PL 07/19/1995 - 30810/*1
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING CONII+�I88ION MEETIIJG, JIILY 19, 1995
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the July 19, 1995, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Dave Newman, LeRoy Oquist, Connie Modig,
Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Diane Savage
Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Nancy Wiles, A& W Restaurant
Tim Lindgren, A& W Restaurant
APPROVAL OF JUNE 21. 1995, PLANNING COMMISSIOIJ MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the
June 21, 1995, Planning Commission minutes as written.
�` IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARLaD
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP
#95-07. BY WILLIAM AND NANCY WILES:
Per Section 205.13.O1.C.(11) of the Fridley City Code, to
allow a Class II Restaurant in a C-1, Local Business, zoning
district on Lot 3, Block 2, C. D. Hutchinson Addition,
generally located at 7429 East River Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEi�PMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7t35 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit request is for the A& W
Restaurant located at 7429 East River Road. Mr. and Mrs. Wiles
have proposed a plan that would include reconstruction of the
existing restaurant on the existing site. Reconstruction of the
restaurant and remodification of the restaurant as it exists
would eliminate pre-existing non-conforming status and require a
special use permit.
Mr. Hickok stated the site was developed in 1953 initially as a
,� dwelling. The file refers to the site as one for a commercial
entity. It evolvecl over the years with additional signs and
canopies into the A& W as we know it today. That early
�� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. JIILY 19, 1995 PAG$ 2
evolution pre-dated the requirement for a special use permit and
one is not in place.
Nir. Hickok stated the site is located south of Osborne Road on
the east side of East River Road. On the site is a structure and
a canopy. To the north is Super America site. There is an
access from East River Road into the site which also provides
access to the Super America site. There is also an access point
to the south of the site which allows traffic to go into the
floral shop located to the south.
Mr. Hickok stated the Appeals Commission recently reviewed three
variance requests. The variances were initially based on the
existing footprint of the building and the expectation that the
variances would be approved prior to construction of the
addition. The primary emphasis for reconstruction is to provide
more space in the restaurant and to comply with ADA standards for
restrooms. The current building predates those standards. From
a convenience standpoint and for service to their customers, it
is not as efficient as they would like. The petitioner initially
proposed an addition to the rear of the building and a small
addition to the west side of the building. Variances would have
been required for the building location from the north lot line,
parkinq setbacks from 20 feet to the property line, hard surface
setback from 5 feet to the property line, hard surface setback
from the building, and the canopy. The canopy crosses the
property line to the north. This condition goes back to the
early site development. The site was once owned by the oil
company to the north. As the site developed, it was part of a
joint development by the oil company to create a restaurant on
this site and a line was created which resulted in the condition
that the canopy straddles the property line.
Mr. Hickok stated the Appeals Commission in their review felt
there were some issues. The building setback was recommended for
approval to be reduced from 15 feet to 5 feet. The parking
setback on East River Road near the landscaped island was
recommended to be 20 feet. That would allow the owner to create
an island near the entrance of the Super American property.
Because of the drive location and wide easement to the south, the
Commission recommended approval for a reduction in the setback
grom 20 feet to 8 feet. The Commission had a tie vote on the
request to reduce the parking setback from 5 feet to 0 feet and
voted unanimously to deny the canopy variance.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners revised the footprint of the
building prior to coming before the City Council. Instead of an
addition to the rear, a Councilmember had suggested the
^ petitioner look at building to the south. The petitioner looked
at that and came up with a plan for a 20 foot x 24 foot addition
to the south. This eliminated a variance for the rear lot line
� PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING, JIILY 19. 1995 PAGE 3
and eliminated the need for the variance for the hardsurface to
the building setback. This left variances for the setback to the
north, the setback for the landscaped area, and the setback of
the canopy. The City Council approved these variances with the
following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb and gutter
along the east and south property line.
2. The existing hardsurface located between the building and
the north property line shall be removed and the area
converted to green space.
