Loading...
07/15/1998 - 00003361CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 15, 1998 • • •G� G Vice-Chairperson Kondrick called the July 15, 1998, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p. m. :• _ Members Present: Dave Kondrick, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Others Present: Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Paul Tatting, Planning Assistant Myrtle & Peter Eisenzimmer, 6535 Oakley Drive John Kurak, 6547 Oakley Drive Margaret Reed, 6017 3rd Street N. E. Cully & Michele Smutzler, 1027 Mississippi Street Dawn Ambuhl, 6544 Hickory Street N.E. Todd & Mary Christenson Paul Plantz, 6542 Brookview Drive Mervin Herrmann, 278 Mercury Drive Richard Pearo, Hilltop Trailer Sales, Inc. Jerry Pearo, Hilltop Trailer Sales, Inc. Joe Maertens, Maertens-Brenny Construction Co. George Fugelsang, 7650 Lake Elmo Avenue, Stillwater e��:• _ • ► ••: - _►► ► •►�►� •► ►� ► MnTInN by Mr Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the June 17, 1998, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-10, BY DAWN AMBl1HL: Per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow the construction of a second accessory structure (garage) on parts of Lot 12 and 13, Block 6, Fridley Park, generally located at 6544 Hickory Street N.E. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 7:33 P.M. Mr. Tatting stated the special use permit would to allow the construction of a second PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 2 accessory building on the property. The proposed garage is 22 feet x 22 feet for an area of 484 square feet. The garage will utilize an existing driveway on the property. Mr. Tatting stated the property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the properties to the north, east and south. To the west is R-3, General Multiple Units, and to the southwest is Cara Auto Body which is zoned C-2, General Business. Mr. Tatting stated the code requires a special use permit for a second accessory structure over 240 square feet in size. The proposed garage is 484 square feet; the existing garage 294 square feet; for a total of 778 square feet. This is below the maximum allowed for accessory structures. The total area of the existing and proposed structures is 2,114 square feet. The total lot coverage by the existing and proposed buildings on this is 21.2% which is below the required maximum of 25%. Mr. Tatting stated the proposed garage will be located in the rear yard 3 feet from the south property line, 5 feet from the rear (west) property line, and 6 feet from the proposed house addition. Access will be from an existing driveway which will have to be lengthened to reach the proposed garage. This driveway will need to be paved. Mr. Tatting stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: The second accessory structure shall be one story, 22 feet wide x 24 feet deep, and meet the standards of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The second garage shall match the architectural design of the principal structure. 3. The second garage shall not be used in conjunction with a home occupation. 4. The second garage must be accessed with a pave driveway. Mr. Tatting stated staff recommends indicating a date by which the paved driveway must be completed. Staff does not know when construction will take place for the garage. This can be discussed with the petitioner and an appropriate date established. Commission members had no questions of staff. Ms. Ambuhl stated they would like to make the garage 22 feet x 24 feet. When the Remodeling Advisor came out, they showed it at 22 feet x 22 feet and there was 5 feet between the garage and the property line. He let them know that there needed to be 3 feet so they thought they would take advantage of the additional 2 feet. There is an existing driveway that goes all the way back. They have plans to put in a concrete drive on part of it leading to the apron of the proposed garage. Currently, they have a one-car garage and have outgrown it. This structure will be used as a garage. Mr. Kondrick stated adding 2 feet will result in an additional 44 square feet. How will that affect the coverage? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 3 Mr. Tatting stated this should not make the structure exceed any of the maximums. Ms. Ambuhl stated they are building onto the back of their house and the garage will be far enough away from the building addition to meet the fire codes. Mr. Oquist asked the petitioner when they plan to complete the garage. Ms. Ambuhl stated they plan to start construction on August 1. Prior to that, they must have the area leveled and take out some existing bushes. Mr. Oquist asked if the October date for the completion of the driveway would be a problem. Ms. Ambuhl asked if she can contact the City if there is a problem. This is scheduled to begin August 3. Mr. Oquist stated the Commission may want to change that to say this be completed one month or 60 days after the garage is completed. Mr. Kuechle suggested the wording that this be completed 60 days after the issuance of the building permit. MnTInN by Ms. 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 7:40 P. M. Mr. Oquist stated this seemed like a nice project. He has no problem with the request with the revision in stipulation #1 that the dimension is 22 feet x 24 feet; and adding 60 days after the issuance of the building permit to stipulation #4. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-10, by Dawn Ambuhl, to allow construction of a second accessory structure (garage on parts of Lot 12 & 13, Block 6, Fridley Park, generally located at 6544 Hickory Street N.E., with the following stipulations: The second accessory structure shall be one story, 22 feet wide x 24 feet deep, and meet the standards of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The second garage shall match the architectural design of the principal structure. 3. The second garage shall not be used in conjunction with a home occupation. 4. The second garage must be accessed with a paved driveway which is to be completed 60 days after the issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 4 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Tatting stated the City Council would consider the request on July 27. 2. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-11, BY MARC�ARET REED: Per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow the construction of a second accessory structure (garage) on Lot 20 and 21, Block 5, Hyde Park, generally located at 6017 - 3rd Street N. E. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 7:43 P.M. Mr. Tatting stated the special use permit would allow the construction of a second accessory structure on the property. The proposed detached garage is 19 feet wide x 22 feet deep for a total area of 418 square feet. The garage will utilize an existing paved driveway that accesses 3rd Street. The property is zoned S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood. Mr. Tatting stated the existing garage is accessed by an alley to the back next to University Avenue. There is a proposal to vacate that alley so the garage in the back could not be used as garage because there would no longer be access. The code requires a special use permit for accessory structures over 240 square feet. The total area of accessory structures is 760 square feet, which is below the maximum requirement. The total area of all structures is 1,500 square feet. This results in a lot coverage of 14.8%, which is below the maximum allowed coverage. Mr. Tatting stated the existing garage is located behind the house and the access is through the alley. The alley is to be vacated. The existing garage can no longer be used for vehicle storage but it can be used for other storage and other purposes. The proposed garage will be located north of the house and does not require any variances. A driveway exists but needs to be extended to the proposed garage. The petitioner had indicated the style will match the existing house construction. Mr. Tatting stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: The second accessory structure shall be one story, 19 feet wide x 22 feet deep, and meet the standards of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The second accessory structure shall match the architectural design of the principal structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 5 3. The second accessory structure shall not be used in conjunction with a home occupation. 4. The second accessory structure must be accessed with a paved driveway. Mr. Tatting stated that also in this case, a completion date for the driveway should be indicated. Perhaps a similar statement as the previous request indicating 60 days after issuing the building permit would be appropriate. The Commission members had no questions of staff. Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioner if she had objections to the stipulations. Ms. Reed stated she had no objections. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner understood the 60-day timetable for completing the driveway. Ms. Reed stated her plan is that, when the foundation is run for the garage, the driveway will be run at the same time. MnTInN 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 7:48 P. M. Mr. Saba stated he had no problem with the request. Mr. Oquist stated the alley is to be closed so the petitioner must do something. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-11, by Margaret Reed, to allow the construction of a second accessory structure (garage) on Lots 20 & 21, Block 5, Hyde Park, generally located at 6017 - 3rd Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The second accessory structure shall be one story, 19 feet wide x 22 feet deep, and meet the standards of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The second accessory structure shall match the architectural design of the principal structure. 3. The second accessory structure shall not be used in conjunction with a home occupation. 4. The second accessory structure must be accessed with a paved driveway to be PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 6 completed 60 days after issuance of the building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Tatting stated the City Council would consider this request on July 27. 3. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF LnT SPLIT RECJIIEST, LS #98-01, BY C;l1LLY & MIC;HELE SMl1TZLER: Per Section 205.07 of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow a lot split to sell the unused portion of the property on Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, 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. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners are requesting the subdivision of Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second Addition, to divide that into two lots. The new parcel would face Brookview Drive N.E. The Smutzler home at 1027 Mississippi will remain and will simply have a reduced size lot if the request is approved. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounding properties. Mr. Hickok stated the minimum lot area is 9,000 square feet. As proposed, each of the lots will exceed 9,000 square feet. The existing parcel is 26,787 square feet. The current dimension is 107.24 feet x 250. It will be reconfigured so that Lot 1 would be 107.24 feet by 155 feet for a total of 16,603 square feet. Newly created Lot 2 will be 107.24 feet x 95 feet for a total of 10,184 square feet. The home exists and will continue to exist on Lot 1, the larger lot closest to Mississippi Street. Mr. Hickok stated a variance will be required due to the location of the existing garage relative to the new lot line. The code requires that when the rear of a corner lot has frontage along a side street, no accessory building on a corner lot within 25 feet of the common lot line shall be closer than 30 feet to that right-of-way provided, however, this regulation is not to be interpreted as to reduce the buildable area of that corner lot to less than 25 feet. The existing garage is set back less than the 25 feet spelled out in the code. It is just over 17 feet. As such, the garage sitting back 22.1 feet from the right-of-way would also need to be moved back or a variance granted to bring this into conformance. Another alternative is to reduce the width of the lot being requested. The lot is somewhat larger than necessary to meet the minimum requirements. It is possible to move the lot line back to meet the dimension. Staff s understanding is that the lot dimensions are somewhat due to the desire to sell a lot of this size and also to due to some mature trees on the site which affect where the lot line is placed. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the lot split with the following stipulations: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 7 Approval of a variance for the existing garage from 30 feet to 22.1 feet. 2. All easements be dedicated as illustrated on staff s Exhibit A(attached). 3. A$750 park dedication fee shall be paid before the building permit is granted. 4. A$1,000 storm water fee shall be paid before the building permit is granted. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners have made an application for a variance. The variance must be approved before filing at the County. Mr. Hickok stated staff heard from one neighbor in this area who indicated concerns about how the water in the neighborhood is shed from lots back into a low area at the back of his lot. He has asked that staff look at a grading plan for any new construction on the new lot that would not contribute additional water to that low lying area. Staff will be evaluating further the grading and drainage. The Commission could make that a stipulation. Before the request goes to the City Council, staff will want to know what the options are. It would be appropriate to add a stipulation #5 that the petitioner work with staff on the grading plan to not contribute to the run off that already exists to any of the back lots. This could be done by the creation of run off patterns on the site with a swale that would run toward the street as much as possible. Mr. Saba asked if it would make more sense to wait until there is a proposal for a building on the new lot before doing a drainage plan. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. Staff would not expect that the petitioners come in with that plan until a home plan is proposed. Mr. Kuechle stated he did not understand why there is a need for 30 feet on the side and the need for a variance. Mr. Hickok stated the code requires this when a corner lot has an accessory building that faces the street of the lot behind it, in this case the garage faces and takes access to Brookview. For ease of visibility and to keep cars parked in the driveway out of the line of sight as much as possible, the code requires that a garage be setback 30 feet if it is closer than 25 feet to the side lot line. The petitioner has now reduced the size of the lot, moved the side lot line to within less than 25 feet of the garage causing the garage to be set back 30 feet. If the lot line were a bit more to the north, this would not be an issue. Mr. Kuechle asked if the normal setback is 35 feet. Mr. Hickok stated, yes. However, on a corner lot there are special provisions in the code. A corner lot's side yard can have the principle building as close as 17.5 feet to the side right- of-way line. But for an accessory building, the impact is not only the garage but the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 8 vehicles that would sit in front of it. The intent of the code was that, if the garage sits too close to the side lot line and cars are parked in front of it, it would create a closed in feel for the lot, in this case, to the north. Mr. Kuechle asked if there is a problem with the 22 foot setback as well. Mr. Hickok stated the setback is 17.5 feet on the side yard of a corner lot. The petitioner meets the 35 foot front yard setback. Technically for a corner lot, the narrowest dimension becomes the front regardless of which way the house faces, and they can go to within 17.5 feet on the side lot. Mr. Oquist asked who pays the two fees. Mr. Hickok stated either party could pay the fee; however the petitioner is saying this is part of their cost of the subdivision. The fees must be paid before a building permit is issued. Ms. Smutzler stated she had no additional comments. She understands the need to wait for the variance to go through and there is a City Council meeting for the variance and one for the lot split. Mr. Kondrick stated this was correct. He asked the petitioner if she understood that by adjusting the lot line they could eliminate the need for the variance. Ms. Smutzler stated she understood. They want to make a larger lot. They want to keep the lots as large as possible. The neighborhood is made up of larger lots. They thought it would be better for the interest of the neighbors and for the person purchasing the lot. A contractor is interested in building a house who could use the larger lot. It would make a better size lot for the house they want to put there. Mr. Kondrick asked if she understood the discussion about the water drainage plan. Ms. Smutzler stated she understood that the house that is going to be put in will not create any additional drainage problems. It should help. The roof design should have the water draining to the front of the house rather than to the back. Having a house there should actually improve the drainage on that particular portion of the lot. Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner had any questions or problems with the stipulations. Ms. Smutzler stated they had been over these several times. She understands the stipulations. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he is not opposed to the lot split. He is opposed to water coming into his yard. All the water from the homes comes into his backyard. If the ground does not thaw in the spring, it floods his basement. This is something he wants to prevent from continuing. He brought in black dirt to try to keep the water from coming in. He tore out the sidewalk twice and replaced it. He asked the City Council for help to get this water problem taken care of. The City said he would have to pay for it himself. At one time, a street was PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 9 to come down Taylor to 67th. There was to be a storm sewer coming down through that. There is a sanitary sewer in the corner which is the only sewer that is in there. There is no way to get the water out of there. There is a home to be razed at 1015. If they were to build up that backyard, raise the backyard on the lot where the house is to be built and put in a swale going toward 67th, that would help eliminate some of the water. Otherwise, he is going to have to build a berm along the backyard so the water does not come through there. If he cannot get the City to do something with this, he will built a cement wall around it, three feet high, and let the water go into other people's basements. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he has lived there for 18 years and his basement has been flooded twice. He cannot leave the house from January until after the thaws because, when it thaws, it floods. If it thaws and the ground if frozen, he will get 8 inches of water in his yard. He has already put in swales to get the water to go around but it still comes in. He believes that when these two homes are worked on, they could do something together so the water can run off or install a storm sewer. Right now, he gets all the water from the neighbors' yards. There are 6 homes where the water comes through his yard. He wants the water problem corrected before putting in more buildings. Mr. Kondrick stated that with the new lot, the people buying the lot have to be concerned that they cannot have any more or less water than what drains from there now leave that property. Regarding the other situations, the comments are on record and will be forwarded to the City Council. He would imagine that the engineering staff as well will take a look at this. The Planning Commission is concerned with the lot split. In the future, if a home is built on that property, those people have to make certain they do not tamper with the flow of water toward his house. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he understood that. It is just that he has had this problem for years. If he has to build berms or put in a concrete wall to prevent the water from coming in there, then that is what they are going to have to do. Mr. Saba stated it is one thing for rainstorm type drainage and it is another thing when there is no seepage into the ground. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated, in the winter, the water comes up. The pressure from the water breaks out the windows in the basement. He is at the meeting because they are going to be working in this area, and he would like something to be done. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 8:15 P. M. Mr. Kuechle stated he would like to see a stipulation that a workable drainage plan be required before the lot split is approved. If the lot split is approved, then the lot exists and there is no leverage to get a workable drainage plan. He would be in favor of having a stipulation that a workable drainage plan be demonstrated before the lot split is approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE lo There are not that many places where you can put a foot print for a house on that lot that you ought not be able to demonstrate. Mr. Saba agreed, especially with the concerns about the drainage. There are two drainage concerns - stormwater run off and thawing when the ground is still frozen. Mr. Oquist stated he agrees except that this property does not necessary contribute to that drainage. The drainage seems to come in from behind. Mr. Kuechle stated they are not stipulating that they have to solve the problem for the area, but that they cannot add to it. Mr. Kondrick asked if that happens automatically. Mr. Kuechle stated he thought it needs to be stipulated. Otherwise you end up with a lot and it becomes very tough to stop anyone from building there. Mr. Kondrick stated Mr. Hickok feels confident that for this lot the water problem can be handled. He has no problem with the additional stipulation for drainage. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Lot Split, LS #98-01, by Cully and Michele Smutzler, to allow a slot split to sell the unused portion of the property on Lot 1, Block 2, Brookview Second, generally located at 1027 Mississippi Street, with the following stipulations: Approval of a variance for the existing garage from 30 feet to 22.1 feet. 2. All easements be dedicated as illustrated on staff s Exhibit A(attached). 3. A$750 park dedication fee shall be paid before the building permit is granted. 4. A$1,000 storm water fee shall be paid before the building permit is granted. 5. A workable drainage plan for the newly created lot must be demonstrated before approval of the lot split. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider the request on July 27. The Appeals Commission will consider a variance request on August 12. Mr. Eisenzimmer stated he did not think that one lot is going to make the drainage thing happen. The other lot needs to be razed and worked with also. � - : . �: ► •► � :� •► • � � � :►� ' ••: : PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 11 MERVIN .I HERRMANN: Per Section 205.07.01.C.(1) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow the construction of a second accessory building at the property on Lot 2, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Plat #4, generally located at 278 Mercury Drive. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, 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 8:20 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit would allow the construction of a second accessory building. The garage would be 14 feet x 24 feet deep, a total of 336 square feet. The building will be 14 feet in height at its peak. A special use permit is required for accessory buildings over 240 square feet except for the first accessory building. The proposed second accessory structure will be used for storage and will not have a driveway. Mr. Hickok stated the subject parcel is located south of Mercury Drive. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounded parcels. There is sufficient area to place this proposed storage shed to meet all of the setback requirements. No variances will be required. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: The second accessory building shall be one story, 14 feet wide by 24 feet deep and meet the standards of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The building shall match the architectural design of the principal structure. 3. A second driveway/curb cut shall not be created on this property. 