PL 09/15/1999 - 30974�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Savage called the September 15, 1999, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Diane Savage, Brad Sielaff, Leroy Oquist, Dave Kondrick
Members Absent: Connie Modig, Dean Saba
Others Present: Paul Bolin, Planning Assistant
Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator
Michael and Claudia Geis, 520 Dover Street
George Bydlon, 6454 Riverview Terrace
Brian Bona, 4000 Washington Street, Columbia Heights
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 1. 1999. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
� MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the September 1, 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 GEORGE BYDLON:
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 7:36 P.M.
Mr. Bolin stated the petitioner is requesting a special use permit to allow the
construction of a 264 square foot accessory building. The building will be used as a
screen porch in summer and pontoon boat storage in winter. The petitioner is also
requesting a variance to allow this building and the existing garage in the code defined
front yard. This variance will go before the Appeals Commission on Wednesday,
September 22, 1999. The petitioner's home is located at 6454 Riverview Terrace, and
is zoned R-1, single family residential, as is the surrounding area to the north and south
�� and east. The Mississippi River is to the west.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 2
i",
� Mr. Bolin stated the properly is not actually located directly on Riverview Terrace.
There is a 25-foot wide driveway easement going into the property. The lot has a gentle
slope that goes from the garage down to the river bluff where it drops off quite steeply
down to the river. The yard is very well landscaped, covered by grass, trees, and flower
gardens. The original home was built in 1936; three years later the lot was platted. In
1949, the current garage was originally built. In 1985, the petitioner added on to the
home. The garage is 324 square feet and too small to store the petitioner's pontoon.
The petitioner has problems getting one of his vehicles into the garage.
Mr. Bolin stated the proposed accessory structure is going to be 264 square feet, for a
total of roughly 588 square feet. The code does allow up to 1400 square feet of
accessory buildings on a property. He stated second accessory buildings over 240
square feet are a permitted special use in the R-1 zoning district, and the location of the
accessory building will not impede any neighboring views of the river.
Mr. Bolin stated staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit, SP #99-10, with the
following stipulations:
1. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction.
2. This special use permit shall become null and void if VAR #99-25 is not
approved.
� 3. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home
and garage.
Mr. Bolin stated the building will be faced in cedar to match the garage and also the
shingles will match the garage. The home befinreen the petitioner's home and Riverview
Terrace has a driveway easement that runs along the south edge of the property. The
proposed structure would be located in that area.
Ms. Savage asked Mr. Bolin if there was any opposition to this permit from the
neighbors.
6VIr. Bolin stated that he has received no comments from the neighbors.
Ms. Savage asked if the special use permit was required because of the location.
Mr. Bolin stated that the special use permit was only required because it was a second
accessory building and it is over 240 square feet in size.
Ms. Savage asked Mr. Bolin if the size was permitted.
Mr. Bolin stated, yes.
Mr. George Bydlon, 6454 Riverview Terrace, stated that he did not have any additional
�� comments or changes pertaining to his special use permit request.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 3
Ms. Savage asked Mr. Bydlon if any of the neighbors voiced any concems regarding
this project.
Mr. Bydlon stated that he has not heard anything from his neighbors.
Mr. Kondrick asked Mr. Bydlon if he had any problems with the stipulations
recommended by City staff.
Mr. Bydlon stated that he did not have any problems with the stipulations by staff.
Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Bydlon if the vertical walls of the accessory building would be
screened.
Mr. Bydlon stated that the plan was to screen and lattice the walls and keep it as open
as they can because it would be convenient for family get-togethers.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:46 P.M.
Mr. Oquist, Mr. Kondrick, and Ms. Savage stated that they were in favor of approving
the special use permit.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to recommend approval of Special
Use Permit, SP #99-10, by George Bydlon, to allaw a second accessory structure in
excess of 240 square feet, with the following stipulations:
1. All necessary permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction.
2. This special use permit shall become null and void if VAR #99-25 is not
approved.
3. The accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home
and garage.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated the City Council would consider this request on October 11, 1999.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING: ZOA #99-04. BY
BRIAN AND JACQUELINE BONA. TO REZONE THE CURRENT R-3.
