Loading...
PL 01/05/1977 - 30459,� .� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 5, 1977 PAGE.l CALL TQ ORDER: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Bergman, Langenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel (arrived 8;00), Shea Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 22, 19?6 :, � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes �- of December 22, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, al1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PEftMIT SP �76-15 BY PAKO PHOTO, INC., To permit a film processing drop-off booth, per Fridley City Code; Section 205.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lots 1- 5, Audiicor�s �ubdivision No. 153, Skywood Mall Shopping Center, the same being 5267 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #'jb-15, by Pako Photo, Inc. Upon a voice vot�, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7: 0. Mr. H. Randolph Toth was present representing Pako Photo. He explained he wished to receive approval to construct a drive-in/walk-up photo finishing drop at Skywood Tiall, and said that the Commission was probably familiax with what they had at Holly Shopping Center. He showed the Commission photagraphs and building pla.ns, and stated it was a s-tate-approved building. Mr. Toth said that this drop-off booth would have more aesthetic value with shrubbery and so forth, and would give a better traffic flow. He added that Mr. Boardman had requested that they put in some landscaping and road pattern definition, and they had agreed to do that. He explained that this was a y^� last-minute change and was not on the pictures. He stated that after � Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 2 e � researching the situat3on they were.proposing a spot that should not cause a traffic problem. He explained it was 150' from Lee'Wards�and 80' from the back of the parking lot. - Mrs. Shea asked if the City intended to put the curbing in, and Mr. Boardman replied no. He said that the reason they wanted some definition of roadways was because of the immense traffic problem they had in there, and to date the City hadn�t had too much luck in changing traffic problems with the shopping center owner, Mr. Sheldon Mortenson. Mr. Boardman passed out a sketch of what the City would like to be done there� and showed where the concrete curbing would be. � Mr. Boardman said there were several alternatives for this request. He_ stated that in order to get more cooperation for improvements within the property, which did tend to be hazardous, perhaps no more permits within the property should be issued until some kind of scheme was developed to upgrade the property and solve some of the traffic problems. He said the other alternative would be to issue�this permit and try to get the improve- ments with major building permits. Chairperson Harris asked if that shopping center was built according to the plans and specifications submitted at the time of construction, and Mr. Boardman replied it was. He explained that at the time of construction there weren't many rules and regulations� and now the traffic generated by the shopping center was a problem. �„� Mr. Peterson said he thought there was more of a problem on the West side of Central'than there was on the East side of Central, and Mr. Boardman said there was a street improvement project that would handle that. He explained there was also a street improvement project for a four-lane road going in and out of the shopping center up to that point that is public property, but beyond that it was private property. Chairperson Harris asked if Menards was actually part of that praperty, and Mr. Boardman replied that Nienaxds was sub-leasing from Spaxtan Atlantic, but Mr. Mortenson owned the property itself. Mr. Bergman said he was pretty familiar with this whole area, and the traffic problem in and out of Target was a different type of problem than the shopping center. He stated that the problem with Target was because of volume, but with Skyway it was because of lack of controlled traffic. He said there were no curbs or anything, and a lack of organization. Mr. Peterson suggested this was an intra-paxking lot problem and was not an inter-street traffic problem. He said he didn�t think it was the city's function to tell the owner how to handle the traffic in his parking lot, which is what they were trying to tell him to do if it was an intra-parking lot problem. Air. Boardman pointed out that the public used it, and the inter- section was a public intersection. rir. Peterson said that the problem he saw had nothing to do with the traffic in the parkirig lot, but the traffic ' '"� , _.� �...� Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 197? Page 3 �"� � in the street. He said that if they were talking about traffia that was � on the Fridley streets that was one thing, but if they were talking about � traffic that was on the man�s own personal property� that was�his own business. He stated he got a little upset with the government telling people how to run everything, and before they started to blaclanail the business he would like to hear the problem defined. Mr. Boardman stated that the problem was ihe access to that intersection was wide open without control. He said it was just like an access onto a highway or road�if the whole frontage lot was a driveway, and asked if the whole thing was open, how could access�onto a roadway be controlled? He added that there had been a Tot of problems in that intersection. Mr. Bergman said he would like to fully support Mr. Boardman's sketch as being a good idea and certainly not overdone in terms of something to control direction of traffic there. He said he would like to sugges� that the users of this general area were Fridley citizenry and