Loading...
PL 04/08/1992 - 30753�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1992 �►�►w�MMrMM���N.Y.Y ti.YM1w�� Arwnwn N N Ar Ar wY� �r wn wir�Y wntiMwnlrMMNMNtiMM M�Y�YN N w, Ar �MN wrw ti N wI M N w,N IY CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Sue Sherek, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig (arr. 8:25 p.m.) Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Scott Davis, Planning Intern Steven Lipa, 8249 Thomas Avenue North Pat O'Hern, 6243 Kerry Lane Dave Lindquist, 7941 Riverview Terrace Jack DeCrans, ANR Freight System Duane Prairie, Park Construction APPROVAL OF MARCH 25, 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the March 25, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-02, BY STEVEN LIPA: Per Section 205.24.04.B.(2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a dwelling in the CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) district, on Lots 22 and 23, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7995 Riverview Terrace N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, 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 AND THE POBLIC HEARING OPEl�T AT 7:33 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection of Dover Street and Riverview Terrace in the Riverview Heights � district. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. The property has been a parcel of record since the lots were platted around 1900. The property meets the minimum lot width �� � PLANNING COMMIS3ION MBETING� APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 2 and lot area requirements; since the property has been a parcel of record prior to 1955, the minimum lot area needs to be only 7,500 sq. ft. The lot area is only slightly short of the minimum 9,000 sq. ft. at 8,670 sq. ft. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to construct a split level dwelling unit and a special use permit is required prior to construction because the property is located in the flood fringe district. The petitioner is proposing to locate the house so that it meets all the setback requirements. The petitioner is intending to move the house 2 1/2 feet Riverview Terrace to take advantage of the river; however, it will still meet the minimum setbacks requirements. There are no habitable spaces proposed to be below the regulatory flood elevation. The laundry room which is an accessory use will be below the regulatory flood elevation, but it is permitted to be below the regulatory flood elevation. There is also a crawl space under a portion of the house, but that would not be a habitable space and it will be required to be flood-proofed according the current regulations. Ms. McPherson stated the Engineering Department requested a 10 foot street easement along Riverview Terrace, which has been signed and returned by the petitioner. Ms. McPherson stated that as in previous special use permit cases in the flood fringe district, staff suggests that if the special use permit is approved, a hold harmless agreement releasing the City from any liability shall be recorded against the property. Ms. McPherson stated that since the special use permit request meets all the code requirements, staff recommends approval of the request with three stipulations: 1. 2. 3. A hold harmless agreement releasing the City from any liability shall be recorded against the property. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate completed by a registered surveyor once construction is completed to verify the first floor elevation. All areas below the regulatory flood elevation shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the current codes. Mr. Betzold asked what happens if the construction is completed, and the surveyor says the house is not in compliance. Ms. McPherson stated the City has received a preliminary drainage and grading plan from the surveyor, and staff has determined that ^ if the dwelling is constructed as proposed, it will not be below the proposed flood elevation. PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING� APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 3 �"` Mr. Kondrick asked if staff has received any calls from neighbors objecting to this construction.. Ms. McPherson stated they have not. Mr. Steven Lipa stated he has nothing to add to the staff's report, and he is in agreement with the recommended stipulations. MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #92-02, by Steven Lipa, per Section 205.24.04.B.(2} of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a dwelling in the CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) district on Lots 22 and 23, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7995 Riverview Heights N.E. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. � Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on April 20, 1992. 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING": MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:42 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated that staff has been working on a new zoning district entitled "M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive Zoning District". The work staff has done has been at the request of the City Council as the City Council is concerned about maximizing the amount of property value that would be obtained from the development of the remaining industrial properties in the City. There is also a concern about the value of the properties which have "outdoor intensive uses", i.e., trucking terminals, construction yards (such as Park Construction), who use a large proportion of the property for outdoor storage of materials and equipment. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission has received information regarding the analysis completed by staff including a comparison � of the values of outdoor intensive uses versus typical developments. Staff was not able to draw a direct correlation PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 4 between the percentage of the outdoor use versus the actual property value; however, in general, outdoor uses do have a lower per square foot value versus a typical industrial development which may have up to 40% of the property covered by a building. Ms. McPherson stated staff also researched other communities' ordinance requirements as to where they locate uses such as trucking terminals or how they regulate their outdoor storage. They found that, in general, most other communities locate trucking terminals in one particular area of the city. They also require special use permits for outdoor storage. There are also a number of communities which prohibit junkyards which was also one of the components in the discussion by the City Council. Ms. McPherson stated that after reviewing the information collected, staff developed several alternatives for the City Council to consider. Ms. McPherson stated the first option would be to create the proposed M-3 zoning distri�t in text only. The intent of the M-3 district would be to include trucking terminals, contractors' yards, and to remove those uses from the M-1 and M-2 districts where they currently exist. The first option would not include a zoning option by which they would only create the text and they � would not rezone properties to the new district. Ms. McPherson stated the second option was also to create the new M-3 zoning district regulations. In addition, they would also rezone certain properties in the City to M-3. The area proposed to be rezoned has a number of vacant parcels. Park Construction, ANR Trucking, and Joseph Land Trucking located in this area are also proposed to be included in the M-3 district as permitted uses. This option allows the uses to remain conforming in the new zoning district. Ms. McPherson stated the third option is to maintain the current ordinance and use the special use permit requirement to control the location of new uses. In that instance, the existing uses would remain conforming and the burden of proof would �e on the City to determine denial of a special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council concurred with staff's recommendation to go with option 2, to create the M-3 zoning district regulations in text and to also rezone that portion of the City proposed for rezoning. This option allows the most flexibility for the property owners while still maintaining the intent the Council has regarding controlling outdoor intensive uses. Any new uses which may wish to locate in other parts of the City, other than the M-3 district, would need to request a �, rezoning. In addition, the M-3 district, while permitting trucking terminals and outdoor intensive uses, would also include those uses which are currently permitted in the M-1 and M-2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 5 �� districts. This would increase the property use and the flexibility for the property owner to reuse the properties in other manners. Ms. McPherson stated that within the M-3 district regulations, staff continued the lot area and lot width sizes as outlined in the district. They have also taken out some of the uses allowed in the M-2 district under a special use permit and moved them into the M-3 district, since staff feels those uses would entail a great deal of outdoor storage. These types of uses include cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacturing, waste disposal or processing facilities, distillation of bones, coal, tar, petroleum, refuse, grain, or wood. Staff has increased the amount of screening required for outdoor intensive storage yards. Screening would incfude the following: a continuous berm of three feet in height, an eight foot chain link fence with slats, and a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees which provide 50% opacity year around. Ms. McPherson stated that in looking at the M-1 and M-2 district regulations, they also looked at the special use permit requirements for outdoor storage, and there are some inconsistences in fhe current ordinance. Staff is attempting to clarify when a special use permit is required for outdoor �, storage. Staff has included language to include motor vehicles and equipment to those materials which would require a special use permit for outdoor storage to eliminate any future cases similar to the Fridley Bus Company. Ms. McPherson stated staff has looked at how they can further clarify the exterior storage special use permit requirements to allow perhaps more administrative approval of outdoor storage and to have less special use permits coming before the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff has outlined the various options that could be pursued regarding exterior storage, and staff is asking the Commission to provide staff with some direction that the ordinance language should include. Ms. McPherson stated Option A under the Exterior Storage Options would require a special use permit for exterior storage of materials, equipment, or motor vehicles. Option B sets up some conditions under which exterior storage could occur without a special use permit. Those conditions are: 1. Motor vehicles necessary to the operation, stored in the rear yard without screening, provided: a. they are not visible from the public right-of-way, or b. not visible from a residential district. � PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING. APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 6 2. Screened from the public right-of-way or adjacent property of a different district by a fence or other approved screen which extends two feet above the tallest item to be stored with the height not to exceed eight feet. If the above conditions cannot be met, a special use permit shall be required. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide staff with the appropriate direction to clarify the exterior storage requirements of the existing M-1 and M-2 district regulations and to recommend approval of the M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive Zoning District regulations. Mr. Betzold asked if this proposed ordinance was sent out to the affected property owners in these areas. Ms. McPherson stated staff has notified the property owners within the area to be rezoned. Staff had a meeting with these property owners in order to explain the ordinance and receive input. Staff has talked specifically to Park Construction and ANR Trucking about this proposal. �--� Mr. Kondrick asked if the property owners affected by the proposed ordinance change feel their property values are lessened because of the zoning reduction. Ms. McPherson stated the properties should not be valued less, because the existing use can continue. If a property is vacant, it would be allowed not only the M-3 uses, but also M-1 and M-2 uses. Mr. Saba asked that, with the rezoning, aren't they allowing storage of almost anything in these areas without a special use permit? Is there the possibility of allowing uses that would leak hazardous materials or have odors? Ms. McPherson stated that under the M-3, while they are allowing the M-1 and M-2 permitted uses, there are still uses that will require special use permits, and staff believes that would include those uses which could potentially be hazardous to the environment. In addition, there is still the section under "Uses Excluded": "B. Uses which may be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the general welfare and which may impair the use, enjoyment, or value of any property." Mr. Betzold stated that maybe under "Uses Excluded", they should include a catchall sentence such as: "Any other uses prohibited by another section of the ordinance." PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 7 � Mr. Saba stated that they are proposing to set up an M-3 district and there is a list of uses permitted with a special use permit. How can they ever justify denying a special use permit in this area that was set up these particular types of uses? The burden of the proof is on the City to deny a special use permit. Ms. McPherson stated the uses listed under the special use permit may be uses the City wants a closer hand at controlling or have more conditions on a particular type of use, even though it is in a district where outdoor intensive uses are permitted. When staff looked at uses permitted with a special use permit, they tried to look at the potential impact those uses may have on the community at large and if it was something the City Council would like to have more control over. Ms. Dacy stated that if the Commission feels that the uses permitted with a special use permit are not appropriate, the Commission can recommend eliminating them, except for "rock crushing" which must be kept because of Park Construction. Mr. Betzold asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Jack DeCrans, Terminal Manager for ANR Freight System, Inc., read a letter dated April 8, 1992, from David Klimut, Assistant ^ Counsel. The letter stated that ANR Freight System has no objection in principle, to the creation of the M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive Zoning District. Mr. Klimut was concerned: "at several of the suggested exterior storage options that could become applicable to the M-1 through M-3 districts. Specifically, ANR Freight System,Inc., would object to the requirement proposed in Option A that any and all exterior storage would be subject to the issuance of a special use permit, and to the requirement in Option B, sub-part 2, that screening extend two feet beyond the tallest item to be stored. "My objection to Option A is based on the uncertainty, and on the additional costs associated with that uncertainty, which would accompany any application for a special use permit. My objection to Option B, sub-part 2 is based on the fact that cargo trailers are nearly 14 feet tall. In order for a trucking company to comply with that section, it would be forced either to build a 6 foot berm, then put an 8 foot fence on top of the berm, or to face the uncertainty of applying for a special use permit. "I believe that the current screening requirement is adequate to protect the aesthetic interests of the community at large, without forcing the trucking segment of the business community into the expense of providing a privacy fence that unnecessarily extends substantially above the items to be stored." � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 8 �\ MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the letter dated April 8, 1992, from David Klimut, ANR Freight System, Inc., to the Planning Commission. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Savage asked the current screening requirements. Ms. McPherson stated the ordinance requires that a special use permit be obtained prior to exterior storage being conducted on a particular property. There are performance standards in the two industrial zoning districts entitled "Screening" which state: "All raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be stored within an enclosed building or be screened on all sides from view from a public right-of-way or an adjoining property of a different district by a fence or other approved screen which extends two feet above the highest item to be stored with a height not to exceed eight feet, except where materials and equipment are being used for construction on the premises." Ms. McPherson stated that what staff is proposing under Option B is that if the materials to be stored outside could be screened ^ so that the fence or screening did extend two feet over the tallest item to be stored, a special use permit would not be required. However, if it could not meet that standard, then the City would require a special use permit for exterior storage. Ms. Sherek stated that if a company is in the middle of industrial zoning and the only traffic is other truck traffic, no one should care if the outdoor storage shows. That seemed to be the intent of creating an industrial zone. Ms. Dacy stated that is one of the two options staff wanted to pursue with the Commission. Mr. Klimut pointed out in detail in his letter the exterior storage showing two feet above the fence that staff has not addressed. On the exterior storage issue, staff was trying to get to the point of when does the City want a special use permit. The reason that issue came up was because of the buses stored at Fridley Bus Company. Staff understands that in ANR�s case, some of the semi-tractor trailers are 14 feet tall. However, there are situations in Fridley where industrial districts are located across from residential districts where the City might want that extra control. (Ms. Modig arrived at 8:25 p.m.) Mr. Duane Prairie, Park Construction Company, stated they are the neighbor to the south of ANR Freight System. He stated they have � no problem with trucks