PL 08/04/1999 - 30972�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the August 4, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to order
at 7:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Dave Kondrick, Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig
Members Absent: LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle
Others Present: Scott, Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Missy Daniels, Planning Assistant
Roger & Shirley Frank, 5512 Fillmore
Tom Gonyea, 50 Groveland Terrace, Minneapolis, MN
Dave Gonyea, 50 Groveland Terrace, Minneapolis, MN
Mr. Voigt, Voigt Bus Company
APPROVAL OF JULY 7, 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
� MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to approve the July 7, 1999, Planning
" Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST,
#99-05. BY JIM BARTOW:
To allow continued maintenance of a second detached accessory structure on
Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditors Subdivision No. 22, generally
located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
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 current owner of the property is Southview Bank and the petitioner
is Jim Bartow. The petitioner is seeking a special use permit to allow a second
accessory building at 6291 Central Avenue N.E. There is a garage that exists on the
site and a new home. The property is located at the intersection of Rice Creek Road
^ and Old Central. The lot size is 16,990 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 2
Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Paul Lifinrinczuk, who previously owned the property, had planned
� to build a new home with an attached garage and keep the detached garage. In
_ October, 1997, the City issued a special use permit to Mr. Lifinrinczuk to allow him to
keep the existing detached garage. The stipulations were not met, and the special use
permit was revoked on March 1, 1999. The garage was set on a demolition schedule
where the owner of the property was to remove the second accessory garage by May 1,
1999, or the City would demolish the garage and bill the property owner. Prior to May 1,
the City was contacted by Southview Bank and informed that as of May 15, 1999, they
would be the owner of the property. They wished to repair the garage and keep it. As a
result of the Bank's interest in improving the property, demolition of the garage was
postponed pending the outcome of this request.
Mr. Hickok stated second accessory buildings over 240 square feet are a permitted
special use in the R-1 zoning district. The square footage of the detached garage (360
square feet) combined with the square footage of the attached garage (576 square feet)
will not exceed the code maximum of 1,400 square feet. Staff recommends approval of
this special use permit with the following stlpulations:
1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to
prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties.
2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction.
3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation.
4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surFace as approved by the City.
� 5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the existing home.
6. Landscaping of the lot, subject to City staff approval, shall be completed.
7. An overhead garage door, matching the garage door on the attached garage,
shall be installed.
8. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit to ensure timely completion of the project.
9. Failure to complete the improvements by November 1, 1999, shall constitute a
basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit.
Ms. Modig stated they have gone through this before and have been messing around
with this property for over two years. Do they have assurances from the Bank that they
will take responsibility for this or from the new owner'?
Mr. Hickok stated the Bank has an interested buyer. This buyer has expressed some
frustration in having to go through this special use process because, as he described it,
he would have had the roof done, siding on, garage doors installed, and the house sold
by now had he not had to wait through this process. The buyer understands he needs
a special use permit in order to do this, and he was aware that this was coming before
the Planning Commission this evening. The petitioner is not present to speak on his
own behalf. He did express concem about the bond, but understood where the City is
coming from. Mr. Hickok stated the City would likely have concems because of the
history on this property.
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 3
Ms. Modig asked that if the Planning Commission acts on the request and it then goes
,� to the City Council, will the petitioner then have to appear at that time? There is no
advantage to put off a decision any longer.
Mr. Hickok� stated he would encourage the Commission to act on the request this
evening. For the 60-day agency action law, he thought they needed to draw this to a
close.
Mr. Sielaff asked who Mr. Bartow is.
Mr. Hickok stated Mr. Bartow is the new owner. Mr Hickok believed that his purchase
of the property is conditioned upon approval of the special use permit. The owner will
be doing the repairs. The Bank has asked the City to hold this because they have a
buyer who is willing to fix it up.
Ms. Savage asked that if the special use permit is approved with the stipulations, the
petitioner cannot oppose those stipulations.
Mr. Hickok stated this was correct. At this point, he feels that going forward to the City
Council with these stipulations is a strong statement that it is time to fix or demolish the
garage.
Mr. Sielaff stated he is not clear about the role of the Bank with this special use permit.
�'"�
Mr. Hickok stated this is a tax forfeiture property. Before it came back to the Bank on
May 15, they had two interested parties. The Bank, in its due diligence, went out to the
market and had finro potential buyers. Both were interested in keeping the garage. Mr.
Bartow apparently took the lead, put together a purchase agreement, and agreed to
purchase the property contingent upon approval from the City and have the work done
in a timely manner.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE NIOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:44 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he has no problem with the request. If they want to pursue this, it
will be on its way to the City Council. If the petitioner is not at that meeting, it will fall by
the wayside, the garage issue will be settled, and the City will be on its way to plan B.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Special
Use Permit, SP #99-05, by Jim Bartow, to allow continued maintenance of a second
detached accessory structure on Lot 17, except the South 55 feet thereof, Auditors
Subdivision No. 22, generally located at 6291 Central Avenue N.E., with the following
stipulations:
�� 1. All grading, drainage, and downspout locations shall be designed in a manner to
prevent detrimental runoff impacts to adjacent properties.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999
PAGE 4
2. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction.
�--. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation.
4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surFace as approved by the Cit�r.
5. The siding and roof materials shall match the exterior of the existing home.
6. Landscaping of the lot, subject to City staff approval, shall be completed.
7. An overhead garage door, matching the garage door on the attached garage,
shall be installed.
8. A letter of credit of $20,000 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit to ensure timely completion of the project.
9. Failure to complete the improvements by November 1, 1999, shall constitute a
basis for establishing a public hearing to revoke the special use permit.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council will consider this request on August 23.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #99-06.
BY ROGER FRANK:
For a second accessory building over 240 square feet to be used as a garage on
his property, legally described as Part of Lot 7 and 8, Auditors Subdivision No.
25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying west of the east 400 feet thereof and lying
east of the state highway right-of-way, subject to an easement acquired by the
� City of Fridley for utilities and street purposes across the easterly portion of
above described property, generally located at 5512 Fillmore Street.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:45 P.M.
Ms. Daniels stated the special use permit is to allow a second accessory building over
240 square feet on the lot and also to comply with the building permit requirement of
1984 when the building was actually constructed. The property is zoned R-1, Single
Family, and has been used as such since 1961 when the current home was moved onto
the lot. In 1972, a building permit was issued for an attached garage and kitchen. In
1984, a permit was issued which is the subject of the special use permit hearing. To the
north, south and west are multi-family townhomes and to the east is a public school.
Ms. Daniels stated the structure that is the subject of this hearing was built in 1984 and
measures 30 feet x 26 feet x 12 feet high. It is currently used as a garage and for
storage of miscellaneous building materials. It has a flat roof design meant to
accommodate a second story, but that is not allowed by code. There is a 14-foot height
limitation for accessory structures, and this is already at 12 feet. Because of the flat
roof, the building has a commerclal appearance. The north face of the building is
� stained from run-off from roofing materials. The property itself has been the subject of
several citations because of outside storage on the property. These problems together
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999
PAGE 5
make it essential to include a stipulation regarding maintenance, storage, and building
%—�, appearance of the accessory structure. A stipulation regarding the use of the garage for
residential purposes only will be required. Currently the area of the accessory
structures is 1,600 square feet, which is more than what is allowed by code. Another
stipulation requires walling off an existing single car garage. There are now three
separate garages on the property — a single-car attached garage, an attached finro-car
garage, and a detached two-car garage. The petitioner is planning to wall off the single
car garage to meet the requirements.
Ms. Daniels stated that staff has received one letter and one call concerning the
structure.. Both believed an additional garage was going to be built. They also
expressed concem for the upkeep of this accessory structure and the property in
general.
Ms. Daniels stated staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the
following stipulations:
1. The subject garage shall be properly repaired so that all surfaces are clean and
well maintained in appearance. The tar will have to be removed before
repainting in order to achieve the desired appearance.
2. The subject garage shall not be utilized for home occupation purposes. No home
occupation shall exist within, and no storage related to a home occupation within
the home shall be permitted.
,.� 3. The hard surface drive shall be repaired and consistent maintained.
4. The 11-foot by 24-foot single staff garage beneath the principle structure shall be
finished as living space prior to sale of property or November 1, 1999, whichever
comes first.
5. A permit shall be obtained prior to the "finishing-ofP' of the 11-foot by 24-foot
garage as living space.
6. A bond in the amount of $10,000 shall be given to the City to assure that all
clean-up and building modifications occur prior to November 1, 1999, or that the
City has adequate demolition funds if these stipulations are not addressed.
7. The 26-foot by 30-foot flat-roofed detached garage shall be removed from this
site by January 1, 2000, for failure to comply with stipulations 1-6 of this
approval.
Mr. Sielaff stated the result of this is that by the year 2000 they will have a single car
garage.
Ms. Daniels stated, no. The house has a single car garage that is at the back of the
home. That structure will be converted to living space. The property will then have an
attached two-car garage and a detached finro-car garage. This will bring the total
square footage for accessory structures to 1,362 square feet, which is less than the
1,400 feet allowed by the code.
�
Ms. Modig asked what would be removed by the year 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 6
Ms. Daniels stated the detached garage would be removed only if there is a failure to
r—� comply.
Mr. Frank stated he owned the property. He has no problem with the stipulations. It is
in his best interest to make the property as attractive as possible.
Mr. Kondrick stated stipulation #6 requires a bond and the modifications to be
completed by November 1.
Mr. Frank stated he could complete the work by that date. Something else has come
up. The people who are interested in the property want to use the double garage as
living space. He just wants to make it more salable. If they want to use that garage
space as living space, they will have to take out a permit anyway.
Ms. Daniels stated that would require a permit but nothing else.
Mr. Hickok stated it would require that all the stipulations be met because they would be
moving closer to that date. The clean-up and maintenance of the garage and the
property would still apply.
Ms. Modig stated this has to be done before the sale of the property. Does the listing
agreement state and is the realtor aware of the special use permit so that potential
buyers are aware the requirements?
�� Mr. Frank stated the property is not currently listed. It is for sale by owner. He plans to
have everything cleared up before selling the property.
Mr. Kondrick asked, if the petitioner were to sell the property before November 1 and
did nothing, what recourse does the City have to make these things happen?
Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit is a contractual agreement to do certain things.
That would be a problem because it would endanger the future owners. Full disclosure
is essential.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIIVG AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:59 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he assumed Mr. Frank is aware of the stipulations and understands
the direction that the City is going with this and what the City is looking for in terms of
improving the property. It would help him, future buyers,and the neighbors. He would
recommend approval with the stipulations.
Ms. Modig agreed. Her only problem is that she is concemed about the fact that the
property is for sale at this time, and what assurances the City has that the property
� owner will make the potential buyers aware of what must be done. If the property is
PLANNIfdG COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999
PAGE 7
sold and work is not completed, is there a way to be sure that the potential owner is
� aware of the special use permit and the ramifications?
Mr. Hickok stated a special use permit is filed with the property. Any title search will
reveal this. Staff will get this to the County after approval by the City Council. The bond
would assure that the work is done. A future owner may have that surprise, but he
trusts that the current owner would communicate this. In the event that it is a problem,
the City has the funds to do the demolition. The new property owner would be made
aware ahead of time that this was a stipulation filed against the property. If the City
were to go ahead with the demolition, the new property owner would be notified in
advance.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Special
Use Permit, SP #99-06, by Roger Frank, for a second accessory building over 240
square feet to be used as a garage on his property, legally described as Part of Lot 7
and 8, Auditors Subdivision No. 25, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying west of the east
400 feet thereof and lying east of the state highway right-of-way, subject to an
easement acquired by the City of Fridtey for utilities and street purposes across the
easterly portion of above described property, generally located at 5512 Fillmore Street,
with the following stipulations:
1. The subject garage shall be properly repaired to that all surfaces are clean and
well maintained in appearance. The tar will have to be removed before
� repainting in order to achieve the desired appearance.
