PL 09/01/1999 - 30973�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the September 1, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist, Brad Sielaff, Dean Saba,
Larry Kuechle
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick, Connie Modig
Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
Michael Boldenow, BWBR Architects
Kathy Ketterling, BWBR Architects
Byron Bruns, Unity Hospital
Judy & Urbin ??
M. B. McPhillips, 291 Sylvan Lane
� APPROVAL OF AUGUST 4 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the August 4, 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. S.P. 99-07.
BY MICHAEL McPHILLIPS:
To allow a 10-foot curb cut to access an accessory building on his property. This
request will require reconsideration of SP#86-09, which prohibited a curb cut for
this purpose, legally described as Lot 19, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Plat 4, generally
located at 291 Sylvan Lane.
MQTION by Mr. Kuechle, 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, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARIIVG OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow a 10-foot curb
� cut to access an accessory structure on his properly. If granted, this would amend and
replace special use permit #86-09. The original special use permit was granted for the
second accessory structure and also stipulated that a driveway was not required as long
5
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 2
as the garage was used for storage only, not for vehicles. The petitioner has requested
!""'� a curb cut; therefore a driveway is to be installed.
Mr. Bolin stated the properly is located at 291 Sylvan Lane. It is a comer lot with the
home facing Sylvan Lane and the University Avenue service drive is to the east. The
property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as are the surrounding properties. The existing
detached garage meets the setback requirements. The lot is relatively flat and contains
the second garage, the home, a garden, and some large trees. The lot was platted in
1957 as part of the Sylvan Hills Addition. In 1969, the home and the attached garage
were constructed. In 1986, special use permit #86-09 was granted for the detached
garage, and the garage was constructed the same year.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit, S.P., #99-07 to
amend and replace S.P. #86-09, with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall construct hard surface driveway within one year of issuance
of this special use permit.
2. The driveway shall be constructed in a manner to prevent detrimental runoff
impacts to adjacent properties.
3. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction.
4. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation.
5. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City.
6. The siding and roof materials on the accessory structure shall continue to match
n the exterior of the existing home.
7. Approval of S.P. #99-07 would eliminate S.P. #86-07.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any rulings against two curb cuts on a residential
property.
Mr. Bolin stated the code would allow these two curb cuts.
Mr. Oquist asked who is responsible for the curb cut.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is responsible for the curb cut.
Mr. McPhillips stated the curb cuts are done by a subcontractor through the City. He
pays the City, and the City pays the subcontractor.
Mr. McPhillips stated he has one question about the driveway. He drives on that yard
approximately 6 to 10 times a year. He did not feel he needed a driveway. There are
two mature trees on the property. If he paved a driveway, those trees will die. He has
been in the construction business for 41 years. If a driveway is next to an oak tree, it
will die. The tree is over 100 years old, and he does not want to lose it. Because he
drives on that area less than 12 times a year, he did not feel he needed a driveway. If
the Planning Commission wanted to come out and look, they would see that there are
� no tracks. There are none now. He has had that garage there for over 10 years, and it
looks as though there has never been anything driven there. Before that, he drove
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 3
across the neighbor's property. They are now having a dispute, and the neighbor no
,� longer wants him to drive there. He now needs access to the garage.
Mr. McPhillips stated he has talked with the Public Works Department, and they did not
say anything about that. The Public Works Department issued a permit for which he
paid $155.00, and they said that would install the curb cut. After they looked in the file,
they saw the stipulation on the original permit. If that stipulation had not been there, he
could have a curb cut now. The property to the north has two curb cuts 10 feet apart.
One is to access the properly to the west that has an easement to drive motor homes in
and out. Until this year, they drove in there twice a week. There is no driveway there.
There are a lot of situations in the City where there are no driveways.
Ms. Savage asked if Mr. McPhillips was oppposed to the driveway stipulation.
Mr. McPhillips stated he is definitely opposed. He is not willing to lose that 100-year-old
oak tree. If there is driving near those trees, in finro to three years they will have to be
removed.
Mr. Sielaff stated he agreed that the construction of a driveway would kill the trees.
Mr. Oquist asked if the Code requires a driveway.
Mr. Bolin stated the City does have a driveway paving program for all driveways to be
^ paved by 2002. If there is a curb cut to a garage, it does indicate that it will be used as
a driveway in staff s opinion.
Mr. McPhillips stated he built the garage in 1986. City staff was going to come back in
one year to see if there were cars driven there. He has not had a driveway there in 13
years. Now he needs one because he is requesting a curb cut. He does not
understand. He has had cars in there off and on. Basically, the garage is for storage.
He has a street rod now that he plans to sell ne�ct year. He will then have a driveway
and will not have a car. Instead he will have a driveway bisecting his lot so there is a
10-foot strip on the north end of the lot that he has to maintain. That will look stupid.
