Loading...
PL 09/08/1993 - 30778�"1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNIATG COMMI88ION MELTI1dG, BEPTEMBER 8, 1993 ....________,._____________....__.,..___.,_.._..__________________.,______.._ CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Newman called the September 8, 1993, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff, LeRoy Oquist Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Couununity Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Steven Barg, Planning Assistant James Wold, 1425 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 11, 1993, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES° MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the August ^ 11, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPERSON NETSMAN DECLARED T88 MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #93-14, BY JAMES WOLD: Per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings, other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet on Lot 16, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, the same being 1425 Meadowmoor Drive N.E. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPBRBON NEAMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is located in the northeast corner of the City. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding parcels. Ms. McPherson stated that located on the property is a single family dwelling with an attached single car garage. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 24 ft. by 24 ft. detached accessory structure in the rear yard. The petitioner proposes to use the new � � PLANNIN�3 CONIl�+IIBBION MEETIN�3. SEPTEI�iBLR 8. 1993 PA(3B 2 accessory structure for the storage of an antique truck, a boat, a snowmobile, a motorcycle, and other miscellaneous materials currently being stored in the single car garage and off site. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed location of the new structure is well within the setback requirements and a utility easement located near the rear lot line. It does not exceed the lot coverage maximum of 250, and the adjacent properties will not be adversely impacted by the construction of the structure. Ms. McPherson stated the proposed accessory structure may not exceed 14 feet in height and may not be used for the conduct of a home occupation. Also, �he petitioner will be required to provide a hard surface driveway. Ms. McPherson staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: � 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by September 1, 1994. 3. The accessory structure may not exceed 14 feet in height. 4. The accessory structure may not be used to conduct a home occupation as defined in Section 205.03.34 of the Fridley Zoning Code. Mr. James Wold stated he is in agreement with the recommended stipulations. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYB� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 7s40 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City Council approval of special use permit, SP #93-14, by James Wold, per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow accessory buildings, other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet on Lot 16, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, the same being 1425 Meadowmoor Drive N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The accessory structure shall be architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling unit. 2. The petitioner shall provide a hard surface driveway by September 1, 1994. ^ PLANNIN�3 COMMI88ION MEBTING. SEPTEMBER 8. 1993 PAGE 3 3. The accessory structure may not exceed 14 feet in height. 4. The accessory structure may not be used to conduct a home occupation as defined in Section 205.03.34 of the Fridley Zoning Code. IIPON A VOICL VOTL, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIBD IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on September 27, 1993. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING TIF DISTRICT #13: Ms. Dacy stated State Statute requires the Planning Commission to review amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and pass a resolution confirming that the proposed project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Dacy stated that ECO Finishing, Inc., a plating and metal finishing manufacturer, is an offshoot of a plating company which is now located in St. Paul. ECO Finishing, Inc., is proposing to construct a 29, 000 sq. ft. building in the northwest corner of 51st � Way and Industrial Boulevard. In the Land Use Plan in the existing Comprehensive Plan, this area is identified as industrial, the zoning is industrial, and the use is industrial. Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the resolution confirming that the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Oquist stated that as a plating and metal finishing manufacturer, there could be some environmental concerns. Does the company have to adhere to environmental standards? Ms. Dacy stated that ECO Finishing, Inc., does have to obtain MPCA approvals for the disposal of waste. The Council is also very sensitive to this issue, especially when it comes to tax increment financing. Staff has spoken to the company about this issue, and they have assured staff that they can meet all MPCA requirements. She stated she will be again be meeting with company personnel and will re-emphasize this concern. Mr. Saba asked if the groundwater will be monitored in case of accidental spills. Ms. Dacy stated she is not aware of any groundwater contamination on this particular site, so she did not believe a monitoring well � will be required. The company is not proposing any below ground or above ground tanks. ^ PLANNINa COMNiISBION MEETING, BEPTEMBER 8, 1993 PAGB 4 Ms. McPherson stated that she has met with the City's Chief Building Official and the company's architect. All the neutralizing tanks and any collection for hazardous materials that are not able to be neutralized will all be stored inside the building in large concrete tanks. It is her understanding that everything will be self-contained within the building, and there are computerized monitoring devices to protect the workers. Mr. Sielaff stated that usually a Phase I audit is reguired by the financial institution. Ms. Dacy stated the company has applied for an SBA loan, and she will check to see if a Phase I audit is required. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the resolution confirming that the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and approving the creation of Tax Increment District No. 13. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEAMADT DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 3. RECEIVE JULY 20. 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY �, COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the July 20, 1993, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE AUGUST 5, 1993. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINLTTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 5, 1993, Human Resources Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. RECEIVE AUGUST 17. 1993, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the August 17, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYS, CHAIRPERSON NEi�MAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLYe � PLANNING COMMIBBION MELTING. SEPTEMBSR 8, 1993 PAGE 5 6. RECEIVE AUGUST 17. 1993. ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 17, 1993, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICT VOTE, ALL VOTINt,� AYE, CHAIRP8R801d NEWM�IN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 7. RECEIVE AUGUST 31. 1993. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the August 31, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLAR�D T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 8. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Ordinance Amendment Amortizing Aion-Paved Driveways Mr. Barg stated that on June 23, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on an ordinance amendment which would require that all parking on residential properties occur on �"� hard surface parking areas. At that meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment, but also discussed two other issues: �, (1) How would this amendment affect people who do not have hard surface parking areas? The Commission requested staff to discuss with the City Attorney how this ordinance amendment would affect those people who do not have hard surface parking areas. (2) The Commission was concerned about the maximum amount of pavement that should be allowed in the front yard. Mr. Barg stated the Commission had received a letter from a resident who was concerned about a neighbor who was paving large portions of his front yard. At this time, the City has no percentage requirements on how much pavement is allowed. Mr. Barg stated the City Council conducted a public hearing on August 3, 1993, at which the Council indicated a desire to proceed with this ordinance amendment. The Council discussed the two issues of concern expressed by the Commission. Staff had added a line for consideration based on conversations with the City Prosecutor which basically said that if a person did � PLANNING CON�II88ION MEETING. 88PTEMB�R 8, 1993 PAGE 6 not have a hard surface parking that all parking must occur on the existing parking area. However, the Council felt they should get rid of all non-hard surface driveways. Mr. Barg stated that currently, the City does try to do that through the following methods: (1) Through some land use requests, a stipulation is made requiring a hard surface parking area. (2) A letter is sent out every year encouraging people to pave their driveways utilizing the good bid during City street projects. Mr. Barg stated the Council has requested staff and the Planning Commission to discuss the idea of setting a date when all non-surface driveways must be paved. Mr. Barg stated the Council also requested that the Planning Commission discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to limit the amount of pavement in the front yard. Mr. Barg stated there are approximately 350 property owners who currently do not have hard surface parking areas. He ,� stated staff has put together a list of rationale for hard surface driveways. This list was included in the agenda materials. Staff also included the costs for paving and a survey of actions by other communities on hard surface parking. Mr. Barg stated that regarding the maximum paved parking area, staff has two rationale: (1) Overpaving creates an unsightly and somewhat commercial appearance; and (2) The additional runoff creates a burden for the storm sewer system. Mr. Barg stated staff has contacted other communities and looked at existing properties to see how they would be affected. Mr. Barg stated staff is.recommending the Commission recommend that the Council authorize staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment process for these two issues as follows: 1. Require all driveways to be paved. Should the Planning Commission and City Council wish to pursue this ordinance amendment, staff proposes to work with the City Attorney to identify and address any legal issues pertaining to this matter. In addition, staff currently has a list of all properties without paved driveways and would �� strongly recommend that a meeting be conducted with these affected homeowners prior to proceeding with �.,.� PLANNINa CONIlbII88ION MEETING. 88PTEMHER 8. 1993 PAGB 7 the ordinance process. Also, a compliance time period will need to be established. 2. Pursue ordinance amendment requiring 30� maximum lot coverage of hard surface parking in the front yard. Mr. Oquist stated he is in favor of requiring hard surface driveways, but his main concern is for those people who simply cannot afford a hard surface driveway, specifically those people on fixed income. How can the City enforce people to pave when they cannot afford it? Mr. Newman stated that at one time, there was some discussion about whether or not the City could assess the property owner for driveway improvements. Has the City ever done that? Ms. McPherson stated, no, the money has to be up front, and all the money goes into an escrow account. Mr. Oquist stated they also have to first identify what is "hard surface". Some people have brick and cobblestone driveways. Aesthetically, if well maintained, these driveways look very nice; however, from a runoff standpoint, there are � gaps between the bricks and the pollutants are going to run into the ground. Mr. Oquist asked if it would be possible to require a hard surface driveway at the time the house is sold. Ms. Dacy stated that is really a kind of "truth-in-sale" ordinance. Staff plans to evaluate that ordinance next year as part of the housing program. It could be done that way; but, again, it is an ordinance process and staff would have to make pre and post inspections. That involves 300-500 sales a year, and if staff is inspecting for dri.veways, they should be inspecting for other items also. Mr. Newman stated the City is aware of a house sale through the water billing process. If the City filed an ordinance against the properties of the 350 homeowners who have unpaved driveways, is it possible to flag these properties through the water billing process so that when there is a change in ownership, staff would just have to do a followup inspection to make sure the property is in compliance? Mr. Saba asked if CDBG monies could be used to defray some of the costs for paving driveways for those people who cannot afford the cost. �..� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa. BEPTEMBER 8. 1993 PAGE 8 Ms. Dacy stated CDBG monies can be used for rehab, but there is the question of whether driveway paving is considered rehab. There is also a shortage in CDBG funds. Mr. Newman stated that even though it is a good idea to get rid of hard surface driveways, he would have a hard time telling a homeowner who is on a fixed income that he/she must spend "x" amount of dollars to pave his/her driveway, especially when there are other maintenance issues such as painting the house. NIr. Newman stated staff might have to look at the issue that if a homeowner is willing to put in a hard surface driveway, staff will have to look at the issue of whether or not the City can assess the homeowner. Also, the HRA might want to consider some low interest loans for driveways as part of the housing rehab program. Mr. Sielaff stated it is also an issue of what brings more value to the property. He believed the way to handle the situation is through the sale, because that gives the seller an incentive to improve the driveway because it can be included in the price of the house. ,� Mr. Saba stated the key issue is that some people are going to be hurt by this kind of requirement and somehow the City has to help those individuals who need help. Mr. Oquist stated that he is in favor of hard surface driveways, but if they are going to require all driveways to be hard surface, then they must have good reasons for requiring them. Legally, can the City require driveways to be hard surfaced? Mr. ATewman stated he believed they cou�d if the requirement is amortized over a certain period of time. Mr. Saba stated it would be good to know,how many of these 350 residential homes are rental properties. � Mr. Newman stated that since three of the Planning Commission members are absent and they cannot be sure of a consensus, maybe any action should be continued until some of the members can be a part of this discussion. Mr. Sielaff stated he would like to have more information. If income is an issue, he would like some information on whether some of these homeowners are on fixed incomes and how many have extremely long driveways. Total cost is going to be a big issue. �� �..� PLANNING COMMI88ION MLETING. SEPTEMBER 8. 1993 PAdE 9 Ms. McPherson stated staff will try to get information on how many properties are rental/non-owner occupied properties and information on those homeowners who are on fixed incomes. Staff can also look at the addresses of 4-5 properties with long driveways. Mr. Barg stated staff can call other communities to find out what they accept for "hard surface". Mr. Barg stated staff will also research the question of whether the City can assess the cost or if there could be any assistance for those people who need it. Mr. Newman asked how the Commission members felt about staff's recommendation for 30% maximum lot coverage of hard surface parking in the front yard. Mr. Oquist stated he had no objection to the 30k limit. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table further discussion until the next meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWM�iN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Newman stated that it might be appropriate for staff, when reviewing land use requests or other items, to use its discretion in adding stipulations requiring certain maintenance items. b. Update Regarding Planning Issues Mr. Newman stated that included in the agenda for the Commission's information was a memo dated September 3, 1993, from Barbara Dacy regarding "Status Report on Priority Projects". ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman declared the motion carried and the September 8, 1993, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully s bmitted, e Ly Saba Reco ding Secretary /"