing developed properties, the total amount of existing hard surface areas should be evaluated to determine whether a reduction in the total building and parking coverage can be achieved. In this particular request, there would not be a -�% reduction in building and parking coverage. The r-� PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING, DECBMBER 12, 1990 PAGE 3 petitioner is proposing to increase the lot coverage by 10% and the total amount of green area available on the site would be reduced. 2. The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met including, but not limited to, parking, storm water management, and landscaping. Ms. McPherson stated that the building currently requires 6.89 parking spaces based on the warehousing and manufacturing ratios outlined in the M-2 district regulations. However, there is always the chance that this particular use could change and a use higher in manufacturing or office space than warehousing space could change the required amount of parking needed for this property. Currently, there is an area for approximately 10 cars to park on the driveway which fronts Beech Street. However, if more than 10 spaces were required by the ordinance, there would not be adequate area with the proposed addition for those additional spaces. In addition, the proposed addition would greatly reduce the green area or open space available on site which would be normally used for storm water detention and area for water to infiltrate the surrounding soil. As this building exists, there is little or no area for landscaping and green space. � Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that Commission recommend denial of this special use - request would not meet the standards outlined 208.18.03.C.(4).(a-b) of the Zoning Code to allow in the maximum lot coverage. the Planning permit as the under Section a 10� increase Mr. Dahlberg stated asked if staff has looked at this request from the standpoint of a lesser increase in maximum lot coverage so that if the Commission recommends denial, would the petitioner still have the ability to potentially add onto this property? Ms. McPherson stated that currently the building does not meet the 40% lot coverage. The petitioner could add about 1,900 sq. ft. to increase the lot coverage to 40o without a special use permit. Staff has not discussed that option with the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated that in order for the petitioner to expand the building to the 50% lot coverage as requested, the petitioner did go to the Appeals Commission for several variances to reduce the side and rear yard building setbacks. The Appeals Commission did recommend denial of those particular variances to the City Council. Even though she had not done a specific analysis, the 1, 900 sq. ft. addition to come to the 40% lot coverage may also require some type of variances. Mr. Humberto Martinez stated he is presenting his request to expand !� his building because he needs to get the materials needed for his _ business inside. These materials which are used in the processing � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 1990 PAGE 4_ plants he services are relatively expensive, and these materials have been stolen from the storage area, even though it is fenced. Mr. Martinez stated this is a very old section of Fridley, and the lot sizes do not and cannot conform with the existing codes. His property was originally two lots. His neighbor to the south has only about 9,600 square feet or 30% of the lot remaining in open space. This neighbor has also built right up to the lot line. He is proposing to build 8 feet from the lot line. Mr. Martinez stated his addition is not going to cause any parking problems. He will have adequate parking for his business. There will be adequate space for fire trucks to access the building. Most importantly, he needs to save his business from these thefts. Mr. Betzold stated that if this special use permit is granted and this addition is added to the building to accommodate Mr. Martinez' present business, it might be very difficult for Mr. Martinez to sell the building in the future, because there might not be enough parking spaces for a change in use of the building. He asked Mr. Martinez if he realized that he could be stuck with a building that he could not sell. Mr. Martinez stated he understood that. Any potential buyers would � have to see that there are limitations on the use of this building. He purchased this building four years ago and does not plan any - change in the use of the building. Ms. Dacy stated the Onaway Addition has been platted since 1911. A number of the buildings in this area were constructed in the late 1950's and 1960's. For the Stock Roofing special use permit request that the Planning Commission evaluated last summer, staff did an analysis for the petitioner on the number of variances granted just in this particular area. Setback variances have been granted for almost every property; and, as Mr. Martinez said, a number of the buildings in this area have been built to the zero lot line. Ms. Savage stated there are alternatives to controlling theft in outdoor storage areas. One way is to install a type of moving alarm system. If the petitioner was able to control the problem of theft, would he be able to continue keeping the materials outside? Mr. Martinez stated an alarm system is certainly something to consider; however, in the wintertime, these materials freeze. He has been renting trailers to keep some of these materials inside. Mr. Martinez stated that if he is kept to the setback restrictions and lot coverage, he would only be able to add about an 8 foot %� strip to the rear and sides of his building. That is not very ,� feasible, because of the high cost of construction. � PLANNING COMMI86ION MEETING. DECEMBER 12, 1990 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Martinez could construct a 1,951 square foot addition to bring the building to 40% lot coverage. This is a little more than 1/2 of the size proposed by Mr. Martinez. However, variances may still be needed. Mr. Dahlberg asked Mr. Martinez that if he is allowed to build an additional 1,951 square feet (40% lot coverage) and is able to get the necessary variances, would that size an addition be sufficient to meet his needs? Mr. Martinez stated he has not given it much thought. Iie stated he is definitely willing to meet with staff and find out what is the maximum size addition he can build that is economically feasible. Mr. Saba asked Mr. Martinez if he has considered off-site storage. Mr. Martinez stated he has had to store materials off-site in the past, and it is not good for his business. The reason he purchased this building is so that he could have all his materials stored on- site. With his type of business, when the customers need parts, he needs to access those parts immediately. � Mr. Saba stated that sometimes it is necessary for a business that has limited space to either look at off-site storage of some inventory or look into purchasing another building. He stated the City would like to accommodate Mr. Martinez as much as possible, but they also want to keep properties, even properties in the older sections of the City, as close to meeting codes as possible. Mr. Betzold stated he agreed with Mr. Saba. He definitely had a problem with going to 500 lot coverage. Mr. Martinez stated he is willing to rework his plans with staff and see if there is some reasonable alternative. However, he did have some questions about other buildings in the area that have been allowed to build to zero lot line and have gotten variances for setbacks and lot coverage. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table special use permit, SP #90-18, by Humberto Martinez, to allow the petitioner time to work with staff on expansion alternatives. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD Dl3CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE THE OCTOBER 16, 1990, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: ^ MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the �- October 16, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. � PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINd, DECEMBER 12, 1990 PAGE 6 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 5. RECEIVE THE NOVEMBER 1. 1990, HUMAN RE50URCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTIOIJ by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the November 1, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SETZOI�D DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 6. RECEIVE THE NOVEMBER 7, 1990. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the November 7, 1990, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. 7. RECEIVE THE NOVEMBER 8. 1990. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: � MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the November 8, 1990, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 8. RECEIVE THE DECEMBER 4, 1990. APPEALS COMMI55ION MINiJTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the December 4, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPLR80N BETZOLD DECLAR�D THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Savage, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the December 12, 1990, Planning Commission adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Re pectfully s mitted, Ly Saba !� Recording Secretary .l