PL 05/13/1992 - 30755/-'�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, MAY 13, 1992
wM�Y�11�N�YM�MNMMN��NMMMMM.YMMN,Y���M�Y�Y��Y,Y�YIY�YM�Y�Y����N�YNIrNw�M�►�►M�►�NMMwMM
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the May 13, 1992, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Connie Modig,
Larry Kuechle (for Diane Savage)
Members Absent: Dave Rondrick, Sue Sherek, Brad Sielaff
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Leo & Virginia Paquette, 1479 Mississippi St.
Gary Lenart, 6070 Central Avenue
Angela Mulhern, 6070 Central Avenue
Gary Obrycki, 6267 Rerry Lane
Tom Obrycki, 820 - 86th Lane, Coon Rapids
Barb Severni, 7145 Riverwood Drive
� Joan LaTour, 80 Alden Cirale
Diane & Josephine Naumovich, 100 - 71 1/2 Way
Arnold Aspenson, 112 - 71 1/2 Way
Greg & Mary Maness, 106 - 71 1/2 Way
Don Kisch, 9855 Revere Lane, Maple Grove
APPROVAL OF APRIL 22. 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESi
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the April
22, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP
#92-04, BY LEON PAOUETTE:
Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
a second accessory building over 240 square feet on Lot 15,
Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 10, generally located at
1479 Mississippi Street N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(i AYS� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINQ OPEN AT 8:02 P.M.
�
�
PLANNINa COM�II88ION MEETINa. 1�IAY 13, 1992 PAGB 2
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a special use
permit to allow the construction of a second accessory structure
over 240 sq. ft. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family
Dwelling, as are the adjacent properties.
Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is a single
family dwelling unit, a 14 ft. by 28 ft. single car garage, and a
14 ft. by 20 ft. utility shed. The petitioner is intending to
remove the existing 14 ft. by 28 ft. single car garage and
construct a 20 ft. by 20 ft. double car garage.
Ms. McPherson stated that because the petitioner is proposing to
remove the existing 14 ft. by 28 ft. single car garage, the
remaining utility shed becomes the first accessory structure.
Because the proposed double car garage exceeds 240 sq. ft. , the
Code requires a special use permit for the garage which is the
second accessory building.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed garage would not adversely impact
the subject parcel or the surrounding parcels as the proposed lot
coverage would only be 4.2�. It appears the petitioner will be
able to meet the setback requirements. As conditions of approval,
a hard surface driveway shall be provided, and the garage shall be
^ architecturally compatible with the single family dwelling unit and
not exceed 14 feet in height.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of this special use permit request
with the following stipulations:
1. The proposed garage shall be architecturally compatible
with the single family dwelling unit.
2. The proposed garage shall not exceed 14 feet in height.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by
May 1, 1993.
Mr. Paquette stated he had nothing to add to the staff report. He
stated he has no problem with the stipulations as recommended by
staff.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE pIIBLIC HEARINa CLOBED AT 8:10 P.M.
� MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City
Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP #92-04, by Leon
Paquette, per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, MAY 13. 1992 PAG$ 3
/� -
allow a second accessory building over 240 square feet on Lot 15,
Revised Auditor�s Subdivision No. 10, generally located at 1479
Mississippi Street N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. The proposed garage shall be architecturally compatible
with the single family dwelling unit.
2. The proposed garage shall not exceed 14 feet in height.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by
May 1, 1993.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on June 1,
1992.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P S.
#92-04, BY GARY LENART:
To replat the North 250 feet of the East 830 feet of Govern-
ment Lot 1, Section 24, into two parcels, generally located
at 6070 Central Avenue N.E.
^ MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading of
the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8s15 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that a
preliminary plat approved in order to create two single family lots
for existing residences located on property addressed as 6070
Central Avenue N.E. The property is located west of Central
Avenue, east of Moore Lake, and north of Moore Lake Beach Park.
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are adjacent
parcels.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is interested in purchasing
the westerly dwelling unit, and the petitioner is proposing to add
a 30 ft. by 30 ft. addition to the existing dwelling unit. The
petitioner is aware of the setback requirements and have determined
they will not require any variances.
