Loading...
LS 75-27Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 4 STIPULATIONS: 1. Complete landscaping -as per office copy dated 12/2/75: 2. Submit letter to the City stating that property will not be sold without joint parking agreement with 7760 Elm Street N.E. Mr. Drigans said the variances the Board of Appeals had recommended for approval was to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 7 1/2 feet and the side yard setback from.20 feet to 0 feet for 7760 Elm Street N.E. The reason we allowed the rear yard setback was because the alley had been vacated. The zero feet was in concert with what has been allowed in this area when there has been an adjoining building that could be built, wall to wall. The stipulation was that an agreement from the adjacent property owner on the zero side yard setback be'acquired- and'a--copy--submitted.to. the. City. Mr. Drigans said that the variance on 7790 Elm Street N.E. was to reduce the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 7 1/2 feet and reduce the side yard setback on a corner lot from 35 feet to 28 feet. He said the reason for the 28 feet was to keep. this building in line with a building across the street. Mr. Boardman said the City had not received that agreement as.yet. Mr. Drigans said that with these two buildings, this area is close to being completely developed. Mr. Boardman said that these two buildings would have a joint parking lot and we need a letter stating'that the property would not be'sold without a joint parking agreement between 7760 and 7790 Elm Street N.E: Mr. Paschke asked Mr. Boardman to prepare the necessary agreements and he would come in and sign them. Mr. Harris said that if he voted on these proposals there would be conflict of interest, so that was why he was abstaining. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission concur with the administrative staff reports and the recommendation from the Appeals Commission for 7760 and -7790 Elm Street N.E. by Paco Masonry, Inc. Mr. Bergman said he was concerned about the percentage of land area used for the building and parking „lots. He wondered if this left much green area. Mr. Drigans said the code allows 40% coverage by the building, and if these buildings didn't meet that requirement they would have had to get a variance on this, so these proposed buildings do meet the lot coverage requirements of the code. Upon a voice vote, Scott, Bergman, Peterson, Drigans,.Langenfeld voting aye,. Harris abstaining, the motion carried. I. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE -PERMIT, SP #75-27, BY MARGARET, MERRELL: To allow a second accessory building, a 28' x 32' detached garage, on Lots 9.and 10, Block 3, Plymout Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, (2,A), the.same being 832 2:1/Street Er Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 5 MOTION by Scott, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret Merrell. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 8:03 P.M. Mr. & Mrs Lloyd Merrell were present. Mr. Boardman said this lot was 80 feet by 130 feet and was located at 4832 2 1/2 Street N.E.He said the existing house was 24' x 32' and an existing storage shed 12' x 20'. He said that this request was to allow the construction of a 32' x 28' detached garage. He said that it was his understanding that this garage would be used to store a truck. He said that Mr. Merrell was in the siding business and when his truck was stored outside, this siding did get bent by the children in the neighborhood. Mr. Boardman said that if there were no complaints from the neighbors on the construction of this second accessory building, the staff saw no problem with the request. He said the City did not have a verified survey of this lot. He said the setback requirement for a detached garage was 3' and with,. -it a survey,.we request that they stay 1 1/2 times the distance from the property line. They will meet this requirement by constructing this garage 4 1/2 feet from the property line. Mr. Peterson asked if all the neighbors had been notified of this request? Mr. Boardman said that everyone in Block 3 and -the west side of Block 2 had been notified of this request. There were no neighbors at this meeting. Mr. Merrell said he proposed to have two 9 foot doors on this garage. He said he was self employed and he sometimes has material on his truck for the next job. He said the planks were 24' long and this was the reason he needed such a large garage. Mr. Harris asked him if there would be any utilities in this garage. Mr. Merrell said just electricity. Mr. Drigans said he had some reservations about the size of the garage. He said the garage would be 896 square feet, and the house was only 768 square feet. He said the residential garage would be larger than the residential house. He wondered if this was in keeping with the neighborhood. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this garage would be used primarily for his truck and storage for his business? Mr. Merrell said it would be used to park his truck. He said that when he finished one job and was ready to go to another job, he did stop at the warehouse to load his truck. He said that this material would be stored on his truck for not more than two days. He intended to park two cars in this garage also. Mr. Langenfeld said then there wouldn't be any siding stored on this property for re -sale. Mr. Merrell said he was a sub -contractor and did not sell the jobs. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Merrell what was the purpose of the storage shed. Mr. Merrell said they used it for the storage of the lawn mower, the snowmobiles, and some material he left over from siding jobs. Mrs. Merrell presented an agreement signed by Georgia Kramer of 4820 2 1/2 Street, the neighbor closest to this proposed construction, which -..stated that she had no objection to the construction of a 28' x 32' garage on this property without the required certificate of survey that the City ordinarily requires for all new construction. Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 6 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the agreement signed by Georgia Kramer of 5820 2 1/2 Street N.E. and witnessed by Clayton L. Edstrom, Jr. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Merrell if he had discussed this proposal with the Robinette's and the Kim residence? Mr. Merrell said he had discussed this with the Robinette's and they had no objection. He said the Kim's were from Korea and only one of them spoke English, and then not too well. He said he explained what he wanted to do, but he didn't know if they understood it or not. Mr. Drigans said he was concerned that the garage would be used for the storage of material, and the truck would still be sitting outside. Mr. Bergman -said he was concerned about the ratio of the house and garage. He was concerned about what extent this garage would be from the residential nature of this area. He said that this leaned towards a commercial use on this property. % Mr. Bergman asked if there was anything in the City Code regulating the size of an accessory building to the primary building on a lot? Mr. Boardman said the only requirement was that any second accessory building over 240 square foot required a Special Use Permit. He said that it this wasn't the second accessory building, there would be nothing in the code to prohibit' -the construction of this garage after a building permit had been obtained. Mr. Drigans asked what would happen if he attached this garage to the storage shed? Mr. Boardman said then he could construct the garage without a Special Use Permit also, because it would be all one accessory building, or if he wanted to tear down the shed, he wouldn't need a Special Use Permit for this garage either. Mr. Scott asked if we had no control of the size of structures on residential lots? Mr. Boardman said that the Code requirement was that only 25% Tot coverage was allowed, but the house, storage shed, and proposed garage were still under that 25% requirement. Mr. Peterson wondered if it was within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission to question the size of a building in relation to a primary structure. He said they could recommend approval or denial of the Special Use Permit, but to debate that recommendation based on the size of a man's house he felt was out of the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Mr. Drigans said he would concur with that, and let the City Council deal with that aspect of this proposal. Mr. Scott said this was a question that should be addressed by the Community Development Commission, as to whether there should be some controls on the size of accessory buildings, or if this would infringe on individual freedom. Mr. Harris asked if this garage would be higher than the house? Mr. Merrell said it wouldn't be. lie said he had about $5,000 worth of equipment on his truck and he was anxious to store it inside a structure. Mr. Harris asked if he could attach this garage to the house? Mr. Merrell said he didn't want to do this because he couldn't get into the back yard with his boat and camper then. He said that where he proposed to locate " this garage, he would have 17 feet Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 7 between the corner of the house and the corner of the garage for this purpose. Mr. Bergman said that from the Community Development standpoint he was. disturbed by a trend towards the square footage of what could be a commercial use being larger than the primary use, which was residential. He said he felt this was in conflict with the residential atmosphere. He said this Special Use Permit request was based on hardship, and he would like to*know what this hardship was based upon. Mr. Merrell said he did not operate out of his house. He said the only material he would have on the premises was what he had on his truck for the next job. Mr. Bergman said the alternative to this would be to rent a garage in a commercial area to park this truck. Mr. Merrell said he would have to buy another car to drive back and forth to this truck. Mr. Langenfeld said that besides the size of the garage, and the commercial flavor that has been part of this discussion, what was there to'stop any other tradesman from putting a'trvck in -their garage. He was sure there were electricians and plumbers who had materials on.their trucks. He said he felt that +he request for a Special Use Permit for a second accessory building was for use a6 a garage and not for the storage of materials, except the materials that were on the truck. He thought there could be a stipulation that the only storage of material was on the truck and not in the garage. Mr. Harris asked how you would enforce that? Would you have someone run down there every day to see if the material was on the truck or piled in the garage? Mr. Harris said that after Mr. Merrell parked the truck and two cars in this garage, he would still have four feet on each end. He didn't think this garage had to be as large as they were'requesting. Mr. Merrell asked if any. garage was ever too large? Mr. Drigans said he had to go back to Mr. Peterson's statement and agree that there was nothing in the code that said you couldn't build an accessory building larger than the primary building. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret Merrell. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M. Mr. Harris said as far as he could recollect, there weren't any commercial enterprises in this particular area. Most of this dommercial development was on Main Street. Mr. Scott said he would like to abstain from voting on this request because of a personal conflict he had in protecting the rights of a property owner which may be in conflict with harmony of the community and our zoning ordinances, and he didn't think there was sufficient information in this area, to make a judgement on it. Mr. Peterson said he respected Mr. Scott's viewpoints, but on the other hand it would seem to him that we have taken steps to protect the adjoining property owner's by sending them a notice of this Public Hearing. There was no one here to protest this request, and the'neighbor'closest to the proposed garage has signed an agreement that they have no objection to this request. Mr. Scott said he agreed with that, but his conflict was that we might be setting a precedence. Planning Commission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 8 Mr. Peterson said that in our discussion we have determined that this proposed garage was not in conflict with any of our codes. We have all agreed that if this was a smaller building, we wouldn't have even questioned it. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret Merrell, to allow a second accessory building, a 28' x 32' detached garage, on Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Plymouth Addition, per Fridley City Code. Section 205.051, (2,A), the same being 4832 2 1/2 Street N.E. -" Mr. Bergman said he felt this garage was in violation of the code because our code says that a second accessory building should only be 240 square feet, and this was 896 square feet. Mr. Peterson said that if he correctly read the code, it was because there was a secondary building on this lot that was 240 square feet was the reason a Special Use Permit was needed for the garage, not 'because the proposed garage was in vi6lat4on of any code. Mr. Boardman said this was correct. Mr. Boardman said the reasor, a Special Use Permit was set up for second accessory buildings over 240 square feet was so they would have a handle on it if there were any special problems with this second accessory building. Mr. Harris said he thought the size of the structure was not in keeping with the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. He didn't think the petitioner had to have this largea garage, and that was why he 'was not- in. favor this request. He said he would have voted in favor of the request if the garage wasn't so large. He said he could sympathize with the petitioner wanting to get an expensive piece of machinery in out of the weather and to protect his invest- ment. Mr. Bergman said he agreed with Mr. Harris. Mr. Merrell said there was a 24' x 32' garage at 4839 2 1/2 Street N.E. which was only 4' smaller than the garage he was proposing to build and he thought this garage would upgrade the area and not downgrade the neighborhood. Mr: Harris asked if this neighbor only had the one accessory building? Mr. Merrell said he did. Mr. Harris said what you were asking for was 1;136 square feet of accessory buildings on your lot. He already had 240 square feet and the proposed garage. was 896 square feet. Mr. Scott said he thought Mr. Merrell should be commended for trying to. get this truck off of the street. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the storage shed was anchored. Mr. Merrell said it was and he had also just put new aluminum siding on it. Mr. Langenfeld said this storage shed would not then be easily removed. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Drigans and Peterson voting aye, Bergman and Harris voting nay, and Scott and Langenfeld abstaining, the MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission send the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-27, by Margaret Merrell, to allow a second accessory building, a 28' x 32' detached garage, on Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Plymouth Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, (2,A), the same being 4832 2 1/2 Street N.E., on to Council without a recommendation. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Harris excused Mr. Drigans from the meeting at 8:45 because '..• PlannincgCommission Meeting - December 3, 1975 Page 9 . he had to return -to work. Mr. Merrell asked if this proposed garage hadn't been the second accessory building, would he need a Special Use Permit? Mr. Boardman said no,he wouldn't. Mr. Merrell said he had a friend on 46th. Avenue who had a garage and had gotten a permit from the City to have a storage shed without going through the Special Use Permit process. Mr. Harris said that if Mr. Merrell already had a garage, then he could have the storage shed, but because he already had the storage shed, the garage had,to be considered as the second accessory building.' Mr. Merrell felt he would be better to move the storage shed off his property until he had the garage built and then come in and get a special use permit for his storage shed. He said it sounded like it would be easier to get a special use permit for the storage shed than the garage. Mr. Harris said he should argue this out with the City Council because they had the final say on this request. r. M:rrell said he would rather have had a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission than.no recommendation.. Mr. Harris said he was close to havi g a recommendation for denial, so he should be happy that it went the way it did Mr. Langenfeld said the reasona abstained was because while he was in favor ofthe Special Use request bei g approved for a garage, the size of the garage kept him from voting for appr val. Mr. Scott said he didn't want MavMerrell to leave this meeting feeling that the Planning Commission didn't e concern for his rights as a property owner, as it was just the size of th s garage which made them have reservations in considering this request. He sai that if there hadn't been -this concern,' they .would have voted for denial, in tead of leaving the decision up to the City Council. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Berman, that the rules be suspended for the purpose of making a motion to dir ct the Community Development Commission to address itself to this type of. problem and then make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on how to handle such problems. Mr. Boardman said this could be handled when the Community Development Commission reviewed the zoning code. Mr. Harris felt that this would be too far into the future, and they could just review this aspect of it at this time. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA #75-06, BY UNION OIL COMPANY: To rezone part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, from C -1S local shopping areas) to C-2 (general shopping areas) to make zoning consistent with use as a service station, the same being 5695 Hackmann Avenue N.E. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-28, BY UNION OIL COMPANY: To permit the continuation of an existing service station, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, B (3,E), on part of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25, the same being 5695 Hackmann Avenue N.E. M 239 REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 15, 1975 PAGE 6 _MARGARET MERRELL, SPECIAL. USE PERMIT REQUEST SP #75-27, 4832 ZZ STREET N.E. RECE�V1l�G NETITION il21-1975 The Public Works Director explained this is a -request for a Special Use Permit. The requirement is that an accessory building on a property in excess of 240 sq.,ft, will require a Special Use Permit. In this case, as shown on page 4 EE of the Agenda, besides a primary dwelling at 4832 - 2'i Street, there is an existing storage shed which is basically 12'X 20'. The petition went before the Planning Commission to request a Special Use Permit to .allow construction of the proposed garage, 28' x 32' width. It should be noted there was quite a lot of discussion at the Planning Corrnission level regarding what effect the size of this structure will have on the existing neighborhood. Should also be pointed out the way the Zoning Ordinance is drafted at the present time, that if the. 12' X 20' storage shed had not existed on the property, a building permit would have been issued for an accessory building and he would have been allowed to construct the garage. Also noted at the Planning Commission, there exists across the street from the petitioner a garage basically the size of 24' X 32'. The question to be answered is what effect this proposal will have on the residential character of the neighborhood might apply to that 257 lot coverage. In this case, the existing shed, house and proposed construction do not exceed 25% requirement. The staff felt basically if the lot coverage was not exceeding the requirement the structure should be allowed if there were no objections.from the neighbors. There were no objections at the Planning Commission meeting. i • Councilman Fitzpatrick said that he had a statement signed by 19 residents on • 22 and 2nd Street, which reads, "I, the undersigned have agreed that Margaret Merrell can build a garage 28' X 321, 17 feet back from their house and 42 feet from lot line on the South side of the house. I have no objections to the pro- posed building of such a garage. MOTION by Councilwoman Kukowski to receive the petition f21-1975. Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. The Public Works Director added that the.Planning Commission's vote was 2 Ayes, and 2 Nays. Mayor Nee said he drove by the area and it seemed to him to be an asset to the neighborhood. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to grant the Special Use Permit for the proposed construction. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. UNION OIL COMPANY, ZONING ORDINANCE. AI.1ENDMENT ZOA #75-06, 5695 HACKMANN AVENUE NE. MOTION by Councilman Star+•salt to set the Public Hearing for Rezoning for the Union Oil Company for January 17., 1966, Seconded by Councilwoman Kukoa:ski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Nee asked the Public Works Director if he could fill them in on the status as far as the intersection is concerned. The Public Works Director explained the intersection is Hathaway and Old Central. At this point,.he said, we have approved through Council preliminary plans for the Highwily Department to proceed with the preparations of final plans for the d intersection improvement. Basically, it amounts to a realigning of existing curb ; in front of Union Oil. Together with that we intend to upgrade this section of Hathaway up through Poll: to a State aid section. We intend to use State aid money and will not assess anyone along this area for that improvement. Mayor Nee asked if this project was scheduled for next Summer. The Public Works Director said the lettitin date is February of 1976, and wo hope it will be con- structed in 1976. Ike said he would also like to point out. that this modification is in conjunction with the Urbanization of Central Avenue at 53rd. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt: to table Special Use. Permit #75-08 until the consideration of the rezoning. Secundt,cl by Councilman Greider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the minion carried unanimuusly.