Loading...
08/21/1996 - 00003615CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the August 21, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Connie Modig Members Absent: Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Larry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant E. Jean & Clayton Hicks, 106 Hartman Cir. Gabriel Giancola, 105 Hartman Circle John Hinsverk, 170 Hartman Circle Dave Johnson, University Avenue Keith King, 525 W. King Robert Lester, DVM, VETsMART APPROVAL OF JULY 10, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve the July 10, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #96-14, BY ROGER SERDAHL: Per Section 205.07.O1.C.(1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow an accessory building other than the first accessory building, over 240 square feet, on Lot 3, Block 4, City View, generally located at 409 - 57th Place N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:40 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit request is to construct PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 2 a second accessory building greater than 240 square feet. The property is a double fronted lot and fronts 57th Place. The driveway access and existing garage are on 57 1/2 Avenue. This request would provide a second accessory building on this site. There is a simultaneous and separate request for a variance to reduce the setback from 35 feet to 22 feet. Mr. Hickok stated staff has evaluated the surrounding area which is R-1, Single Family Residential. The area is developed with existing garages along 57th Place. There are also garages to the north which are set in a similar fashion, but in most cases they are one large consolidated garage. We do not have a condition with a second accessory building in this neighborhood. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit process is used to evaluate the suitability of certain uses for an area. In evaluating this site for a second accessory building, staff determined that the existence of buildings along the street at the area proposed has a cluttered feel. Staff believes the impact to this site and surrounding sites by granting the special use permit would be detrimental. As an alternative, staff recommends a consolidation of the accessory buildings into one larger garage. Staff has talked to the petitioner about the potential of adding a second stall onto the existing garage or building a consolidated garage at the proper setback. The petitioner's first response to that was, because of asbestos, they did not want to disturb the first garage. Mr. Hickok stated staff believes that their recommendation is the best for this area and for this site to have a consolidated building. Staff recommends denial of the request. Mr. Kondrick asked if there were any comments from the neighbors. Mr. Hickok stated staff did receive comments from one neighbor who is opposed to a second accessory building and would hope for a consolidation. Ms. Modig asked, when talking about asbestos removal, is that not quite costly and a factor to worry about. Mr. Hickok stated his understanding is that the regulations for residential is different from that for industrial disposal. Properly packaged, it can be collected by existing sanitation hauler. He thought it was a matter of care in removing the material. There is some cost associated with it, but he thought PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 3 the cost was nominal in a residential application. Ms. Modig asked who had received the mailing. Mr. Hickok stated residents living either side of the street on 57th and 57 1/2 Place would have received notices. Mr. Oquist asked if it was feasible to put a garage at the 35- foot setback so there is no variance. Mr. Hickok stated staff thinks it is feasible. There is a grade difference toward the house. One alternative staff looked at was attaching the garage to the house which is feasible. There would need to be some type of a draining system to insure run off. It may be a nice alternative if the homeowner was planning to increase their living space over the garage. Staff would encourage that alternative or a larger garage at the 35-foot setback. The petitioner was not present at the meeting. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner did not attend the Appeals Commission meeting either. The Appeals Commission chose to table discussion to the next meeting. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Saba, to table this request to the next meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, #96- 15, BY VETsMART: Per Section 205.15.O1.C.(9) of the Fridley City Code, to allow a veterinary facility in conjunction with a PETsMART retail store on Lot 2, Block l, Home Depot Fridley Addition, generally located at 5660 Main Street N.E. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:50 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 4 Ms. McPherson stated the request is for 5660 Main Street which is at the intersection of 57th Avenue and Main Street. The proposed location of the request is for the currently under construction PETsMART which is located north of the existing Home Depot and attached to Home Depot. They share a zero lot line. The PETsMART facility will be 24,960 square feet in area and is a retail pet supply store. In addition, the facility will have a groomer, fish, birds, and they propose to provide veterinary services. The veterinary services part of the facility occupies approximately 60 of the store area. Ms. McPherson reviewed the floor plan which includes exam rooms, X-ray rooms, a surgery area, general reception area, and pharmacy. Ms. McPherson stated veterinary clinics are permitted with a special use permit in a C-3, General Shopping District. The following standards are outlined in the zoning code: l. All windows in the area of building housing animals shall be double glazed with a fixed sash. 2. Any ventilation systems shall be designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. 