Loading...
06/19/1996 - 00003588CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the June 19, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, David Kondrick, Leroy Oquist, Dean Saba, Members Absent: Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Kurt Schneider, Planning Assistant Yung Nguven, 7300 East River Road Dat Tran, 7300 East River Road APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairperson Savage indicated that due to the request of the MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the agenda as written. UPON VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIR PERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF HUMAN SERVICE CDBG MONEY: Michele McPherson introduced Kurt Jensen-Schneider, Planning Assistant. Mr. Jensen-Schneider made a brief presentation regarding the Human Resources Commission's CDBG process. Mr. Jensen-Schneider indicated that the Human Resources Commission had interviewed each of the applicants who had submitted applications for this year's CDBG Human Service allocations. Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated that the amount of money requested by the applicants exceeded $65,000, and that the City of Fridley had $30,000 to allocate. He stated that 9 of 14 organizations were recommended for funding by the Human Resources Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 2 Mr. Jensen-Schneider stated the criteria used by the Human Resources Commission to determine which organizations will be funded include: Is the organization new or expanding? What are the organizational needs? What does the program do locally for Fridley residents? What is the program quality? Where does the CDBG allocation fit in the organization's budget? Mr. Oquist stated that the Commission had one other criteria to consider this year, and that was that they allocate funds in $2,500 increments. The City had determined, based on County guidelines, that each organization granted funds would receive a minimum of $2,500. He stated the Anoka County Senior Outreach Program and the Senior Companion Program each received $2,500 in funding. He stated that in the past, the Human Resources Commission has expressed concern about funding these two organizations and wondered whether or not the City should be funding these two organizations through its general funds as opposed to utilizing CDBG dollars. Mr. Oquist commented on the two new organizations receiving funding this year, the Nucleus Clinic and A Blanket of Hope. He also talked about the City of Fridley's Recreation program that is designed to provide scholarship funds for programs where individuals cannot afford the entry fees and the City is unable to waive the entry fees due to program costs. Mr. Saba stated the Human Resources Commission has a difficult job, and he believed the Human Resources Commission does an excellent job in allocating funds through its recommendations. Mr. Oquist stated that A Blanket of Hope is a program that tries to get people back on their feet. The organization has a large emphasis on buying sewing machines, and this came through in the application. The organization plans to do a great deal of sewing in providing clothing for individuals working to get back into the work force and back on their feet. Mr. Oquist stated the Nucleus Clinic is an organization designed to support unwed mothers. The organization helps through training, teaching, family planning, and providing an atmosphere that is comfortable for the individuals in need. Ms. Savage stated she was concerned that the Alexandra House did not have anyone present at the meeting to speak for the organization. She was concerned because she believed this is a very important organization and its emphasis on domestic assault is very important due to the fact that domestic assault is on the rise and this is the only organization designed specifically to help women who have been placed in situations where there has been domestic abuse. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 3 Mr. Oquist stated that Alexandra House did not receive funding because its application was really for subsidies to the organization's salaries. The Human Resources Commission believed there were other sources available to assist this organization with its funding needs. He stated the organization does have a rather large budget, and the Human Resources Commission did not believe that not funding the organization this year would have an enormous impact on its ability to continue. Ms. Savage also indicated a concern that the Banfill Center for the Arts was also not funded this year. She stated the City of Fridley does not have many opportunities for the arts and other cultural activities. Therefore, she believed the Banfill Center for the Arts is an important organization and should have received funds. Mr. Oquist stated that in the Banfill Center for the Arts' application, it was not clear who receives the benefit of the funds. He stated he did not believe the art program fit the funding criteria the Human Resources Commission uses. He stated that the amount of funds the Human Resources Commission has to allocate is limited, and funding the number of organizations that apply does become difficult. Ms. Savage asked for additional information on the St. Philips Lutheran Church program. Mr. Oquist stated that St. Philips Lutheran Church has had a wonderfully successful program and is now expanding that program to Saturdays and summer activities. Mr. Saba stated he has heard this program is doing very well and is a very impressive program. Mr. Oquist stated that last year, 2,400 students were served by the program. He believed the Human Resources Commission only allocated $2,500 to that organization last year. This year, the Church came in with new things for kids to do. The fact that the Church plans on picking up children from other schools, regardless of what school or church, is an impressive feature of the program. Ms. Savage stated she needed clarification as to what is the role of the Planning Commission. She still has concerns about the Banfill Center for the Arts as an important community entity, and she believed that funding should have been available to this organization. Mr. Oquist stated that the Human Resources Commission really must take a look at the funding package as a whole. Personally, he was more concerned about not funding Tamarisk. He stated that in the past, they have funded Tamarisk. It is a wonderful program worthy of funds; however, it was not funded this year. Mr. Saba stated that the number of organization asking for funds would make it extremely difficult for a commission to determine who is worthy and who is not. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 4 Mr. Oquist stated that he believed a program like the Banfill Center for the Arts should be affiliated with the County and funded accordingly. Mr. Kondrick stated that each year, the Human Resources Commission must agonize over the funds to be given to many very worthy organizations. His hat goes off to this Commission for doing a great job with its recommendations. Mr. Sielaff stated that he needed additional clarification for the criteria used to determine funding allocations. He also believed that in that criteria, heavier emphasis should be placed on those programs where the citizens of Fridley are truly being served as opposed to his view that some of the organizations that made applications were from outside the Fridley area and may not serve Fridley residents. Mr. Oquist stated he was surprised at how many Fridley residents are actually served by these organizations that make applications. Although the organization itself may be outside the City, the people being helped by the organizations are very often Fridley residents. Mr. Sielaff reiterated his interest in additional information in the future about how many Fridley residents are being served by a program. A general discussion ensued regarding the funding. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the Human Resources Commission's recommendations for 1996-97 CDBG Human Service funds. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96- 12, BY DAT TRAN: 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 3, Chesney Acres, generally located at 7300 East River Road. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading of the notice and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated that the special use permit request was to allow construction of a second garage at 7300 East River Road. The subject parcel is located at the intersection of Chesney Way and East River Road. Chesney Way is a dead-end street containing three dwellings. It is located south of Osborne Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 5 Ms. McPherson stated that located on the subject parcel is a single family dwelling unit and an existing 20'x22' detached garage with the doors facing Chesney Way. The petitioner is proposing to construct a 24'x26' detached garage to the rear of the dwelling unit. The petitioner proposes to maintain the existing garage as well as the hardsurface parking area located adjacent to the dwelling. Ms. McPherson stated that if the request was approved, there would be three curb cuts from the property onto Chesney Way. The Engineering Department prefers to limit the number of access points to the property, and would like to see them consolidated into one. An alternative the petitioner could pursue would be to construct one large garage and remove the existing garage and parking area. This would be especially beneficial as there is no setback from Chesney Way to the existing garage. Ms. McPherson stated that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request to the City Council. Staff recommends that one garage would be a preferred alternative. Ms. Savage asked if any of the neighbors called regarding the request. Ms. McPherson stated she had received two phone calls regarding the request. She stated that neither caller expressed any concerns with the request. None of the property owners on Chesney Way called regarding the request. Mr. Sielaff asked if staff was recommending denial because there should only be one access to the street? Ms. McPherson stated that was correct. Ms. McPherson clarified the access to the existing driveway. Mr. Oquist asked about the parking area adjacent to the existing garage. Ms. Savage asked if there were specific criteria that needed to be evaluated for this type of special use permit request. Ms. McPherson stated that there are no criteria specific to second accessory special use permit requests, however, the City has the discretion to look at traffic, impacts to adjacent properties, access, etc. Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner would need a variance. Ms. McPherson stated no, not for the request as it is currently presented. Mr. Saba asked how close the existing garage was to the street? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 6 Ms. McPherson stated approximately one to two feet. Ms. Savage stated that the petitioner wanted to keep the first garage. She asked if a variance was needed for the request. Ms. McPherson stated that the request met the setback requirements. Mr. Kondrick asked what could be done about the existing garage. Ms. McPherson stated nothing, it was nonconforming, but until it is damaged to more than 50% of its value, the City does not have the authority to remove it. Dat Tran, petitioner, stepped to the podium. Ms. Savage asked the petitioner how he felt about staff's alternative to combine the two garages into one? Mr. Tran stated that if the existing garage was removed, the family would lose the privacy on that side of the house. He stated there is a bathroom and bedroom on that side of the dwelling. Mr. Kondrick asked if that was the front of the house. Mr. Tran stated that was the side. Mr. Kondrick asked what the distance was between the house and the street on that side? Ms. McPherson stated 25-30 feet. Mr. Tran stated the distance between the house and garage was about three feet. Ms. Savage asked which house would have an impact on the family's privacy? Mr. Tran stated the house to the north. Mr. Oquist stated that if the garage was removed, the privacy issue would be similar to every other house in the City. Ms. Savage stated there were only three properties on the street. Mr. Tran asked if he could get a permit to build a new garage addition attached to the old one? Ms. McPherson stated that that request would require a variance approval as the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 7 garage is too close to the street. Mr. Kondrick asked when the garage was built. Ms. McPherson stated 1961. There is no record of when the dwelling was built. The property was platted in 1961. Ms. Savage stated that the existing garage was a two-car garage. Is it smaller than a typical two-car garage? Ms. McPherson stated yes, typical two-car garages are 24 feet by 24 feet. Ms. Savage asked the Mr. Tran why he needed the extra garage space? Mr. Tran stated that opposed to building just a shed, he felt that a garage with a long driveway would provide more space. The family has six cars. Adding on to the exisitng garage would be a problem because of the snow in the winter. Mr. Oquist stated that building a new garage was a good idea, but the problem facing the Commission was the access points on the property. If the existing garage could be removed, it would consolidate the property. Ms. Savage asked about the hardsurface parking area. Mr. Tran stated that it was there when the family purchased the house. He stated the rear yard does not get used very much. Mr. Saba asked if the petitioner could remove the hardsurface parking area since the new garage is proposed to have a new driveway? This would eliminate one of the access points. Mr. Tran stated he would have to discuss it with the rest of the family. Mr. Oquist asked if the existing garage was used? Mr. Tran stated yes. He stated that there is not enough room to park all of their cars, so one of the cars must be parked on the street. Mr. Saba asked how staff would feel about the request if the hardsurface parking area was removed? Ms. McPherson stated that if the parking area was removed, it would reduce the number of access points to two, which is consistent with previously granted requests. Ms. Savage stated that the problem was the three access points. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 8 Mr. Saba stated that the City tries to make requests consistent with each other. The Commission would like to see one of the access points removed. He would be willing to approve the request if the parking area was removed. Mr. Tran asked if he would be permitted to attach the new garage to the old garage. Mr. Oquist stated that the City would have a problem with a garage that close to the street. Ms. McPherson stated that a variance would be required, and that it probably would not be approved as it was outside of what had been previously granted. Mr. Oquist stated that aesthetically, the addition to the existing garage would become a very long oppressive building. Mr. Oquist stated that he liked the proposal; he would prefer to have the existing garage removed, but he could understand the petitioner's position. Mr. Saba asked the petitioner if the Commission could table the item until the next meeting to allow him to evaluate removing the parking area to reduce the number of access points? Ms. Savage asked staff if they would oppose the request if the parking area was removed? Ms. McPherson stated that the Engineering Department still has a problem with the setback of the original garage, but two access points is consistent with what has been approved previously. Mr. Tran agreed to the tabling of the item. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to table special use permit request SP #96-12 until the July 10, 1996 meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 6, 1996. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 9 MOTION, by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of May 6, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF MAY 9, 1996. MOTION, by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting of May 9, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 16, 1996 MOTION, by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Special Human Resources Commission meeting of May 16, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1996. MOTION, by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality and Energy Commission meeting of June 4, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION, by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JUNE 19, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Michele McPherson Planning Assistant PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 19, 1996 PAGE 10