Loading...
PL 01/08/1992 - 30749.�-. i � �"� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� JANUARY 8� 1992 tiNw�NNMN�M�YNNMN�MMMwwN11�ArMNMNNNMMw�IrAMMMMMMNN�Mwrwrwrwrw�w�M�YNMN�►N tiNMti NMNM CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the January 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff Dave Kondrick, Connie Modig Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Rollie and Cheryl�Stinski, Rolche' Investments APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 11 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINITTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the December 11, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL DOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC_HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #91 15, BY ROLCHE' PARTNERSHIP• Per Section 205.09.01.C.(6) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile parking lot for off-street parking for adjacent uses, on Lots 3-7, Block 4, Lyndale Builders 6th Addition, generally located at 910-950 Lynde Drive N.E. MOTION by Ms. Savage, 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, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTIOAT CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the subject property is located at the intersection of Hillwind Road and Lynde Drive. The adjacent use for the parking lot is the Hillwind Office Center located just south of the subject parcel. The subject parcel is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling. There is CR-1, General Office, to the south, and additional R-3 zoning to the east and north. Ms. McPherson stated that in order to construct the proposed parking lot, the petitioner has also applied for four variances. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JANIIARY 8. 1992 PAGE 2 �\ On December 10, 1991, the Appeals Commission voted to recommend denial of the variance to reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 15 feet. The Appeals Commission did recommend approval of variances to reduce the side yard setback from 10 feet to 5 feet, to reduce the width of a two-way driving aisle from 25 feet to 24 feet, and to reduce the length of a parking stall from 20 feet to 18 feet. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner received a rezoning from R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, to CR-1, General Office, in 1988, for the office parcel located south of the subject parcel. At that time, the petitioner also received a variance to reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet along the common property line in order to allow for parking. At that time, the Code required the petitioner to provide 93 off-street parking stalls based on the 1 per 250 sq. ft. office ratio. The office site plan does provide the required 93 stalls. Ms. McPherson stated that also as a condition of approval of the rezoning, the petitioner had to file restrictive covenants against the property, and the restrictive covenants required that "the property owner warrants that all tenants, visitors, or occupants of any building constructed on the premises will not park in the street while using or visiting the building. Further, the owner �� will take any and all steps which are necessary so as to ensure that there is not any on-street parking��. Ms. McPherson stated that Section 205.09.O1.C.(6) of the Zoning Code does allow parking lots for adjacent uses as a special use in the R-3 zoning. It is staff's interpretation that the Code intended that the parcel that is to provide the parking would be a vacant parcel and not a parcel already occupied by a principal use. In this instance, the parking lot would be shared between the apartment dwellers and the office tenants. Ms . McPherson stated that currently there are 2 0 parking spaces for the apartment buildings. The Code requires that each apartment building have 16 parking spaces for a total of 32. The existing site plan is short 12 spaces. The original proposal by the petitioner provided for 42 spaces and locations for the apartment dumpsters. This is the proposal the Appeals Commission reviewed which required the four variances. Subsequently, the petitioner has submitted a revised site plan which reduces the driving aisles �rom two-raay to one-way, meets the parking stall requirement, and increases the buffer area between the parking area and the property line at the front from the original 15 feet requested to 21.5 feet. So, the petitioner has attempted to meet the Code requirements. However, while this plan can work, the parking stalls are not ' striped at an angle which would facilitate a one-way traffic flow � direction and also in the wintertime, it would be difficult to determine that the driving aisle is one way. The revised plan does ' PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. JANIIARY 8, 1992 PAGE 3 � provide 44 spaces which would be a net gain of 11 spaces for the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated that while the petitioner does not have any alternatives , the Code clearly states in Section 205.16.05.D.(7) that: "Adequate off-street parking spaces shall be required for all vehicles concerned with any use of the lot." This requires that all cars associated with any client or tenant of the office building must park within that particular lot. Staff has suggested the petitioner work with the tenants of the office building to resolve the parking problems, other than expanding the apartment buildings' parking area. Ms. McPherson stated another concern staff has with this particular concept of sharing parking stalls is that the requirements are much different for the apartment buildings versus the office building. Parking between adjacent uses and even shared parking lots is allowed in commercial districts, and it works in those districts because parking ratios are similar to each other. Here, the parking requirements for the apartment building are based on a per bedroom ratio versus a per square footage ratio for the office building. Ms. McPherson stated that as the intent of the ordinance is to �-., allow parking for adjacent use with the R-3 district is, in staff's interpretation, for vacant parcels and the Code clearly requires that adequate off-street parking be provided be provided for all vehicles concerned with any use on a particular lot, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the special use permit. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval of the special use permit, staff is recommending the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan to the Engineering Department for approval. 2. Six-inch concrete curbing shall be installed along the entire perimeter of the parking area. 3. A landscaping plan in compliance with the Code shall be submitted and approved by staff. The plan shall include a 3 foot berm and trees 50 feet on center along Lynde Drive. 4. The petitioners shall construct dumpster enclosures for the apartment buildings. 5. The petitioners shall submit a striping plan for approval by staff. 6. The petitioners shall apply for and receive approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING. JANQARY 8, 1992 PAGE 4 � 7. Variance request, VAR #91-35, shall be approved. Mr. Rollie Stinski stated they own the Hillwind Office building which was built and finished in 1989. It has been a struggle to get the building filled, but they are now 100 % occupied. He stated that because of this request for extra parking, there might be the misunderstanding that there is currently a traffic problem. He stated their major tenant is Burnett Realty. Burnett Realty is a growing company, and they have a lot of customers coming in and out of the parking lot all day long. Usually once a week they conduct tours which brings in about 35-40 cars which makes the parking lot very crowded. He has a new tenant on the second floor (attorneys) that is bringing in clients. So, he thought that it might be good to relieve some.of that congestion now before any of these people start parking on the street. Right now, there is not a problem, but he is looking to the future as these businesses grow. When they were constructing the building, his wife had suggested to the City Council that if there was ever a parking problem in the future, it might be helpful to do try to get some shared parking with one of the apartment buildings and the Council was in agreement with this. Mr. Stinski stated the apartment buildings next door seem to be all ,� one bedroom units with no children. There are mostly grown adults � with very few cars in the parking lot during the day. Since his concern is for parking during the day time, he believed this could be a good marriage between the office building and the apartment buildings. It is a solution to a parking problem that might exist for the City in the future. Mr. Betzold asked how the petitioner would inform the public of the one-way traffic pattern. Mr. Stinski stated he would install signage indicating one-way traffic. He did not think that would be a problem. Mr. Sielaff stated he is interested in knowing what kind of control measures the petitioner would put in place to prevent tenants and future tenants from overparking. Mr. Stinski stated it is going to be a problem, but there really is no way to control tenant parking. That is why he is proposing this shared parking with the adjacent apartment buildings to relieve the congestion. He stated he will be doing the parking lot maintenance and the snowplowing. He stated the apartment buildings� owner is very receptive to this arrangement. Ms. Savage stated that in the staff report, staff is suggesting the petitioner work with the individual tenants to resolve the parking � problem in another manner. Can he do this? PLANNING COMMISSION MLETING. JANUARY 8, 1992 PAGE 5 �. Mr. Stinski stated that is very difficult. He has written to his tenants about the amount of designated space; but it becomes more difficult as the tenants draw more and more clients or customers. The clients and customers don't know and don't care what parking is available. Mr. Sielaff stated he is really concerned about the lack of control for on-street parking. Ms. Sherek stated that she did not remember the City having a petitioner coming to the City who wants to correct a possible problem before it happens. She realized the apartment buildings' parking lot is relatively small, but isn't there some way to come to a resolution and make this workable? In terms of controlling the traffic flow direction, one solution would be to put a 6-inch curb in the center row in front �hich would force people to back out of a parking space and continue in the one-way traffic pattern. She believed that when someone comes in with a request to help prevent a future problem, then the City should work with the petitioner to try to make it work. Mr. Betzold stated he is not sold on this particular solution to solve any parking problem. He stated this is a lovely building, but this is the type of building which attracts tenants that ,-�-� exacerbate a growing parking problem and the lot is overbuilt. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:05 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he agreed with Ms. Sherek in that they should try to work with petitioners who are trying to solve problems. He did not think this is the best plan, but it is innovative. Ms. Sherek stated she believed they should realize that when a lovely building like this is built adjacent to an interstate, it is going to draw the type of tenants that want a location that is easy to find. She stated she would like to see this special use permit seriously considered by the Commission; however, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before the Council meeting. Mr. Betzold stated he believed the problem is going to come sooner than later. The Commission can only deal with the plans that are presented to them, and he did not like this plan. He would appreciate it if the petitioner would go back to the drawing board and rethink his request. �` Mr. Sielaff stated he appreciated the fact that the petitioner is being pro-active on this, but there are just so many unanswered PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JANIIARY 8. 1992 PAGE 6 �1 questions. He would like to see the owner try to pay some type of attention to trying to control the parking problems with his tenants. He realized the oraner also has to serve the tenants, but he stated he cannot support the plan as presented. Ms. Savage stated that by adding parking spaces, the petitioner is actually bringing the apartment buildings' parking up to Code. She is not bothered by the one-way direction. Al1 parking lots in Minnesota have this problem in the winter. Sometimes, part of the problem is that there is not adequate signage, so she believed this is a problem that could be worked out. She stated Fridley has good requirements for landscaping, and that is part of the stipulations. She would recommend approval of the special use permit. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of SP #91-15, by Rolche' Partnership, per Section 205.09.01.C.(6) of the Fridley City Code, to allow automobile parking lot for off-street parking for adjacent uses, on Lots 3-7, Block 4, Lyndale Builders 6th Addition, generally located at 910- 950 Lynde Drive N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall submit a drainage plan to the Engineering Department for approval. �--� 2. Six-inch concrete curbing shall be installed along the . en�ire perimeter of the parking area. 3. A landscaping plan in compliance with the Code shall be submitted and approved by staff. The plan shall include a 3 foot berm and trees 50 feet on center along Lynde Drive. 4. The petitioners shall construct dumpster enclosures for the apartment buildings. 5. The petitioners shall submit a striping plan for approval by staff. 6. The petitioners shall apply for and receive approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District. 7. Variance request, VAR #91-35, shall be approved. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, SABA, SHEREK, SAVAGE VOTING AYE, BETZOLD AND BISLAF'F VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-2. Ms. McPherson stated this item, along with the variance request, will go to City Council on January 27, 1992. ,� � PLANNING CO1�II�I88ION MEETING, JANUARY 8, 1992 PAGE 7 ;� 2. RECEIVE DECEMBER 10. 1991. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the December 10, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPEABON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 3. RECEIVE DECEMBER 12. 1991, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff to receive the December 12, 1991, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Saba declared the January 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. �� Resp ctfully submitted, Lyn Saba Recording Secretary ��