Ms. McPherson stated the plat creates two lots which do meet the
minimum lot requirements of the R-1, Single Family Dwelling, zoning
district regulations. The plat creates what is known as a"flag
lot" in which the westerly parcel will have an access flag of 30
feet along Central Avenue. This meets the requirement to have a
minimum of 25 feet of access along a public street for every single
� family parcel in the City.
��
PLANNING COIyIIKI88ION MEETING� MAY 13. 1992 PAGE 4
Ms. McPherson stated the north/south lot line between the two
parcels is currently located 31 1/2 feet from the easterly dwelling
unit. The setback requirement for the front parcel is 40 feet, and
the surveyor has relocated the proposed lot line to meet the
ordinance requirements.
Ms. McPherson stated the access for the rear lot is currently on
the front parcel, and some type of access easement should be
executed between the two parcels to ensure that access to the
westerly parcel can be maintained, should the properties change
ownership, or the petitioner should relocate the driveway onto the
flag portion of the westerly parcele
Ms. McPherson stated the City Engineering Department is not sure
if the dwellings have separate water and sewer services, and the
petitioner must provide information to the Engineering Department
that there are separate utilities for each dwelling or that
provisions will be made to provide separate utilities for each
dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the City has had a long-term goal to expand
Moore Lake Beach Park. The City Council has directed staff to
purchase properties along the west side of Central Avenue as they
are placed on the market. In 1988, the City purchased the property
� north of 6080 Central Avenue and is holding it for future park
expansion. It has been the City's policy not to condemn properties
in order to achieve the goal of park expansion; the City prefers
to purchase the properties as they are placed on the market. In
1988, the City contacted Mrs. Nelson, the property owner, to
request that the City be granted the right of first refusal should
her property be placed on the market. Mrs. Nelson declined the
City�s offer at that time.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the proposed plat meets the minimum
code requirements set forth in the R-1, Single Family District
regulations, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the plat to the City Council, with the
following stipulations:
1. An access easement shall be executed between Lots 1 and
2 for the existing driveway, or relocate the driveway so
that it is located within the ��flag�� lot.
2. The petitioner shall provide proof of separate water and
sewer services for each dwelling unit or provide separate
services by July 1, 1992.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by
May 1, 1993.
�
��
PLANNING COMMISBION ME�TING. MAY 13. 1992 PAGE 5
Mr. Betzold stated that if both dwelling units do not already have
separate water and sewer services, is July 1 is a reasonable
deadline?
Ms. McPherson stated that the date can be changed.
Mr. Gary Lenart stated he had no problems with the stipulations.
He stated both dwelling units do share the same water and sewer at
this time. He stated Council will not be taking any action on this
request until after July 1. He does not want to make the water and
sewer improvements if the plat is not approved.
Ms. Dacy suggested a deadline of September 1, 1992.
MOTION by Mr. Ruechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINQ CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City
Council approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #92-04, by Gary Lenart,
to replat the North 250 feet of the East 830 feet of Government
Lot 1, Section 24, into two parcels, generally located at 6070
�..� Central Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. An access easement shall be executed between Lots 1 and
2 for the existing driveway, or relocate the driveway so
that it is located within the "flag" lot.
2. The petitioner shall provide proof of separate water and
sewer services for each dwelling unit or provide separate
services by September 1, 1992.
3. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by
May 1, 1993.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTINa AYE� CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLAR�D
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that on June 1, 1992, the City Council will
set the public hearing date for June 29, 1992. The Council will
then take action on this item on July 6, 1992.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT P.W.
#92-03, BY GARY OBRYCKI:
To replat all that part of Lot 32, Revisecl Auditor's
Subdivision No. 77, according to the plat thereof on file and
of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County,
Minnesota, lying easterly of the westerly 10.00 feet thereof.
^ Together with all that part of the vacated roadway easement
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 13. 1992 PAGE 6
lying southerly of and adjacent to said Lot 32, generally
located at 105 - 71 1/2 Way N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAYRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THL PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8s30 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the intersection
of Riverwood Drive and 71 1/2 Way N.E. and adjacent to East River
Road. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling as are
the surrounding properties.
Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is a single
family dwelling unit with an attached two car garage. In 1986,
the petitioner applied for a lot split, a vacation, and a variance
for this property. At that time, the proposal was to remove the
existing single family dwelling and subdivide the property into
three single family lots.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance request was to reduce the front
yard setback from 35 feet to 25 feet, and to reduce the rear yard
setback from 25 feet to 21 feet. At that time, the Appeals
^ Commission recommended approval of the variance request: however,
with the exception of the vacation request, the land use requests
were not reviewed by the City Council.
Ms. McPherson stated the present request by the petitioner is to
again subdivide the property into three single family lots;
however, in this case the single family dwelling unit on Lot 2 is
not intended to be removed. Lots 1 and 3 would be vacant and would
be sold for single family dwellings. Due to the location of the
existing single family home, Lot 1 at 7,901 square feet cannot meet
the minimum lot area requirement. Lots 2 and 3 meet or exceed the
minimum lot area requirement.
Ms. McPherson stated that Section 211.05 of the Subdivision
Ordinance allows the Planning Commission and the City Council to
grant a variance to the minimum lot requirement should they find
that the Code imposes an undue hardship on the subdivider. If the
Commission chooses to grant the variance, the Commission should
state the reasons for granting the variance to the zoning
ordinance. Staff recommends that the plat be approved to create
only two single family lots.
Ms. McPherson stated that Lot 1 also does not have the adequate
depth needed to construct a single family dwelling without granting
a variance. After the front and rear yard setbacks are applied to
this lot, the remaining buildable area is 23 feet wide for a single
�^ family dwelling on this lot. Average homes are a minimum of 24
�
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 13. 1992 PAaE 7
feet wide; therefore, a variance of some type would need to be
granted in order to construct a dwelling on Lot 1.
Ms. McPherson stated Lot 3 is unique in that it is a double-fronted
lot and is parallel to the street right-of-way instead of
perpendicular as are Lots 1 and 2. The setbacks should be pre-
determined by the Commission to insure that there is no confusion
as to where the setbacks are to be measured from once the lot is
sold and a house is constructed.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the proposed plat, to split Lot 32, Revised
Auditor�s Subdivision No. 77 into two lots, instead of the proposed
three lots, with the following stipulationse
1. Execute a 17 foot bikeway/walkway easement along East
River Road on Lot 3 by August 1, 1992.
2. Pay the current outstanding assessments of $210.54 by
July 6, 1992.
3. The setbacks for a dwelling on Lot 3 shall be as follows:
A. 35 feet from the property line adjacent to 71 1/2
� Way;
B. 35 feet from East River Road;
C. The north and south lot lines which run directly
east and west shall be the ��side lot�" lines
Setbacks are ten feet for living area and five feet
for the garage.
4. Pay a park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot at time of
building permit issuance.
Mr. Gary Obrycki stated that it was his intention 5 1/2 years ago
to remove the existing older home. However, at this time, for
financial reasons, they are proposing to keep the existing house
and plat the property into three lots and sell off two lots for
single family dwellings. Some of the extra money he will make from
selling the two lots will be used to improve the existing older
home. _
Ms. Barb Severni, 7145 Riverwood Drive, stated she has heard that
Anoka County will be widening East River Road. How will that
impact the size of Lot 3, and will it still remain a buildable lot?
Ms. McPherson stated Lot 3 is slightly over 13,000 sq. ft. Even
if the County takes some property, there should still be adequate
i� lot area to exceed the 9,000 sq. ft.
�,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa� MAY 13, 1992 PAaE 8
Ms. Severni stated the older home on Lot 2 is in very poor shape.
It is an eyesore to the neighborhood. It is hard to believe that
people will want to build new homes next to a home that is in such
poor shape. She stated she is not in favor of subdividing the
p'roperty into three lots when one of the lots would be substandard.
She would like to see only two lots and the removal of the existing
home.
