PL 04/22/1992 - 30754CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� APRIL 22, 1992
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the April 22, 1992, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL•
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig
Members Absent: Sue Sherek
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Ed Stanke, 7091 Highway 65
Dale Beckman, BRW, Inc.
Philip W. Getts, Cosgrove Flynn, et. al.,
2900 Lincoln Center, Minneapolis
William Penk, 22 Hawthorne Road, Hopkins
Howard Jacobson, Metro Building Systems, Inc.
Karen Henry, 8324 W. River Road, Brooklyn Park
Ron Merkel, 8324 W. River Road, Brooklyn Park
Dan & Judy Nelson, 7713 Beech Street N.E.
Francis & Lois Anderson, 1148 Elm Street N.E.
John Krall, 19 - 77th Way N.E.
APPROVAL OF APRIL 8. 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
April 8, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PLAT, P.S. #92-02, BY BRWt
INC. FOR WAL-MART•
To replat an area (Parcels 1- 4) into Lot 1, Block 1, and
Outlot A, Sam's Addition. The following are the legal
descriptions:
Parcel 1: The North 425.23 feet of the South 877.87 feet of
all that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 2, Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying Westerly of State Trunk Highway 47, excepting
the Easterly 600 feet thereof.
�
`� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 2
That Judicial Landmarks have been placed pursuant to Torrens
Case #T-1944 at the Northeast corner, the Northwest'corner,
the Southwest corner, and the Southeast corner of the North
425.23 feet of the South 877.87 feet of all that part of the
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2,
Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying Westerly
of State Trunk Highway 47. Certificate of Title No. 63394.
Parcel 2: The Easterly 600 feet of the North 425.23 feet of
the South 877.87 feet of all that part of the Southwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 30,
Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying Westerly of State
Trunk Highway 47.
That Judicial Landmarks have been placed pursuant to Torrens
Case #T-1944 at the Northeast corner, the Northwest corner,
the Southwest corner, and the Southeast corner of the North
425.23 feet of the South 877.87 feet of all that part of the
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2,
Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying Westerly
of State Trunk Highway 47. Certificate of Title No. 60865.
^ ° Parcel 3: Lot 2, Block 2, Caba Realty First Addition,
. according to the plat on file in the Office of the Registrar
of Titles of Anoka County, Minnesota.
That Judicial Landmarks have been placed pursuant to Torrens
Case #T-1944 at the Northeast corner, the Northwest corner,
the Southwest corner, and the Southeast corner of Caba Realty
First Addition. Certificate of Title No. 60868.
�
Parcel 4: Lot 1, Block 1, Vantage Companies Addition.
This property is generally located at 8200 University Avenue
N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
QPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER60N BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:36 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is generally located at the
northwest corner of 81st and University Avenues. The proposal is
to replat 4 existing parcels into 2 lots. The property is
currently zoned C-3, General Shopping Center District, and C-2,
General Business District. There is M-2, Heavy Industrial, zoning
to the north and west, and M-1, Light Industrial, and M-2, Heavy
Industrial, to the south. The first lot would be for the existing
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING. APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 3
/'� -
Sam's Club and its associated retention pond, and the second lot
is proposed to be sold to another developer in the future.
Ms. McPherson stated the purpose of the plat is to relocate the
current lot line which conflicts with a proposed 30, 000 square foot
expansion to the existing Sam's Club. The Code requires that 60
feet of clear area be maintained around the perimeter of a building
of this size. The proposed expansion would encroach onto the
existing lot line; therefore, the plat is proposed. With the
expansion, additional parking will be required and this will also
be accommodated with the change in the lot line. There is
currently a detention pond on the existing site which will be
relocated and resized to accommodate the additional storm water
from Sam's parcel, the vacant lot, and also adjacent lots to the
north. The petitioner may downsize the pond to eliminate providing
detention for the lot to the north, which is not owned by the
petitioner and would be developed by a separate property owner.
There is a wetland issue regarding relocation and size of the
detention pond because it has been identified by the Army Corps of
Engineers as a wetland. However, because the resizing of the pond
does not create a net loss of wetland, the filling of the pond is
permitted under the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process.
Ms. McPherson stated that, in addition to the proposed expansion,
there will be additional loading docks along the west side of the
building, and the current entrance will be relocated to be more in
the center of the building. The existing tire maintenance facility
located at the southwest corner of the building will be relocated
and used for pallet storage.