2. The subject garage shall not be utilized for home occupation purposes. No home
occupation shall exist within, and no storage related to a home occupation within
the home shall be permitted.
3. The hard surface drive shall be repaired and consistently maintained.
4. The 11-foot by 24-foot single staff garage beneath the principle structure shall be
finished as living space prior to sale of property or November 1, 1999, whichever
comes first.
5. A permit shall be obtained prior to the °finishing-ofP' of the 11-foot by 24-foot
garage as living space.
6. A bond in the amount of $10,000 shall be given to the City to assure that all
clean-up and building modifications occur prior to November 1, 1999, or that the
City has adequate demolition funds if these stipulations are not addressed.
7. The 26-foot by 30-foot flat-roofed detached garage shall be removed from this
site by January 1, 2000, for failure to comply with stipulations 1-6 of this
approval.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on August 23.
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF REZONING REQUEST. ZOA #99,�
'�� 03. BY TOM & DAVE GONYEA. GONYEA COMPANY. INC.:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999
PAGE 8
To rezone the property described as Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development
�, Replat. The current zoning on the property is M-4, Manufacturing Only. The
developer proposes a rezoning to M-1, Light Industrial. The purpose of the
rezoning is to allow construction of a multi-tenant industrial office complex,
generally located at 7690 Central Avenue.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:03 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioners are seeking to rezone property located at the comer of
Osbome and Central Avenue. The property is currently zoned M-4, Manufacturing
Only. The requested zoning is M-1, Light Industrial. The purpose is to allow the
construction of a 39,406 square foot warehouse%ffice building.
Mr. Hickok stated the Anderson Development was originally platted in 1969. In 1997,
the City of Fridley changed the zoning from M-1, Light Industrial, to M-4, Manufacturing
Only. The purpose of rezoning was to assure that the remaining industrial parcels in the
city were preserved for manufacturing, thereby protecting surrounding neighborhoods
and roadways from heavy truck traffic common to industrial warehouse developments,
and to assure compatibility with the surrounding development.
�'�,
Mr. Hickok stated this request would revert this parcel to its previous designation. The
proposed building has an office-warehouse ratio of 55% office and 45% warehouse.
The building will be designed with a substantial depth and will also have 14-foot high
doors and a 16-foot to 20-foot clear span inside, as opposed to 30-foot clear heights
desired by trucking, transfer, and high pile storage industries which would result in large
volumes of truck traffic. Those were the types of impacts the city hoped to avoid. The
petitioner stated that, by design of the building, they will limit those interested to the type
of industries that the City was looking for.
Mr. Hickok stated the building is oriented in such a way that all overhead doors are
concealed. The design is a crescent shape and the overhead doors are at the west
face of the building. The docks are designed in a way that they supplement the
warehouse and office and make the building attractive. It would discourage heavy
warehouse tenants who would be looking for through docks for trans-shipment
locations. �
Mr. Hickok stated the emphasis is on office facing the streets, and the parking would
encourage manufacturing and high tech to occupy the space. The site currently has
hard surFace coverage of 91 %. The petitioner is working with their civil engineer to
design an appropriate stormwater ponding solution. Simultaneous to this rezoning
request, the petitioner has also requested a 10-foot variance to allow the building to
exist 90 feet from the Central Avenue right-of-way rather that the required 100 feet.
� V1/hen an industrial district is across from residential properties, the code requires a 100-
foot setback. The southem 54 feet of this site is across from residential property. For
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999
PAGE 9
that resident, the City is having the petitioner go through the variance process. The lot
^ split is also being requested by the fee owner of this parcel. This would allow the
westemmost 45 feet of the existing undeveloped parcel to be sold to the adjacent
owner.
Mr. Hickok stated staff recommends approval of the request with the following
stipulations:
1. Approval of variance, VAR #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90 feet
from Central Avenue adjacent to a residential district, rather than 100 feet as
required by Code.
2. Approval of lot split, L.S. #99-03, to allow separation of west 45 feet of property
and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5/4/99 (attached).
3. Construction of the office/warehouse complex in accordance with the elevation
plans dated (revised) 5/4/99.
4. Construction of the office/warehouse site in accordance with the site plan dated
5/4/99.
5. City staff approval of a revised landscape plan to issuance of a building permit for
this project.
6. Approval of a berm along the west edge of this property in conjunction with the
landscape plan, to be approved by the City of Fridley.
7. Approval of all site grading and drainage issues related to this proposal prior to
issuance of a building permit for this project.
� 8. No fleet vehicles shall be parked or stored along the Central Avenue or Osbome
Road parking areas of this project. All ovemight storage of incidental fleet
vehicles shall be parked in the side yard west of the proposed building.
9. Anoka County shall approve access locations prior to issuance of the building
permit for this project.
10. All architectural banding shall continue around all faces of the building to allow
finished building face appearance.
11. All lighting shall be downcast to protect against horizontal glare to residential
neighborhoods or roadways.
12. A Comprehensive Sign Plan (in accordance with City Code Chapter 214) shall be
prepared and submitted to the City for City Council approval prior to issuance of
a sign permit for the free-standing or building signs in this project.
Mr. Kondrick stated no mention has been made of the parking requirements. Can this
building support the proposed use? If that use changes somewhat, will the parking
requirements still be met?
Mr. Hickok stated staff has analyzed the mix of office to warehouse space. They
exceed the requirement for vehicle parking. If the office use increases to 60%� he
would then be concemed about this being an industrial use.
Mr. Sielaff asked if this use is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
� Mr. Hickok stated the comprehensive plan designates this site as industrial. Therefore�
it would be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 10
^ Mr. Dave Gonyea stated they have no problem with the stipulations. They had stated
the building height would be between 16 feet and 20 feet. Realistically, they probably
will not go higher than 16 feet to 18 feet. They have a building design for a 90-foot deep
base. This is not suited to a heavy warehouse type of use. They have buildings in
Spring Lake Park that are set up in a similar fashion. When they talked to Mr. Anderson
about purchasing the property and having it rezoned, perhaps 70% to 80% of the
tenants would fit into the M-1 district. They have several potential clients that would be
appropriate for the Light Industrial use. They would have approximately 145 feet for the
parking area in the back. They would not need that much space for trucks so it could be
set up for some ponding back there. If they did not use it for ponding, they would likely
add some green space. With the way the building is designed, it screens the bus
company to the west and Anderson Trucking. A berm and trees will be placed befinreen
the two buildings for further screening.
Mr. Kondrick asked if they understood stipulation #1.
Mr. Dave Gonyea stated the variance affects approximately 400 square feet of the
building. The actual setback line across from the residential affects only the southem
portion of the building. If they had to, they could take 10 feet off from that portion of the
building but it would affect the appearance.
Mr. Tom Gonyea stated that on the office/warehouse ratio, one reason they go heavier
� on the office use in the design is so they do not have a parking problem.
Mr. Kondrick stated things can change in the future and he wants to be sure there is
enough parking.
Mr. Tom Gonyea stated they have parking based on office use. What they show is
more than they anticipating having. On the building in Spring Lake Park, all users go
from 3,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet. None of the uses are heavy truck uses.
If you were to drive by, you would see an excess of parking spaces.
Mr. Dave Gonyea stated they try to put in more parking than what they need. They
have no problem with the stipulation.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:22 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated he is familiar with the building in Spring Lake Park. It is a nice
building.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend approval of Rezoning
Request. ZOA #99-03, by Tom & Dave Gonyea, Gonyea Company, Inc., to rezone the
�` property described as Lot 2, Block 1, Anderson Development Replat, from M-4,
Manufacturing Only, to M-1, Light Industrial, to allow the construction of a multi-tenant
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 11
industrial office complex, generally located at 7690 Central Avenue, with the following
� stipulations:
1. Approval of variance, VAR #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90 feet
from Central Avenue, adjacent to a residential district� rather than 100 feet, as
required by Code.
2. Approval of lot split. L.S. #99-02, to allow separation of west 45 feet of property
and resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5/4/99 (attached).
3. Construction of the office/warehouse complex in accordance with the elevation
plans dated (revised) 5/4/99.
4. Construction of the office/warehouse site in accordance with the site plan dated
(revised)5/4/99.
5. City Staff approval of a revised landscape plan to issuance of a building permit
for this project.
6. Approval of a berm along the west edge of this property in conjunction with the
landscape plan, to be approved by the City of Fridley.
7. Approval of all site grading and drainage issues related to this proposal prior to
issuance of a building permit for this project.
8. No fleet vehicles shall be parked or stored along the Central Avenue or Osbome
Road parking areas of this project. All ovemight storage of incidental fleet
vehicles shall be parked in the side yard west of the proposed building.
9. Anoka County shall approve access locations prior to issuance of the building
permit for this project.
10. All architectural banding shall continue around all faces of the building to allow
finished building face appearance.
11. All lighting shall be downcast to protect against horizontal glare to residential
neighborhoods or roadways.
12. A Comprehensive Sign Plan (in accordance with City Code Chapter 214) shall be
prepared and submitted to the City for City Council approval prior to issuance of
a sign permit for the free-standing or building signs in this project.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on August 23.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF LOT SPLIT. L.S. #99-02. BY
AIVDERSOIV TRUCKING. INC.:
The purpose of the lot split is to sell a 45 foot by 450.12 foot parcel to an
adjacent property owner. The parcels that are involved include:
Parcel "A" — all of Lot 1 and the West 45.00 feet of Lot 2, all in Block 1,
ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT REPLAT, according to the duly recorded plat
thereof, generally located at 1240 Osbome Road.
Parcel "B" — Lot 2, Block 1, ANDERSON DEVELOPMENT REPLAT, according to
� the duly recorded plat thereof, except the West 45.00 feet thereof, generally
located at 7690 Central Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 12
� MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and to open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:23 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated the request is related to the previous request. The petitioner is
Anderson Trucking who currently owns the properly that the Gonyeas will be buying.
The lot split involves that property and the property owned by the Voigt Bus Company.
The trucking company is seeking a lot split to separate the westemmost 45 feet from Lot
2, Anderson Development, and to sell that to Lot 1, Anderson Development, or the Voigt
Bus Company. Pending approval by the Planning Commission and the City Council,
the property will revert to M-1, Light Industrial zoning, consistent with the Voigt Bus
Company zoning.
Mr. Hickok stated the existing Voigt site is 155,254 square feet while the existing Lot 2
is 146, 250 square feet. The property is relatively level. Both the Voigt Bus Campany
and the Gonyeas prefer a berm befinreen the parcels. Currently there is not enough
room on the Voigt parcel to accomplish the landscaping, much less the berm. The
landscape berm plan will be required to assure compliance with screening and general
landscape requirements. Legal consolidation with the Voigt site will also be required.
� Mr. Hickok stated that staff recommends approval of the lot split, L.S. #99-02, with the
following stipulations:
1. Approval of Variance #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90 feet from
Central Avenue, adjacent to a residential district, rather than 100 feet, as
required by Code.
2. Approval of ZOA #99-03 to allow separation of west 45 feet of property and
resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5/4/99 (attached).
3. Approval of a berm along the west edge of this property in conjunction with a
landscape screening plan for both properties, to be approved by the City of
Fridley.
4. Approval of all site grading and drainage issues related to the proposal for a
berm on this parcel, prior to commencement of the berm building project.
5. Anoka County shall approve any modified access on Osbome Road prior to
commencement of the modification.
6. Filing of this lot split shall be done is a manner that assures the 45-foot addition
to the Voigt property will be consolidated with the existing Voigt parcel (Parcel A).
Proof of consolidation shall be filed with the City of Fridley, once processing has
been completed at Anoka County.
Mr. Tom Gonyea stated Mr. Kevin Olson from Anderson Trucking is ill and unable to
attend the meeting. Mr. Gonyea will speak on his behalf.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the 45 feet will go to i/oigt and will be used for landscaping only.
PLANNIIVG COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 13
Mr. Hickok stated it will be used for landscaping and for additional space. As he
�—, understands, Voigt will be moving the curb and gutter out and using additional space in
the future.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there would be more hard surface area in the future.
