PL 12/08/1993 - 30782�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CO1�II88ION MLETING� DECEMBER 8� 1993
___.._______.._,._________.._________..__.._....____..__-___.._.,_...._,...,...___
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the December 8, 1993, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Preseht: Dave Newman, Dean Saba, Diane Savage,
Brad Sielaff, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick
.Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Gene & Louise Owczarzak, ELO Engineering
Howard Jacobson, Metro Building Systems
APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 17. 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to approve the November
^ 17, 1993, Planning Commission minutes.
Mr. Saba stated that the following corrections should made to the
first page of the minutes: Under "Call to Order", ��Chairperson
Betzold" should be changed to "Vice-Chairperson Kondrick"; and
under "Approval of October 27, 1993, Planning Commission Minutes",
"Chairperson Newman should be changed to "Vice-Chairperson
Kondrick".
Mr. Sielaff stated that on page 6, third paragraph, fifth line, he
would like the last sentence to read: "He is not necessarilv an
advocate of banking..."
IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWM�iN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE MINIITES APPROVED AB AMENDED.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#93-16. BY E. R. OWCZARZAK INVESTMENT:
Per Section 205.18.03.C.(4) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
an increase in lot coverage from 40� maximum to 49.9�, to
allow construction of a building expansion on Lots 3 and 4,
Block 3, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, generally located
at 7770 Ranchers Road N.E.
MOTIOPT by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
�
� PLANNING CONIIwII88ION MEETING. D$C$MBER 8, 1993 PAaE 2
�"1
IIPON A VOICB VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel is located at the
intersection of 77th Way and Ranchers Road. The parcel is zoned
M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the surrounding parcels. Located on
the property is a single story masonry building used for
manufacturing and warehousing.
Ms. McPherson stated this parcel has received variances in the past
to increase the lot coverage over 40�. In 1983, the City granted
a variance to increase the lot coverage to 45.5�a. In 1987, the
City granted a second variance to increase the lot coverage to
46.50. In 1988, the petitioner applied for a third variance to
increase the lot coverage to 49.5�. In addition to the increase
in lot coverage, four other variances were also requested:
1. To reduce the hard surface setback from the building and
lot line;
2. To reduce the width of a one-driving aisle;
3. To reduce the number of parking spaces; and
4. To reduce the side yard setback.
Ms. McPherson stated the 1988 variance request was denied by the
City Council.
Ms. McPherson stated that since the petitioner's request in 1988,
the City has changed the Zoning Code to allow a special use permit
to increase the lot coverage by a maximum of 10� over the limit
stated in the Zoning Code. This section of the code, Section
205.18.03.C.(4).(a).(b), has two standards in determin'ing the
effect of the increase in lot coverage:
1. For existing developed properties, the total amount of
existing hard surface area shall be evaluated to
determine whether a reduction in the total building and
parking coverage can be achievedo
2. The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance
requirements are met, including, but not limited to,
parking, storm water management, and landscaping.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing two expansion
areas. The first expansion area is located in the rear yard in an
area where hard surface currently exists. This area is proposed
to be used for warehouse space. The second area, which will also
^ be used for warehousing, is located in the front yard where there
is currently green space. There would be an increase in the amount
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa� DECEMBER 8, 1993 PAGE 3
of hard surface area of 1,041 square feet as a result of the second
expansion area. Because of this additional expansion area,
Standard #1 is not met by the petitioner's request.
Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to increasing the lot
coverage, the petitioner also needs to receive approval of
variances to bring the proposed expansion areas and existing
building into conformance. These variances are:
1. A reduction in the hard surface setback from the main
building from 5 feet �0 0 feet;
2. A reduction in the hard surface setback from the lot line
from 5 feet to 0 feet;
3. A reduction in the width of a one-way driving aisle from
18 feet to 10 feet;
4. A reduction in the side yard setback from 30 feet to 25
feet; and
5. A reduction i.n the number of parking stalls from 71 to
70.
,�—� Ms. McPherson stated the number of required parking stalls was
calculated based on the current use of the building using the
office, manufacturing, and warehouse ratios. This totals a
required number of spaces of 71. There are currently 70 spaces on
the site for parking. Currently, 69�a of the building is used for
warehousing which has a parking ratio of one space for every 2,000
square feet of building. If the use should change in the future,
there may be an increase in the number of required parking spaces.
Reoccupancy of the building would need to be closely monitored to
ensure that the number of parking spaces is not in excess of what
is provided on site.
Ms. McPherson stated that if they use the speculative building
ratio of one space for every 500 square feet of building area, the
required number of spaces would be 122. Even though the site is
only one parking space short of the requirement, authorizing the
expansion of the building would be contrary to the intent of the
ordinance. The petitioner does have adequate use of the property
via the granting of the previous variances which has increased the
lot coverage to 46.5�. Allowing the increase to 49.9% would be in
contradiction to standard #2 which requires the petitioner to meet
all other ordinance requirements including parking, storna water
management, and landscaping.
Ms. McPherson stated the Engineering Department has requested that
the petitioner submit a drainage plan. Based on the plan submitted
i"'� by the petitioner, it is unclear whether the current storm water
� PLANNING COMMISBION MEBTING� DECEMHER 8, 1993 PAG$ 4
system would be able to handle the additional runoff from the
proposed expansion of the office area.
Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission will review the
variances prior to review by the City Council. Granting the
special use permit should be contingent upon approval of the
variances.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the petitioner cannot meet the
standards set forth in the zoning district requirements without
the variances, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend denial of the special use permit to increase the maximum
lot coverage to 49.9�. However, if the Commission chooses to
recommend approval, staff recommends the following two
stipulations:
1.
2.
The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan
to the Engineering Department for review prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
Variance request, VAR #93-34, shall be approved.
Mr. Sielaff stated that if the building is sold to another business
that was no longer mainly warehouse, would the new owner need a
/"'�, variance for parking?
r"'�
Ms. McPherson stated it is possible that another use in that
building could generate the need for more parking spaces. If that
happened and the City determined that 122 spades would be required,
then the new owner would have to request a variance.
Mr. Newman stated it appears that the variances for the hard
surface setback from the main building and from the lot line
(variances #1 and #2) and the reduction in the number of parking
stalls (variance #5) are for existing conditions. The only new
variances that are being requested as a result of the expansion
are the reduction in the width of the one-way driving aisle and
the reduction in the side yard setback.
Ms. McPherson stated that is correct.
Ms. Louise Owczarzak, Vice President of ELO Engineering, stated
she can understand the Conunission's concern about parking spaces.
She stated she has brought information and pictures of the new
machines they will be purchasing. She stated she would also like
to explain to the Commission why they need more building space but
not more parking spaces. She stated the new machine (Finn Power)
will replace five of their existing machines (2 Shears and 3
Wiedemans). The Finn Power requires 1,600 square feet which is
the same amount of space as that for the three Wiedemans. The two
Shears take up 800 square feet, so they will have 800 square feet
left over which they need for storage,
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. DECEMB$R 8. 1993 PAaE 5
Ms. Owczarzak stated that their suppliers need a 10� reduction in
costs, and the only way they can do that is to update their
equipment. The efficiency of the new machine will give their
customers the 10o reduction they need. With the purchase of the
Finn Power, they will need five less people. She stated they have
also purchased a Motoman which will replace three welders, but
since they need one person to run the Motoman, that is really only
two less people. So, they will lose a total of seven employees
which is a reduction in seven parking spaces.
Ms. Owczarzak stated that in the office, they are setting up home
computers, so they will have one person working at home and
possibly one more. That is a reduction of another parking stall.
So, they really need the increase in space but not the parking
stalls.
Ms. Owczarzak stated she can�also understand the Commission's
concern about them selling the building to someone else fn the
future. When they added onto their building in 1983, they made
the commitment that this is as big as they wanted the business to
get and this is where they wanted to stay. They have three sons
who will be taking over the business, and they have no plans to
sell the building or the business in the near future.
�
Ms. Savage asked why the petitioner requested the increase in lot
coverage in 1988e
Ms. Owczarzak stated that it was basically for the same reason.
They were going to buy more Wiedemans and more welders, but the
updates they needed were not yet up and running like they are now.
Also, at that time, they were not planning to reduce the number of
employees.
Mr. Newman asked the approximate cost of the new machinery.
Ms. Owczarzak stated they will be investing about $2 million in
new machinery.
Mr. Oquist stated that 69% of the building is used for warehouse.
Is that for finished parts?
Ms. Owczarzak stated, yes. She stated their customers do not
warehouse anything. The customers will place an order but may only
take a portion of that order at one time but expect the rest of the
order to be readye
Mr. Oqufst asked if there is any way the petitioners can use some
of the warehouse space for the new machines.
�
n PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. DECEMBER �. 1993 PAGB 6
Mr. Owczarzak stated they need all the warehouse space they can
get. They just spent about $80,000 for shelving units so they can
stack the skids.
Mr. Sielaff asked what the petitioners will do if they need more
warehouse space.
Mr. Owczarzak stated they currently lease 6,000 square feet off
site for the finished product. That is also quite costly.
Mr. Owczarzak stated the staff report stated that the second
expansion area is located in the front and will be used for office.
He stated that might have been a misunderstanding. He stated there
will not be an increase in office space.
Mr. Sielaff asked about the number of employees.
Mr. Owczarzak stated they have 82 employees who work two shifts
for four 10 hour dayse He stated that at one time they had
problems with their employees parking in the street; but when the
employees were told they could not park there, there have not been
any more problems. They have enough parking spaces for all their
employees. When they get their new equipment, the need for parking
spaces will be reduced.
Mr. Owczarzak stated they will be working with the contractor to
see if they can meet some of these variances.
Mr. Howard Jacobson, Metro Building Systems, stated they have not
yet discussed the drainage or the outside construction. They first
wanted to see if the City would approve the increase in lot
coverage before going into depth with planning as far as the
variances.
Mr. Owczarzalc stated he believed their building has more green
space and better landscaping than most of the other buildings in
their block. They have no parking in front of their building,
while other buildings do have parking in front. They will not be
disturbing the landscaping at all. Most of the construction will
be in the back and parking lot side.
Mr. Oquist encouraged the petitioners to look at each variance with
the idea of trying to avoid as many variances as possible.
Mr. Owczarzak stated it is quite possible that they can eliminate
some of the variances. They will work with the contractor.
Mr. Owczarzak stated that the building he is adding onto is the
original building that he owned. At one time, the building on the
corner was owned by Metric Screw. When he needed more room, he
!�'� purchased the building on the corner and the City allowed the two
^ PLANNINa COMMI86ION MESTING. DECEMHER 8, 1993 PAGB 7
lots to be joined and the buildings connected. That was the reason
for a lot of the previous variances.
Mr. Jacobson stated this is the last effort the petitioner can make
as far as an expansion. The only other way to expand would be to
add a second story for office. It seems logical to fill in the
corners and maximize the building structure.
OTIDId by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN� AYE� CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTIOIJ CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:12 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated he did not see anything wrong with the special
use permit request for the increase in lot coverage with the
stipulations recommended by staff. There is a good possibility
that some of the variances can be eliminated and the drainage
worked out.
Mr. Saba stated he has been to sheet metal facilities in the past,
so he knows about the problems the petitioners are facing. He
stated there is a lot of competition in this industry right now.
The survivors are the ones who are able to produce competitive
prices, and that is done by updating equipment. The petitioners
are making a large investment and a long term investment in the
City of Fridley. He is in favor of the special use permit request.
Ms. Savage stated she is generally in favor of approving the
increase in lot coverage. She hopes the petitioners will do
whatever they can to eliminate the need for as many variances as
possible. She stated the petitioners still have to go before the
Appeals Commission and the City Council, so it will be to their
advantage to try to conform to the ordinance as much as possible.
Mr. Sielaff stated he is also in favor of eliminating as many
variances as possible.
Ms. Modig stated she can see understand why the petitioners have
not made firm construction plans until they find out whether they
will get the special use permit. She stated the petitioners seem
very willing to try to eliminate as many variances as possiblea
Mr. Saba stated that in some respects, this request almost has to
be looked at as planned unit development and looked at individ-
ually. This is a heavy industrial area with big buildings. He
believed the City should do whatever it can to help some of these
businesses to survive in today's economy.
Mr. Newman stated this is a good example of the dilemma that staff
� faces on a routine basis in a mature city. More and more of the
problems they are going to be facing will be of this nature of
PLANNINa COMMISSION ME$TING. DECEMHER 8, 1993 PAGE 8
expansion and renovation. He appreciated the precedent this could
set. He agreed with the rest of the Commissioners. He stated the
amount of hard surface area is only being increased by less than
1� of the total lot. Some of the variances appear to be;,existing
already, and some may be able to be worked out. The way the
addition has been designed, there really is not any� further
encroachment of side yard setbacks by the building, but r�ther the
filling in of building indentations. These are citizen¢ in the
community who want to invest $2 million to make their busiriess more
competitive. As the City struggles with the problems in this
community, it needs to encourage this type of activity even more.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend to City
Council approval of special use permit, SP #93-16, hy E. R.
Owczarzak Investment, per Section 205.18.03.C.(4) of the Fridley
City Code, to allow an increase in lot coverage from 40o maximum
to 49.90, to allow construction of a building expansion on Lots 3
and 4, Block 3, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, generally
located at 7770 Ranchers Road N.E., with the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit a grading and drainage plan
to the Engineering Department for review prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
2. Variance request, VAR #93-34, shall be approved.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
1rIOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the variance request will go to the Appeals
Commission on December 14, and both the special use permit request
and the variance request will go to the Council sometime in
January.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING" AND CHAPTER 211 ENTITLED
"SUBDIVISION" TO AMEND THE PUBLIC HEAR,ING NOTIFICATION RADIUS:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLAR�D THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:20 P.M.
Ms. Dacy stated staff identified this item as one of its house-
keeping goals and objectives in 1993 for implementation in 1994.
Other communities have been using the 350 foot radius. When staff
researched the State Statues, they found 350 feet is required on
rezoning.
r"�
Ms. Dacy stated this ordinance amendment does two things:
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. DECEMBER 8, 1993 PAGE 9
1. It standardizes the notification radius consistent with
the radius in the State Statues.
2. It is good for the community in the sense that it
notifies a broader range of people in a neighborhood
about what is going on in their particular area.
Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of this proposed ordinance which affects
special use permits, variances, plats, and lot splits. Vacation
applications are not affected by this ordinance since vacations
can be handled administratively under the general auspices of the
City Charter.
There was no one in the audience regarding this ordinance
amendment.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARIN(� CLOSED AT 8:28 P.M.
,^, MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend
approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 205 of the Fridley City
Code entitled "Zoning" and Chapter 211 entitled "Subdivision" to
amend the public hearing notification radius to 350 feet.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE RECODIFYING THE FRIDLEY CITY
CODE, CHAPTER 205. ENTITLED "ZONING" BY ADDING 205.27 (0-4
WETLAND DISTRICT) AND RENUMBERING OFFICIAL TITLE AND SiJNIlKARY
205.28•
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED T8E
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:30 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the Commission discussed this ordinance at
its last meeting. This ordinance will allow the City to comply
with the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. Since that meeting, staff
has also received the Wetlands Composite Map for the Commission to
review.
Ms. McPherson stated staff has met with the wetland owners who are
^ affected by the areas identified on the map. On Monday, December
6, staff inet with owners within the Six Cities Watershed District.
� PLANNINa CONII�iIBBION MS�TING. DECEMBER 8. 1993 PAG$ 10
Three people attended that meeting. On Tuesday, December 7, staff
met with owners within the Rice Creek Watershed District. Eight
people attended that meeting. Both meetings went very well.
Ms. McPherson stated the meetings were designed as informational
meetings to explain the ramifications of the Wetland Conservation
Act and what ordinances the City is proposing at the local level.
Staff received some good suggestions from the owners which staff
will research. One owner asked if the City could certify, for
example, that the storm water basin on the owner's site would be
exempt under the Act. Staff will investigate that question and
determine whether that should be addressed in the ordinance. •
Ms. McPherson stated the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission
discussed the proposed ordinance at its Nov�mber 30, 1993, meeting.
The Commission asked some questions that staff is researching. One
question was what the ramifications would be if the City passed an
ordinance that said that there shall be no filling or development
of wetlands. The Commission's question was how would that position
affect the City legally The Commission also wanted to review the
composite map. Staff will respond to the Commission's concerns and
questions at their December 21, 1993, meeting.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending
�, Commission table any action on the ordinanc
1994, to give staff time to respond to the
raised by land owners and Commission members.
,�
that the Planning
e until January 12,
concerns and issues
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to continue the public
hearing for the 0-4 Wetlands ordinance to the January 12, 1994,
meetingo
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 4, 1993. HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Savage, to receive the
November 4, 1993, Human Resources Commission minutes. •
IIPON A VOIC13 VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
�lOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 23, 1993, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the
November 23, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
,�
�
PLANNINa COMMIBSION ME�TINa DECEMBER 8, 1993 PAGE 11
6. OTHER BUSINESS:
a. Updates
Ms. Dacy stated
asking for three
Pointe property,
planning process.
Lake Pointe
that the Planning Commission has been
month updates on the status of the Lake
the southwest quadrant, and a possible
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the Lake Pointe property,
the City has hired a marketing consultant. The HRA and
City Council are evaluating a direct mail brochure to
major companies, looking at potential signs to be placed
on the property, and looking at an overall marketing
program.
8outhwest Quadrant
Ms. Dacy stated that the HRA will be taking a closer look
at the southwest quadrant. Mr. & Mrs. Suh who own the
car wash, Burger King, and the commercial strip (6440
University Avenue) are requesting that the HRA acquire
their property at this time. That issue is now being
evaluated by the HRA and City Council.
Planninq Process
Ms. Dacy stated that at a Council conference meeting in
January 1994, the City Manager will be establishing a
goal setting session with the Council to plan for 1994
and 1995. She believed the issue will be discussed about
whether they should have a community-wide planning
process or if they want to focus on .one particular issue.
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 December 8, 1993, Planning Commission
meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Res ectfully s mitted,
�
Ly Saba
Recording Secretary