Ms. McPherson stated that the proposed plat creates lots which meet
the minimum zoning requirements for the C-3, General Shopping
Center District. The petitioner has submitted a preliminary
landscape plan which should be approved by staff. The petitioner
intends to continue the existing vegetation pattern along the
expanded parking area and public right-of-way. The preliminary
drainage plan has also been submitted, but the �ngineering
Department has requested that the drainage calculations be
submitted and the final drainage plan be approved before issuing
a building permit. The right-of-way for the west University Avenue
Service Drive and a portion of Main Street are dedicated to the
City through use easements. Through the plat process, these will
be formally dedicated to the City. The Engineering Department has
requested 60 feet of right-of-way for the West University Service
Drive, which is an increase from th� existing 50 foot use easement
which is currently in place.
Ms. McPherson stated that staff recommends the Planning Commission
^ approve the plat request with the following stipulations:
0
PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING. APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 4
1'�,
1. The landscape plan shall be approved by staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
2. The drainage plan shall be approved by staff prior to issuance
of a building permit, to include the calculations used to
determine the appropriate pond size for the reconstructed
detention pond located on Lot 1, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition.
3. The petitioner shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the
West University Avenue Service Drive and shall dedicate the
appropriate right-of-way for Main Street.
4. A park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
5. The petitioner shall submit a bond in the amount of 3% of the
construction value for the outdoor improvements.
6. The petitioner shall record an amended development contract
against the remaining lot, if so required by the HRA.
Mr. Betzold asked if the City still must notify the Army Corps of
Engineers about the pond relocation.
n Ms. McPherson stated the Army Corps of Engineers had approved the
previous request, and she believed the approval will hold for this
request.
Mr. Betzold asked if the City needed to send a letter or follow up.
Ms. McPherson stated this was the petitioner's responsibility.
Mr. Betzold asked if the DNR needed to be involved.
Ms. McPherson stated no, this is not a public waters wetland.
Mr. Betzold referred to stipulatio,n #3, appropriate right-of-way.
What is appropriate?
Ms. McPherson stated basically this is the amount of right-of-way
currently dedicated to the City through a use easement which would
appear to be 25 feet to 30 feet. She can check with the City
Engineer and include the actual dimension in that stipulation.
Mr. Betzold requested Ms. McPherson do that.
Mr. Kondrick referred to the issue of the pond and asked if there
were depth limits, either minimum or maximum, or other regulations
as to size.
��
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 5
/�
Mr. McPherson stated the depth is a function of the volume needed
to retain in the retention pond. There may be a practical
limitation in order to retain water but she thought the Engineering
Department had practical guidelines governing how deep the pond
would actually be. In some instances, a detention pond can be as
deep as 10 feet.
Ms. Savage asked if the watershed districts were involved.
Ms. McPherson stated Six Cities Watershed District would be
involved, and the regulatory body would be the City of Fridley
Engineering Department.
. Ms. Savage asked if there was a stipulation to involve them.
Ms. McPherson stated, no, because the permit function is in-house.
Mr. Sielaff asked how this detention pond compares with what was
proposed before.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner would be better able to answer
that question.
�--� Mr. Si,elaff stated another issue is the type of wetland. Is the
Army Corps of Engineers interested in no net loss?
Ms. McPherson stated, at this time, the no net loss is not an Army
Corps interest but rather a State of Minnesota interest. The Army
Corps does regulate wetlands of certain types and sizes. Under the
nationwide permitting process, a property owner can fill up to one
acre of wetland without replacing. However, und�r the 1991 Wetland
Conservation Act for the State of Minnesota, if any portion is
filled, it must be replaceed. In this case, they are filling a
portion but enlarging and expanding another portion of it. The
type is not an issue under State law, only the size of the wetland
area to be replaced.
Mr. Saba asked if the petitioners want to reduce the size.
Ms. McPherson stated the pond as proposed includes the water from
the Sam's Club lot and the water from the Outlot as well as the
existing vacant lot. The petitioner will discuss whether a
regional detention pond would be better than individual on-site
ponds for each lot.
Mr. Saba stated what the impact of the down sizing would be.
Ms. McPherson stated the impact should be minimal at best.
�� Mr. Sielaff asked if they are going into something else later.
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 6
�
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed pond would be downsized to
eliminate water coming from the site north of the subject parcel.
Once they do the Sam's Club expanding, they would be building an
appropriate sized pond only for water coming off the Sam's Club
property and the vacant outlot, and eliminate handling the water
from the other vacant lot.
Mr. Beckmann stated the pond as proposed is larger than the current
pond. The current pond was constructed as a retention pond in
1986. At that time, there were no wetlands on this parcel. There
is no standing water. The depth is determined by the outflow to
the west. That is what has determined the size of the pond. They
could not make it deeper because they do not want standing water.
To provide the detention capacity required by the City for
development in this area, they must expand the pond. Previous
proposals showed a pond large enough to handle storm water from
three lots. They are now looking at the pond size to see if Lot
3, Caba Addition, should have their own detention pond so their
pond can be somewhat smaller.
Mr. Beckmann stated he has worked with staff on th� proposal. This
expansion is a very key part of a nationwide expansion program.
They are adding fresh vegetables and meats. They are looking at
� adding 30 to 50 employment positions to the current staff so it
should be a positive addition to the community.
Mr. Betzold asked if they were looking at a parcel split and if
this would create an odd-shaped lot.
Mr. Beckman stated Wal-Mart is working with developers for the
parcel, but he is not directly involved. In the final plat, the
lines may shift somewhat.
Mr. Betzold asked the petitioner if he had reviewed the
stipulations and if there were any questions.
Mr. Beckmann stated they tried to work with staff on providing the
right-of-way and had been asked earlier to provide 60 feet. Now
that they do riot have the parking constraints, 60 feet should not
be a problem. He will need to work with staff on the park
dedication fee. He does not recall if this was done previously.
The landscape plan is in line with previous requests.
Mr. Betzold asked if they had plans to resubmit the plans for the
retention pond to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Beckmann stated they have had verbal discussions with the Army
Corps of Engineers. It is not a problem to submit a final plan.
At this time, there does not appear to be any problems.
��.
Mr. Betzold asked if the Corps has asked to submit the plans.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 7
/�
�
Mr. Beckmann stated they have a letter prepared and can make a
resubmission and send a copy to staff.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the intent was to have one large detention
basin or have individual detention basins.
Ms. McPherson stated in the past the City has had detention ponds
on individual properties. Staff has not discussed whether a
regional pond would be more appropriate versus site specific ponds.
Based on past policy, site specific ponds may be more appropriate.
If the intention is to detain water for a period of time to limit
run off, as proposed water will not be standing in this pond for
long periods of time except in cases of extreme rainfall. Only by
default does the existing pond have wetland vegetation and is
classified as a wetland.
Mr. Beckmann stated that because ground water level is so high in
that area allows vegetation to grow. Usually, it is a dry pond.
Mr. Kondrick felt it would be ideal to have it done at one time.
Because it is piecemeal, it must be done this way.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:58
P.M.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the parking was adequate.
Ms. McPherson stated it was.
Mr. Betzold stated he would like to add a stipulation that we
receive approval by the Army Corps of Engineers.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend
approval of Plat, P.S. #92-02, by BRW, Inc., for Wal-Mart, to
replat an area (Parcels 1- 4) into Lot 1, Block 1, and Outlot A,
Sam's Addition; with the following stipulations:
1. The landscape plan shall be approved by staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
2. The drainage plan shall be approved by staff prior to issuance
of a building permit, to include the calculations used to
determine the appropriate pond size for the reconstructed
�` detention pond located on Lot 1, Block 1, Wal-Mart Addition.
�
PLANNING COMMI38ION ME$TING� APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 8
3. The petitioner shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the
West University Avenue Service Drive and shall dedicate the
appropriate right-of-way for Main Street.
4. A park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
5. The petitioner shall submit a bond in the amount of 3% of the
construction value for the outdoor improvements.
6. The petitioner shall record an amended development contract
against the remaining lot, is so required by the HRA.
7. The petitioner shall provide the City with a copy of approval
of the detention pond from the Army Corps of Engineers.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
Ms. Dacy stated the request would go to the City Council on May 4,
at which time the City Council will establish a public hearing for
May 18.
^ 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #92-02 BY
EDWARD STANKE•
To rezone the•West 115 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision
No. 89 from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business,
generally located at 7091 Highway 65 N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:00 P.M. `
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed request is to rezone 7091 Highway
65 N.E. from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business. The
property is currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial, and there is
additional M-1, Light Industrial zoning, to the nQrth and east, and
M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning, to the south and west of the subject
parcel. The petitioner is requesting the zoning change to better
match the existing uses in the building.
Ms. McPherson stated that the subject parcel has been zoned M-1
since I958. In 1970, the Building Standards Design Control
Subcommittee recommended approval of a request to construct a
single-story masonry office building on the property. There were
variances granted by the City Council to facilitate construction
^ of the office building in 1970. Over the years, the uses located
in this building have been primarily office.
PLANNING COMMI3SION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 9
/�
Ms. McPherson stated that in 1989 and 1990, staff worked with the
property owner to remove a church which was located in the basement
of the building. In 1989, the City Council approved a rezoning to
rezone a parcel approximately 1/2 block to the north of the subj ect
parcel from R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and, M-1, Light
Industrial, to C-2, General Business. This parcel which was
rezoned is now where the City Sports facility is located. Other
uses along the corridor include contractors offices, sales office
for mobile homes, and lawyers offices. Staff did meet in 1990 with
the property owners along the corridor to recommend they apply for
rezoning. There were concerns about whether the contractors
offices would still be allowed under the C-2 zoning district.
Staff did assure them that they would be permitted uses, but an
application at that time was not filed.
Ms. McPherson stated three criteria must be met to recommend
approval of a rezoning request:
l. Compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent districts
and uses.
2. Compatibility of the proposed use with the district intent.
�
3. Compliance with the district requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated the property if rezoned would continue to be
compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. Adjacent uses are
similar in nature to what currently exists in the subject parcel,
and M-1 and C-2 are compatible when adjacent. Use as an office is
consistent and a permitted use uncler C-2, General Business.
Variances were granted to allow construction of the building, and
these variances were minor in nature. The only variance not
granted was to reduce the lot area. Based on the variances
granted, the building and site do meet the C-2, General Business,
regulations. As the rezoning request meets the criteria, staff
recommends approval of the rezoning request.
Mr. Betzold stated he was provided a copy of the letter from Mr.
Stanke and copies of the City Council minutes from 1970. He is
anticipating the petitioner would be filing the fee under protest.
He was not here in 1970. As reading the City Council minutes, they
were building in an M-1 district and they should have taken
appropriate steps at that time.
Ms. McPherson stated that would have been an appropriate action.
However, a rezoning application was not filed.
� Mr. Betzold stated, had someone been following along, someone would
� have had to pay a fee.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 10
��
Ms. McPherson stated that was correct.
Mr. Stanke stated the building should have been rezoned at the time
of construction. When approved verbally, the building was built
as an office building, has always been and always will be an office
building, and cannot be anything other than that. If the City
wants to rezone the property, that is fine; but someone should have
paid a fee initially. He felt that he is paying the fee for
something that should have been done before to get a tenant. Prior
to the tenant that moved in, there was a tenant there that had the
same business so it is not as though there was anything is
different. Mr. Stanke purchased the building in July, 1991.
Mr. Betzold asked if Mr. Stanke checked with the City about the
zoning at the time of purchase.
Mr. Stanke stated his attorney checked and advised that the
building was approved for an office location that it was.
Mr. Betzold asked if he was advised that it was zoned this way.
Mr. Stanke stated he was advised there was a meeting with the
property owners and that the building was built for office purpose.
^ The purpose has not changed.
Mr. Betzold stated this should have been caught in 1970 and
probably when purchasing the building. Unfortunately, it is Mr.
Stanke's building now and he will need to resolve this in arder to
make compatible.
Mr. Stanke stated his only intent is that it was approved by the
City Council to build. Once they did that, the City Council should
have at that time made that decision for the proper zoning.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL03ED AT 8:10 P.M.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval
of rezoning request, ZOA #92-02, by Edward Stanke to rezone the
West 115 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89 from M-1,
Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N BETZOLD DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
^\ Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will establish a public
hearing on May 4 for May 18th.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 11
3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #92-01 BY RONALD MERKEL OF
PRODUCTION TUBE MACHINERY. CO.:
To vacate the east/west alley located in Block 7, Onaway
Addition, between Elm and Beech Streets, generally located at
7738 Elm Street N.E. �
Ms. McPherson stated the vacation request is to vacate an east/west
alley located in Block 7 of the Onaway Addition. The vacation
request is in conjunction with a variance request for 7738 Elm
Street N.E. which is vacant property on Elm Street adjacent and
north of the alley. The zoning in this particular area is M-2,
Heavy Industrial. There are single family dwelling units along
77th Avenue as well as a single family dwelling unit located north
of 7738 Elm Street. A sanitary sewer line is located in the alley
proposed to be vacated.
Ms. McPherson stated staff attempted to determine the amount of use
by the public the alley receives. Through a site inspection of the
neighborhood, staff determined the west 1/2 of the alley does have
a paved driveway which is used by industrial properties on Beech
Street. Staff heard at the public hearing for the variance request
on April 7 testimony from the property owner at 19 - 77th Avenue,
which is a single family dwelling unit at the corner of Elm and
77th, that he does use the alley to access his property. There is
a gate in the north fence line of this owner's property, and there
is the possibility of needing access by this owner. If the alley
were to be vacated, the owner would receive the south 8 feet of the
alley which would provide the owner access to the gate in the north
fence line. It has been the City Council's practice in the past
to require that all property owners adjacent to an alley sign a
petition to vacate the entire alley. In this request, only the
petitioner for 7738 Elm Street has signed the vacation request.
The evidence does not strongly lead.staff to conclude that the
alley is used on a continual basis by property owners in the
neighborhood. Staff has concluded at a minimum that only the east
1/2 should be vacated as only the west 1/2 is used by the
industrial properties.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the vacation
request for the east 1/2 of the alley with the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner should install a six foot high screening fence
along the south property line to screen the adjacent
residential property from the proposed development.
2. The petitioner should execute a ten foot utility easement over
the vacated alley to allow for the maintenance of the sanitary
n sewer located within the alley.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 12
��
Mr. Jacobson stated he would like to address the issue of the fence
and questioned if it needed to be installed. First of all, along
the existing residential property is a chain link fence with shrubs
and trees for screening. If they were to construct a fence, it
would collect garbage and create an area of darkness and shadows.
The wall of the building facing this property has no doors or
windows so there is nothing to screen.
Mr. Betzold asked what prompted this request.
Mr. Jacobson stated the existing lot is of a minimum width. They
are trying to create more width for fire access.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner has also requested a side yard
setbacic variance of 7 feet from the north line of the alley. By
vacating the alley, this would then be 15 feet which would be more
in compliance with the setback requirements.
Mr. Kondrick asked to clarify if staff were recommending vacating
the east 1/2 of the alley and the west 1/2 of the alley was to
remain.
Ms. McPherson stated this was correct.
�
Ms. Savage asked if the request for a screening fence was for
aesthetic consideration.
Ms. Dacy stated yes. Staff realizes there is existing fence and
shrubs. The intent is to establish a noise barrier and aesthetics.
If residents do not want the fence, the Commission may so choose
to remove the stipulation. Staff recommendation is that there
should be a screening fence between commercial and residential
property.
Mr. Sielaff asked how many residents were in the area.
Ms. Dacy stated two residents to the south on 77th and another to
the north of the vacant property on Elm Street.
Mr. Sielaff asked how many businesses were located on the west 1/2
of the alley.
Ms. Dacy stated there were two businesses to the south of that
portion of the alley and orie business to the north.
Ms. Savage asked about shrubs as screening rather than a fence.
Mr. Jacobson stated there is already large bushes along the fence
n line. This area is already screened.
- Mr. Kondrick asked if there is fencing required to the north.
PLANNING COMMISSION MLETING� APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 13
��
�
Ms. Dacy stated they did not recommend this. It is staff's
understanding that the property to the north was sold and the house
is to be removed.
Mr. Jacobson stated this was also a non-conforming parcel.
Ms. Dacy stated another issue is that staff sees the wood fence as
year around screening.
Mr. Krall stated the 8 feet he would receive if the alley was
vacated would not allow enough room for him to access to his
property. He is also interested for the businesses to the west to
also have use of the alley. He assumes that some day his property
will become a conforming use, and he would like to allow some type
of reasonable access. He is opposed to the request.
Ms. Dacy stated on the property there is a stake in the southeast
corner of the lot. There is 16 feet between the corner to the
driveway. She asked Mr. Krall how often he used the gate.
Mr. Krall stated he uses the gate as he chooses. The fact remains
that he uses the alley and it is his access.
Mr. Betzold asked, if the City Council were to decide to grant the
request, did Mr. Krall have a feeling on the issue of the fence.
Mr. Krall stated he understood that the business will have evening
shifts. He feels there should not be a vacation request and that
there should be a fence. This would only be fair for future
property owners. The lots are small and the City must grant
variances to make the lots usable. In the future, if he Y�as no
alley, what is the resale value of his property when they cannot
gain access? Both residential properties face the street. Where
will future businesses put a loading dock if they cannot come in
behind in the alley? If approved, he cannot see this working in
the long run.
Mr. Saba stated that the City's position has been clear in that all
property owners must sign a petition to vacate property. In this
situation, they do not have these signatures.
Mr. Betzold stated he does not like it.
Ms. Modig stated she did not think this complies with what they
usually do.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Modig, to recommend denial of
� the vacation, SAV #92-01, to vacate the east/west alley located in
Block 7, Onaway Addition, between Elm and Beech Streets.
�_
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSION 1�EETING. APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 14
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTIOAT CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will establish a public
hearing on May 4 to be held on May 18.
4. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING CHAPTER 205. ENTITLED
"ZONING"•
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated, based on the Planning Commission direction
from the April 8 meeting regarding outdoor storage requirements
under the M-1 and M-2 district regulations, staff has developed
ordinance language reflecting the conditions under which a Special
Use Permit would be required for exterior storage of materials,
equipment or motor vehicles. The following conditions would not
require a Special Use Permit:
1. motor vehicle storage;
2. materials, motor vehicles, and equipment which are kept in
a building or are fully screened so as not to be seen from
public rights-of-way, adjacent property of a residential
district, a residential district across a public right-of-way,
or a public park;
3. materials, motor vehicles, and equipment that do not exceed
fifteen (15) feet in height.
Screening materials standards are set forth in the landscaping
section of the Zoning Code.
Ms. McPherson stated staff believed that these standards fulfill
the Commission's direction from the last meeting regarding this
issue. Staff did make changes in the M-3 district requirements for
uses the Commission wanted eliminated from the Special Use Permit
category, and some changes regarding hazardous and nuclear waste
processing plants, recycling, etc.
Mr. Betzold asked if copies were sent to those attending the last
meeting.
Ms. McPherson stated she spoke with ANR's lawyer on the phone and
indicated the Commission's direction, and he seemed pleased with
� the proposed additions. They will receive an updated public
�- hearing notice prior to the public hearing.
i�`.1
PLANNING_COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 15
Mr. Sielaff stated, under the M-3 Special Use Permit, page 6, waste
processing or recycling could be garbage processing. He did not
think the City wanted to get into that.
Ms. McPherson stated they can reword it to say just recycling.
Ms. Dacy stated that waste processing was the term used originally
in the existing ordinance. If the Commission does not want it,
staff could take it out or come up with other language.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend the City
Council adopt the proposed M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive
Zoning District, with modification.
OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
5. INFORMATION ITEM REGARDING BOB'S PRODUCE REDEVELOPMENT
Ms. McPherson stated the City has received a revised development
proposal from Bob and Mike Schroer. This proposal includes
utilizing the existing Bob's Produce Ranch building. Last fall,
� the proposed development would have eliminated the existing Bob's
Produce facility and the former Malmberg's portion of the building
and constructed two new facilities on the parcel. Due to the
discovery of poor soil on the site, the owners have redesigned the
site plan. The new proposal will include using the existing
building with an addition, removing the west leg of the existing
building where Malmberg's was located and constructing a new
building for Lyndale Garden Center as well as the proposed
greenhouse. The only thing that has changed is that the variances
associated with the original request will no longer be required.
The Appeals Commission did review the new variance request to
reduce the front yard setback and to reduce the side yard setback
and recommended approval of .those two variances. The request
reviewed by the Planning Commission last fall did not change.
Mr. Kondrick asked where the poor soil conditions were located.
Ms. McPherson stated the poor soil is in the rear parking lot.
That is where the new building was proposed to be constructed. The
City Council will hold a public hearing on the request at their May
4 meeting, and the entire package will to the City Council on June
1.
Mr. Kondrick asked when they plan to start construction.
Ms. McPherson stated as soon as they get all their approvals. They
� will start this summer on the Bob's Produce section. This fall,
between garden seasons, they will start on that part.
PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, APRIL 22, 1992 PAGE 16
i��.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1992:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
March 17, 1992, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission
minutes.
OPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY.
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
APRIL 7. 1992•
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the
April 7, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURN•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the
� meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE APRIL 22, 1992� PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING
ADJOIIRNED AT 8:44 P.M.
Respect lly submitted,
La onn Cooper
Recording Secretary
�
T,
/'"'�
��
8 I G N- IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMkII88ION MEETING, Wednesday, April 22, 1992