Mr. Hickok stated, yes. That will have to meet the requirements of the engineering
department. Potentially, there could be more hard surFace. The bus company may
need some additional space for maneuvering. The timing is essential because of the
proposed development on the adjacent parcel.
Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Gonyea and Mr. Olson understood the stipulations.
Mr. Tom Gonyea stated they understood the stipulations. As was indicated, this is kind
of a last chance to do something there. When Anderson Trucking sold the lot to Mr.
Voigt, the space met their needs at the time. Mr. Voigt had expressed interest in
additional space but it did not make sense at the time. They have been working with
Mr. Anderson for several years to try to get something built on the lot and rezoned. This
was the right time to make this change.
Mr. Voigt stated he was not aware of the stipulations. His intention for that property is to
move their drainage pond and add on to the current building for future growth or put up
another building. He plans to use it for additional parking at this time. It would be green
^ space until such time as they decide to build. Their original building plan did have a
phase two. It is their intention to continue with that plan. He was not aware of the
berm. He now has a fence.
Mr. Tom Gonyea stated they had talked about the space, the setbacks for a parking lot,
and had talked about a joint berm. It would be 5 feet on each side of the property line.
Ms. Savage stated that Anderson Trucking is responsible for the stipulations.
Mr. Hickok stated that is correct. If the sale of this property occurs, the berm will be a
requirement. Staff had a joint meeting with the Bus Company and with the Gonyeas at
the beginning of this process. A berm was discussed. Staff has had some concems
about the overall appearance of the Voigt Bus Company. It is an important piece to this
request. Without it, staff would not support a lot split unless there would be some
additional landscaping and the berm. The height will be reviewed and approved by staff
prior to construction. The blue fence on the bus company property has blown down
finrice and is cause for future concem.
Mr. Voigt stated he would like to know the size of the berm.
Mr. Dave Gonyea stated the berm would probably be 5 feet on their property and 5 feet
on Mr. Voigt's property. The berm would probably be 4 feet high with pine trees on top
of that.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 14
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing.
�
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:35 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated it appears that everyone knows what is going on and understands.
He would recommend approval.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend approval of Lot Split
Request, L.S. #99-02, by Anderson Trucking Inc., to sell a parcel 45 feet by 450.12 feet,
to the adjacent properly owner with Parcel A containing all of Lot 1 and the West 45.00
feet of Lot 2, all in Block 1, Anderson Development Replat, according to the duly
recorded plat there, generally located at 1240 Osbome Road; and Parcel B, Lot 2, Block
1, Anderson Development Replat, according to the duly recorded plat thereof, except
the West 45.00 feet thereof, generally located at 7690 Central Avenue� with the
following stipulations:
1. Approval of Variance #99-08, allowing construction of the building 90 feet from
Central Avenue, adjacent to a residential district, rather than 100 feet, as
required by Code.
2. Approval of ZOA #99-03 to allow separation of west 45 feet of property and
resulting lot configuration as shown in the site plan dated 5/4/99 (attached).
3. Approval of a berm along the west edge of this property in conjunction with a
^ landscape screening plan for both properties, to be approved by the City of
Fridley.
4. Approval of all site grading and drainage issues related to the proposal for a
berm on this parcel, prior to commencement of the berm building project.
5. Anoka County shall approve any modified access on Osbome Road prior to
commencement of the modification.
6. Filing of this lot split shall be done in a manner that assures the 45 foot addition
to the Voigt property will be consolidated with the existing Voigt parcel (Parcel A).
Proof of consolidation shall be filed with the City of Fridley, once processing has
been completed at Anoka County.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Hickok stated the City Council would consider this request on August 23.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 18. 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
& ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the May 18, 1999,
minutes of the Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
� THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING COMMISSION nl1EETING, AUGUST 4, 1999 PAGE 15
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12. 1999. APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING:
�
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the May 12, 1999,
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 14. 1999. APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the July 14, 1999,
minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick� seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjoum the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AUGUST 4,1999, PLANNING COMMISSION
/'� MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�
Lavonn Cooper
Recording Secretar�"�
�
17