public, and they were talking about a safety hazard problem. He stated that certainly they were in a position to set minimum standards in a commercial area when the concern was for the using public. He added that he had been to the shopping center frequently, and when a person was driving through he had to look in all directions. r1r. Peterson said that then they would have to go in every parking lot in n the City and tell them to put in traffic barriers as the City of Fridley � felt it should be done. He said he understood what Mr. Bergman was trying ° to say, but he got tired of the government trying to tell the people everything they had to do. He stated they were talking about blackmaili.ng the guy into doing that; they were denying him the building permit until• he did what they wanted him to do. PZr. Bergman s aid just to expand on the general area, there was a problem across the street on the West, also, and during large volume (such as Christmas) there was a mess with the entrance to the gas station, the entrance to Dnbers, and the traffic lined up. Mr. Boardman �aid that the whole intersection area from the entrance to Taxget to 53rd would be channelized and directed. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the erection of this building might tend to help direct traffic flow just by its existence, and Mr. Boardman saa.d that was possible. Mr. Langenfeld said he assumed this particular building would be there for some time since it was going to be placed on a concrete foundation, and Mr. Toth stated they had a five-year lease with a five-year option. He added they would be open 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Friday, and from 9:00 A.TT. to 5:30 on Saturday,.but would have 21�-hour drop-off service. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there were any vandalism problems in the area, and Mr. Boardman replied he didn't lrnow. Chairperson Haxris asked if this proposed building and surrounding curbs ^ fit in with the proposed traffic pattern the City hacl for the intexsection. Mr. Boardman replied yes, the one they had now. He referred to his sketch "" and said this would be the City�s recommendation as far as solving the problem for the parking area� and explained the proposed driveway system. Planning Commission Meeti.ng - January 5, 19?? Page 1t �"1 Chairperson Harris asked if there were any utilities to this building, and P4r. Toth replied it�would be serviced underground with electricity. Mr. Toth said he would like to add that because of the way the lease was worked out, if they followed the plan that Mr. Boardman was proposing they would be out; Mr. Mortenson wouldn't let them in. He explained that Mr. Boardman's plan put the building right in the middle of the driveway Mr. Mortenson did have, and showed the Commission where he proposed to put the structure. Mr. Boardman said that his proposal had the best flov� pattern for the parking lot, and explained the differences on the s�cetches�. Mr. Boardman said his plan did not fit in with the existing paxking as it was laid out. Mr. Boardman said he thought the real problem was if a Special Use Permit was approved on the Pako, concrete curbing would be put in and then there would be a problem with changing the traffic flow at a later date. He said they were trying to improve the looks of the property as well as trying to eliminate some of the traffic hazards coming out of the property. • Mr. Peterson asked where that direction came from, and who decided what looked better. Mr. Boardman replied that the direction came from City Administration and also from the zoning codes. He said they were attempting to upgrade the City through beautification programs, and were working with a11 of the major shopping centers, such as Sho'rewood. He added that the City Council approved the landscape plan for Shorewood. He said there was direction, it was not a hit and miss type of operation. Mr. Boardman added that they had also talked to Target and they would be putting in parking lot improvements, Holiday had done improvements and Cub Warehouse would be /'1 doi.ng improvements. Mr. Bergman said that from a Corr,munity Development point of view, they supported what was being described, within reason, and he didn't irnow who would be doing this if not City Administration. . Mr. Langenfeld said he could see Staff's standpoint as far as aesthetics were concerned, but he felt there already existed an unfavorable situation and it would be placing a hardship on this petitioner to try to correct this unfavorable situation. Mr. Boardman said that all they were saying was that if they approved the Special Use Permit on this property, they should be caxeful not to establish a pattern that they might not want to see established. Chairperson Harris said that as fax as parking lots and establishing patterns went, he felt the City Council had�already es�tablished a pattern on extra curriculax uses of parking lots (i.e., Holiday trailer sales). He asked if there was an agreement with Mr. T�ortenson or the Lee Wards Company for toilet facilities, and Mr. Toth replied that there were public restroom facilities within the shopping center. Mr. Harris asked how far away they were from the Pako establishment, and Mr. Toth answered that the structure was 150� from the building and the facilities were just down the ha11. r1r. Harris said that OSHA required the facilities to be taithin 200', and Mr. Toth replied they were not within that and added they would then have to go to outside sources (such as the Ground Roundj to pick up the �acilities. Mrs. Schnabel asked how this particular spot was determined, and Mr. Toth � said he had requested an area close to that because it was one of the areas where there was least amount of parking but with good visability of the