3. The parking lot shall be clearly striped to indicate all
parking areas measuring 10 feet x 20 feet.
4. The petitioner shall submit a performance bond of $5,000 to
ensure completion of the landscape areas and concrete
curbing.
5. A Special Use Pernait shall be requested and approved in
compliance with City Code requirements.
� 6. The petitioner shall grant a 45 foot bikeway/walkway
easement along the west property line.
7. The canopy variance for the existing canopy as of June 12,
1995, and any repairs or rebuilding of the existing canopy
valued at fifty percent or more will void this variance for
the canopy.
Mr. Hickok stated, because of the fifth stipulation, the Planning
Commission is considering a special use permit request. Staff
recommends approval of the special use permit with the following
stipulations:
1. All lighting shall be of shielded downcast design.
2. No intercom devices shall be audible beyond the property
lines.
3. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb and gutter
along the east and south property lines that shall include a
curb along the east and west edge of the drive serving the
property to the south.
4. All dumpsters shall be fully screened so not to be visible
'"�
from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties.
Mr. Saba asked how one would arrive at 50� of the value of the
canopy.
/�i
/"�
�
PLANNINa CON�lISSION MEETINa. JIILY 19, 1995 PAGE 4
Mr. Hickok stated this would be the value of the canopy today.
The value would be based on the cost of materials, construction,
intercom system, etc. In early discussions with the petitioner,
the intercom system became one of the givens in their evaluation
of how to redevelop this site. If the canopy had to be changed
along with the wiring beneath the bituminous surface, the cost of
the wiring would not make it feasible to redevelop the site from
a budget standpoint. The income is driven primarily from the
canopy and the cost of shifting that, even a few feet, is not
feasible. The end solution was probably a compromise for the
canopy to stay there, but it would need to be reconstructed if
damaged.
Ms. Modig asked how they would determine whether the intercom is
or is not being heard from the property line.
Mr. Hickok stated, from a consistency standpoint, this is
something that staff considers in other districts. Intercoms at
fast food restaurants can be a problem and can cause problems
with residents in the area. This is a stipulation one would
typically see on other fast food restaurants. He did not believe
this would be a problem.
Ms. Modig asked if there had been any previous complaints about
the intercom at this location.
Mr. Hickok stated no. There has not been a problem in the past.
Mr. Newman asked if the City imposes the same restriction on
Super America.
Mr. Hickok stated he would have to look at their special use
permit. It would be realistic based on their intercom systeme
Mr. Oquist asked if, by expanding to the south, this would
eliminate parking stalls on the south side of the building and
would that have an affect on the parking requirement.
Mr. Hickok stated he believed, in discussion with the owner, they
felt they could relocate those parking stalls. The site has
credit for 18 parking stalls including the canopy stalls.
Mr. Newman asked if the side yard setback from 15 feet to 5 feet
was a change from the current condition and if this is to re-
affirm an existing condition.
Mr. Hickok stated the setback will not change. This is an
existing condition.
Mr. Newman asked if the petitioner is increasing the parking
setback from what currently exists.
�
�,
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. JIILY 19, 1995 PAaE 5
Mr. Hickok stated yes.
Mr. Newatan asked if the canopy setback would change.
Mr. Hickok stated the canopy setback would stay the same. The
petitioner was going to reuse the original foundation and rebuild
the building with an addition to the south.
Ms. Wiles stated they have a license agreement with Super America
with regard the canopy overhang and the side of the building
where they will put a green area. They have no problem with the
stipulations. They have never had a problem or complaint about
the speaker noiseo
Mr. Oquist asked when they planned to start construction.
Mr. Wiles stated they planned to start this fall after the busy
season.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLAR�D
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:54 P.M.
Mr. Newman stated this is a difficult area. It is a hodgepodge
with the small businesses. All in all, they currently have a
special use permit and this is an enhancement of that. It makes
sense particularly when you look at Super America and the fact
that they now have a Subway in there which adds to the
concentration of traffic. A& W is adding some buffering which
will dress up the site. To him, the A& W is a landmark in the
City. He remembers going there as a kid. They have provided a
lot of employment for the neighborhood kids. He is pleased that
they are going to continue business in the City and he would like
to try to help. He commended the Appeals Commission and the City
Council. Whenever we are trying to improve and upgrade existing
conditions, it is necessary to show some flexibility and
accommodation. These bodies have done so and this will enhance
the neighborhood.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend
approval of Special Use Permit, SP #95-07, by William and Nancy
Wiles, to allow a Class II Restaurant in a C-1, Local Business,
zoning district on Lot 3, Block 2, C. D. Hutchinson Addition,
generally located at 7429 East River Road N.E., with the
following stipulations:
�� 1. All lighting shall be of shielded downcast design.
� PLANNING CONIIKI88ION MEETING, JIILY 19, 1995 PAa� 6
2. No intercom devices shall be audible beyond the property
lines.
3. The petitioner shall install B618 concrete curb and gutter
along the east and south property lines that shall include a
curb along the east and west edge of the drive serving the
property to the south.
4. All dumpsters shall be fully screened so not to be visible
from the public right-of-way or adjacent propertiess
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTIOIJ CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on
August 14, 1995.
2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING OF JUNE 5. 1995
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of June 5,
1995e
�
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON NET�MAN DECLAR�D
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLYe
3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY MEETING OF JUNE 8. 1995
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of
June 8, 1995.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINC3 AYE, CHAIRPERBON NEWMADT DECLARED
T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
4. RECEIVE THE MINi7TES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 2Q. 1995
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the
minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting
of June 20, 1995e
IIPON A VOICE DOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
5. RECEIVE THE MINiJTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF
JUNE 20 , 1995
PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, JIILY 19. 1995 PAGE 7
/�
OM TION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of June 20, 1995.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN(3 AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
6. UPDATE ON HOME DEPOT REOUESTS
Mr. Hickok stated there have been some changes in the request
from Home Depot since the Planning Commission last saw the
project. There have not been any significant changes on the
building design. The most significant change is that Home Depot
has proposed to eliminate the detached retail lot. The site will
have Home Depot and the retailer to the north. The City would
stipulate that Home Depot keep the landscaping along the edge and
use that third lot for parking. They felt this was necessary
because of the traffic concerns in the area and help to bring
down the numbers for the average daily trips. The primary
concern for Home Depot is get a building on this site and have
another retailer. Home Depot has indicated a retailer interested
in coming to this area is a pet food warehouse type of business.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council asked for additional
�� information from the traffic consultants. The consultants
more traffic studies along 53rd and 61st. The City Council
actually tabled action on the items to consider additional
information that they had requested along 53rd to the south
along 61st to the north.
did
new
and
Mr. Hickok stated there had not been much discussion at the
public hearing. The City Council had not heard much discussion
until a concern came from the 53rd neighborhood to the south.
Residents are used to industrial traffic on this street but they
have some reprieve on weekends. They are concerned that, while
they don't entirely disagree with the project, they will now have
weekend traffic. This caused the analysts to go back and take a
look at weekend numbers and get more specific in their numbers
about 53rd and 61st and what could be e�cpected on weekends. He
expected the report in his office the next day.
Mr. Hickok stated the City had a neighborhood meeting last night.
They invited residents of the neighborhoods of 53rd and 61st as
well as those who had signed a petition. Thirty-two residents
came to the meeting. It was a good meeting and they had a good
discussion about weekend numbers. One person did their own
weekend count on 53rd. This information will be helpful to
compare with the analysts numbers.
�� Mr. Hickok stated Home Depot was represented at the meeting
Mr. Tim Platt. Home Depot has agreed to pay for traffic
improvements. Mr. Platt also felt 57th needed a turn lane
by
and
� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JIILY 19. 1995 PAGE 8
they are willing to restructure 57th in order to do that. That
was a big step forward.
Mr. Hickok stated at the intersection of University and 57th is
the condition where people exiting from westbound I-694 and
turning left on 57th must cross several lanes of traffic. The
analysts stated this was also one of their concerns. The City
Council asked staff to consider a study. They recommended a
study be done with the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(MnDOT) and Home Depot would be willing to contribute to the cost
of the study. One solution could be to bring exiting traffic
perpendicular to University, stopping northbound University
Avenue traffic and allowing the off-ramp traffic to get onto
University. MnDOT is in favor of this type of solution. That
study could take two months to do and Barton-Aschman will be
asked to do this study. If approved, the City will have to look
at the cost of the study and the cost of future improvements.
This will be before the City Council on August 24.
Mr. Saba asked what the general feeling was at the neighborhood
meeting.
Mr. Hickok stated it was a balanced crowd. There were many who
!� thought this development would be good for Fridley, and there
were others concerned about traffic and shortcuts through the
neighborhoods. He had the sense that by the end of the meeting
residents had many of their questions answered. The study is
quite complex and the question and answer time was helpful.
Residents seemed surprised about the hourly wage paid by Home
Depot and were pleased to see the extent to which Home Depot was
willing to go with traffic control.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the original traffic analysis was included
in the agenda packeto
Mr. Hickok stated the packet has the updated information. There
will be an addendum coming in shortly.
Mr. Sielaff asked what the difference was between the original
report and the updated information received in the packet.
Mr. Hickok stated concerns were, when talking about the grading
system A-F, that Home Depot was not able to clearly describe the
difference between the service levels. Home Depot had to justify
and explain the difference in service levels and how it would
affect the wait at an intersection, the pulsing of the lights,
etc. There were also some problems with that cross over
condition at I-694 and University. Therefore, the City Council
�°� was reluctant to move ahead and requested this be further
studied. '
PLANNINa COMMISBION MEETING. JIILY 19, 1995 PAG$ 9
Mr. Hickok stated Councilmember Billings expressed concern about
the percentage of traffic coming from each direction. He wanted
�'� that to be further described to show how much would be coming I-
694, how much of that traffic would go through the neighborhood
on 53rd, etc. The second report helps to explain further the
turning movements and where traffic is coming from.
/"1
r'°�
Mr. Sielaff asked if Home Depot got more data.
Mr. Hickok stated yes. They did traffic counts and had people at
intersections doing counts. Staff is pleased with this study.
Mr. Sielaff stated, when he read the report, Home Depot
apparently took some analysis from Home Depot to determine what
their traffic would be. He did not know if that data is from an
area similar to this area and how that translates to this
particular situation.
Mr. Hickok stated staff was concerned that the National Standard
Traffic ntunbers are not quite the same as Home Depot experience.
The big area that seemed to be a void is the truck traffic that
can be expected from Home Depot. Home Depot analyzed their sites
and found there would be 12-14 semi trucks daily. They use a
common carrier. Everything is dispatched from Atlanta. They
would have a certain route but not a specific size truck. Home
Depot would have a flat bed truck for delivery of large
quantities of materials.
Mr. Newman stated Home Depot has a very good reputation for being
a class operation.
Mr. Oquist stated he was impressed with the efforts Home Depot is
making to comply.
Mr. Saba asked what Home Depot had done about their pylon signa
Mr. Hickok stated they did eliminate one of the three variance
requests. They are not going to consolidate the signs for the
site. They also came back with a proposal for a sign the same
size as the Home Value sign which is 160 square feet. They
wanted the sign to be 40 feet high but staff is saying the sign
must be at 25 feet.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the
meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTI1dG AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JIILY 19, 1995, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 8:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
, , � ��� ' � ��irCil
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretary
/�
�,
;�
�
B I G N— IN S H E E T
PLANNING COMMISSION.MEETING, Wednesday, July 19, 1995