4. The accessory building shall not be utilized for a home occupation. The Commission members had no questions of staff. Mr. Herrmann stated one stipulation stated one story. That does not mean that he cannot have storage trusses to hold it together and he wants to have something to store picnic tables, etc., in winter. On the drawing, it shows the building is 10 feet from the lot line. Does he need to be 10 feet from the building to the west? His neighbor has a similar building and wants this to be closer so, if someone else occupies the property, they would not be able to park something between the buildings. Mr. Hickok stated that if there are easements along that lot line, they would need to stay out of the easements. The building code states they do need to keep two buildings like this at least 6 feet apart. If they are closer, they will need a fire wall. There might be some latitude to move the structure closer. If the distance is 6 feet or less, they would need to put sheet PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 12 rock on the inside walls. The setbacks for accessory structures in the rear yard can be as close as 3 feet. Mr. Herrmann stated the rear lot line has a 5 foot easement so they need to keep 5 feet away. They would stay at least 10 feet from the building. Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Herrmann understood the stipulations. Mr. Herrmann stated, yes. He understands that he has to be at least 6 feet and they will be more than that. MnTInN 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 8:27 P. M. Mr. Oquist stated he had no problem with the request. The petitioner can work with staff on the issue of placement when they get their building permit. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-12, by Mervin J. Herrmann, to allow the construction of a second accessory building at the property on Lot 2, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Plat #4, generally located at 278 Mercury Drive, with the following stipulations: The second accessory building shall be one story, 14 feet wide by 24 feet deep and meet the standards of the Fridley Zoning Ordinance and the Uniform Building Code. 2. The building shall match the architectural design of the principal structure. 3. A second driveway/curb cut shall not be created on this property. 4. The accessory building shall not be utilized for a home occupation. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on July 27. 5. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-13, BY HILLTnP TRAILER SALES: Per Section 205.15.01.C.(3) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to allow the selling and displaying of recreational vehicles on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 22nd Addition, except the east 200 feet of the south 204 feet of Lot 3, generally located at 7810 University Avenue N.E. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 13 MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 8:28 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the special use permit would allow the display and sales of recreational vehicles on the Lupient Used Car site at 7810 University Avenue. The proposal is to modify the parking lot and reuse the building for vehicle showroom and repair service. Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit is required for the sale and display of recreational vehicles not within an enclosed structure. The proposed site and building are currently used for automobile sales and service. Improvements to the parking lot including adding landscaped islands are planned. The proposed display areas will have large landscaped areas of shade and ornamental trees. Hilltop Trailer Sales would like to create an atmosphere for selling its recreational vehicles that "creates an image and character reminiscent of the north woods". Mr. Hickok stated the subject parcel is zoned C-3, General Shopping Center. The proposed use is appropriate for a C-3 district. To the north and south is C-3, General Shopping, zoning. To the west is M-2, Heavy Industrial. To the east across University Avenue is the City of Spring Lake Park and a mix of commercial uses. Mr. Hickok stated the parking is proposed to be 68 spaces for customer parking and 32 spaces as proof of parking. The petitioner's experience in the current location leads them to believe that 68 spaces would more than adequately serve their customer needs on their busiest days. If not, the City can require the petitioner and the petitioner will install the additional parking spaces needed. Mr. Hickok stated the current parking lot has curb and gutter installed in certain locations in the parking lot. However, parking setbacks have not been met. Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: Parking of 68 customer spaces be allowed, with 32 spaces shown for future parking if needed. 2. The site plan be revised to meet the parking setback requirements. 3. Curb and gutter be installed in the display and parking areas, including around the landscaped islands. 4. Additional landscaping be approval by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The existing fence be open or able to be knocked down for emergency vehicle access. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 14 6. The flags and banners, other than the large American flag, be removed. 7. The building be adequately ventilated for spray paint and/or other service processes. 8. All trash and trash handling equipment must be in closed containers. 9. Any outdoor storage beyond the proposed camper sales will require an additional special use permit. Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has provided a brochure explaining their history and products which is available for review by the Commission and the public. Mr. Hickok reviewed the site plan. The display areas are set away from the drive aisles so that in the event of an emergency, vehicles could get in quickly and easily. On the north and south of the building are the landscaped areas that are designed to mimic the "north" and give people the sense of a more natural feel to the display area. The petitioner has provided a colored rendering for the front of the site as the site is developed. The petitioners plan to spruce up the site and to provide additional landscape materials. The lighting has been reviewed and is adequate. It was designed for automobile sales and from a security standpoint is appropriate. Mr. Kondrick asked if there is any way to regulate the number of units that can be displayed. Mr. Hickok stated the units are planned to be displayed in those landscaped areas and on the hard surface. They could mandate a certain number. In talking with the petitioner, it is staff s impression that in order to really show their products well they like to keep distance between the units so the folks can back up and take a look at it. It is their intention to utilize the site in a manner that keeps them spaced properly, to give people a chance to look at them, and not to overly inundate the site with inventory. If the Commission feels it is appropriate, they can come to a determination of a maximum number if you feel that is necessary. Mr. Kondrick stated the petitioner will be selling and will need an inventory. Where will that inventory be kept? Mr. Hickok stated guest parking is close to University Avenue. As you enter the lot, you will start to enter the display area. The landscaped areas are the introduction into the camper sales. Back beyond that, additional units would be lined up neatly at a distance apart so they are not cramped. There is also an area for proof of parking and a ponding areas at the back. Mr. Dick Pearo stated Hilltop Trailer Sales has been located in the City of Hilltop since PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 15 1951. His father started the business there. The current site is approximately 2.75 acres, and they have outgrown that space. The site on University is just under 6 acres and gives them more room. They try to have neat displays but they do not have enough room. Part of the reason to move is to have better outside displays and displays inside. Mr. Kondrick asked if they understood the stipulations. Mr. D. Pearo showed a picture of the current location. Mr. Oquist asked if this was typical of the number of units that would be seen at the University site. Mr. D. Pearo stated yes. One would see more pop up tent trailers in the closed position in the back. They would be more out of site because there is more landscaping around that area. Mr. Jerry Pearo stated they are a non-motorized recreational vehicle dealer. They sell travel trailers, fifth wheels, park-type trailers, and tent campers which is the product they probably sell the most. Tent campers are sometimes not conducive to have up in a display position outside because of the nature of the beast. They have a canvas top with soft sides. They cannot take a snow load in the winter. This is another thing that precipitated the move because they could go inside to display those products and also display them year around. As far as storage of those, they sell the Coleman tent camper and Jayco which are the number 1 and 2 nationally best selling brands. As far as the storage, they would be stored in the area to the rear. Because of the nature of their business, manufacturers cannot make enough product for May, June and July. Dealers have to buy and have incentives to buy year around. Now, they will be buying 1999 products from now through December. They do not sell a volume at that time, but come next spring they have to have products serviced and ready to go. Products would be displayed in the building, and they would have the same product available and stored outside. Mr. Kondrick asked the petitioners if they felt the provisions they have on the property for security in terms of fencing will not be a problem. Mr. D. Pearo stated it should not be. Their existing lot is not totally fenced. They have some problems but have not had major problems. He felt this would be a better area as far as vandalism. They are currently in a residential area where there is the opportunity for more problems. Mr. D. Pearo stated they talked with staff earlier about the parking setbacks. The property already has curb and gutter. They were uncertain about the setback as far as the existing curbing. They have no problem with the landscaping. Complying with setbacks would be an expense and hardship if they had to take out the curb on the north side of the property and move it in three or four feet. They could outline the parking and keep it back. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 16 Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Tatting had mentioned that. The setbacks that apply to this site are 5 feet on the side and rear lines and 20 feet on the front. Similar to Friendly Chevrolet, when the use changes or expands, they need to look at the setbacks and either have them corrected to the setback standards or apply for a variance to recognize and accept there is something less than the standard setback. The petitioner has the option of applying for a variance to the setback standards or to change the existing setbacks to comply with code requirements. Mr. Oquist asked where these areas were. Mr. Tatting stated there are areas in the front and on the side. A portion of the front is setback 20 feet. Continuing to the north, however, the parking lot is 12 feet from the property line and should be 20 feet. The same is true for Main Event and this site. The green area along their common property lines is 5 feet wide and the requirement is 10 feet. Mr. D. Pearo stated he believed it would mainly be the side by Main Event. Also, it creates a problem in front of the building. If they move that back 5 feet, they would have no parking. Mr. Tatting stated they would require 25 feet for the driving aisle and 20 feet for the stalls for a total of 45 feet. If that was moved, there is no area for parking. The site was created like this in 1975. Mr. Oquist stated staff stated the 20 foot setback was only at the south end. Is there a setback problem in front of the building? Mr. Hickok stated, yes. It is closest to meeting the 20 feet toward the south. As you move closer to the north and the bend in the road, the lot line is skewed a bit so that it becomes more of a problem in that area. In front of the building, the setback is less than 20 feet. One option to consider is a one-way circulation and 60 degree parking. There may be an opportunity to get a narrower drive aisle, preserve the parking and achieve the required setback. Staff can evaluate that further. Mr. Kondrick stated there is no room on the north side of the property. Mr. Hickok stated it appears that it is that side particularly where it probably has 1.5 to 2 feet. They share a 5-foot green space curb-to-curb with the property to the north. Both properties may have an issue there. Unfortunately, this is the property in question to change the use. Mr. J. Pearo stated that in lieu of the curb and gutter that is in already, the parking spaces could be moved 5 feet over from the existing curb and gutter, stripe the lot accordingly so it ends up with the that distance left. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 17 Mr. Kuechle stated the idea of a setback is to get green space. They are not going to get much by doing that. Without the green space, they do not meet the requirements. He thought that had to happen. The petitioner must either meet the requirement or request a variance. Mr. D. Pearo stated he thought they could work with the front without too great of a hardship but the north would need to change along the property line and would be a major issue. Mr. Kuechle agreed. It will be expensive. If the petitioner is changing it, it should be changed right. Mr. J. Pearo stated they could leave the green space in the front and put the parking some place else. They need two handicapped spaces. They could those elsewhere and lose 10 sites across the front and leave it because the curb and gutter is in place already. Mr. Kuechle stated that does not help much because the blacktop or whatever is there needs to be set back. Just to take the parking out is not going to meet the requirements. The curb would have to be moved. Mr. D. Pearo stated they are adding 3,500 square feet of additional green space to the property. Does that offset the effect? Mr. Hickok stated, no. They do not have the authority outside of the variance process to approve that. Those kind of things will contribute when requesting a variance. In this arena, they do not have the ability to say something else is appropriate. Mr. J. Pearo stated the other issue would be that they proposed a future expansion. They talked about initially needing to change some things on this building to adhere to what they would like to do. On the back side of the building in the service area, they need to replace and add some doors and would need a permit to do that. Because of the time of the year and the permit stipulates that the landscaping must be approved, they need a certain amount of time to clean the property up, etc. The landscaping would probably need to wait until spring but they would like to have a building permit to put in the doors for the service bays. Mr. Hickok stated it is standard practice to require a performance bond. The landscaping plan would suffice in this case. They are now looking for a plan. After the materials are installed, staff will go out to make sure it is installed as per plan. Mr. D. Pearo asked how the variance process worked and if this was something that was feasible. Mr. Hickok stated the next deadline to request a variance is July 17. That would put them on the Appeals agenda for August 12 and the City Council agenda for August 24. The PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 18 petitioners were asked to talk with staff for more information about filling out an application. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, 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 9:00 P. M. Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend approval revising stipulation #2 that the site plan be revised to meet the parking setback requirements or a variance be granted. MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, #SP98-13, by Hilltop Trailer Sales, to allow the selling and displaying of recreational vehicles on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 22nd Addition, except the east 200 feet of the south 204 feet of Lot 3, generally located at 7810 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: Parking of 68 customer spaces be allowed, with 32 spaces shown for future parking if needed. 2. The site plan be revised to meet the parking setback requirements or a variance be granted. 3. Curb and gutter be installed in the display and parking areas, including around the landscaped islands. 4. Additional landscaping be approval by City staff prior to issuance of building permits. 5. The existing fence be open or able to be knocked down for emergency vehicle access. 6. The flags and banners, other than the large American flag, be removed. 7. The building be adequately ventilated for spray paint and/or other service processes. 8. All trash and trash handling equipment must be in closed containers. 9. Any outdoor storage beyond the proposed camper sales will require an additional special use permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on July 27. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 19 6. PlBL1C; HEARINC�� C;nNSIDERATInN nF SPEC;IAL 11SE PERMIT, SP #98-14, BY MAERTENS-BRENNY C;nNSTRl1C;TInN C;nMPANY: Per Section 205.17.03.C.(1 a) of the Fridley Zoning Code, to increase the allowable lot coverage by a single story structure in an M-2 zone from 40% to 50%, on the south 284 feet of the west 460 feet of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 2, TWP 30 N., Range 24E, generally located at 7901 Main Street N.E. MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and 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 9:03 P.M. Mr. Tatting stated the special use permit would allow a proposed building to cover 49% of a lot. The lot is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, and is 107,182 square feet in area. The proposed one story building is 52,417 square feet in size. The uses in the building will include warehousing, manufacturing and offices. The site is presently vacant. Mr. Tatting stated the code indicates that, with a special use permit, a one story building in an M-2 district may cover up to 50% of a lot. The code allows up to 40% coverage. To go over that amount requires a special use permit. The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met including but not limited to parking and stormwater management. Mr. Tatting stated the property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. To the east, south and west is also M-2, Heavy Industrial. To the north is M-1, Light Industrial. The site is located at the northeast corner of 79th and Main Street. Mr. Tatting stated a special use permit is required to increase the lot coverage in excess of 40%. The proposed building will meet all the required setbacks. The west drive aisle is 24 feet wide. It can be expanded to meet the 25-foot requirement. An area of green space measuring 6 feet could be reduced by 1 foot to meet the required 25 feet. The building setback from the east drive aisle can be decreased from 24 feet to 19 feet and meet code. It is designated as a one-way drive aisle and can be 18 feet, and could create a 5 foot setback. Mr. Tatting stated the landscape plan shows 53 trees on site. 56 full size trees are required due to the floor area of the building. The total floor area is larger than the footprint because of a second story office area. The new landscape plan would be required to show 56 trees. Mr. Tatting stated the loading dock on the north side are correctly place in the side yard but are not screened from Main Street. Fencing should be placed along the north property line to screen the doors from Main Street. Mr. Tatting stated the City have been supplied with basic grading and drainage plans. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 20 Detailed plans will need to be provided and approved by the City engineers before issuance of a building permit. Mr. Tatting stated the parking plan indicates 61 parking stalls. Offices will use 6,000 square feet; manufacturing 16,445 square feet, and warehousing 38,372 square feet. Based on these uses, the required parking is 79 parking stalls. The parking plan is deficient. To meet the parking requirement, additional parking stalls need to be generated or the office and/or manufacturing space needs to be reduced. Otherwise, the site must receive a variance. Mr. Tatting stated the plans indicate that the building will be made of precast walls. A color scheme has not been set. An additional stipulation could be added for the scheme that the City staff should approve the exterior of the building before the building permit is issued. Mr. Tatting stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations: 1. The number of parking stalls at the site shall either conform to the City Code or receive a variance from the City Code prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. A landscape plan for the site shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The drive aisle widths and distances to the building shall conform with the City Code. 4. Grading and drainage plans and drainage calculations for the site shall be approved by the City Engineers prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Exterior surfaces of the building shall be approved by staff before the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Tatting stated the parking is an important issue to be solved before the special use is given. If 40% of the lot is covered, the building would be reduced so they would have more space for parking. Much of the manufacturing equipment is automated so there would not be as many employees. Parking may not be an issue. However, the variance process would review that. Mr. Kondrick asked if the only way was to reduce the size of the building. Mr. Tatting stated that in the present configuration, there is no room on the east, north or west sides. On the south side, they need the current space for drainage. With the present configuration, they could not increase the parking from what is proposed. Mr. Oquist stated they talked about a fence on the north side. Is that part of the landscape plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 21 Mr. Tatting stated, yes. Mr. Maertens stated there is no problem with parking. They realize there can be a reconfiguration. Approval of the special use permit gives them the option to reconfigure or apply for a variance. Mr. Fugelsang stated they can make some adjustments by reducing the amount of office space. Mr. Tatting that would make it closer to the parking requirement. Mr. Fugelsang stated they currently have 52 employees. He doesn't think parking will be a problem for the operation but they realize the need to conform. Mr. Kondrick asked if they had any problem with the stipulations. Mr. Maertens stated the only question they have regards the fencing for the loading docks. What does that mean? If some additional trees would meet the requirement, that is no problem. He thought that would be more aesthetic than a fence. Mr. Saba stated he felt landscaping might be more appropriate for the site. Mr. Tatting stated this can be worked out with the landscape plan. Mr. Fugelsang stated a fence would not block the view of the loading docks from Main Street. MnTInN 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 9:17 P. M. Mr. Oquist stated this looked like a nice plan and, the petitioner is willing to work out the parking. MnTInN by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #98-14, by Maertens-Brenny Construction Company, to increase the allowable lot coverage by a single story structure in an M-2 zone from 40% to 50%, on the south 284 feet of the west 460 feet of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of section 2, Township 30 N, Range 24E, generally located at 7901 Main Street N.E. with the following stipulations: The number of parking stalls at the site shall either conform to the City Code or receive a variance from the City Code prior to issuance of a building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 22 2. A landscape plan for the site shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The drive aisle widths and distances to the building shall conform with the City Code. 4. Grading and drainage plans and drainage calculations for the site shall be approved by the City Engineers prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. Exterior surfaces of the building shall be approved by staff before the issuance of a building permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Tatting stated the City Council would consider this request on July 27. : . ►� ► • . • • • • • ►� ►� • ► ►� ► • ► � ••: MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of June 10, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. : : . ►� ► • . • • • • • ►� ►� • ► ►� ► • � , ..; MnTInN by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of June 24, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. • : . ►� ► • . ��:. :- : : ' •► •►�►� •► 11 ► • ► ••: MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of June 2, 1998. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � -�_ •► � • ► _ •► Mr. Hickok provided an update on City Council actions. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JULY 15, 1998 PAGE 23 e� • :►►� ► MnTInN by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, VICE-CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE JULY 15, 1998, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary