Loading...
PL 08/24/1994 - 30794;.�`1 _ �.�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMI83ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 24, 1994 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the August 24, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Donald and Carol Dickison, Custom Mechanical Lisa and Doug LeMay, Family Animal Hospital Bob Steiner, Essewee IWV Company Tom LaNasa, Essewee IWV Company Gary Maciej, Quality Cleaning Inc. APPROVAL OF AUGUST 10 1994, PLANNIATG COMMI5SION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the August 10, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED T$E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. l. PUBLIC HEARING: COIdSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #94-09, BY GARY MACIEJ: Pursuant to stipulation #1 of a previous special use permit request, SP #88-12, specifically the stipulation which states: "The petitioner agrees that any future re-use of the building is subject to finding, through the special use permit process, that the re-use would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." The request would allow the building to be occupied by a cleaning service. The request is for Lots 27 and 28, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, the same being 5973 - 3rd Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. � Mr. Hickok stated the special use request is by Gary Maciej and Donald Dickison. Mr. Dickison is the owner of the complex at � 5973 Third Street N.E at the corner of the intersection of 3rd �� k.� PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 24, 1994 PAGE 2 Street and 60th Avenue. The request is to allow the re-use of the property for a commercial enterprise in the S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood District, which requires that all non-residential uses revert back to single family dwellings. Mr. Hickok stated, in 1978, the City rezoned the property bordered by 61st on the north, University Avenue on the east, 57th Avenue on the south, and Main Street on the west. This district was designed around an ordinance that was finally adopted in 1978 that spoke to the existing uses in the district. There was a mix of single family residential, some multi-family residential, and four commercial uses. The ordinance was drafted in a way that did not have provisions for a special use permit; therefore, staff had to evaluate how to handle this analysis. There were a series of special use permit requests in 1985, 1987, and two in 1988. In 1988, Mr. Dickison purchased the building for a mechanical contracting office. There was much discussion at that time. The minutes of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings from that time are provided for the members' information. There was much discussion at that time about the intent of the ordinance. The S-1 district stated the primary purpose for that district is: 1. To change the present "legal non-conforming use" status of the residential dwelling in the neighborhood to a "conforming use" status. 2. To re-establish the residential character of `the neighborhood. 3. To protect the property rights of all present land owners as much as possible while promoting the residential development of the neighborhood. 4. To establish a zoning mechanism for the neighborhood that will encourage residential investment and development in Hyde Park. Mr. Hickok stated the special use request was reviewed with some difficulty because the text does not clearly state that a special use permit is appropriate for this district. Staff asked the city attorney to review and provide feedback with the direction staff could go with this request. The staff report indicates three alternatives for solution to this request: 1. The City could table action on the item pending amendment of the S-1 district to include special use permit provisions for the re-use of the commercial entities such as Custom _ ,.� Mechanical . :� ^, PLANNING CO1biMI33ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 24, 1994 PAGE 3 2. The City could deny the request based on the intent of the ordinance to re-establish the residential character of the neighborhood. 3. The City could approve a special use permit based on the 1988 Custom Mechanical stipulation requiring a special use permit for any re-use of the building to assure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated, in discussion with the attorney, he indicated that these three options are the choices of course of action that the City could take. Based on the discussion, staff would like to point out that this is the opportunity for the Commission to allow this district to revert back to residential. This would mean denial of the request and the site could be re-used as a residential site. Re-use of this building is for a cleaning business and a computer typing and graphic business. The impact would be the same if not less than Custom Mechanical. Mr. Hickok stated the site borders the western edge of University Avenue and there is a slip ramp at 60th Avenue for southbound traffic to exit from University Avenue. The site involves the property owned by Mr. Dickison and some adjacent property to the north which is leased from the City which is also being considered. In 1988 when Mr. Dickison applied for the special use permit, a number of stipulations wer.e included. The building was cleaned up in the process, there was new curb and gutter around the perimeter of the parking lot, there were stipulations regarding parking on site, and there were specific requirements for landscaping. If the lot were to return to single family use, there would be a 13,000 square foot lot. Another option would be to reroute the slip ramp so their could be two single family lots in this area. The ramp was provided for traffic to come into the area without going through a residential neighborhood. Mr. Oquist stated in the recommendations state staff will provide an update of the city attorney's opinion and a recommendation. Mr. Hickok stated the city attorney's opinion was that staff were right on target with the three options. Staff's recommendation is to tell you that, if it your wish to return this area back to a residential district, this is the time to do so. Mr. Newman asked if staff had talked to the attorney about the second option and what the consequences are if we do that. Mr. Hickok stated he did not. A written opinion will be requested. There would be consequences with denial of the � special use permit. It was administrative policy in reviewing the minutes that concluded with the granting of a special use permit of this area. If Commission's and City Council wish for � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGUBT 24, 1994 PAGE 4 this to continue, the City Attorney would recommend modifying the code accordingly. Mr. Newman stated it seems the intent was that commercial use would continue as long as they did not intensify the use. In 1988, the stipulations requested the owner make improvements to the property which the petitioner has done. It seems there would be problems now with a different tenant, improvements having been made, no damage to the building, and it seems there could be a taking issue if the permit were denied. Mr. Hickok stated this is certainly something to discuss. Mr. Oquist stated there was a statement in the 1978 minutes which states a special zoning district would allow special uses to remain but they could not expand nor could their any new multiple or commercial users. This request is suggesting two tenants. Is this multiple? Does this apply? Mr. Hickok stated he believed the multiple in that statement meant multi-family residential. Mr. Maciej stated his biggest concern is that everything goes '1 through so he knows where he stands 5 to 10 years down the road. With the three options, he could end up tearing down the building and creating lots. In the area, the telephone company is there and he does not see that going back to a residential use. He finds that confusing. It is almost like it should be rezoned back to commercial. The houses in that area are quite old. Mr. Newman asked how many employees does Custom Mechanical have on site. Mr. Dickison stated there are none at this time. He had up to five employees when the business was in operation. Mr. Oquist asked if he had a timetable as to when they wanted this to happen. Mr. Maciej stated they would like to proceed as of September 19. Mr. Dickison stated the closing is set for September 30 based on the City Council's approval. Mr. Kondrick asked how many parking spots are there. Mr. Dickison stated there are nine parking spaces. All the work for the parking lot were done according to the stipulations. '� Mr. Hickok stated there are four other commercial uses there. When considering this request and as a possible consequence, he � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIaIIBT 24, 1994 PAGE 5 encouraged members to think of continued use or re-use of those sites as well. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMArT DECLARED TSE MOTION CARRZED AND T8E PIIBLIC HEARING CL03ED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated he was confused because the City has issued four special use permits. He was not sure there was the same discussions with the other requests. Mr. Hickok stated there appears to have been a past administrative decision to handle each request on a case-by-case basis to assure compatibility in the uses. This is not provided €or in the ordinance. Mr. Newman stated there is a mechanism where the City can be sure the use does not change and that is through the ordinance. Mr. Saba stated he questioned the cleaning service and wondered if there would be cleaning chemicals stored and/or used in the � building. He asks because this seems to be the lightest use for commercial one can get. Mr. Maciej stated there would be storing industrial floor stripper, wax, and bathroom cleaners at the building. There would be no hazardous materials. He can provide safety data sheets for all supplies. They do not store these in bulk. Most are biodegradable. They do not use anything that cannot go down the regular drains. Mr. Kondrick stated the property looks nice, is well taken care of and the building well cared for. The property is nicely maintained. It is a peculiar location with the angular entrance as it is, but he did not think it was detrimental to the area. Mr. Saba stated he was concerned about the City's ability to pick and choose which business can go there. He did not see this particular facility as going against the character of the neighborhood, but there are other uses in that area that are not compatible. He did not know how they would legislate that in the ordinance. They need to go back and look at the S-1 and see what is to stay and what is not permitted. In this case, he would be inclined to recommend approval of the special use permit as long as the use stays the same. Mr. Kondrick asked what about considering that we review this. We have asked them to come before us to review this every year or ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 24, 1994 PAGE 6 every two years to check on it to make sure it is in compliance with the zoning area. Mr. Newman stated the period for review is when the use changes. He would leave that in place and recommend to the City Council. In the meantime, staff can develop some standards or basis for special use in the S-1 district so we have a guide the next time. That gives the owner the assurance in the future that there is something finite to look to. Mr. Saba stated he is still concerned about the character of the neighborhood with the businesses that are there now. Mr. Kondrick stated he drove through there, and there are some uses that perhaps should not be there. But this business he would not mind being there. Mr. Oquist stated he agreed with the recommendation presented by Mr. Newman, but as part of the ordinance, business can be defined that will be allowed in the S-1 area and those that are not allowed. Identify those in some manner. This would allow possibly not requiring a special use permit if they fall within ,'""� that category. This needs some clarification. Mr. Newman stated most zoning codes indicate the uses for a special use permit. He would direct staff to look at amending this ordinance for future applications and make this as a condition that when the use changes, future re-use would be subject to a special use permit. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve Special Use Permit, SP #94-09, by Gary Maciej to allow a cleaning service and typing service to occupy the building locating on Lots 27 and 28, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, the same being 5973 - 3rd Street N.E. with the following stipulation: l. That future re-use of the building is subject through the Special Use process to determine if the use is compatible with the existing ordinance; and further that the City Council is requested to direct staff to develop standards for use in granting Special Use Permits in the future. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRMAN NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIM003LY. Mr. Hickok stated the request would be considered by the City Council at their September 19 meeting. ^ 2. REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #93-12 BY DOUG LEMAY OF ANIMAL MEDICAL CLINIC; 5895 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N E � �1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AIIGIIST 24, 1994 PAGE 7 Mr. Hickok stated the review is to evaluate whether there was any situations that would cause this development to be non-compatible with the neighborhood. Staff contacted the surrounding neighborhood and there were no comments. There was a stipulation regarding landscaping and general clean up which has been met. Staff recommends this is in compliance with the stipulations. The petitioner was present and had no additional comments. Mr. Kondrick asked if there had been any complaints from the neighbors or residents in the area. Mr. Hickok stated there were no complaints throughout the course of the year, even when asked. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend continuation of Special Use Permit, SP #93-12, without further review. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEI�MAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. Mr. Hickok stated this would be reviewed by the City Council on September 19. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19 1994 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the m�nutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting of July 19, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINLITES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF_AUGUST 1, 1994 Mr. Kondrick stated one item of discussion at this meeting was the Totino-Grace property that was before the Commission regarding development. It was the feeling of the Parks and Recreation Commission at the time that we would welcome the property as part of the parks system if it were to be donated. If not, the Commission could not spent the funds to acquire the property. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of August 1, 1994. ,� PLANNING COMMIS3ION MEETING� AIIGOST 24. 1994 PAGE 8 IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMADT DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 9. 1994 MOTION by Ms. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 9, 1994. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AIIGII3T 24, 1994, PLANNING COMMI38ION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 8:12 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � � �' ` ) �_r��C� l,��Z�2�C��� � � E-� 2� Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary � � S I G N— IN S H E E T �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, Wednesday, August 24, 1994 � �"