What is the point of losing those trees? If that is the stipulation, he does not want a curb
cut. He will live with it.
Mr. Sielaff asks how he now gains access to the garage.
Mr. McPhillips stated he drives through the yard to get there now. Actually, he keeps
the car in the attached garage and keeps his truck in the driveway.
Ms. Savage asked what was the situation in 1986 that the petitioner received a special
use permit that allowed the building but did not provide a curb cut or driveway.
Mr. Bolin stated that at that time, the special use permit was granted with the intent that
^ the garage would be used just for storage. The stipulation read that if the garage were
to be used for vehicle storage or as an actual vehicle garage, then it would need to be
paved.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 4
�� Mr. Oquist asked if the petitioner had any problems with the other stipulations.
Mr. McPhillips stated no, just that one.
Mr. Kuechle stated he can understand the petitioner's rationale for not wanting the
driveway. He can also understand the City's interest in keeping a handle on this. Even
though Mr. McPhillips may never use that as a driveway and never damage the grass, if
he sells the house in finro years, that stipulation for no driveway is still there. That does
concem him. Is there any way they can deal with this?
Mr. Saba stated there must be a way to control that. He agreed that, if a driveway is
installed, the petitioner will lose the trees.
Mr. Bolin stated the Commission could put on a stipulation similar to the original
stipulation where staff could go back one year later to check to make sure that the
petitioner was not frequently driving across the grass or a stipulation that indicates,
upon the sale of the home, the hard surface driveway must be installed. Or, they could
add a stipulation that gives staff some flexibility that at stafPs discretion, if it is found that
this has become a driveway, a hard surFace driveway shall be installed.
Mr. Kuechle asked the petitioner how he would feel about something like that.
^ Mr. McPhillips stated he would have no problem with that.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:48 P.M.
Mr. Saba stated he would agree to somehow delete and replace stipulations regarding
the driveway. He liked the idea of staff having the discretion.
Mr. Kuechle agreed. He would like the stipulation to indicate that at staff s discretion, if
this is being used as a driveway to the point where it is obviously a driveway with ruts in
the yard and the grass being dead, a hard surface driveway shall be installed or the
curb cut removed.
Ms. Savage stated stipulations 1 and 2 would then be deleted.
Mr. Oquist asked if stipulation 3 was necessary in that the City installs the curb cut and
the petitioner pays the City.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner has a permit already.
� Mr. Oquist stated his concern is that, if he puts in the curb cut and then someone else in
the future purchases the property, they could use that to go in and out. He agreed they
:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 5
need some control on that, but he did not see the need for a hard surFace drive at this
,� time.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the special use permit could expire if there was a change in
ownership.
Mr. Kuechle stated that would be a burden in that the petitioner has to get it cleared up
before selling the property or the buyer must come in and get a permit. If they are
tumed down� they have a non-conforming piece of property. He would prefer not to
have something hanging over their heads if they don't have any control. If the
Commission puts in a stipulation that says, as long as it shows no sign of being used as
a driveway, it is then at stafPs discretion that the petitioner does or does not need to put
in a driveway. If it starts behaving as a driveway, then it needs to be paved.
Ms. Savage asked if that would be sufficient for staff.
Mr. Bolin stated that would be acceptable.
Mr. Sielaff suggested the wording, "At staff s discretion, inspections will be conducted of
the area between the curb cut and the garage and, if found to be regularly used as a
driveway, a hard surFace drive shall be constructed or the curb cut removed."
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to recommend approval of Special
,^ Use Permit, S.P. #99-07, by Michael McPhillips, to allow a 10-foot curb cut to access an
accessory building, legally described as Lot 19, Block 2, Sylvan Hills Plat 4, generally
located at 291 Sylvan Lane, with the following stipulations:
1. At staff s discretion, inspections will be conducted of the area between the curb
cut and the garage and, if found to be regularly used as a driveway, a hard
surface drive shall be constructed or the curb cut removed.
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 driveway as approved by the City.
5. The siding and roof materials on the accessory structure shall continue to match
the exterior of the existing home.
6. Approval of S.P. #99-07 eliminates S.P. #86-07.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council would consider this request on September 13.
2. PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL_USE PERMIT. S.P. 99-08.
To allow a proposed 2"d story expansion to be added to Unifiy Hospital to
accommodate the ICU, legally described as All that part of the Northwest Quarter
�� of the Northeast Quarter (NW'/4 of NE'/4) of Section Eleven (11), Township
Thirty (30), Range Twenty-four (24), Melody Manor 2"d Addition, generally
located at 550 Osbome Road N.E.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 6
� MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 7:55 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the
construction of a second story addition on a portion of the existing facility. The
expansion would occur at the easterly portion of the building located at 550 Osbome
Road. The property is located in an R-1, Single Family, zoning district which is why a
special use permit is required. To the west and to the south is R-1, Single Family; to the
north across Osbome Road is Spring Lake Park; and to the east is a clinic zoned CR-1,
General Office.