being higher than the fence. Ms. Sherek's point was well taken that the only people that travel this street PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 9 i`�', are the people who have businesses there, so he did not see outdoor storage as a problem. His company does not see any particular problem with the proposed ordinance. Mr. Sielaff stated he would agree with Ms. Sherek, that there shouldn't be a need for screening inside the rezoned area, but there would be a need for screening around the outer edges of the rezoned area. Mr. Bruce Lundberg, 230 Rice Creek Terrace, asked what happens to the Fridley Bus Company if the M-3 zone is created and the outdoor storage use is no longer permitted in M-1 and M-2 zoning. Ms. Dacy stated they are only talking about truck terminals, so the bus issue is not really one of use. In the case of the Fridley Bus Company, there would be more of a basis to require a special use permit for the outdoor storage. Mr. Lundberg stated a bus terminal is not trucking terminal, but it is also not an auto service station. Ms. Dacy stated they were only deaiing with truck terminals, but that is an issue the Commission could discuss. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, 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 8:35 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he did not have any problem with what staff is proposing except the screening. Screening is important along the perimeter area of the M-3 zoning. The Commission should consider asking staff to consider making some consideration for screening of the M-3 zone from adjacent properties that are not M-3 zoning. Ms. McPherson stated that since M-1 and M-2 district uses are also permitted in the M-3 zone, does that mean that there should be special screening provisions if M-3 is adjacent to M-2. Ms. Sherek stated she believed all the industrial zoning should be categorized together. However, if the industrial zoning is adjacent to residential zoning, parks, or commercial zoning, then the special use permit for screening would be applicable. If the outdoor storage is only visible to other industrial zoning, then there is no need for a special use permit for screening. Ms. McPherson asked if the Commission was saying that under Option B, exterior storage in the industrial districts is alright �` in M-1, M-2, and M-3 zones as long as the exterior storage can � either be screened completely or the storage can extend above the PLANNING COMMI33ION MEETING. APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 10 �� screening as long as the materials are not adjacent to a commercial or residential districts or a park? The Commissioners agreed. Ms. Dacy stated that, with outdoor uses, however, the way the M-3 ordinance is now written, the company has to meet the special screening requirements. Ms. Sherek stated they might also want to set a maximum height for screening for industrial zoning. She suggested they set a maximum height of 15 feet and anything beyond that would require a special use permit. Under 2.C. Uses Permitted with a Special Use Permit (page 4), the Commissioners also agreed to make the following changes: (1) Cement lime gvpsum or plaster of paris manufacture ■L�1���ri �T4�� ��ii��i.��� ii� r�� � ��� ���0 _ ' _ ' � _ � ' _ _ _ _ �/�!1�lTTT��I�t I��I� �\'L� ��/��i �S � 11\ !� I ��'s � � �L�f1l�f���'��.I�� � � � _ � � _ � � �� �--6t'����G —9 ��ri aT—��ira " , 9�iz�.3��e���ei%-6� �--Ii • (5) Stone auarry gravel pit rock crushing and cutting ctravel and sand washing and grading (6) Waste processing or recyclinct facility Under 2. Uses Excluded, the Commissioners agreed to make the following change to item E: E. Nuclear t�rocessing or hazardous waste storaae facilities Ms. Dacy stated staff will make the changes to the proposed ordinance as discussed by the Commission, and this will be brought back to the Commission again at the next meeting for further discussion. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to table further discussion on this item until April 22, 1992. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOU3LY. 3. DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR � LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT• PLANNINa COMMISBION MEETING, APRIL 8, 1992 PAGE 11 ���, Ms. Dacy reviewed the Regional Transit Facilities Plan which was put together recently by the Metropolitan Council and the Regional Transit Board. In the Plan, there is a shift of emphasis from LRT more toward the transportation service improvements. Ms. Dacy reviewed the comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Northeast Corridor of Light Rail Transit. She had six issues she felt were very important as concerns for Fridley. She welcomed any changes or additions to these six issues. Mr. Saba expressed concern that many very good questions asked of the ACRRA by the Commission were not adequately answered in the Final EIS. Questions or concerns regarding bikeway/walkways, noise levels, CO build-up, and overhead wiring and poles were either avoided or not answered adequately. Ms. Sherek stated she had questions about the capital costs. The ACRRA is talking about an annual cost per rider of $4.50. Her calculations come up with $4.50 per rider per trip. Mr. Sielaff stated the Final EIS did not adequately address vibration and air quality concerns. � Ms. Dacy stated she would incorporate these concerns with those put together by staff to present to the ACRRA. Ms. Sherek stated that when the Commission discussed the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, she would like staff to attempt to determine where the Metropolitan Council gets the projected ridership figures. She would like to see the basis for those numbers. Ms. Sherek stated another thing she would like addressed is how much of the modeling that has been done was done in determining the suburb-to-suburb travel volumes. 4. RECEIVE MARCH 17, 1992 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the March 17, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A�10ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold �� declared the April 8, 1992, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� APAIL 8, 1992 PAGE 12 Resp ctfully su itted, r W � (/"� Saba Re rding Secretary � �