building. l�rs. Schnabel asked if Mr. Toth would object to leasing property Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 5 � on the South end of the parking lot area towards the miniature golf and the �� bank, and he replied that they operated off e�posure. He explained that . they needed �0 - 60.car� a day to be successful; 20 - 30 to drop off film and 20 - 30 to pick up film, and if they were on the far end he didn�t think they could pick that up. Mrs. Schnabel. asked if he had tried to lease any area from Mendards, and Mr. Toth explained that property was also owned by Mr. Mortenson, but he hadn't asked for anything there. Mrs. Schnabel stated that her greatest concern was the traffic flow coming out of Menards, which didn't stop for the stop sign. She said.she felt it would be unfair to this petitioner to necessarily base his approval on the City's attempt to clean up that egress out of that area. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Boaxdman if they would still be able to work out some sort of a drivin� arrangement similax to what he had suggested if they went ahead with the original proposal since it would just mean there would be parking stalls to the West of the photo building. Mr. Boardman said yes, it was just his attempt to try to start a direction in the traific pattern flow. Mr. Toth said that the curbing suggested by the City along with the land- scaping and trees would be an additional expsnse to Pako Photo of at least $1,000. He said that may not be a lot of money to some people, but it was to Pako as they were just starting out in this business. �"'� Mr. Langenfeld asked what would happen to the cement slab if the traffic � flow was such that the business was no longer prosperous and they pulled out, and I�ir. Toth replied that if for some reason they couldn�t make it, they would remove everything and put it back in the original condition, Mr. Peterson said that if they were truly worki.ng to make an improvernent 'in the traffic pattern, which may or may not come, why not a11ow the petitioner to put in -the type of building that he originally proposed without the curb and other things and then if they wanted him to move it in three years he could. Mr. Toth saa.d that once the building was down, it would be permanent, but he felt it may act as a traffic control. Mr. Bergman stated that as he viewed the two plans, if the City�s proposal was adjusted to allow nose-in parking, then the two plans became the same. Mr. Boardman said that was correct, with the exception of the wider driving aisle. Mrs. Schnabel asked if Mr. Boardman coulci recall the traffic count figures for that corner, and he replied he thought it was something like 19,000 on 53rd, the traffic on Central was around 27,000 and about 50,000 on the inter- state. Mrs. Schnak�el said that.was a lot of traffic at that intersection. Chairperson Harris commented that he thought the City had some easements in there, and Mr. Boardman said there were no ro�d easements, only pipeline. He said the road easements were only to the service drive, and the rest ^ was private property. Mr. Harris said they ldere not going to get Mr. Mortenson to do anything as the center was built fifteen years ago and nothing had been `- done yet. He stated that the City might as well sit do�m and design an intersection that was needed and condemn the land and t.ake it and assess . Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 6 it back to the appropriate property owners. Mr. Peterson said he had a ^' real problem with holding a hammer over somebody's head when they were trying to do business in the community, but the way Mr. Harris had just described would be going through legal procedures the way government should handle it. Mr. Langenfeld stated he had been looking at the plans and noted they were going to use concrete for the base, and asked if this would be a concrete slab. Mr. Toth said it was a form that went down. He explained they had three slab proposals depending on the land, and the least expensive was the floating slab, but they went with whatever the engineers said they had to use. He said it was a permanent slab p�ured on site. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the hardship would be an additional $1,000 on top of this� and Mr. Toth said that was correct--well over $1,000. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Request SP �76-15, by Pako Photo, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 8:1�3 P.M. i�ir. Bergman said he appreciated the view City Administration took with the parking problems, and so forth. He said that secondly, he thought they were probably overburdening the petitioner with general area problems, and thirdly, h� �,hought that i.n really getting down to it the only conflict between the City�s traffic pattern view and the requestor's proposal was if there was ^ parking against the curb. He said that with those considerations in mind, he would like to make a motion. MOTTON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson; that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #76-15, by Pako Photo� Inc., to permit a film processing drop-off booth, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lots 1- 5, Auditor's Subdivision No 153, Skywood Mall Shopping Center, the same being 5267 Central Avenue N.E., referencing the prints and related documents received in this meeting (marked as "�chibit A"). Mr. Peterson s aid that he would like to claxify to the petitioner that the motion was to give him the location that he submitted, not the City�s proposed location, but he was to put in the curbing and shrubbery per the City's request. Chairperson Harris asked Mr. Toth if he would take caxe of the business concerning the restrooms, and he replied he would gs-L- signed documents. Mr. Boardman commented that was a requirement before the building permit was issued. Mr. Bergman AI�IENDID the AZOTION to i.nclude the follow�.ng stipulations : 1. G1irb and landscape as agreed to and proposed by administration. 2. Adequate arrangements for washroom facilities to meet code. ^ Agreeable to seconder. �,�.: Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1977 . Page 7 � �� UPON A VO�CE VOTE� a11 voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Haxris comrnented that he thought at some period of time the Pl�nning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council on that intersection. Mr. Peterson said he would like to see a recommendation from City Staff so the Planning Commissio� could make a recommendation to Council. Nlr. Boardman said he would talk to the �gineering Department to see if they could put something together on that. 2. CONTINUID: PROPOSID P�7AINTENANCE CODE MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the handout concerning the l�iaintenance Code. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motibn carried unanimously. Mr. Boardman said that at the last meeting the Proposed Maintenance Code �was on the agenda, it had been suggested that the residential section be � broken out from the rest of the maintenance code and set up separately; and then within that look at it according �o Interior and Exterior. Under "Interior" there wouTd be Health and Safety, and under "Exterior" there would be Health, Safety and Appearance. He said they also looked at the minimum standards of thz Fridley Mainicenance Code versus those of HUD� OS�.��� and the Uni�o:m Fire Code. He said he wanted to mention on the -'� HUD minimum property standards that HUD would not do the inspection on °�..,� the property if the comrm.znity had a maintenance code, He said the reason they wouldn't do that was because they went to the community first of a].1 to make sure it met their code. - Chairperson Harris asked how OSHA got involved in residential property. Mr. Bergman said his i.mpressian was that OSHA was involved in the safe�y and welfare of an employed person, and suggested that perhaps they were concerned about the maintenance personnel of an apartment building. r1rs. Schnabel also suggested the possibility of a maid employed in a home� and Mr. Harris brought up the possibility af mai.ntenance and gardening personnel. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the responsibility was that of the City or the property owner in terms of maintenance people, and r4r. Harris said that the ultima�te responsible person was the property owner or the employer, but the problem was making the people aware of their responsibilities. Mrs. Schnabel asked if it was necessary that a City�s maintenance code conform wiich OSHA, and 1tiLr. Harris said it should not be in conflict with OSHA. Mr. Bergman sai.d that OSHA dealt directly with the property owner; they didn�t contact the City at all. Pir. Bcardman said that concerning the fire code, the City of Fridley has noi: adopted a Uniform Fire Code at this time. He said if they did adopt it' it would be less stringent. � Mr. Bergman said he was a bit puzzled with th ese codes. He noted that item 1 on the handout was utilities and there was a HUD reference. He asked about � the National Electric Code� State Plumbing Code' Uniform Building Code, etc., ' all of which were concerned with utilities. He said he sti71 didn't lmow Plaru�ing Commission Meeting - January 5� 1977 P�e 8 '_ �� what all of the concerned codes were� and he didn't think he was alone in that. He said there were many codes addressing themselves to utilities, and only one was being referenced--HUD. Mr. Boardman.stated that most of ' them were based on the Uniform Building Code which had been adopted by the State. Mr. Bergman said that concerned itself with new construction only and not maintenance, and rir. Boaxdman said that was why they had pulled out the HUD mi.nimum property staiadards, the fire code and OSHA--because they dealt with maintenance of those items. After some further discussion, iRr. Bergman asked if Mr. Boardman was suggesting that this theme had been reseaxched and with regard to sicraight maintenance HUD was the only applicable code and the others he had mentioned were not, and r�lr. Boardman said that was basically correct. ' Mr. Bergman said it was pertinent and very notable that, as proposed, the Fridley code was less stringent in some cases and in some cases more stringent, and he would assume there were some logical reasons for this. Mr. Boardman said he would have to do more research on it. Mr. Langenfeld said he felt ihe handout was to be used as a compaxison to see which code was tougher. Chairperson Harris commented that he would like to take it home and study it. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld� to continue the proposed Maintenance Code until the next meeting. Upon a noice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. 3. CONTINUED: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT GOAI�S & OBJECTIVES� MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive Goal Statements D�00, D500, 5100, 5200, S300 and Sit00. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld asked if this would be put into bo�klet form when it was completed, and PSr. �oardman said they would be receiving a booklet. Mr. Boardman explained that in the Human Development Goa1s and Objectives, DI�00 dealt mainly with providing essential human services to the community such as day care, information and referral services, and that type of thing. He said that D500 dealt mainly with effective human understanding of youth, elderly� minorities and lifestyle differences. Mr. Boardman said that as fax as the Security Goa1 areas were concerned� he had broken them dawn into four areas: justice, personal health, environmental health (all phases of environment)� and fire and other disasters. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like time to study and review this. ri0TI0N by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the Hiunan Development Goals and Objectives until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � �`1 • � � � /� .� Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 9 !�. RECEIVE APPEALS COr1MISSSON MINUTES : DECF.�iBEFt 28, 1976 MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the Appeals Commission minutes of Decsmber 28; 1976. Mr. Langenfeld noted that the Appeals Commission really got going on financia.l hardship. Mrs. Schnabel said that she had talked to the City Attorney and he was going to give her two opinions; c;ne on the question of whether or not the claim of devaluation of an adjacent property is a valid cla.im in variances, and the other was a definition of economic feasibility and if there was a relationship between economic feasibility and economic hardship.� rir. Lar�genfeld asked if it wasn't economic hardship� which staxted all this, and Mrs. Schnabel said there was an opinion at one time that economic hardship was not a valid excuse for approval of a variance. She stated that in the memorandum issued by the City Attorney, he did talk about economic feasibility and it came under a Mi.nnesota Supreme Court decision, and the Appeals Commission wanted to lrnow wh�.t the interpretation of economic feasibility was. She added that she could�see that feasibility could be a totally different ba11 game than hardship. UPOIJ d VOICE VOT.�s a11 voting aye� the motion ca.rried unanimously. 5. ftECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COl''II�IISSION I�IINUTES : DECEMBER 21, 1976 MOTION by Lan�enfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the E�vironmental Quality Commission rninutes of December 21, 1976. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the City Council approved sponsorship of the Fridley F�vironmental Quality Commission in regard to the 208 Water Manage- ment Program. He said that I�etro Council would be conducting this meeting, and it would take place at 7:30 P.M. on January 18 in the Gity Hall Community Room. He said the general topics would be Water and Water Trea-tment� Management and Financing of Water Waste Programs, and discussions on Pollution. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate that the topics were regional and the entire metro area could be affected, so therefore they couldn't refer specifically to rloore Lake or Rice Creek, but they would be indirectly affected. He urged all the members of the Commission to attend if possible� and added that the League of Ydomen Voters would take care of the publicity. Mr. Langenfeld brought the Commissioners' attention to the second paragraph on page 3 of their mi.nutes, and noted that their involvement was very forth- coming in regaxd to the Land Planning Act. He said this woulcl involve a lot af changes with regaxd to state planning of paxks and open spaees, etc. Chairpersan Harris commented that he had attended that meeting concerning the Lsnd Planning Act, and it was a real can of worms. Chairperson Harris asked if there the Mineral F�traction Ordinance, � He said he thouglit this Commission - more�enforceable thar� the present would be a recommendation coming forth on and Mr. Langenfeld said there would be. would find the ordinance would prove to be one. � Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 19?7 Page 10 Mr. Bergman noted that the �vironmental Commission was still getting concern � regarding the East River Road Project. He said his recollection was that� this body never did make a recommendation to City Council, but sent the proposal to Community Development, Human Resources and Parks & Recreation for review and response. He said the subcommissions responded, but he � didn't recall what became of it after that. Mr. Boardman said the Planning Commission sent it on to City Council without a recomme�dation on the moratorium and suggested that a transportation plan be made for that portion of East River Road. He said he would•reseaxch this to see what happened to it and put together a status report on it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 6. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Langenfeld said thai he had attended the City Council meeting last Monday night and got the impression that they didn�t read the Planning Commission minutes. He read from the City Council minutes concerning the Human Resources Commission�s request regarding "babies" and '�Annies" for the C.P.R. Program, and said that when the�City Council took this up they appeared unsure as to what the Planning Commission recommended. Mrs. Shea wondered if Council ignored the iact that the Fire Department had an "Annie" and a"baby" of their own. Chairperson Haxris said he didn't think they should let the ball drop on this, and asked Mr. Boardman to request the Fire Department to give them a repo-rt on this. Mr. Langenfeld said they were talking in terms of proper education in saving lives and were not wastefully spending taxpayer's money. AZrs. Shea said it had been brought up at the the last Planning Commission meeting that this would come out of Human Resource's budget. � Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate that perhaps the Planning Commission should be more specific in what their intentions were. ADJOURNMENT: 1�10TION by Peterson, seconded by Langen£eld, that the mee�ing be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chaa.rperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of January 5, 1977 adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted� _ , �, , Sherri 0'Donnell Reeording Secretary ^� �"� ���