Mr. Bolin stated the proposed addition is to be above the existing Intensive Care Unit
(ICU). The expansion would be used as the new ICU and would allow the hospital an
opportunity to upgrade the equipment in their ICU. This additional space does not
create any more demand for parking, does not increase the number of beds, and does
not increase the number of employees. The hospital is working on a 3 to 5 year plan to
do some interior renovations and remodeling. The space that is to be vacated by the
existing ICU will be used by different departments in the hospital during the remodeling.
� Mr. Bolin stated the site is a 31-acre parcel that contains the hospital buildings, parking
lots, and some rather large areas of grass and trees. In 1965 the first building permit for
the hospital was issued. In 1970, 1971, 1980, 1982, 1985, 1991, 1993, and 1995,
additions were made to the hospital. Special use permits were granted for expansion of
the hospital in 1984, 1993, and 1995.
Mr. Bolin stated hospitals are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoning district and the
proposed expansion with stipulations will comply with the requirements for the special
use permit. This special use permit is in addition to the previous special use permits
and is not intended to replace the previous special use permits. Staff recommends
approval of the special use permit with the following stipulations:
1. All building permits must be obtained prior to start of construction.
2. As interior renovations are completed and additional beds are added, the hospital
shall install the number of parking stalls required to meet zoning code
requirements. However, the City resenres the right to require additional parking
should demand of the facilifiy warrant it at any time prior to completion of interior
renovations.
Mr. Bolin stated a special use permit granted in 1995 identified a shortage of 6 parking
stalls at that time and placed the stipulation worded similarly to stipulation #2. Since
that special use permit was issued, staff has not found any reason yet to require the
� additional 6 parking stalls. Since the hospital is under a 3 to 5 year plan for interior
remodeling and before they get to the point where they will be adding additional beds,
10
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 7
staff feels this stipulation would adequately address any parking problems that may
arise.
Mr. Bolin reviewed the elevations of the proposed addition. The proposed height will be
about 37 feet. The addition is approximately 260 feet from the nearest residence on
Lyric Lane.
Mr. Kuechle asked if there had been any neighborhood meetings to explain the project.
Mr. Bolin stated he has had a phone call from a resident seeking more information
about the project. He is not aware of any information meetings being held with the
neighbors.
Mr. Boldenow stated he had nothing to add to the staff report.
Ms. Savage asked if the petitioner had any problem with the stipulations.
Mr. Boldenow stated, no.
Mr. Oquist asked when they planned to start construction.
Mr. Boldenow stated they planned to start construction the day after they receive
approval. They had a negotiated contractor from the day they started designing the
,---� addition. They have done some preparation work, mobilized a trailer, and put up some
construction fencing.
Mr. Sielaff asked if the petitioner had held meetings with the neighborhood.
Mr. Boldenow stated, no.
A resident living across the street from the hospital thought they had started
construction on the building.
Mr. Boldenow stated they have an electrical permit issued by the State of Minnesota to
do an electrical project that is related but not part of the scope of the ICU construction.
The electrical work is to upgrade the power for the existing facility. This upgrade will
also be used by the ICU.
The resident stated he thought there was roof removal and remodeling going on right
now.
Mr. Bruns stated they are currently covering the roof so that when construction starts
the roof is covered with plywood to protect the existing roof. This has been done in
advance to save the roof.
�..,` Mr. Boldenow stated there has also been some field investigation done. The building
done in 1984 was designed for a second story. When this was constructed, there was
11
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 8
re-bar and future columns placed. Once you tear the protective membrane apart, you
�� have to go back and protect that from water damage.
The resident stated he was not privy to the design concepts on the building, but he
thought there had been leaking when the building was first constructed.
Mr. Bruns stated he was not aware of any.
The resident asked if the petitioner had looked at the impact of traffic on Lyric Lane. He
also knew there was a code for residential landscaping and asked if they also had
landscaping requirements. The hospital has not added any landscaping on Lyric Lane
for 25 years.
Mr. Bruns stated they added landscaping at the time of the project in 1993. They did
whatever the City asked at that time.
The resident stated he thought the City should re-look at the landscaping on the Lyric
Lane side of the hospital. All the deliveries go off Lyric Lane. All the trucks go down
Lyric Lane. All the employees come in on Lyric Lane. By building another ICU, there
will be more employees using that backside. If you could build on the Osbome Road
side where is more commercial rather than residential should be looked at. He has
spoken to a couple of people at the hospital and he has called the City a few times
because there are people who drive 70 or 80 miles an hour down there. As they keep
� on remodeling and expanding, business is doing well, but they also need to look at the
impact that it has on the neighbors. He asked them to look at Lyric Lane and look at
adding some landscaping. He would like to see a better neighbor in the hospital. He
did not know how much landscaping they could add with the parking, but he thought
they could add a little more. It would at least help block some of the activity.
�
Mr. Bolin stated that as far as the landscaping, currently the hospital has done
everything the code requires them to do. The addition has not triggered the need for
additional landscaping.
The resident stated they have added on to the hospital along Lyric Lane. They have
had their house looked at by a realtor, and the hospital has reduced the price of the
house. He thought it would help if they would do some additional landscaping or
perhaps a bigger berm would help.
Mr. Bruns stated the addition is more than 150 feet away from the residents. It is more
like 1,000 feet away from his. They did all that they had to do. They built berms, added
evergreens, etc. They are not adding any additional employees. There will be no more
traffic than there is now.
Mr. Kuechle asked the architect if he had any knowledge of the typical trafFc pattem in
that area.
12
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 9
Mr. Boldenow stated that would be more typical if an overall addition was proposed with
� additional beds and additional staff. Because this is on top of an existing structure, no
site work was done. It was never part of the investigation.
Mr. Kuechle stated he wondered if there was anything that could be done on site to
better manage the flow or path that people are taking into the parking lot.
Mr. Boldenow stated he was not aware that there was a problem so it is difficult for him
to answer that. There will be no additional staff and no additional beds. Patients and
visitors will be entering as they are now at the Osbome entrance.
Mr. Kuechle stated he was not anticipating or suggesting that they are not meeting the
requirements. Obviously at least one neighbor sees the traffic pattem as it currently is
as a problem. He was wondering if any thought has been given to rearranging
driveways or something similar to change the pattem.
Mr. Boldenow stated they have not had this reaction before. Usually the only complaint
they have is from debris. If they would have had any knowledge that there was a
problem, the hospital would have let them know and they would have approached it with
some type of solution. Again, this is the first he has heard there was a problem with
traffic.
Mr. Bruns stated it would be possible to close off the entrancelexit on Lyric Lane but
^ that would be an issue with the fire department.
Mr. Boldenow stated the City has certain requirements for fire access to every portion of
the building. That is something they could research. At this time, the space vacated will
be used by another department. In 1993, when they moved the in-patient surgery unit
to its current location, that existing area remained vacant for two years and was then
filled in 1995 for Ambulatory Care and a special use permit approved. At that point,
there was additional staff and at that point they were 6 parking spaces short; therefore
the stipulation.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:15 P.M.
Mr. Oquist stated he felt this request was rather straightForward. This is to be an
expansion upward. There are to be no additional beds and no additional staff.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special Use
Permit, S.P. #99-08, by Michael Boldenow, Allina Unity Hospital, for a proposed 2"a
story expansion to be added to Unity Hospital to accommodate the ICU, legally
described as All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW '/4 of
� the NE'/4) of Section Eleven (11), Township Thirty (30), Range Twenty-four (24),
Melody Manor 2"d Addition, generally located at 550 Osbome Road N.E., with the
following stipulations:
13
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE 10
1. All building permits must be obtained prior to start of construction.
!"�, 2. As interior renovations are completed and additional beds are added, the hospital
shall install the number of parking stalls required to meet zoning code
requirements. However, the City reserves the right to require additional parking
should demand of the facility warrant it at any time prior to completion of interior
renovations.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Bolin stated the City Council would consider this request on September 13.
3. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28, 1999 APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the July 28,
1999, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 1 1999. HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING:
��
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the July 1,
1999, Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7 1999 PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the June 7,
1999, Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 20, 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the minutes of the July 20,
1999, Environmental Quality & Energy Commission meeting.
� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 PAGE il
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 11, 1999, APPEALS COMMISSION
� MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the August
11, 1999, Appeals Commission meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mr. Bolin provided an update on City Council actions.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjoum the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 1, 1999, PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�, � � r
La onn Cooper �
Recording Secretary
��
15
i�
��.
CITY OF FRIDLEY
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
���-���'���1��� % l �� f ��
__________________________________________________________ ________________1
Name and Address
Agenda Item of Interest
�I �C��i� �%' I�7 �1l1� �r1� — ��,�` � � =� I ; l� �� � 1�',� ( n U� c% :
�� �.� �..� ►r �-:�-,—�-� , a ti ��- _�--,f,�.,� � i r r�.� �r�� ��—��
U .�1i / � jL c>' -�� �� °
� �- �.�.,- ti� < <� �t
.0 YiI��VlI)11�� ���1 �
�� L— � � �yr ii� / Lc
���
' ��R � � Q�v�
., - _
- I
I
— I
I
- I
I
I
�r�� I I
I