Ms. Diane Naumovich, 100 - 71 1/2 Way, stated she lives right by
Lot 3. She stated they were notified by Anoka County on January
23, 1991, that the County wanted to leave her with 40 feet in her
back yard. Her lot is 137 ft. by 70 ft. She did not understand
how a home will be able to be built on Lot 3 with the County taking
so much property. Her main concern is that three lots are just not
going to work.
Ms. Jean Latour, 80 Alden Circle, stated her property backs up to
Lot 1. That lot is very small. She stated the existing house is
in horrible shape. In the past, the house has been condemned
several times and it is in worse shape now. She would like to see
the existing home torn down and the property subdivided into two
lots instead of three. Lot 1 is not big enough for a house.
Ms. Modig asked if there is any documentation of condemnation on
^ the existing home.
Ms. McPherson stated there are notes in the file that indicate that
the City has inspected the property several times; however, there
are no condemnation notices in the file.
Mr. Albert Aspenson, 112 - 71 1/2 Way, stated he is concerned about
three lots and putting two more houses on this property. These are
very narrow lots, and he is concernecl about how two houses would
fit into the neighborhood. He would not be in favor of three lots.
Mr. Jerry Tollefson, 106 - 71 1/2 Way, stated if two more homes
are added on this property, that would put seven driveways onto
this little cul-de-sac. There is enough traffic in front of their
homes. He is also in agreement that this property should not be
subdivided into three lots. Two lots are the maximum.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Ruechle, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTEo ALL VOTIN(� AYE� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE pIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:00 P.M.
Mr. Betzold stated that if the Commission decides to recommend
denial of the three lots and recommencl approval of two lots, is
that acceptable to the petitioner?
�,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEBTINa. MAY 13, 1992 PAaE 9
Mr. Obrycki stated that, financially, he would prefer three lots
but would be willing to go along with two lots.
Ms. Modig stated she is not comfortable with taking any action on
this request until they have more information about how much
property the County will be taking for the expansion of East River
Road. Depending upon how much property the County takes, it could
adversely affect this.property.
Ms. Dacy stated staff is willing to contact Anoka County and
confirm the exact square footage that will be taken. However, with
a two lot subdivision, there would be adequate buildable area to
build on Lot 3 without any variances.
Mr. Betzold stated he cannot agree to the subdivision to three lots
creating a substandard lot for the sake of maintaining the existing
home.
Mr. Kuechle stated he also could not agree with the proposed plan
which creates a substandard lot that would need variances in order
to build a single family dwelling.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City
Council denial of the proposed Preliminary Plat, P. S. #92-03, by
�-.� Gary Obrycki, to subdivide the property into three single family
lots, and to recommend that the City Council consider a revised
plan to subdivide the property into two single family lots (Lots
1 and 2 as one lot and Lot 3 as the second lot), on the property
generally located at 105 - 71 1/2 Way, with the following
stipulations:
�"\
1.
2.
3.
4.
Execute a 17 foot bikeway/walkway easement along East
River Road on Lot 3 by August 1, 1992.
Pay the current outstanding assessments of $210.54 by
July 6, 1992.
The setbacks for a dwelling on Lot 3 shall be as followse
A.
B.
35 feet from the property line adjacent to 71 1/2
Way;
35 feet from East River Road;
C. The north and south lot lines which run directly
east and west shall be the "side lot" lines
Setbacks are ten feet for living area and five feet
for the garage.
Pay a park dedication fee of $1,500 per lot at time of
building permit issuance.
�"�
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa, MAY 13, 1992 PAaE 10
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISI,Y.
Ms. McPherson stated that on June 1, 1992, the City Council will
set the public hearing date for June 29, 1992. The Council will
then take action on this item on July 6, 1992.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGs CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #92-03 BY
DON RISCH:
To rezone from C-1, Local Business, to C-2, General Business,
on Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 125, generally
located at 8100 East River Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND T8E PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 9:10 P.M.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL [JSE PERMIT SP
#92-03, BY DON RISCH:
Per Section 205.14.01.C. (6) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
a motor vehicle wash establishment on Tracts A and B,
Registered Land Survey No. 125, generally located at 8100 East
� River Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. ICuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTINC� AYE, CHAIRPERBON HETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(3 OPEN AT 9s10 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the property is generally located at the
intersection of Fairmont Street and East River Road in the River-
view Heights neighborhood. The property is zoned C-1, Local
Business. There is additional C-1 zoning to the north; R-1, Single
Family Dwelling zoning, to the west; and Planned Unit Development
(PUD) zoning and R-1 zoning to the east.