GENERAL MULTIPLE UNIT ZONING DISTRICT. TO A C-2. GENERAL
BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL USE OF THE SITE FOR A
PROPOSED AUTO REPAIR FACILITY. GENERALLY LOCATED AT 5333
UNIVERSITY AVE:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 4
�� and
3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP#99-
09 BY BRIAN BONA. FOR A PROPOSED AUTO REPAIR GARAGE IN THE
CURRENT C-2, GENERAL BSINESS ZONING DISTRICT. GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 5333 UNIVERSITY AVE:
Ms. Savage stated that these public hearings would be combined in one public hearing.
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 HEARNG OPENED AT 7:58 P.M.
Mr. Hickok stated that this was a rezoning and special use request by Brian and
Jacqueline Bona for the property at 5333 University Avenue. They are seeking to
rezone a portion of this property from R-3, Multi-family Residential, to C-2, General
Business. Mr. Bona had also requested a total of six variances in order to construct an
automobile service station. That request has now been reduced to one variance.
Currently there is a facility at the comer of 53`� and University Avenue owned by Mr.
� Bona which is a motor fuel sales operation, which exists under its own special use
permit. To the east is multi-family residential, to the north is the property being
considered for rezoning. There is an alley that exists on the site to the north of the
existing proposed area.
Mr. Hickok stated the petitioner has requested a rezoning of the property described as
lots 24 - 30 of Hamilton's addition to Mechanicsville from R-3 to C-2. Repair garages
are permitted by special use in the C-2 General Commercial District. The proposed
facility size inevitably will cause parking to encroach on this R-3 property. The building
itself will be on the existing C-2 and parking will stretch across onto R-3 property
causing the need for rezoning. The R-3 district would otherwise allow a multi-tenant
residential development. The land size is 25,596 square feet roughly. Based on this
land area, as many as fourteen residential dwelling units could exist on this site and
would remain R-3. Undeveloped multi-family land is very scarce in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Hickok stated rezoning requests are reviewed by staff and then matched against
standards of the code to make certain the rezoning recommendation coincides with the
missions and wishes of the City as described by code. A proposal must match the
criteria in all three instances. If not, the rezoning fails to receive a positive
recommendation from Staff: Compliance with the district's standards is required. In this
case, a 20-foot variance or setback from the residential area is required, and was
requested of the Appeals Commission. The rezoning request is being made with one of
those three criteria being that the proposal complies with the district requirements, and
,�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 5
in this case it would comply if the variance were granted. Staff recommends approval of
the rezoning request ZOA #99-04, with the following stipulations:
1. Pending approval of special use permit SP #99-09.
2. The petitioner shall modify the site plan to eliminate all variances for the proposed
facility.
Mr. Hickok stated that in spite of the fact that the Appeals Commission has reviewed
this and has recommended approval of the 20 foot variance [per Section
205.14.03.C.(4), to reduce the setback from the adjacent residential district on the east
side from 50 feet to 30 feet], it is Staff's recommendation that they modify the site plan
so that as it is compared against that rezoning criteria, it now meets without meeting a
variance.
Mr. Hickok stated that auto repair is listed as a use provided the special use permit is
obtained. Special use permits are a discretionary give on the part of the City.
Compatibility of adjacent uses is key to the approval of the special use permit. In
determining the suitability of use, the City must consider the nature of the neighboring
buildings and land, effects on traific, noise created by the use, and other impacts to
surrounding properties. Denial is appropriate if impacts to surrounding properties
cannot be mitigated with stipulations. The code is specific about the minimum criteria
required for special use permit for a facility such as this. In addition to minimum criteria,
^ staff recommends the following stipulations:
1. The Special Use Permit for an automobile service station is only for uses noted in
the definition.
2. The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment,
hydraulic lifts or service pits; or the outdoor display of inerchandise.
3. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of wrecked,
abandoned or junked motor vehicles or the display of used motor vehicles or the
sale or display of used motor vehicles or the sale or display of used motor
vehicles.
4. All required buffer or screening area shall be so constructed as to obstruct
headlight beams of motor vehicles on the station property from beaming onto
adjacent residential property.
5. A landscaping plan will be required to be submitted and approved by Staff prior
to issuance of a building permit.
6. The petitioner's proposal shall not include, nor shall the petitioner, his successors
or heirs all prohibited activities on this site (i.e. Heavy duty repair garages)
7. Vehicular parking shall be limited to the owners and employee's vehicles and a
maximum of three service vehicles. Automobiles being serviced may be parked
for a maximum period of 48 hours at any one time.
8. The site plan for this proposal shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance
of a building permit.
9. A site lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
'� building permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 6
��
Mr. Hickok stated stafPs recommendation is to eliminate the variance; thereby
eliminating stipulations placed on this variance by the Appeals Commission. Four of
those six stipulations staff feels are still essential to this project. Staff recommends
approval of the rezoning as recommended by staff with the revised site plan and include
the four stipulations that would be eliminated by not having a variance go forward.
Mr. Hickok stated that the first of the original requested variances read as follows:
1. Per Section 205.14.03.C.(4), to reduce the setback from the adjacent residential
district on the east side from 50 feet to 30 feet.
2. Per Section 205.14.03.C.(4), to reduce the setback from the adjacent residential
district on the north side from 50 feet to 3 feet.(That would only be if the Planning
Commission did not approve the rezoning.)
3. Per Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a), to reduce the required parking setback from any
street ROW from 20 feet to 18 feet.(It has been determined that the parking could
be designed and meet those setbacks without needing a variance)
4. Per Section 205.14.05.D.(5).O, to reduce the parking setback from an alley from
15 feet to 13 feet. (With some modifications to the site plan they could
accomplish that 15 foot setback without a variance)
5. Per Section 205.03.55, to reduce the required parking space width from 10 feet
to 9 feet. (Site modification could correct this as well)
6. Per Section 205.14.05.C.(1), to reduce the required number of parking stalls from
32 to 25. (This variance can be eliminated by reconfiguring the parking on-site.)
Code Requirements are as follows:
Section 205.14.03.C.(4) requires a minimum setback of 50 feet from residential districts.
Section 205.14.05.D.(5).(a) requires parking be setback 20 feet from the right-of-way.
Section 205.14.05.D.(5).O requires parking be setback 15 feet from an alleyway.
Section 205.03.55 requires parking stalls be 10 feet wide.
Section 205.14.06.C.(1) requires this site to provide a minimum of 32 parking stalls.
Summary of hardship as stated by the petitioner: �In order to screen the neighbors from
being adjacent to a parking lot and subjecting them to lights, noise and the related
service station parking lot problems, the building was moved East,"
Mr. Hickok stated that the petitioner desires to align the proposed building with the
existing building on the comer of the Amoco site. It opens up the viewshed to
southbound traffic and the motor fuel facility at the comer. If this site was not owned by
this petitioner, any other user of this site could come and build to the 35-foot setback
^ and quite likely would want to do that for visibility.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 7
�,
Mr. Hickok stated that he would be more inclined to go along with opening up the view
shed to the comer motor fuel operation, except that there is a very important part of that
motor fuel operation that causes that particular building to be pushed back as it is. That
is the sale of that product in the front yard that causes the building to be pushed back.
That is a very important piece to that facility. The questions being asked now is that can
they align the next building with that and are they paying again for that opportunity to
sell motor fuel in the front yard by moving the next building back. By moving the
building forward there would be green space in front of the building, not vehicles, and
there could be a storefront appearance.
Mr. Hickok stated staff is now asking the petitioner to re-establish the alley adjoining the
property so people can get north and south on it. The Cifiy's requirement is that it would
be hard surFace improvement done in asphalt.
Mr. Sielaff asked if there is a driveway into the garages.
Mr. Hickok stated, yes.
Mr. Hickok stated that staff is recommending, for snowplow purposes, that the City
would maintain it and would need a place to take that snow. Staff is recommending that
they grant an easement to allow a connection to the cul-de-sac so the loop can be
^ made.
� Mr. Hickok stated that staff encouraged the petitioner's architect to explore the
possibility of changing the building layout to utilize an intemal drive to senrice bays
reducing the impact of the overhead doors facing University Avenue. In further
analysis, they have determined that this is not preferred by them and the City is not
certain that the depth is there to allow that without some other types of variances. Staff
recommended that any or all of the variance requests be granted with the stipulations
included. Stipulations one, two, three and six are recommended to be attached to
approval of the rezoning or special use permit this evening.
Ms. Savage asked Mr. Hickok if there has been any reaction from the neighbors.
Mr. Hickok stated that one neighbor has had concems about the trees. Another
neighbor called the City for clarification about what is being done. That neighbor is
supportive of the petitioner to only restore a portion of the alley, but the neighbor did not
realize that there were garages at both ends of the alley which make it almost
impossible to only improve a portion. From a snow removal perspective� the alley
needs to be linked for the snow to be plowed all the way through.
Mr. Hickok stated that the site plans show a brick farade and a total of seven overhead
doors facing University Avenue. The diamond shaped feature is the skylight that runs
from front to back on the facility. Staff is recommending more storefront appearance on
�''"� the llniversity Avenue side and eliminating the overhead doors on the front. The
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 8
� petitioner indicated at the Appeals Commission that they would rather not have the
. doors facing the neighborhood. Residential properties are on the side of University
Avenue as well, however so they would be effected also from the overhead doors in
front with the appearance and noise. If noise is going to be an issue beyond the
property lines on this project, maybe the property does not fit and should be denied.
Mr. Kondrick asked what the distance is from the building and the property line.
Mr. Hickok stated it is 55 feet and is a standard width drive aisle.
Mr. Kondrick asked what other landscaping plans are requested.
Mr. Hickok stated that for the base area they have, there is 15 feet of running distance
that could have a three-foot rise before planting of the trees. Mr. Hickok stated he
would recommend that they go with the standard eight-foot privacy fence required and
some columnar Arbor Vita planted at a spacing that would provide a nice screen and
then beyond it would build out to a nice hedge taller than the fence itself.
Ms. Savage stated that she realized staff is recommending approval with stipulations,
but at the same time saying that the building should not have so many overhead doors
facing University Avenue.
�,.� Mr. Hickok stated that was the second stipulation of the rezoning that indicates staff
' � would review and approve the site plan prior to issuance of the building permit.
Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Hickok if all of the other variances were no longer needed because
the property is being rezoned to C-2.
Mr. Hickok stated that the C-2 already applies. Planning Commission is being asked to
consider going R-3 to C-2 for the piece to the north.
Mr. Brian Bona, 4000 Washington Street, stated that his father started in the automotive
repair business in Columbia Heights 49 years ago with a very strong operation. The
business is family-oriented, does not advertise, and keeps six mechanics busy full-time.
They know their customers on a first name basis. Mr. Bona stated that 14 months ago,
they purchased the Amoco Service Station and tumed some things around with minimal
resources. They cleaned it up and made a more positive impact.
Mr. Bona stated he would like a storefront appearance as well and thinks he can
achieve that without the overhead doors behind the building or creating an alleyway
through there. He stated that the type of architecture he likes is similar to what is on
Grand Avenue and in Stillwater with the more traditional appearance. Some things that
bring out the architectural softness are the panes of glass in the garage doors that have
the colonial look. Above those garage doors would be a lintel type appearance going
across the entire span of the building. A crown molding would be at the very top of the
^ building to bring the architectural pi�au that is similar to the Stillwater and Grand
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 9
,� Avenue timeless look. Decorative wood surrounding the glass gives it a little softer look
than the typical masonry buildings so common.
Mr. Bona stated that he visited with the neighbors and the biggest opposition was from
the neighbors directly behind the site. They were concemed about the doors facing
them and the impact of the noise from the mechanics tools. He feels that the most
wide-open space is facing University Avenue. The noises created will be drowned out
by the traffic from University Ave. o
Mr. Sielaff asked Mr. Bona what he thought of having one entryway opening up to all
the bays and then one exit without having any of those opened up doors at all.
Mr. Bona stated that it would be an economic burden.
Mr. Sielaff stated that he thought it would be less energy used because you wouldn't
have to open up all those doors to access each individual bay.
Mr. Bona stated that it is just not quite as user-friendly.
Mr. Jack Ovick� the petitioner's architect, stated that the width of the lot is too thin to add
a 26-foot corridor through the building without eliminating some parking or encroaching
further on the back of the lot. Insurance carriers are concemed about having cars on
the interior of the building backing in and out of a separate driveway because it is a
� safety issue. There is a landscaping plan for the front of the building and the berm will
be high up to help conceal the doorways as people drive by on University Avenue.
Mr. Savage stated that she really liked the look, but stipulation #8 states that staff shall
approve the site plan and asked if Mr. Bona had any problem with that.
Mr. Ovick asked if the Planning Commission would approve of the staff s
recommendation and if staff stipulated that they would have to tum the building around,
would they have to abide by that?
Mr. Hickok stated that staff s site plan recommendation was to tum the building around
as listed in stipulation number eight.
Mr. Oquist stated that he did not agree with that. He felt that tuming the building around
would put the noise and everything else towards the neighborhood. University Avenue
is a buffer for the people across the street. The property is not wide enough to put that
center aisle inside the building and allow for parking and everything else. He liked the
idea of the colonial, traditional look similar to the way things used to look instead of all
glass and chrome. Those doors will be open most of the time though from 7:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. He can also see his point with the landscaping and berming and that will be
critical to what Mr. Bona is proposing.
,--�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 10
,_.1 Mr. Sielaff stated that he does not have a problem with the garage doors being open all
the time. He expects that it would be bermed and that would help a lot and has a
greater concem about the neighbors in the back.
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 WAS CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M.
Mr. Kondrick stated that he liked Mr. Bona's idea but the berm is the problem. If the
bays were open to the back, it would have to be bermed and also have some trees and
the fence. If the doors were to the front, the berming would also have to be done. He
has nothing against Mr. Bona's plan and he could see why he wants to do it this way.
Ms. Savage stated that if he could have the garage doors looking similar to what he
described, that would be a great addition to that area.
Mr. Kondrick stated that it is okay with him, even though most of the year those garage
doors will be open most of the time. If they could shield them from University Avenue
some way, it would be acceptable.
Mr. Oquist stated that he would rather have it facing the front with good landscaping
than tuming it around to face the neighborhood.
Mr. Kondrick asked if there has been any mention of how high the berm can be.
IVIr. Hickok stated it is stafF's recommendation to maintain a 3:1 slope, no more than that
so they can mow it and keep it maintained. They have opportunity, if there is approval,
to work in the right-of-way also to get some added height with the 3:1 slope by having
greater distance. They might be able to receive approval with grating the right-of-way in
building out of the right-of-way so they have a greater run distance to get the berm
higher.
Mr. Sielaff stated he thought it could be done as part of the landscape plan.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the doors were in front, would they have to have the fence done in
back?
Mr. Hickok stated that they would not have to have the fence in back but the alley would
still have to be done no matter what.
Ms. Savage stated that it sounded like the commissioners feel the building should be
tumed around to front. She asked if stipulation number eight of the special use permit
to approve the site plan would be needed.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 11
,—� Mr. Hickok stated that would be clarified stating what the Planning Commission's
position is on the building positioning.
Mr. Kondrick asked if they could specify whether the Planning Commission could
stipulate the building design as the petitioner presented.
Mr. Oquist stated that they dictate the materials to be used.
Mr. Hickok stated that the Planning Commission can pick the materials compatible with
their vision of the site.
Ms. Savage stated that the vision articulated from the petitioner is a good one, and she
would like to see more of that for the City of Fridley.
Mr. Kondrick asked how many doors are needed.
Mr. Bona stated there are seven doors with a band of steel running over the top of the ,
doors and a crown molding on the very top of the building. The front of the building
would be brick basically, and the doors would have wooden type of frame on it. The
doors would be glass and on top of the doors would be one continuous lintel and from
that lintel upwards they would have more brick and then one large crown molding above
that.
,--�,
Mr. Kondrick asked if they could be more specific as to the type of berm they would use
' for the front of the building.
Mr. Hickok stated that with a 20-foot setback and roughly 10 feet on the outside of that
you have 30 feet. If you wanted to berm the whole entire thing you could go ten feet
high, but that is not the intent.
Mr. Oquist stated that it would be too difficult to maintain if it were too high.
Mr. Bona stated that those open doors would not get very much attention and it is a very
attractive soft-looking building that just fits in that natural setting very well.
Mr. Oquist stated that the building that Mr. Bona has planned is really nice, but those
open doors need to be landscaped as best as they can.
Mr. Ovick stated that the berm would have tall trees and also plant it with screen-type
foliage along there. It would probably be smarter to move the entry to the south so as
the berm comes down you would be able to see into the office area and not the open
doors. If the mound could be serpentine and plant the trees with like a honey locust
type of tree and placing conifers and junipers to be green in the winter as well.
