Loading...
11/20/1996 - 00003684CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 20, 1996 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the November 20, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig, Larry Kuechle LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Loren Clark, Tri-Star Insulation APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 6, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the November 6, 1996, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. l. CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION REQUEST, SAV #96-04, BY KELLER STRUCTURES: To vacate the drainage and utility easement that lies within the most northerly 10.00 feet of Lot l, Block l, Longview lst Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the most easterly 10.00 feet thereof, generally located south of 61st Way, east of East River Road, and west of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Ms. McPherson stated the vacation request is by Keller Structures who is representing Lakeland Properties, Inc. of Wisconsin. Lakeland owns Tri-Star Insulation which is located in Minneapolis. They have purchased property located at the intersection of East River Road and 61st Way in the southwest portion of the City. This property is vacant and is located north of Longview Fiber. They are currently negotiating for a small office building located directly at the corner of 61st Way and East River Road. The company that currently occupies this building is Doradus Corporation. Lakeland Properties hopes to construct a 22,945 square foot warehouse on the vacant property and connect it through an on-grade pedestrian connection to the existing office building. Ms. McPherson stated the vacation request is for a 10-foot drainage and utility easement located adjacent to the north lot line of the vacant parcel. The petitioner is proposing to construct the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 20, 1996 2 proposed warehouse 1.5 feet from the north lot line which encroaches into the easement. The Engineering Department has reviewed the request. There are no utilities or drainage needs for this easement. The topography is such that the property slopes slightly from east to west. There are drainage and utility easements located along the south and east lot lines of the subject property. The Engineering Department has requested, in exchange for vacation of the subject easement, that if the petitioner gains control of the office property, a 10-foot easement be granted to the City along the east property line which would continue the 10- foot utility easement that exists along the east property line of the vacant parcel. Ms. McPherson stated, as a side issue, the office building property is currently zoned CR-1, General Office. Staff has requested that the petitioner submit a rezoning request for this parcel to M-1, Light Industrial, which is what the vacant parcel is currently zoned. This will allow a continuity of zoning between the two parcels since they are proposed to be physically connected by a walkway. This will eliminate any potential conflict with the Uniform Building Code and eliminate the need for a variance to the setback requirements. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends approval of the vacation request, SAV #96-04, with the following stipulation: l. The petitioner shall grant a ten foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line of the office property (as shown on Exhibit A). Mr. Kondrick asked the current zoning of the office building. Ms. McPherson stated the current zoning is CR-1, General Office. Mr. Kondrick stated staff is suggesting that it would be of benefit to the petitioner to have that zoning changed. However, that is not a part of the request this evening. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. That request would come before the Planning Commission once staff received that application from the petitioner. Mr. Clark stated he works for Tri-Star Insulation Company, which is currently located in north Minneapolis, and he is representing Mr. Arnold Schmidt, owner of Lakeland Properties. It is to his benefit if the company builds a new building. The company is now located in north Minneapolis and he is not thrilled with the current location. They are excited about making this change. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 20, 1996 3 Ms. Savage asked if there were any problems with the stipulation. Mr. Clark stated no. Mr. Schmidt stated there was not problem with the stipulation. There is a low area behind the Doradus property right now. They would like to be able to join the current office building with the new warehouse rather than build a separate office. The warehouse will be storage. The company sells pipe insulation to commercial and industrial contractors. The building itself will be primarily for storage of the insulation product. Mr. Kondrick asked if there would be any site preparation necessary for this construction. Ms. McPherson stated the site would require the typical grading necessary to put in the building footings. The site is on good soil so there is no soil correction needed. They would be required to meet the grading and drainage requirements of the zoning code. Mr. Sielaff asked if the rezoning would go up to where the current building is. Ms. McPherson stated yes. The rezoning would affect the portion of the property where the existing office building is located. Mr. Clark stated, if the purchase goes through and they attach the warehouse, they will redo the outside of the office building to match the warehouse. Mr. Sielaff asked what the zoning is on the north side of 61st Way. Ms. McPherson stated the property is zoned R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, and is currently vacant. Ms. Modig stated the petitioner is now negotiating for the office building. If they do that, the petitioner would grant the City a 10-foot easement. What happens if they do not acquire the office building? Ms. McPherson stated, in that instance, the City would not be able to acquire that easement because the property would be under separate ownership. Ms. Modig asked if the City would have a drainage easement on that property. Ms. McPherson stated there are easements for the right-of-way along the north portion of the site. Doradus does have a stormwater pond in this area. As far as the site in general, there are easements along the east and the south sides of the subject parcel which PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 20, 1996 4 should handle any utility needs that are required. The Engineering Department felt that, because there is a 10-foot easement that does stop on the north property line of the subject parcel, it would be appropriate to extend that given the opportunity. She believes that Lakeland Properties feels very positive they will be able to acquire that property. Mr. Kuechle stated, if the petitioner cannot acquire that property, they will not meet the setback requirements. Ms. McPherson stated, if they do not acquire the Doradus property, they would have to go back and re-look at the design of the proposed warehouse in order to include the required office space and to meet the setbacks. If Lakeland Properties did not feel positive about their potential to acquire the parcel, they would not have gone this far. Mr. Clark stated there is a lease condition with the company operating the business in that building. The owner has retired and has moved. If Lakeland could buy the property, it would help release them from a lease commitment. It is just a matter of negotiating this with the owner. Lakeland would like to purchase the building and have it all be one part. That would be the best for them. The rezoning is just to be able to attach the existing building to the warehouse. They currently have a separate office and warehouse which makes it more difficult to operate a business. Mr. Kuechle asked if the Commission could add a stipulation that this recommendation is valid only if the property is acquired. Ms. McPherson stated the Commission could do that. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of Vacation Request, SAV #96-04, by Keller Structures, to vacate the drainage and utility easement that lies within the most northerly 10.00 feet of Lot l, Block l, Longview lst Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, except the most easterly 10.00 feet thereof, generally located south of 61st Way, east of East River Road, and west of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks, with the following stipulations: l. The petitioner shall grant a ten foot drainage and utility easement along the east property line of the office property (as shown on Exhibit A). 2. The approval of vacation request, SAV #96-04, is valid only if the petitioner purchases the adjacent property. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 20, 1996 5 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will on December 16 establish the date for the public hearing which will be January 6, 1997. 2. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 1996: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of October 7, 1996. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission will not meet on December 4, but will meet on December 18. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOVEMBER 20, 1996, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:47 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary