Loading...
PL 09/05/2001 - 30932� i'� � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Savage called the September 5, 2001, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Diane Savage, Barb Johns, Dave Kondrick, Larry Kuechle, Leroy Oquist, Dean Saba Connie Modig Others Present: Stacy Bulthuis, Planner Stephanie Hanson, Planner Virgil Okeson, 1423 64th Avenue APPROVE THE JULY 18. 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES� MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Johns, to approve the July 18, 2001, Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Special Use Permit Request, SP #01-09, by Virgil and Susan Okeson to construct a 672 square foot accessory building, generally located at 1423 64th Avenue. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Johns, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. Bulthuis stated that the petitioners are requesting a special use permit to construct a 672 square foot accessory building at 1423 64�' Avenue to be used for storage of seasonal equipment such as boats, trailers, and lawn equipment. Section 205 of the code requires a special use permit to allow accessory buildings other than the first accessory building over 240 square feet. The total square footage of accessory structures shall not exceed 1,400 square feet. The total square footage of the existing garage and the proposed accessory structure on this site is 1,097 square feet. Ms. Bulthuis stated the petitioner is requesting that the hard surFace driveway requirement be waived for the proposed second accessory structure. If the hard surface driveway were to be installed, the total length would be 109 feet. The primary use of the building is for storage of seasonal equipment, and staff supports this request provided that a trail simulating a driveway does not appear on the site. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with stipulations. Ms. Savage asked if there were any calls from the neighbors. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 2 � Ms. Bulthuis stated staff has not received any calls. Mr. Virgil Okeson asked if stipulation #6 mandates that the siding and color scheme be the exact same brand as the house. Ms. Bulthuis stated that it needs to be similar to the existing home and garage, not exactly the same brand. Ms. Savage asked if he had a problem with the other stipulations. Mr. Okeson stated he did not. This building would be used for the storage of his boat and lawn equipment. Mr. Kuechle asked if Mr. Okeson was confident that he was six feet off the property line. The survey is an as-built survey. Mr. Okeson stated four stakes are located on the property. The neighbor to the east had her properly surveyed for a fence. The southeast and northeast stakes were located, and she put the fence back two inches from the line. He took a tape measure and measured across 125 feet to get the approximate location of his property line. He located the northwest and southwest stakes. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, 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 7:43 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated that he did not have any problems with this request. Ms. Savage stated she did not either. Mr. Kuechle stated he would recommend approval, because the lot will certainly not look crowded. Ms. Johns agreed. Mr. Oquist stated he also agreed, but there is always the concern of a dirt driveway back to the building. Stipulation #1 will make sure that does not happen. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit Request, SP #01-09, by Virgil and Susan Okeson to construct a 672 square foot accessory building, generally located at 1423 64th Avenue with the following stipulations: 1. Staff shall conduct regular inspections of the site. If at any time a trail simulating a driveway is present, a hard surFace driveway as approved by the City will need to be installed within 90 days. 2. The petitioner must obtain all necessary building permits prior to construction. 3. The structure shall not be used for a home occupation or living area. 4. All vehicles shall be stored on a hard surface driveway as approved by the City. ^ 5. Total square footage of all accessory structures must not exceed 1,400 square feet. 6. The garage shall be architecturally compatible with the existing home and finished with the same siding and color scheme. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 3 �"� UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Bulthuis stated that this will go to City Council on September 17. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA #01-07, to the City Zoning Code, by the City of Fridley, to allow barbed wire fencing in certain zoning districts to update the Fridley City Code to reflect current conditions. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:49 P.M. Ms. Hanson stated that staff is requesting consideration of the Zoning Text Amendment applying to Chapter 213 titled "Fences." The use of barbed wire fencing has been prohibited since 1961. Contrary to code requirements, public utilities and businesses within the City have been using barbed wire fencing for a number of years as a means of securing items stored outdoors. Once staff began preliminary compliance investigations of industrial properties, a determination was made that either the Code would need to be modified or non-compliant fences would need to be removed. Though this may be viewed as rewarding businesses for ignoring the law, this is not the intent. Zoning is to protect the health, welfare, and safety of a community, and barbed wire has been installed for that purpose. The 1961 law should be, at ^ minimum, reviewed for 2001 relevance. Ms. Hanson stated public facilities and businesses currently using barbed wire fencing include the City of Fridley's public works garage, Minneapolis Water Works, St. Paul Water Works, the FMC United Defense, Hilltop Trailer, and various other businesses. Staff concluded that certain public facilities and businesses have legitimate safety concems. The use of barbed wire fencing would act as a means of protecting items stored outside in zoning districts which have approved outdoor storage. It would act as a means of protecting the public from potential harm of public facilities such as cell towers. Staff believes the change will allow the use of barbed wire fencing to protect public utilities and zoning districts with approved outdoor storage requirements that meet the City Code requirements. This is not intended to proliferate the use of barbed wire fencing. It will allow existing facilities to maintain their barbed wire. Ms. Hanson stated the City Code would read as a follows: "In addition to an eight foot fence, up to three strands of barbed wire which is not to exceed 18 inches in height, may be used on a standard barbed wire arm designed specifically for that purpose. These barbed wire arms may be used in the P, M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4, C-2, and C-3 districts under the following conditions: 1. Barbed wire is necessary to protect public utilities. 2. Barbed wire may be used in the side and rear yard of those industries that have approved outdoor storage meeting all code requirements. 3. Barbed wire may be used in the side and rear yards of those commercial properties that have approved outdoor sale lots meeting all code requirements.� Ms. Hanson stated that staff recommends approval of the amendment. � Ms. Savage asked if the existing barbed wire fences meet this standard. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 4 Ms. Hanson stated they do. She and Mr. Hickok did some random measuring of fences. � Ms. Savage asked about other cities in the metro area having similar ordinances. Ms. Hanson stated they have not looked at what other cities are doing. Mr. Kuechle asked if all commercial fences are eight feet high. Ms. Bulthuis stated that eight feet is the maximum allowed in commercial areas. Some industries have higher fences, but they are permitted through a special use permit process. Mr. Kuechle asked if they are only allowing eight feet, and are all the fences going to be in compliance? He is worried about the barbed wire in the safety zone. Ms. Hanson stated there was one fence that they checked that was six feet. Ms. Bulthuis stated the majority of fences are eight feet in height and have the barbed wire on top of that. Mr. Kuechle asked if any of the fences had six strands. Ms. Hanson stated that three was the standard. Mr. Kondrick asked if the six foot fences would need 18 inches of three strand barbed wire around it to make the fence compliant. � Ms. Savage asked if they would be able to come in for a special use permit. Ms. Bulthuis stated they could possibly get a variance. Mr. Saba stated that if the fence is lower than six feet, it would be a safety issue. Ms. Hanson stated that the six foot fences may not be tall enough since most people are about six feet tall anyway. Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any electrically charged fences. Ms. Hanson stated that has not been discussed. Ms. Bulthuis stated that electrical fences are prohibited by City Code. Mr. Kuechle asked if there were any discussions about allowing electric fences. Ms. Hanson stated there has been no discussion on electric fences. Ms. Bulthuis stated there would be definite safety concems with electric fences. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, 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 7:54 P.M. n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 5 MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Zoning Text ,� Amendment, ZTA #01-07, to the City Zoning Code by the City of Fridley to allow barbed wire fencing at a minimum of eight feet high in certain zoning districts under the following conditions: 1. Barbed wire is necessary to protect public utilities. 2. Barbed wire may be used in the side and rear yard of those industries that have approved outdoor storage meeting all code requirements. 3. Barbed wire may be used in the side and rear yards of those commercial properties that have approved outdoor sale lots meeting all code requirements. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. DISCUSS AND RECOMMEND POLICY REGARDING DECONSTRUCTION ON CITY HRA, REMODELING. AND DEMOLITION PROJECTS: Ms. Johns stated that as the Chair of the Environmental Quality & Energy (EQE) Commission, she wanted to make sure that the City, as well as the public, are aware of the deconstruction process. The EQE drafted a policy which was sent to the HRA for review and to get feedback from the City staff. They worked with Grant Fernelius. The draft states that a deconstruction company in Minneapolis would use the products and lists which products they would look for in a house. The process will make the whole deconstruction process longer and adds extra costs to it. The City tested a house the HRA owned. The company came in and charged an initial fee for its crew. The company then gave the City a list of everything salvageable and what those materials were worth. They pulled up some flooring, lumber, windows, cabinets, and sinks, ^ among other things. Mr. Kondrick stated that rather than bulldoze the house down, some things are worth saving for reuse of construction materials. Ms. Johns stated that is correct. Instead of sending all the materials to the landfills, people can reuse them. Ms. Savage asked what exactly does the company do with the materials. Ms. Johns stated this non-profit organization has a store where the materials are sold to the public. The rest of the house that is not salvageable is bulldozed down. Mr. Kondrick asked who bears the cost? Ms. Johns stated the City paid the up-front cost in the test to hire the company. Mr. Oquist asked why they would pay them to tear it down so they can take the material and resell it for more money? Ms. Johns stated that the cost was under $200 for the crew. Ms. Savage asked if they have to determine what is salvageable? Ms. Johns stated that the City would look at the home to see if there were enough salvageable �i items and then have a deconstruction company come in. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 6 Mr. Oquist asked if it was correct that the City would not get any reimbursement back from the � company for the material. Ms. Johns stated that is correct. Mr. Oquist asked about private homes that do remodeling and tear out the bathtubs or toilet and sink and would like to sell it to that company. Ms. Johns stated she did not know if the company worked that way. They will come and look at cabinets and take them out, but she believes it would work with all appliances. Mr. Oquist stated that many homes in Fridley have cast iron tubs and one way to get them out is to break them up; however, if someone would take out a tub for a small fee, it might be worth it to the homeowner. They should publicize this information so people are aware of that. Ms. Savage stated that brochures will be available to the public. Ms. Johns stated that a concem is the timeline to fit in deconstruction so it would be nice to distribute brochures for people to be aware of this prior to remodeling. Mr. Oquist asked if this would cause about a month delay? Ms. Johns stated that there were some times lines befinreen when the company came in and deconstructed. It may be longer than a normal construction company. ^ Mr. Oquist stated they would not want to delay a project, and it needs to have a quick time frame. Ms. Johns stated the company is really busy in the construction season, and they have teams that go to different homes. Mr. Oquist stated City and HRA-owned property cannot be held up for very long for that company to do the evaluation. Ms. Johns stated that if it is not feasible, the company will not be used. Mr. Oquist stated that it should be made clear that this is the policy, but they do not have to use the deconstruction company if the timeline does not work. Ms. Savage stated this is for general support of the policy. Mr. Oquist and Mr. Kondrick stated they would support the deconstruction policy. Mr. Saba asked if the company had its own brochures. Ms. Johns stated that it does. Mr. Oquist stated they are not limited to this company only. MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to accept and support the deconstruction � policy. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 5, 2001 PAGE 7 Mr. Oquist stated that the Commission's discussion should be forwarded with this motion so n everything can be taken into consideration. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4 2001. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7 2001. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING : MOTION by Ms. Johns, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 11. 2001. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: � MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 8, 2001. APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to receive the minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON SAVAGE DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE SEPTEMBER 8, 2001, PLANNING COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. RespectFully submitted, � �� ' ,r% Sig L. Joh � ^ Recording Secretary 7