3. There shall be no outside pens or holding areas. Ms. McPherson stated the proposal by PETsMART meets those criteria. Staff recommends another stipulation which is consistent with previous requests, as follows: 4. The petitioner shall submit documentation verifying that all veterinarians are licensed as required by the State. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the request with the four stipulations as previously stated. Mr. Oquist asked if the veterinary services were part of the original plan. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Dr. Lester stated VETsMART is presently establishing their hospitals throughout the Twin Cities. This facility is one of nine in the area. They now have a similar facility in Plymouth which provides full seven-day a week, well equipped, quality veterinary hospitals. Dr. Lester reviewed the services that are available. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 5 Mr. Kondrick asked if they had any problems with the stipulations as outlined. Dr. Lester stated they had no problems. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:55 P.M. Mr. Oquist stated the request seemed straight forward. He had no objections. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #96-15, by VETsMART, to allow a veterinary facility in conjunction with a PETsMART retail store on Lot 2, Block l, Home Depot Fridley Addition, generally located at 5660 Main Street N.E., with the following stipulations: l. All windows in the area of building housing animals shall be double glazed with a fixed sash. 2. Any ventilation systems shall be designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between wards or to the outside air. 3. There shall be no outside pens or holding areas. 4. The petitioner shall submit documentation verifying that all veterinarians are licensed as required by the State. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would consider this request on September 16. 3. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-03, BY CLAYTON AND JEAN HICKS: To vacate a five foot drainage and utility easement dedicated in the plat of Sandhurst Addition covering the southerly five feet of Lot 2, Block l, Sandhurst Addition, lying easterly of the westerly ten feet of said Lot 2, and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 6 the northerly five feet of Lot 3, Block l, Sandhurst Addition, generally located at 106 Hartman Circle N.E. Ms. McPherson stated the request is for 106 Hartman Circle which is located west of East River Road and north of the south loop of Hartman Circle. The petitioners are requesting to vacate a five- foot drainage and utility easement that lies on both sides of the lot line for a total width of 10 feet. The petitioners' property is composed parts of Lot 2 and Lot 3 of Sandhurst Addition. When the lot was created and the house built, the underlying easements were not vacated and the dwelling constructed in 1961 was built over the easement. The petitioner has requested this vacation in order to clear up any future title issues which may arise as a result of the dwelling constructed over the easement. Ms. McPherson stated the Engineering Department reviewed request to determine if there was any impact to City utilities. There are no existing City utilities located within the easement area. They have recommended that only the easterly 93 feet of the easement be vacated. That would allow vacation of the portion under the dwelling unit. Their recommendation is based on the fact that there are overhead power lines in this area. There is a utility pole located in the corner of the two properties and they want the easement for utility purposes. Ms. McPherson stated, as has been typical in similar requests, the City is requesting an easement in exchange for this 10-foot area. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulation: l. The petitioner shall grant the City a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along the north lot line of the property. Ms. McPherson stated this is requested in order to provide access for the City and/or utility companies to access any utilities located to the rear of these properties. Mr. Oquist asked why the City was requesting 10 feet on this property and not five feet for this property and five feet from the adjoining property owner. Ms. McPherson stated staff did not have the opportunity to speak to the adjacent property owner. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff had received any comments from the neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 7 Ms. McPherson stated staff had received no calls. Mr. Hicks stated he has lived here since 1962. This came about when he was looking at the possibility of an accessory shed and found that his house was built on top of an easement. He does not have a problem and is very grateful to get an easement back to the utility pole. However, he cannot accept how they can take 10 feet from the north side of him. They have only 13 feet from the garage to the house. Taking 10 feet leaves him with 3 feet. There is 24 feet to the back. If he wanted to put an accessory shed to the back, it would be worthless. As far as accessibility, it is hopeless because it is a walk-out. The land slopes down to the south. He cannot understand the necessity of having an easement because of accessibility all through the back. Accessibility to the south is hopeless too. There are trees there. They have constructed a cement wall to help with the erosion problem and there is a slope coming from the neighbor's lot to his. To the rear the land slopes down also. He thought staff should review that and ask themselves why they need the 10 feet. Also, of all the other homes in the circle, he does see any other lots from the street to the rear of the lot that have an easement that goes back there. Why has he been selected? They have the smallest lot and the City wants to take 10 feet of the rear of his lot. He cannot understand the need for it. Certainly the builder and the City erred at the time the house was platted and built. Mr. Giancola stated he is the former 109 Hartman Circle. The requested easement does not make any sense