Mr. Hickok stated that the site plan is 17 trees short of the code requirements. There
would be a significant number of trees added to this site.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 12
Mr. Kondrick stated that was all the better as far as he is concemed.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of ZOA
#99-04, with the two stipulations as follows:
1. Pending approval of Special Use Permit, SP #99-09.
2. The petitioner shall modify the site plan to eliminate all variances for the
proposed facility.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSOIV SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend approval of the
Special Use Permit, SP #99-09, with the nine stipulations and stipulations 1, 2, 3, and 6,
from Variance Request, VAR #99-19, to rezone lots 24-30 of Hamiltons addition to
Mechanicsville from R-3 to C-2. Stipulations of the Special Use Permit, SP #99-09
reads as follows:
1. The Special Use Permit for an automobile service station is only for uses noted in
the definition.
2. The use shall not provide for the outdoor operation of lubrication equipment,
,� hydraulic lifts or service pits; or the outdoor display of inerchandise.
3. The property shall not be used as a place of storage or depository of wrecked,
` abandoned, or junked motor vehicles or the display of used motor vehicles or the
sale or display of new motor vehicles.
4. All required buffer or screening area shall be so constructed as to obstruct
headlight beams of motor vehicles on the station property from beaming onto
adjacent residential property.
5. A landscape plan will be required to be submitted and approved by staff prior to
issuance of a building permit.
6. The petitioner's proposal shall not include, nor shall the petitioner, his
successors, or heirs all prohibited activities on this site. (i.e. Heavy duty repair
garages)
7. Vehicular parking shall be limited to the owner's and employee's vehicles and a
maximum of three service vehicles. Automobiles being serviced may be parked
for a maximum period of 48 hours at any one time.
8. The site plan for this proposal shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance
of a building permit leaving the front of the building facing University Avenue.
9. A site lighting plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a
building permit.
Stipulations of the Variance Request, VAR #99-19, to rezone lots 24-30 of Hamilton's
addition to Mechanicsville from R-3 to C-2 reads as follows:
� 1. Property owner obtain building permits prior to construction of new addition.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 13
,.—\ 2. All grading and drainage plans to be approved by City Staff prior to the issuance
of building permits.
3. A landscaping plan meeting all code requirements, plus an additional 6 large
(4feet caliper trees to compensate for trees removed from the right-of-way by the
petitioner, shall be approved by City Staff prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Bonding requirement, to ensure the installation of landscaping, shall be
met as required by Code.
6. Alleyway east of property shall be restored and paved prior to issuance of
building permits.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated that this matter would be going to City Council on October 11, 1999.
Mr. Bona stated that it seems odd that he would have to reconstruct the entire alley.
Mr. Hickok stated that but for this project the alley would not need to be improved or
hard surfaced. The improvement cost does need to be bom by this developer as part of
this project.
Ms. Savage asked if this could be brought up at City Council.
� Mr. Hickok stated that it could.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF VACATION. SAV #99-04, BY
MICHAEL AND CLAUDIA GEIS. TO VACATE A PORTION OF CHERYL
STREET BETWEEN LOTS 1-9. BLOCK L.. AND LOTS 25-32. BLOCK M
RIVERVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION, ANOKA COUNTY, MN GENERALLY
LOCATED AT 520 DOVER STREET:
Ms. Savage asked if they could combine public hearing number four and public hearing
number five.
Mr. Hickok stated that would be acceptable.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT. PS #99-04, BY
MICHAEL AND CLAUDIA GEIS. FOR A SUBDIVISION TO REPLAT
PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES. GENERALLY LOCATED
AT 520 DOVER STREET:
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Kondrick to waive the reading of the notice
and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 9:01 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 14
�' Mr. Bolin stated that the petitioner was seeking to vacate a portion of Cheryl Street and
to replat the vacated street and 22 individual lots into finro single-family lots. One of the
lots does contain the existing home and the other one would hold a new home. The
petitioners own Lots 1-9, 28, 29, Block L, and Lots 1-3 and 25-32, Block M, Riverview
Heights. The property is zoned R-1, as are all of the surrounding properties. The
southem and eastem borders of the property are bordered by Springbrook Creek. The
Geis° own all of the property that abuts the portion of Cheryl Street. If the street
vacation is granted and the lots are replatted as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, both of the lots
would meet all of the City code requirements as far as size and setbacks for the existing
home and for the proposed building as well. The lot was platted in 1922, prior to 1949
when the City started issuing building permits the existing home was built. In 1958, a
garage was built. In 1965 and 1979, alterations were made to the home. In 1981, the
garage was demolished and replaced with a new garage. In 1985, a shed was built.
Mr. Bolin stated that due to the fact that the petitioners own all the property abutting the
portion of Cheryl to be vacated, and due to the fact that the slopes and creek are on the
southem side, it is impossible to build on Cheryl Street; also it does not line up with
Liberty Street, staff recommends approval with stipulations.
Mr. Bolin stated that staff has determined that it would be in the City's best interest to
vacate the rest of Cheryl Lane from the Geis property down to Broad Avenue. There
are three other properties that abut this portion of Cheryl Street and staff will be coming
'~ forward with requests to vacate that portion at the October 6, 1999, meeting. This will
avoid the possibility in the future of someone wanting to come in and establish Cheryl
Street as an actual street and requiring a cul-de-sac at the end of it. The assessor has
estimated that by giving those three property owners would have a five dollar per
year increase in property taues.
Mr. Bolin stated that staff recommends approval for the subdivision request, P.S. #99-
04, with stipulations.
Mr. Sielaff asked what would happen if the petitioner sold the lot to someone else.
Mr. Bolin stated that the special use permit, with all stipulations, gets recorded against
the property, and any new owner would have to follow the stipulations as well.
Mr. Michael Geis, 520 Dover, stated that he has moved some of the trees back. He
wants to hide the house and landscape it, and he does not want to disturb the trees
much at all. He has no problems with the stipulations. The neighbor's only concem is
the increase in taxes. He wants to clean the other part of his land up because there is a
big hole there and a dead tree. He wants to fill that in and plant more trees and
evergreens. He has two driveways right next to each other with a fence on one side.
He stated that he grew up on this property.
�"1 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to close the public hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 15
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 8:40 P.M.
Ms. Savage stated that she did not think there would be any problem with granting
these requests.
Mr. Kondrick stated he was in concurrence with Ms. Savage, and it was going to be
really nice when it is done.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve Vacation, SAV #99-04, by
Mr. and Mrs. Geis, with the modification of stipulations #5 with stipulations reading as
follows:
1. Grading and drainage plan shall be approved by City's engineering staff prior to
the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impact to the steep
slope and Springbrook Creek.
2. The Petitioner shall grant a drainage and utility easement across all land south
and east of the 840 foot elevation line.
3. The new home shall not be built on slopes exceeding a 12 percent (12%) grade
change.
4. During construction of new home, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
5. The petitioner shall pay $750 for the new lot only prior to issuance of building
�'`� permits.
6. The petitioner shall pay all water and sewer connection fees.
7. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All
trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved
by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to approve Plat Request, P.S. #99-04,
with the modification of stipulation number five to read as follows:
1. The grading and drainage plan shall be approved by City's engineering staff prior
to the issuance of any building permits, in order to minimize impact to the steep
slope and Springbrook Creek.
2. The petitioner shall grant a drainage and utility easement across all land south
and east of the 840 feet elevation line.
3. The new home shall not be built on slopes exceeding a 12 percent (12%) grade
change.
4. During construction of new home, silt fencing shall be used where applicable.
5. The petitioner shall pay $750 for the new plat only prior to issuance of building
permits.
�,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 16
6. The petitioner shall agree to preserve mature trees to the extent possible. All
trees required to be removed for the new homes shall be marked and approved
by City staff prior to issuance of building permits.
7. Plat approval is subject to approval of SAV #99-04. If the street vacation request
should fail to be approved, the preliminary plat would also be denied.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. Savage stated that this matter would be going to the City Council on October 11,
1999.
Ms. Geis asked if they would have to wait for the other vacation request from the
neighbors.
Mr. Hickok stated that they would not have to wait for that. After the final plat they can
move ahead.
6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 28. 1999. JOINT HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the July 28,
1999, Joint Housing & Redevelopment Authority and City Council meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 5. 1999. HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the August 5, 1999,
Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25. 1999. APPEALS COMMISSION
MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the minutes of the August
25, 1999 Appeals Commission meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS:
�
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 PAGE 17
Mr. Hickok stated that the Planning Commission will be seeing the addition move
�, forward of the Unity Hospital to expand the ICU, approved by the City Council.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to adjoum the meeting.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 15, 1999, PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
� e �O /Z!" ��sJ°u � —
� Sig Joh on r�,
Recording Secretary