Rezonincr Request
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting that Tracts A
and B of Registered Land Survey No. 125 be rezoned from C-1, Local
Business to C-2, General Business. Located on the property is a
single story masonry block convenience store and four gas pumps.
The petitioner has also applied for a special use permit to allow
an automobile wash establishment on the property.
Ms. McPherson stated the convenience store was constructed 1959.
In 1984, the City granted a special use permit to allow motor
�'� vehicle fuel dispensing as an accessory use to the convenience
store. In 1987, the City granted a lot split to split off the
PLANNING COA�lI88ION MEETING. MAY 13, 1992 PAGE 11
�, -
westerly portion of the property and sell it to the adjacent
property to the west. However, as the property is Torrens, the
lot split was not recordable, and the City approved a registered
land survey in 1991 to correct the lot split and have it recorded
at Anoka County. No variances have been granted for the parcel.
Ms. McPherson stated rezoning requests are evaluated on three
criteria: compatibility of the proposed use with the proposed
district; compatibility of the proposed district with adjacent
zoning and uses; and compliance with the proposed zoning district
regulations.
Ms. McPherson statecl the property is being rezoned in order to
allow an automobile wash establishment. Automobile wash
establishments are permitted as a special use in the C-2, General
Business zoning district. However, they are not permitted either
by special use or by right in the C-1, Local Business district.
The proposed use is consistent with the proposed zoning district
change.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed change from C-1, Local Business,
to C-2, General Business, will intensify the permitted and special
uses for the property. In general, the C-1, Local Business
district regulations, are intended to provide neighborhood services
^ to the local neighborhood. Those services include the following:
art shops; professional studios; convenience stores: grocery
stores; services such as laundry, dry cleaning, barber shops, small
repair shops, etc.; retail services including jewelry, hardware,
sporting goods, etc.; professional offices; health care services;
and Class I restaurants.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the rezoning request is approved,
additional uses will become permitted by right under the C-2
district regulations. Those uses include all uses permitted under
C-1, Local Business, and CR-1, General Office, district
regulations. In addition, office facilities; theaters, lodges,
and assembly facilities; commercial recreation, pool halls, bowling
alleys, health and fitness centers; Class I, II, and III
restaurants; vocational trade schools, business schools, colleges,
or universities; mortuaries; offices; day care centers; museums and
art galleries; department stores and variety stores; other retail,
wholesale, or service activities which deal directly with the
customer; hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes, and homes
for the elderly; liquor stores selling packaged goods; banks; and
sexually oriented businesses would also be permitted.
Ms. McPherson stated the use change by the C-2 district rezoning
would intensify the uses, and the uses would become more city-wide
versus neighborhood-oriented. Many of the permitted uses under the
C-2 zoning district regulations would be eliminated by the fact
� that the property is not be large enough to accommodate some of the
��
PLANNING CONIIdII88ION MEETING� IRAY 13, 1992 PAGE 12
uses permitted by right. However, the impact is greater than the
original intent of the C-1 district.
Ms. McPherson stated the intersection of East River Road and
Fairmont Street is not a controlled intersection; therefore,
traffic could become a problem if the use was to intensify and
traffic conflicts could increase. There is not adequate room on
the property to provide appropriate buffering between the adjacent
residential properties to the west and south and the proposed C-2
uses.
Ms. McPherson stated most of the C-2 districts in the City are
located at major intersections such as University Avenue and
Osborne Road or Highway 65 and Osborne Road. The C-1 district in
this case is correctly placed in a predominantly residential area.
Ms. McPherson stated the parcel does meet the minimum lot area,
lot width, and maximum lot coverage requirements f.or the C-2,
General Business district regulations. Five variances would need
to be granted to bring the property into compliance with the C-2
zoning district regulations:
1. Reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 17 feet.
^ 2. Reduce the setback adjacent to a residential district
from 50 feet to 17 and 15 feet.
3. Reduce the parking setback from the public right-of-way
from 20 feet to 2 and 3 feet.
4. Reduce the parking setback from the rear lot line from
5 feet to 0 feet.
5. Reduce the parking setback from the building from 5 feet
to 0 feet.
Ms. McPherson stated the location of the car wash would not meet
the setback requirement adjacent to a residential district. If
the rezoning request is approved, the petitioner will be required
to apply for and receive a variance to construct the car wash in
its proposed location. Also at that time, the petitioner should
apply for variances to correct any nonconforming conditions which
cannot be corrected.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the rezoning request fails to meet
two of the three criteria for evaluating each rezoning request,
staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of
the request to rezone the property from C-1, Local Business, to C-
2, General Business. If the Commission chooses to recommend
^ approval of the rezoning request, staff recommends the following
stipulations:
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 13. 1992 PAGE 13
�
1. The petitioner shall install six inch concrete curb
around the perimeter of the site.
2. The petitioner shall provide a masonry dumpster enclosure
with chain link fence and slatted gates.
3. The petitioner shall submit a landscape plan in
conformance with the C-2, General Business District code,
which shall be approved by staff prior to issuance of a
building permit.
4. The petitioner shall install underground irrigation.
5. The petitioner shall apply for sign permits for any wall
signage to be placed on the car wash.
6. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond of $5,000
to cover the outside improvements.
7. The petitioner shall apply for anci receive a variance to
correct any existing nonconforming conditions on the
property. The petitioner applying for a variance does
not require the City to approve the variance request,
^ SAecial Use Permit Request
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is requesting a special use
permit to allow the construction of a motor vehicle wash
establishment on the subject property. Car washes are not
permitted by right or by special use in the C-1 district
regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated it is necessary for the Planning Commission
and City Council to approve the rezoning request. If the rezoning
is not approved, construction of the motor vehicle wash
establishment will not be permitted.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed location of the car wash does
not interfere with general traffic patterns on the property. There
would be no traffic conflicts between patrons using the gas pumps
and patrons using the car wash. Traffic would be directed to the
west and the rear of the existing convenience store and directed
through the car wash to exit through the south driveway of the
parcel onto East River Road. The petitioner is proposing to
relocate the southern-most driveway to facilitate exiting from the
site. The petitioner should provide directional signage and submit
a signage plan to indicate how information will be conveyed to the
patrons of the convenience store and car wash in order to minimize
any other traffic conflicts which may occur on the property.
^ Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner will be required to submit a
variance application as the proposed location of the car wash does
PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETINa. MAY 13. 1992 PAaE 14
not meet the setback requirement of 50 feet from an adjacent
residential district. There are also additional other items which
do not comply with the C-2 zoning district regulations. These
items should be corrected or a variance applied for and granted.
Ms. McPherson stated that while the location of the proposed car
wash does not conflict with traffic on site, it does promote
additional traffic along the common boundaries adjacent to the
residential district. Again, there is not adequate buffering
between the proposed traffic area and the residential properties
on the west; therefore, this traffic increase would adversely
impact the residential property to the west.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the Planning
Commission recommend denial of the special use permit request as
the car wash is not permitted under the C-1 zoning district
regulations.
Ms. McPherson stated that if the Planning Commission chooses to
recommend approval of the special use permit request, staff
recommends the following two stipulations:
1. Rezoning request, ZOA #92-03 shall be approved.
� 2. The petitioner shall submit a signage plan showing the
type and location of signage directing traffic on site.
Mr. Don Kisch stated the proposed car wash is a roll-over car wash
similar to those that a lot of service stations are installing, and
these car washes do not create any parking problems.
Mr. Kisch stated he purchased this property about one year ago and
has been cleaning it up. The property was a mess. This is a hard
piece of property to work with. He stated the convenience
store/car wash combination seems to work well together. Parking
is not a problem; it is the stacking of cars. On this property,
he can stack 5-6 cars�behind the building, so it would not be a
problem.
Mr. Risch stated the biggest problem is the westerly lot line which
is the closest to the residential neighbors. On the southerly lot
line where he will have a 15 foot setback, that house is further
south, about 40-50 feet from the existing lot line. The fence in
the back is in poor shape, and he would like to tear that fence out
and put in new fence and curbing.
Mr. Kisch stated he is working to clean up this property, not only
for his benefit, but also for the City of Fridley. He plans to
spend a minimum of $150,000 on this project and to bring the
property up to code. He has gutted the store and remodeled the
inside. He wants to make it a more viable and profitable
^ operation.
PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETINa. MAY 13, 1992 PAGE 15
Mr. Risch stated that in reviewing the C-1, Local Business,
regulations, it permits garages which could mean 2-3 bays of auto
mechanics. The car wash is much less of an eyesore than the City
could end up with that type of garage or service station/ repair
garage which is a permitted use in the C-1 district.
Mr. Kisch stated he would also like to check with Anoka County
about how much property will be taken for the widening of East
River Road.
Mr. Saba stated that when these codes were written, this type of
car wash was unheard of. These car washes are smaller and are
quiet operations.
Mr. Betzold stated he would be in favor of asking staff to review
the code again to see if there is any way to amend the C-1 district
regulations to include this type of car wash which is different
from the regular size car wash. Rezoning is a major step, and he
would not like to rezone the property and have the situation where
a new owner in the future takes advantage of the C-2 zoning. They
need to protect the residential neighborhood.
Ms. Dacy suggested that the Commission might want to deny the
rezoning request and table the special use permit. Staff would
^ then inventory the existing C-1 areas and bring back a map showing
those areas. Staff already has a list of car washes which are all
in the C-2 zone. Secondly, staff could contact adjacent
communities to see if other zoning ordinances recognize this type
of car wash as a typical neighborhood-intended use. She would
caution the Commission that despite the fact that there are no
residents at the meeting, that does not prevent complaints about
the car wash in the future.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearings.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARINGB CLOSED AT 9:35 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend to City
Council denial of Rezoning Request, ZOA #92-03, by Don Kisch, to
rezone from C-1, Local Business, to C-2, General Business, on
Tracts A and B, Registered Land Survey No. 125, generally located
at 8100 East River Road N.E.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DLCLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to table indefinitely,
with the consent of the petitioner, Special Use Pernait, SP #92-03,
^ by Don Kisch, with the proviso that the petitioner can put the item
back on the agenda at any time.
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 13. 1992 PAaB 16
,�
IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTING AYB, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECI,ARED
T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend that the
City Council review the C-1, Local Business, zoning district
ordinance to consider the possibility of including the roll-over
type car wash as a permitted use in the C-1 zoning district with
a special use permit.
IIPON A VOICE VOTEi ALL VOTING� AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOIIBL3C.
6. RECEIVE APRIL 6. 1992, PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the April 6,
1992, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
7. RECEIVE APRIL 9. 1992. HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
�...� MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the April
9, 1992, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIN(� AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
8. RECEIVE APRIL 21� 1992. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
OTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the April
21, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
9. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. 1992 Park Clean-Up Day Pilot Program
Mr. Saba stated he would like to commend the Parks & Recreation
Commission for a job well done in sponsoring the Park Clean-Up Day
Pilot Program on April 25, 1992. Not only were four parks cleaned,
it also created some civic pride in our City�s parks, especially
by those groups who did the work. .
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to congratulate the
Parks & Recreation Commission on the success of the 1992 Park
'� Clean-Up Day Pilot Program held on April 25, 1992.
�
i�
�1
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. MAY 13. 1992 PAG$ 17
IIPON A VOICE VOTTs� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
T8E MOTION CARRIED �NANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the motion carried and the May 13, 1992, Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Res ctfully s mitted,
�����
L Saba
Recording Secretary