Loading...
09/18/1996 - 00003634CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the September 18, 1996, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Brad sielaff, Connie Modig Members Absent: LeROy oquist, �arry Kuechle Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Cindy & Gary 7enco, 1420 Cleveland Street, Anoka, Minnesota �ackie olafson, Children's Home society Tim Ducharme, Northco Dennis Zylla, Northco APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the September 4, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, ZTA #96-01, BY NORTHCO CORPORATION: To Amend the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "zoning": By amending Section 205.17.C., "uses Permitted with a special use Permit", by adding: 205.17.C.(5) Commercial �aycares and renumbering consecutive sections; and By amending Section 205.18.C., "uses Permitted with a special use Permit", by adding: 205.18.C.(5) Commercial �aycares and renumbering consecutive sections. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. saba, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 2 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the zoning text amendment would allow daycare centers in industrial districts. The petitioner is Northco Corporation. This is a specific request; however, the amendment would be a zoning text amendment for the entire City. The petitioner has a person interested in using their industrial facility for a daycare center. The applicant has requested the City amend the industrial district requirements to allow daycares as a special use. The applicant would like to locate a 6,500 square foot Children's Home Society tenant in a 36,000 square foot building located at 500 - 73rd Avenue. Mr. Hickok stated, as staff received the request, it became clear the petition is for a use without language permitting such use in the district. staff must evaluate as to whether this is something the City is interested in pursuing and where best to place the amendment. The petitioner is asking for a text amendment. whether or not we feel that is a special use in this zoning district is a call that staff made. Part of the analysis for a daycare facility came down to the type of daycare facility - stand alone centers for public use, centers within multi-tenant buildings, or centers for private use in a multi-tenant buildings. Mr. Hickok stated staff evaluated the state building and fire codes about such uses. The concern is whether this is a practical use for a daycare to be placed in an industrial facility and be made compatible with the building design. The answer is yes. The fire codes and building codes are very specific about how to segregate uses within a complex. Mr. Hickok stated, as staff analyzed the area of the code in which to place the amendment, staff came to the conclusion that a special use permit would be the best vehicle for daycares. Both the M-1 and M-2 are industrial zoning districts that could handle daycares with the appropriate building modifications. There may be stipulations we would want to place on a daycare in such a facility. staff recommends modification of the M-1, �ight zndustrial, and M-2, Heavy zndustrial, districts to allow daycare as a special use when they meet the following standards: 1. �aycare centers shall be located in a multi-tenant building located on an arterial. 2. �aycare centers shall not exceed 30% of the floor area of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 PAGE 3 3. outdoor play areas shall be contiguous to the building. 4. Pedestrian crossing areas shall be clearly marked through the use of pavement markings and traffic signs. 5. Parking shall be at the rate of 1 space for every 100 square feet of usable daycare space (1:100). 6. signage shall be limited to wall signage and shall be in compliance with section 214 of the City Code. 7. �aycare shall be licensed in accordance with the state and County requi rements . 8. �aycare centers shall comply with building code occupancy and separation requirements. 9. �oading and drop-ff areas shall be designed so as not to infringe on traffic flow. Mr. Hickok stated this is a general text amendment. The stipulations are suggested stipulations that would be included in the language under the special use provisions in this district. There may be additional stipulations as staff would analyze individual applications. Mr. Hickok stated the idea of a special use permit is to make it compatible with the uses surrounding the area. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner did a very nice job in providing information about the daycare they are hoping to accommodate, the Children's Home society of Minnesota, who is interested in the 6,500 square feet of space. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of a text amendment to districts M-1, �ight zndustrial, and M-2, Heavy zndustrial, to provide for daycare facilities through the special use permit process. He distributed copies of suggested language for the text. zf the commission has revisions, staff will incorporate that language into an informal ordinance form before this goes to the City Council. Mr. Kondrick stated he is concerned about sound from the industrial activities that occur in adjacent bays. Has staff considered this? That could be a problem in some cases. There may also be cases of a business who may in the future want to locate next to the daycare center. Ms. savage stated, if her understanding is correct, this is a text ordinance amendment that would allow someone to apply for a PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 4 special use permit, and then they would have to go through the process. zf there was a particular problem such as sound, that could be addressed at that time. As far as this applicant is concerned, does the ordinance first have to be approved and then does the applicant have to apply for a special use permit? Mr. Hickok stated yes. The amendment would open the door for the applicant. Mr. sielaff stated one handout stated section 205.17.0 and the other states Section 205.18.C. why are there two? Mr. Hickok stated 205.17.0 is the M-1, �ight zndustrial, suggested language; and 205.18.0 is the M-2, Heavy zndustrial suggested language. Ms. Modig stated one of the issues stated the building be located on an arterial street. That is not always going to be the case for industrial zoning. Mr. Hickok stated the industrial districts are set up to accommodate heavy traffic and most have arterial streets. one would rarely find a place where this does not fit. Ms. Modig stated that would not then be a hindrance for a company who may want a daycare center. Mr. Hickok stated there are going to be some. There are some industrial areas that are on secondary streets. He thought this language would be perfect for those situations. zn those situations, it would be difficult for people to get in and out, especially at peak times. Mr. sielaff asked if this would regulate businesses, such as onan, if they wanted to have a daycare center on their site. Mr. Hickok stated the language is designed for drop-off daycare centers. zf a company wished to have a center inside an existing complex, staff would be able to control that through the building code. He thought the City would see more of those requests. The M-1 and M-2 language would recognize daycare is possible. The stipulations would protect the City. As a request would come through the process, additional stipulations may be necessary. Mr. sielaff stated the language indicates multi-tenant buildings which seems to preclude that type of daycare. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Multi-tenant speaks to the drop-off daycare. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 5 Mr. sielaff asked if the term "daycare" refers to private daycare centers that are not associated with the company. Mr. Hickok stated the daycare center may or may not be associated with the company. staff looked at an example in North Mankato where a drop-off daycare center is located in an industrial park and the center gives priority to workers in the park. This would accommodate associated industrial workers needing daycare. Ms. Modig asked if by saying "multi-tenant" would that preclude those who want a daycare and there is only one other tenant. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. Mr. sielaff stated he would like to know the definition of a daycare center. Mr. Hickok stated a daycare center is defined as any non-home based program that for compensation or otherwise provides for the care of children outside their home as part of a 24-hour day. zt includes but is not limited to programs for children known as nursery school, day nurseries, child care nurseries, and daycare facilities. Ms. savage stated the language is very broad but it must meet State and County requirements. Ms. Modig stated she is also concerned about sound and have some area where we deal with sound or have the daycare sound proofed. That is a concern particularly for the outside play areas. This must be dealt with somewhere. Mr. Kondrick asked whose responsibility this was. zs this the responsibility of the City or the responsibility of those who run the program? Mr. sielaff stated anyone who wants a daycare in an M-1 or an M-2 woul d requi re a speci al use pe rmi t. zt woul d be unde r the revi ew of the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission would still have the flexibility to deny the request if there are concerns. Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. The City Council would make the final decision. Mr. zylla stated he was a partner in the land that is under consideration. He is looking at it from a broader issue. He was at the meeting with Mr. �ucharme and Ms. olafson, who is representing the provider and who could provide additional PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 6 information on the provider. zn staff's presentation, some of the limitations don't seem part of the recommendation. when he drafted the zoning text amendment, he suggested it be a permitted or accessory use. staff is recommending a special use. He still feels it is a permitted use in a commercial district and the Planning Commission should allow this as a permitted use in an industrial district. He did not see the difference between the permitted and special use. He thought everyone recognizes that there is a lot of regulation that goes with this. The state regulates daycare very severely. The building and fire codes regulate this very severely. zf you are concerned that you need to control due to concerns about sound and/or industrial noise, he did not think that would happen. �aycare providers will only locate in an area with a conducive environment for their program. zf there is a user who generates noise, smoke, fumes, etc., the tenants would not want to locate there. Mr. Kondrick leaves and a could change. stated the situation could occur where a tenant new tenant moves in having a different use. The mix Mr. zylla stated the daycare as a user will need a guarantee in their lease that nothing will happen to cause the adjacent uses to become a problem for them. He thought the Commission should keep in mind that this is a trend in our society. with more and more parents working, people want to be close to their children and like the convenience. when he wrote the language as he did with the use as permitted or accessory, he did so because more larger corporations are giving consideration to putting daycare in their buildings. They consider it a service to their employees and, in many case, a necessary part of the fringe benefit package they provide. He thought the multi-tenant thing should be considered carefully. zt would not affect them, but it something to consider. He does not have a problem with the arterial street. The 30% area does not affect them. zn their particular building, they have more of a hybrid industrial/office use. Most of the uses in the building are office. The uniqueness of the site and appeal is that the parcel is 6.58 acres so it is a large parcel with trees next to the building and it is not visible from 73rd. zt is a nice, private industrial area as opposed to the 7ohn Allen building which is an industrial warehouse in character. That area is also totally different in character. He did not have a particular problem with the other uses. Mr. zylla stated he did have a concern with the parking space requirements. There are 20 employees who are not there all the time. The center is currently licensed for 99 children and the parents come and go at intervals. At 1:100 as suggested, they PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 7 would be required to provide 65 spaces which seems severe. He did not think the parking requirement should be greater than the requirement in the district or they may be forced to come in for a variance. Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. zylla thought the requirement was to high. Mr. zylla stated yes. The user could also speak to that. He did not do a parking count. They have enough parking for the building but the building is not full either. Parking is always something to be concerned about. He would rather not be subjected to an unusually rigid requirement and find that we cannot meet it when we know it is functionally not necessary. The only other concern relates to the limitation on signage which says no independent free-standing signs. zf you have been to the site, they have a sign listing the tenants. They would like to have the daycare on that sign because it is not an easy place to find. They are excited about the possible amendment. He would like to see this as a permitted use. Hopefully, with the other comments and consideration of concerns, we can get this passed on to the City Council and consummate their lease with this tenant. Ms. olafson stated she was the divisional director for childhood services for the Children's Home society. They currently operate 18 child care centers around the state, generally affiliated with technical colleges. They currently operate a site at the spring �ake Park High school. Their intention is to move to this facility from the spring �ake Park High school. The space they are currently using is needed by the school district, and they must move by 7une 1997. Ms. olafson stated they now provide services for 99 children with 20 staff. They use about 9 to 10 parking spaces which has been sufficient over the years. They have a comparable parking arrangement with the st. Paul Companies where they have a center for 118 children with 12 parking spaces for the families. That should give an idea of their needs. 10 spaces for staff and 12 for the families should be sufficient. They are licensed by the state and accredited which is a step above the requirements. They pride themselves in providing exceptional services. They have staff who have been with them for 10 to 15 years at the spring �ake Park site. There is a lot of discussion about quality of day care and part of that discussion is the length of service for staff. staff are long term and provide a continuity of service. They have a strong following of families in the Spring �ake Park community and have tremendous support to stay in this area. They believe the move to Fridley, while it would be a relocation, is a short distance and they could continue to serve PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 8 the families they now serve plus additional families from Fridley as well. Ms. olafson stated they have toured the building and looked at it very carefully. They would not put a center into anything but a pleasant environment for the children. The playground would be private and protected with doors directly into the building. They have worked with an architect to design the inside to meet all the requirements and provide ample square footage. Beyond the code, they want to provide a positive approach to a curriculum for the children. They are excited about this possibility. Mr. Kondrick asked how many children are in the present daycare center and how many will be in the proposed center. Ms. olafson stated they currently have 99 children. The proposed space would be for 95 children. They will not go bigger than that. Mr. sielaff asked if the state would come out and inspect the new facility. Ms. olafson stated yes. They look at the plans ahead of time to make sure everything meets their requirements. They will have to do some major renovation. Mr. sielaff asked if the state considers the area beyond the center. Ms. olafson stated no. Mr. Kondrick stated concerns have been raised about sound in the event noises are excessive. Ms. olafson stated that is a good point. They have been through the building and did not zero in on how soundproof the building was, but they will look at it again. They do go at peak traffic times. They would work with Northco to make sure that the tenants coming in are not a detriment to their operation. Their board of directors will look closely at those issues before approving. Mr. �ucharme stated the owners of the building are as concerned about the noise as are the other tenants. Children can also be noisy and this is a concern. The appropriate precautions will be taken to soundproof the area. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. saba, to close the public PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 9 hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M. Mr. Kondrick asked how many parking spaces would this person be required to provide. Mr. Hickok stated, at the rate of 1:100 which staff feels is appropriate, Northco would be required to provide 65 spaces. That language comes from the code for daycares in a residential district. zn the residential section of the code, the following language is included: (b) Reduction of parking spaces may be allowed when provision of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total number of required parking spaces. Mr. Hickok stated, at least in the residential section, it leaves some discretion. zf the Planning Commission feels this would be appropriate in the industrial district, staff can look at it. One concern of staff is the peak times in morning and evening when the industrial complex itself is busy and other demands on parking exist in the facility. Ms. savage stated another alternative would be the variance opportunity for special circumstances. Ms. Modig stated, on this site, we would require this tenant to have 65 additional spaces. Mr. Hickok stated no. we would require 65 parking spaces be dedicated to this use. Ms. Modig asked how many spaces are available now. Mr. Hickok stated there are a number of pockets for parking at this site. He would estimate the total number of spaces to be over 200. The code recognizes there are demand times. There are alternating parking opportunities here. staff believes there is ample space for those who work in the building. staff wants to make sure that people are accommodated during the peak times. Ms. Savage stated this parking requirement would apply to everyone. she did not think the Commission should be concentrating on the particular applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 10 Mr. sielaff wondered why the requirement was needed at all. Ms. Savage stated we want some guidelines if this is going to apply to the M-1 and M-2 districts. Applicants have the opportunity to ask for a change when they apply for the special use permit. Ms. savage stated she had a question concerning the multi-tenant building. zf a corporation such as onan wanted to have a daycare, how would that work into this amendment. Mr. Hickok stated one way in which to accomplish this could be to say that the daycare would be located in a building on an arterial street and to say that the day care maximum floor area shall not be more than 30% of the floor area of the building. staff wants to make sure that an industrial site is not utilized as a daycare center. Mr. zylla stated, regarding parking, 190 parking spaces at their site sounds about right. The general office requirement is 1 parking space for every 250 square feet (1:250). They have 45,000 square feet of building space so they would need 180 spaces. zf this would change to 1:100, the number of spaces becomes much higher or 450 spaces. That more than doubles the requirement. zf the requirement remained the same as they are in the district, they would be fine. or, have this considered as part of the variance application. He would rather not be applying for a variance. Mr. Hickok stated the proposed requirement comes out of the special use permit language for the residential district. The same section allows for a reduction in the number of spaces which may be allowed if this would be a hardship. This is essentially a proof of parking. zf it is deemed that this use could survive with less, it does give the discretion to have less. Ms. savage stated this is an issue that could be raised and discussed at the time of the special use permit application. Mr. sielaff asked if it would be staff who would have the discretion to have less. Mr. Hickok stated, if built into the recommendation, it would give staff the ability to say we believe this caveat applies, the Planning Commission would have to concur, and the City Council approve. Mr. sielaff asked if there was some problem in dropping the signage issue. There must be some sign restrictions that already PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 11 exist in this district. Mr. Hickok stated the intent was not to limit the petitioner from having the name of the business on the freestanding sign. zn this industrial complex, it would not allow them to have a second freestanding sign. zf they wanted, they could give up the directory sign for a freestanding sign. zt was meant to protect from those who want their own freestanding sign. Ms. savage stated, if there is already an existing freestanding sign with the existing tenants listed, they can put the additional tenant's name on that sign, but they cannot increase the size of the existing sign unless it is within the code requi rement . Mr. Hickok stated code requi rements , pe rmi tted . this was correct. They can work within the but no additional freestanding signs would be Ms. savage asked if the Commission would like to leave the parking criteria as presented or add additional language. Mr. sielaff stated he would like additional language. Mr. saba stated he would like to go with the language that exists for the M-1 and M-2 district. He did not see that a daycare center would require the extra parking. He felt the requirements in the zoning code were adequate. Mr. sielaff stated he thought the language as presented was too rest ri cti ve . Ms. savage stated she would prefer leaving it as it is without being too specific because the Commission would be dealing with all kinds of businesses. zt will also depend on the type of industrial complex involved. she would personally prefer to leave some decrease without a fixed number of parking spaces put into an ordinance that will have many different types of applicants. Mr. saba stated the code already indicates the number of spaces required, the size of the spaces, etc. zt is now that there is a daycare in the facility. Mr. sielaff stated, with discretion, we could allow even less parking. Ms. Modig stated she thought they should be more language in order to allow some flexibility to make a change. zf the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAG E 12 requirement is 1:250 and there is not enough room for that to happen, there must be a way to get around that. she would like to add language from the residential section that gives them a window and also gives the Planning Commission a window to deny the request. Ms. savage stated an issue for discussion is whether this should be a special use or a permitted use. Mr. Kondrick stated he could see Mr. zylla's point but he would still like to control the request through the special use process. Mr. saba stated he liked the special use because there is also flexibility with the parking issue. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Saba regarding the 1:250 parking ratio. He did not know why this would be a problem. Ms. savage stated the Commission is not addressing this particular application. The Commission is addressing an ordinance amendment. The issue in front of us is an ordinance amendment. The petitioner will have to come before us again for a special use permit if this is approved. Mr. saba stated the existing code for parking in an industrial district is 1:250. He did not see a need to change that. Mr. Kondrick stated we can say they are not special. zf we had heard the 1:250 rule, it would meet their requirements. zf a person needed more or less, we could also deal with that through the special use process. Ms. Modig suggested they leave the parking requirement at 1:250 and add the statement from the residential section. zf there is a problem with an applicant, it could be handled on a case-by- case basis and would provide a window. Ms. savage asked why staff felt the 1:100 was the appropriate ratio to use. Mr. Hickok stated it is consistent with daycare, and daycare does have a crunch time in the morning and in the afternoon which can cause a conflict with parking. The 1:100 ratio is a consistent piece across areas of the code. zn the residential area, they did not want parking to spill over onto the street. There is the same concern in the industrial district. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 13 Mr. sielaff asked, in spring �ake Park, does the daycare center have a designated number of parking spaces. Ms. 7enco stated they have 30 spaces. They share a parking facility with the other programs that are in the same wing. zt does not seem to create a problem that staff are foreseeing. There is something of a crunch time, but it is really more staggered more often. occasionally, there may be a number of people showing up at one time but that is not the norm. she has children in her classroom that may arrive as early as 6:30 a.m. or as late as 10:30 a.m. They currently have about 30 parking spaces for their program and the other programs in their wing. Because they share, their need is even less. People are there for short periods of time and they don't all show up at the same time. Arrivals are staggered. On the sign in/sign out sheet, she rarely sees more than one person coming at one time. Ms. olafson stated they are talking about 70 families. zf only half come at any one time, that is only 35. Ms. savage stated the center in spring �ake Park is not in an industrial building. we are looking to have general language which will provide the controls we need for all situations. she personally would like to keep the requirement the way it is. Mr. zylla stated they must understand that the 1:100 clearly is related to residential, and he knows there is special consideration for residential. He thought whether it is quasi- public or religious institutions, they can have the tendency to disturb the serenity of the residential districts. This is industrial. Also bear in mind that not all the employees come to work at the same time. Plus, the landlord is not going to create a situation that is contrary to the zoning code that jeopardizes the parking requirements for the other tenants. Mr. Kondrick stated he felt the 1:250 ratio with some flexibility was acceptable. He would be comfortable with that. zt would be consistent with the zoning for the industrial district. Mr. Sielaff stated they are restricting the parking to 1:250 and allowing more if that is a burden. Ms. savage stated, regarding signage, she thought they should add language that there should be no additional freestanding signs. Ms. savage stated the multi-tenant would be deleted so the statement would just say "building". Ms. savage stated she agreed in general but she did not agree PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 14 with the parking change. Mr. sielaff he was not tied to the one as presented. The options are to go with the 1:100 square feet with the flexibility built in or to go with 1:250 square feet with the flexibility built in as is in the existing code. Ms. Modig stated by doing this they would be complying with the current code but also providing an opportunity to change. They coul d be more or 1 ess restri cti ve . Mr. Hickok stated the ratio of 1:250 is more liberal. staff would like to see it more restrictive with the latitude to loosen the requi rement . Ms. savage stated Mr. saba is saying we should stay with the existing parking space requirements for the M-1 and M-2 district. she does not agree because this does not take into consideration that you would have more people coming in for the daycare. Mr. saba stated it takes into consideration the space requirements for the industrial complex. For every 250 square feet, they need 1 parking space. zt has to do with the size of the building and the percentage of square feet that will be allowed for the daycare. Ms. savage asked Mr. Hickok to clarify the areas of the code where these parking ratios are indicated. Mr. Hickok stated the 1:250 ratio is the typical industrial parking requirement. 1:150 is for retail which is more rest ri cti ve . Mr. Kondrick stated he thought the industrial zoning was restrictive enough. Mr. sielaff stated, if you go with the additional language from the residential section, you are actually loosening the requirement. zf you say 1:100, you can then loosen it. zf you go 1:250, you have already reduced the requirement. The 1:100 is most restrictive and gives the most flexibility. Ms. savage stated the City's position is that you will have more people with this added element. with a daycare there, there will be more traffic and more of a parking requirement. Ms. Modig asked if the idea for this use was to fit in with the industrial district regarding the buildings, code, etc. By PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 15 changing the parking from industrial to residential, it does not mesh. The parking must fit in with the rest of it. Ms. savage stated the problem with the industrial parking ratio is that it does not allow for additional demand. Mr. saba stated, when the building is constructed, they had a parking requirement. Now for a daycare to go in, they must change that. zt makes it difficult to put in a daycare center. From his knowledge of the daycare centers and the working hours at the facilities he has worked, people come in at a variety of times. Ms. Modig stated she came down 73rd that evening. There are a lot of cars leaving at the same time in this particular area. Ms. Savage asked, if we go with the current requirement of 1:250, how can we if necessary increase the parking if there is a situation where that is needed. Mr. Hickok stated there is a provision in the residential portion that states, "when the provisions for required parking space is inadequate, the City may require additional off-street parking be provided." Mr. sielaff stated he could support the 1:250 ratio with that language. MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of a zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #96-01, by Northco Corporation, to amend the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "zoning", by amending Section 205.17.C., "Uses Permitted with a Special use Permit", by adding: 205.17.C.(5) Commercial �aycares, and renumbering consecutive sections; and by amending Section 205.18.C., "uses Permitted with a Special use Permit", by adding 205.18.C.(5) Commercial �aycares, and renumbering consecutive sections; with the following amended stipulations: 1. �aycare centers shall be located in a building located on an a rte ri al . 2. �aycare centers shall not exceed 30% of the floor area of the building. 3. outdoor play areas shall be contiguous to the building. 4. Pedestrian crossing areas shall be clearly marked through the use of pavement markings and traffic signs. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 16 5. Parking shall be at the rate of 1 space for every 250 square feet of usable daycare space (1:250). (a) Reduction of parking spaces may be allowed when provision of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total number of required parking spaces. (b) when the provisions for required parking space is inadequate, the City may require additional off-street parking be provided. 6. signage shall be limited to wall signage and shall be in compliance with section 214 of the City Code. No additional freestanding signs shall be allowed. 7. �aycare shall be licensed in accordance with the state and County requi rements . 8. �aycare centers shall comply with building code occupancy and separation requirements. 9. �oading and drop-ff areas shall be designed so as not to infringe on traffic flow. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this item on October 14. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 1996 (along with September 9, 1996 u date MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. saba, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of August 12, 1996, along with the September 9, 1996, update. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. sielaff, seconded by Mr. saba, to adjourn the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 PAGE 17 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 18, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �avonn Cooper Recording Secretary