whatsoever on the north part of Mr. Hicks' lot. 52 feet comprises the north part of Mr. Hicks' lot and 40 feet comprises another lot and the easement runs straight through. In looking at the plat from the westerly portion, there are already easements that are created so there is access from about four areas to that back portion. To create 10 feet here and 10 feet there makes this lot devalued, so to speak, and does not make any sense. Mr. Hicks came back the night he found the easement and they looked at the abstract. Mr. Giancola stated he does not see any reason for accessibility to take 10 feet off the north portion of this lot because the City and utilities have access there already from a number of points to provide service. Mr. Hinsverk stated his lot adjoins to the petitioners' lot at the west side. After talking to Mr. Hicks about this, it seemed PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 8 to him there was sufficient access so they would not have to reserve that 10 feet to the north side of that lot. Mr. Oquist stated there is access from several points. Why do they need to have that? Ms. McPherson stated, in terms of maintaining as many points of access as possible is important so they are not limited in terms of access in times of an emergency or any other time they need to gain that access. She was not sure what the site conditions were. If any of those points were blocked, the City has the right to have access at multiple points on the block. Ms. McPherson stated the City has asked in similar instances for a trade of easement areas. Staff received a request in 1995 for the vacation of an easement where a house of built on an easement and we asked for a 10-foot easement on the same property. The City is being consistent in asking for similar dispensation to the City. Ms. Modig asked if the other property had the same site constraints. If you are taking 10 feet of property from a lot that is only 24 feet wide, then they can do nothing with that. Ms. McPherson stated, in the request from last year, the City asked for a 10-foot easement in the side yard where the house was 10 feet from the side property line. Granted that person's property was wide so they had the remaining property to utilize. She was not sure of the petitioners' intent as to the size of structure being built. There is possibly a point of compromise. Mr. Oquist asked, if there was an easement there and you cannot use it, you would not be able to use it anyway. Mr. Hicks stated it is 168 feet back. Only 24 feet is left behind the house. 10 feet for an easement leaves 14 feet. They could not put anything there. If you need to get at the 24 feet of their lot in the back, then why is it you cannot come in from the west side. It is no further. He also asked staff, of the other homes on Hartman Circle, how many others have accessibility with an easement from the street. None have that, but the City is asking for it from him. Ms. Modig stated the City now has a 10-foot easement but it is under the house. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 9 Mr. Giancola stated, if you made a visual inspection of the lot, the lot is level. There is a retaining wall, then it slopes down in back. There are trees along the lot line to the back. It is meaningless. Ms. Modig asked Ms. McPherson what she meant when she mentioned a compromise. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission has heard the petitioners' testimony and the testimony of the neighbors. Staff has made a recommendation. The Commission can choose to do something otherwise. Possible options could include eliminating the stipulation, requiring 5 feet, or tabling the request to allow staff work with the petitioner to come to some form of agreement. Mr. Oquist stated he was in agreement with the petitioner. He understands the City's point and the need for an easement. However, there is access from the south, west and north. We did not have the easement to begin with unless you go through the house. In this case, he thought they needed to look at it individually. What it does to this property and the fact that you have access from various points as it is, he does not think the City needs that easement. He would vote to recommend approval without the stipulation. Ms. Modig stated she felt the same way. She wants to be consistent but sometimes you have to look at some things individually. She thought they would be putting a burden on the property owner to take away that 10 feet. Mr. Saba and Mr. Kondrick agreed. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Vacation Request, SAV #96-03, by Clayton and Jean Hicks, to vacate a five foot drainage and utility easement dedicated in the plat of Sandhurst Addition covering the southerly five feet of Lot 2, Block l, Sandhurst Addition, lying easterly of the westerly ten feet of said Lot 2, and the northerly five feet of Lot 3, Block l, Sandhurst Addition, generally located at 106 Hartman Circle N.E. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council on September 16 would establish a public hearing to be held on September 30. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 10 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HLTMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 6, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of June 6, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of June 13, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HLTMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 20, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Human Resources Commission meeting of June 20, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 26, 1996 MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of June 26, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING OF JULY 11, 1996 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 21, 1996 PAGE 11 of the Housing & Redevelopment Authority meeting of July 11, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Modig, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 21, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary