Loading...
PL 04/04/1984 - 306180 ti �. � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: � � Chairwoman Schnabel called the April 4, 1984, Planning Comnission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mei��ers Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Svanda, Mr. Kondrick .. Mr. Goodspeed, Mr. Saba Mer,ibers Absent: None Otl�ers Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Specialist Rollie Benjamin, 7810 Univ. Ave. N.E. Randy McPherson Jim Benson Steve Spraungel, 7148 East Fish Lake Rd., Maple Grove 1. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERP1IT SP #84-02 BY ROLLIE BENJAMIN: Per Section 205.17.1, 3, F, of the Fri ley City Code, � to a low automobile painting and refinishing, on Lots 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10, Block 3, University Industrial Park, the same being 8070 University Avenue N.E. MO"_'ION BY MR. KOPIDI2ICK, SECpNDED BY MR. SABA� TO OPEN THE PUBLIC NEARING ON SP #84-02 BY ROLLIE BENJAMIN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIR6901�fAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PC�BLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 �.N.. Mr. Robinson stated the property was located south of 81st and along University Avenue. The special use permit request was to use the property for a refinishing, painting, 6ody work-type sf�op. Mr. Robinson stated Staff would recommend the following stipulations: 1. TF�e special use permit be issued to the individual and not the property. (He stated he had included past minutes on a similar special use permit request in Oct, 19?5 where it was suggested the special use permit be issued to the individual rather than the property because if the business were to change hands, the new owner would also F�ave to come before the Planning Comnission to receive a special use permit and wou7d become acquainted with whatever stipulaiions were necessary to operate the business.) 2. The body shop should provide a 1-hr, fire wall between the rest ^ of the building. (Apparently, this is already in place.) , ......,�.., r PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1984 PAGE 2 � 3. The City would like to have a plan on how paint and/or other hazardous waste will be disposed of. � 4. No outside storage of materials will be allowed without a fenced dumpster area. 5. No junk cars will be left on site at any time. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr. Benjamin, if he had any comments. Mr. Benjamin stated he was in agreement with what F1r. Robinson had said and would have no problem with abiding by those stipulations. Mr. Benjamin stated he was presently in the automobile business at Datsun North in Fridley, in the service and parts business, not body work, However, he was familiar with the body work business. He stated this was his first venture into this type of business. He stated his partner was Randy McPherson, who currently manages MAACO Auto Painting in Fridley. Mr. McPherson was also at the meeting and wou7d be glad to answer any questions. Ms. Schnabel stated the Planning Comnission would be interested in what method they plan to use for the disposal of wastes and how they can assure that paint and other pollutants will not go into the storm sewer, for instance � Mr. McPherson stated all the waste materia7 will be hauled away. He stated —� Auto Refinishers WareF�ouse, Inc., off 35W, handles the disposal of waste for them. There will be no storage or accumulation of waste materials. They keep everything clean and organized and there will not be any problems. He stated there are some very strict regulations, and all flammab7e materials will be handled according to those regulations. Mr. Kondrick stated that aihen cars are being painted, there is alway� left- over paint, thinners, etc. What is done with these left-over liquids? Mr. McPherson stated that any left-over paint is qiven to the customer for touch-up painting. The solvents or thinners for cleaning equipment are put into a 55 gallon drum and then hauled away. Ms. Gabel asked how many cars could be accommodated at one time. Mr. McPherson stated the area is about 6,400 sq. ft. They will have a spray booth that is set up just for painting, and he figured they could probably accomnodate about 20 cars. They would schedule according to the amount of cars they can handle. Mr. Kondrick asked if any of the neighboring businesses objected to this type of operation. Mr. RoEinson stated the City notified the owners of the property. It is not oy� responsibility to notify the renters of adjacent bu�9nes5es. The managea° _ of the building is in favor of this operation and feels it will be a � PLANNING COMPIISSION MEETING APRIL 4, 7984 PAGE 3 � 1 first-class operation. As far as adjacent businesses, he assumed Mr. Jim Benson had notified them. "� Mr. Jim Benson stated he was the agent manaqer for the buildinq. The owner of the bui]ding is Prudential Life Insurance �o. Prudential is probably more critical than the City might be. Prudential is a very cautious land- lord and the last thing t�ey need is anything t�at would tarnish the imaqe of Prudentia7 Life Insurance. They would noi have entered into negotiations with this project if it had not been with people they felt would run a first- class operation. They have some very strict covenants in the lease which prevents the business from any excess noise or outside storage problem. This is an industrial building, and there are other industrial tenants. The building is built sound. All the walls are fully insulated. Their main concern was simp7y the nature of the business, and they are convinced that this is an excellent company run by two people with good reputations who are both Fridley people. He stated the lease is a 402 month lease. Mr. Svanda stated that in the third stipulation outlined by Mr. Robinson, he would like to see the words "disposed of" deleted and the word "manage- ment" inserted. He stated disposal is only one part of the hazardous waste situation to be dealt with and management talks in terms of what they are going to be doing with the waste while it is on site. Also, instead of that plan just being submitted to the City, he would recommend the petitioner �1 be in contact with Anoka County with regard to getting the appropriate licenses from Anoka County for the generation of hazardous waste which is required by state law. Mr. Benjamin stated he had no problem with that. MOTION BY MI2. SABA� SECONDED BY 1�2. KONDRICK� TO CL05E TXE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP #84-02 BY ROLLIE BENJAMIN. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRG70MAN SCXNABEL DECLARED TNE PUBLIC NEARING CLOSED AT 7:47 P.M. Mr. Saba stated this sounded like a good clean operation. He lik�d the idea that the cars would all be stored inside. He stated he has done business with F1AAC0 and that was a fairly well managed operation. This operation sounded like it was a better plan than the MAACO facility. He stated he saw a lot of benefits to the community witF� this operation. Ms. Schnabel stated the only thing she would like the Planning Commission to consider was the subject of whether the specia7 use permit should be issued to the individual and not to the property. Since there was a 40z- month lease, perhaps they should issue the special use permit for a 40 month period of time or the special use permit would cease to exist if the business changed hands or was sold. At the end of the lease period, Staff could review it to see if the conditions of the permit were being met and if it n was necessary to extend the special use permit. PLANNING COM�IISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1984 PAGE 4 �, MOTION BY MR. SABA� SECONDED BY �II2. GODDSPEED� TO RECOMMEND 110 CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �184-02� BY ROLLIE BENJAMIN� PER SECTION 205.17.1� 3, (F), OF TNE FRIDI.EY CITY COnE, TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE PAZNTING AND REFINISHING ON LOTS 1, 2� 3� 9 AND 10� BIAQC 3� UNIVERSITY .IIVDUSTRIAL PARK, THE SAME BEING 8070 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E., WITH TNE • FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. TNE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BE ISSUED TO THE INDIVIDUALS, NOT THE PROPERTY, TO BE REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF AT THE END OF TNE LEASE PERIOD. 2. TXE BODY SHOP SHOULD PROVIDE A ONE-HOUR FIRE D7ALL BETWEEN THE REST OF THE BUILDING. 3. THE PETITIONER PROVIDE A PLAN AS TO HOW PAINT AND/OR OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE MANAGED. TKE PETITIONER WILL MAKE APPLICATION TO ANOKA COUNTY FOR THE APPROPRIATE HAZARDOUS WASTE LICENSES G7ITH A CARBON COPY TO THE CITY. 4. NO OUTSIDE STORAGE OF 1NATERIALS WILL BE ALLOYIED WITNOUT A FENCED DUMPSTER AREA. 5. NO JUNKED CARS WILL BE LEFT ON-SITE AT ANY TIME. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated SP #84-02 would go to the City Council on April 16. ^ She stated Staff wou7d verify this date with the petitioner. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. #84-02 BY G. W. PASCHKE: Split off the Southerly 30 feet of Lot 7, Block 4, University Industrial Park, and add it to Lot 8, Block 4, University Industrial Park, to provide additional parking for an existing building at 7922 Ranchers Road N.E. Mr. Robinson stated this property was located just north of 79th and west of Ranchers Road. The owner of Lot 8 is proposing that 30 feet of the northerly Lot 7 be added to Lot 8 to provide for future parking. Mr. Robinson stated Staff had a couple of concerns regarding this item. One was that 30 ft. was not really adequate for parking by city code. The total footage needed from the building to the lot line was 53 ft. With the 30 ft., they wi17 only have 50 ft., so they are 3 ft. short of the footage required for parking by code. Staff felt this was a problem, and the petitioner should be requesting 33 ft. Mr. Robinson stated the other concern was that these 7ots are substandard by today's code (3/4 acre - old code; ]2 acres - new code�. Staff fe]t that by taking 30 ft. from Lot 7 wou7d be making Lot 7 additionally sub- standard and wou7d be creating a poor situation for development. Staff felt Lot 7 should be combined with Lot 4 for future development. The new Lot 4 would then be slightly over 2 acres. a ,� ie`� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1984 PAGE 5 Ms. Schnabel asked if there was a lack of parking stalls at this time. Mr. Robinson stated he be7ieved the potential buyer of the property feels �e may need more parking sta7ls in the future. Mr. Steve Spraungel stated he was representing Mr. Paschke. The people who occupy the building on Lot 8 are purchasing this property from Mr. Paschke, and Mr. Paschke is providing them with the extra 30 ft. Mr. Paschke is taking the position that they have to decide what they are going to do with the additional 30 ft. Mr. Paschke did not know what the new owners' plans were for this p�operty, and all Mr. Paschke wanted was the lot split. The property is in Mr. Paschke's name, but the 30 ft, will be purchased from Dave Harris who owns Lot 7. Ms. Schnabel stated the fact lot by recommending approval for the Planning Commission. that they wou7d be creating a really substandard of this lot split made the decision difficult Mr. Jim Benson stated he would like to address the issue of substandard lots. He stated he was the agent for Rice Creek Associates. He stated these lots were platted under the old code, and he was involved in all the meetings when the City was changing the lots from 3/4 acre to la acres. He st�ted there was nothing magic about 12 acres, nor 3/4 acre, for that matter. No one really had any objection to the 3/4 acre lots. It was Mr. Paschke's suggestion to change it from 3/4 acre to 1� acres because of the new parking standards in the city code and because in their eva7uations everyone felt it would be better to have 12 acres lots. He stated a 3/4 acre lot was sti]1 a very buildable lot. They could still put a fair-sized building on it and provide parking and meet the code. He did not see where they were pro- viding for a substandard lot. He stated he was sure Dave Harris would want to say something about combining Lots 4 and 7. There may be some other alternatives. There are three other lots, Lots 3, 4, 7. Each one is�a ]ittle over an acre, so there are over 3 acres right now. By dividing off the 30 ft. for Lot 8, there would still be close to 3 acres in the remaining 3 lots. It might make more sense to divide the three lots evenly into two lots. • Mr. Benson stated that parking might have been a bad word to use with this lot split. This is a 5-year lease agreement with Boring Machine and Tool. Boring Machine and Too7 have an option to purchase the building during the term of the ]ease. There is also a clause in the lease agreement that requires Mr. Paschke to provide them with 30 more feet:alongside their building. It was not necessarily for parking. In fact, he was not convinced the 30 ft. was for parking. The 30 additional feet would create a better truck maneuvering area and loading dock area. . Ms. Schnabel stated the lot split request for 30 ft, was fine, but she wanted to make sure that everyone understood that at a future date, if Mr. Paschke �, or whoever buys the building want to put parking in that area, they wi17 have to come in for a variance. That variance may or may not be granted. Ms. Gabe7 stated she had a prob7em with creating a substandard lot. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1984 PAGE 6 �� Mr. Goodspeed agreed with Ms. GAbe]. Mr. Robinson stated Staff wou7d recorranend the following three stipulations: b 1. Lot 7 should be combined with Lot 4 for future development. 2. 33 ft, should be added to Lot 8(instead of 30 ft.) to provide parking as per code. 3. Landscaping and curbing will be continued at time of development. Mr. Svanda stated he did not see the size of Lot 7 being a little smaller as being an issue of concern. Mr. Benson stated they still ha�e a very viable lot at .92 acre. Under today's code, they can even put a 15,000 sq, ft. bui]ding on that.lot and meet a71 code requirements. That is a fair-sized building and not substandard by any means. Mr. Oquist stated he did not see anything wrong with granting this request. He would be in favor of approving the request, but the Commission should point out that if this property is to be used for parking in the future, either 33 ft. or a variance will be required. MOTIDN BY MR. OQUIST, SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REQUEST, LS �84-02� BY G. P7. PASCHKE� TO SPLIT OFF �..� THE SOUTHERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 7, BLOCK 4� UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL P�1RK, AND ADD IT TO LOT 8� BLOCK 4, UNIVERSITY INDUSTRIAL PARK, TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL '� PARKING FOR AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 7922 RANCHERS ROAD N.E. WITH THE FOLLOW- ING STIPULATIONS: 1. Z�ANDSCAPING AND CURBING WILL BE CONTINUED AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. 2. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT 33 FT. OR A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED PER CITY CODE IF PARKING IS EVER CONSIDERED FOR THIS PROPERTY. Ms. Gabel stated she understood there was room enough to put a substantial- sized building on�Lot 7, but she had a problem with approving something that, in effect, created a substandard lot by today's code. She would like to have some clarification from the City Council on how they felt about these types of situations. Mr. Oquist stated they are not developing new lots with a new plat. The lots are already there at the old standard and, therefore, are not substandard lots. UPON A VOICE VOTE, SCHNABEL,"OQUIST, SABA, GOODSPEED, SVANDA, ICONDRICK, VOTING AYE, GABEL VOTING NAY, CNAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to City Council on April 16, and Staff would verify that with the petitioner. ,� i r w PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, APRIL 4, 1984 PAGE 7 3. RECEIVE MARCH 21, 1984, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. SVANDA, SECONDED BY MR. ICONDRICK� Z10 RECEIVE T1YE MAR. 21 � 2984, - ' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. OTHER BUSINESS: a. APA National Planning Conference, May 5-9, St. Paul Because of work commitments and other commitments, none of the Planning Commission members fe7t they would be able to attend this national Planning Conference. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. GOODSPEED� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO ADJOURN THE ME'ETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED.THE 11PRIL 4� 1984� PLANNING COMI�tIS5ION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:Z0 P.M. �, Respectfully subm' ted, ;.-x-e �4� ynn Sa a Recording Secretary ,-°