Loading...
PL 09/26/1984 - 30625� � � / A 1 CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the September 26, 1984, Planning Comnission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Ms. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Nielsen� Mr. Saba, Mr. Minton, Mr. Kondrick Menbers Absent: None Others Present: Jim Robinson� Planning Coordinator Scott Holmer, The Lift, 6319 Nighway 65 Hugh Churchill. 5955 - 2;4 St. N.E. Karl & ��largaret Schurr, 7818 Alden Way James Faulwell, Unity Medical Center Tim McKee, Timco Construction, Inc.,9421 W. River Rd. Tom McKee, Timco Construction, Inc.,9421 W. River Rd. Frank Hart, Jr., 6000 - 3rd St. N.E. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1984, PLAWNING COMMISSI�N MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. NIELSEN� TO APPP.OVE THE SEPT. 12, 1984, PLrIiVNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECIARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #.84-15 KI D I er Sect�on 0. ., , C, o t e ri ey City Co e, to allow an outsi e boat yard and patio furniture display on Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 1, Moore Lake Highlands, the same being 6319 Highway #65 N.E. Public hearing open. Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on the northeast corner of 63rd Ave. and Highway #65. The zoning was C-2. The property was surrounded by R-2 density and single family density with some cortrnercial �oning to the south. Mr. Robinson stated the petitioner was requesting a special use permit for what was presentl�y a canoe storage and sales area. In conjunction with the special use permit, Staff is looking at some stipulations in :�-der to bring n the property up to code. Staff was recommending the follawing recomnendations: � PLANNIP�G CONU4ISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 _ PAGE 2_ �, � 1. Restain wooden fence on both sides 2. Provide a screened dumpster location with a solid wood fence on all sides 3. Mulch all existing planting beds. . 4. Plant vines on chain link fence where possible 5. Stripe parking lot 6. Provide a timetable pertaining to the provision of finalized site plan includi;�g parking lot setbacks� concr�te cuh6ing, and sompleie landscaping. Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr. Holmer, if he was agreeable to the above stipulations. Mr. Holmer stated that regarding #2, he does have the dumpster fenced in on three sides. The dumpster was tucked up alongside the trailer so it was not visible from the normal public parking. He was reluctant to put a gate on the fence because the fence was not engineered for a gate. He would have to re-engineer the whole fence or construct a new fence. He agreed that in the past before the trailer was brought in for an additional office facility, the dumpster was in full view, but it wasn't now. Mr. Robinson stated they really need a permanent screened dumpster as that is city code. ^ Mr. Holmer stated that regarding #3, he fully intended to mulch the planting beds. Mr. Holmer asked for the reasoning for #4, planting vines on chain link fence where possible. Mr. Robinson stated that when he visited the property, there was nothing in the fenced-in area, and the appearance was not very good. The screening provided was pretty limited. He stated a parking lot is required to be screened by code. He was suggesting that planting vines would be an economical way of screening the parking lot. Mr. Holmer stated that having the vines on the fence v�ould destroy the sale- a6ility of the garden shop, even though he realized the garden shop was only open two months out of the year. He stated that, as Staff has suggested earlier, he had planted trees down the south side and alpine currants in front of the building, so he felt he had done quite a bit of landscaping. He really felt i� was unfair to require him to block his facility from public view. This was an outdoor sales facility. Mr. Holmer stated that regarding #5, striping the parking lot, he has neg- lected having that done for a number of years. He has to sealcoat the drive- way yearly,and he has just neglected to have it striped. He stated the striping will definitely be done this fall. � '� PLANNING COMPIISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 3 Mr. Holmer stated that regarding the timetable, he thought it was a 1987 timetable. In order to upgrade the parking, put in concrete curbing, etc., they would lose a good chunk of parking which would basically make them illegal per city code. Mr. Robinson asked Mr. Holmer to explain his long range planning. Mr. Holmer stated he has taken out a 3-year permit for the office facility (trailer). His long range plans are the same as they have always been� and that is when F�is option to buy comes up in the fall of 1986, he will be taking over the buy-out option. As soon after that as is feasibly possible, he will add on to the building. They are cr.amped for space now, and that is the reason for the permit for the temporary office.facility. He stated he was trying to expand as economically as possible. Ne thought the 1987 time- table was feasible. Mr. Holmer stated he was asking for a special use permit which he thought he had when he went to the Planning Comnission and City Council about five years ago. He had not realized at that time that the special use permit was jast for a garden sF�op; he f�ad thought it was for all outdoor display situations. He had not intended to be in violation of city code, and this was an attempt to get a permit for what has been done for the last five years. �"� Mr. Holmer stated that as far as the patio furniture part of the special use � permit, at this point in time, he has no intention of putting patio furniture in the Fridley location. He is doing it at his new Hopkins location and may do it in Fridley, if it works well in Hopkins. He had included the patio furniture in the special use permit request so that he would not have to come back for a special use permit at a later date. Mr. Robinson stated a solution for the fencing of the dumpster on all four sides could be a chain link fence with wooden , slats. Mr. Holmer stated that sounded like a good solution, and he would probably do that. Mr. Oquist stated that regarding planting vines on the chain link fence to screen the parking, it would take 2-3 years for the vines to be thick enough to have any affect. By then, P1r. Holmer might be taking that fencing down. MOTION BY MR. RONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC AEARING ON SP #84-15 BY TXE LIFT SICI AND BIKE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCNNABEL DECLAIlED THE PUBLIC BEARING CLOSED AT 8:04 P.M. Mr. Saba stated he also questioned the stipulation requiring vines to be planted on the.chain link fencing. He did not think it was a viable option, ^ and would like to see that stipulation deleted. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 4 Mr. Oquist agreed that stipulation should be deleted. He stated that as far as the stipulation requiring the dumpster to be screened on all sides ,� with a solid wood fence, he would like to see that changed to not specify � a wood fence. ` Mr. Robinson suggested, and the Comnissioners agreed, that this special use permit should be scheduled for review in three years. � MOTION BY MR. OQUIST,,SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TD THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �85-14, BY LIFE SKI AND BIKE, PER SECTION 205.14.1, 3, C, OF TXE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW AN OUTSIDE BOAT YARD AND PATIO FURNITURE DISPLAY ON LOTS 9, 10 AND 11, BLOCK 1, MODRE LAICE HIGN.LANDS, THE SAME BEING 6319 HIGXWAY It65 N.E., WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPUALATIONS: 1. RETAIN A WOODEN FENCE ON BOTH SIDES. 2. PROVIDE A SCREENED DUMPSTER LOCATION WITX A FENCE ON ALL SIDES. 3. MULCX ALL EXZSTING PLANTING BEDS. 4. STRIPE PARKING IAT. 5. PROVIDE A TIMETABLE PERTAINING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE FINALIZED SITE PLAN INCLUDING PARKING IAT SETBACKS, CONCRETE CURBING AND COMPLETE LANDSCAPING. 6. THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT BE REVIEWED BY COUNCIL IN THREE YEARS. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNIMOUSLY. t Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to Council on October 15th. 2. PUBLIC HtARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �84-17 UNITY E ER Y J NN H INES: Per Section 05.0 .. , B, to a ow expansion o t e par ing ots of Unity Hospital, 550 Osborne Road and the Professional 8uilding at 500 Osborne Road, located on Parcels 600 and 2400 in the North Half of Section 11, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. (Complete legal description on file with the City) MOTION BY MS. GABEL, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON� T�D OPEN TXE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP H84-27, UNITY MEDICAL CENTER BY JOXN HAINES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAI�►OMAN SCXNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC NEARING OPEN 8T 8:10 P.M. Mr. Robinson stated the Unity Hospital complex, located on Osborne Road east of University Ave., was contemplating a major parking redevelopment and expansion for completion in the spring 1985. He stated city staff has worked with the petitioners to come up with the present plan. The total of new parking stalls is approximately 250 with the proposed addition. He stated the plan was an improvement in terms of circulation'. Mr. Tom McKee, Timco Construction, Inc., stated one of the reasons for this plan was to get better control of the traffic. They felt this was a good plan and would help eliminate a lot of the confusion that has been existing. Ms. Schnabel asked about lighting. � Mr. Tom McKee stated the parking lot will be well lit. He stated that is - a concern of the hospital also because of the second and third shift employees. He stated the lighting plan will be submitted to the City for approval. They will try to reflect the lights into tFie parking lot rather than out of the parking lot into the neighborhood. ^ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 5 Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recommending the following stipulations: 1. An approved landscaping plan 2. An approved lighting plan 3. An approved signage plan 4. An approved drainage plan 5. A�$15,000 performance bond. Mr. Tom M�Kee stated they had no problem with any of those stipulations. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO CLOSE TNE PUBLIC XEARING ON SP �84-Z7, UNITY HOSPITAL CENTER BY JOHN XAINES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CNAaR110MAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:30 P.M. MOTION BY Mlt. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT� SP �84-17� UNITY MEDICAL CENTER BY JOXN HAINES� PER SECTION 205.07.Z� 3� B� Z�p ALLpW THE EXPANSION OF TNE PARKING LOTS OF UNITY XOSPITAL� 550 OSBORNE ROAD AND THE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING AT 500 OSBORNE ROAD, LOCATED ON PARCELS 600 AND 2400 IN TXE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 11� T-30, R-24� CITY OF FRIDLEY, COUNTY OF ANOKA, MINNESOTA� WITH THE FOLLOWING �1 STIPULATIONS: 1. AN APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN 2. AN APPROVED LIGHTING PLAN 3. AN APpROVED SIGNAGE PLAN 4. AN APPROVED DRAINAGE PLAN 5. A' 515, 000 [�ERFORMANCE �BOND. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CNAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated this item would go to City Council on October 15. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST. L.S. #84-10 HUGH CHURCHILL: Split off the Northerly 8 feet of Lot 29, combined with Lot 30, Block 11, Hyde Park, to make a new builr�ing site at 5963 2 1/2 Street N.E. Mr. Robinson stated the property was in Hyde Park, which is a special zoning distr.ict. It is located on the southeast corner of 60th Ave, and 22 St. Mr. Robinson stated the original proposal was to add 8 ft. on to the corner lot which was 40.64 ft., making a lot width of 50.64 ft. This would make the square footage of the new lot 6,611 sq. ft. In studying this a little further, Staff had found same concerns that should be addressed. He stated an application has been filed jointly with this `for a variance on the lot ,�, size since since it would be less than 7,500 sq, ft. Mr. Robinson had discovered that in the Hyde Park area, the minimum lot width is 60 ft., so one o� the stipulations would be that Mr. Churchill also apply for a variance for the�60 ft, lot width as well as the square footage of the lqt of less than 7,500 sq. ft. PLANNIP�G COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 6 � Mr. Robinson stated Staff would also request that the petitioner split off a minimum of 10 ft. He can do this and still maintain the setback needed. He presently has 16.5 ft. so he would still have more than 5 ft. The reason Staff is asking for this is that when there is a lot split, they require an attached garage. With an attached qarage, he would need a 5 ft. setback from the lot line.� �� �• In addition, code requires a double car garage. So, with a 5 ft. setback and a 22 ft. garage and the 25 ft. setback which is required for a double garage from the street, the petitioner would, in fact, need 10 ft. instead of 8 ft, which was originally proposed. Mr. Robinson stated Staff would recommend the following stipulations: 1. Lot split to be contingent upon approval of variances for: reduced lot area less than 7,500 sq. ft. and lot width less than 60 ft. 2. Split off a minimum of 10 ft, to allow for attached garage 3. Provide an attached two-car garage 4. Provide a survey of the exisiing corner lot to verify dimensions Mr. Robinson stated one other concern was that if the Planning Commission approves this lot split, are they creating the need for the variances? It 6ecomes a matter of policy. ,� Ms. Schnabe7 stated it has been city policy in the past that the city has not allowed development on 40 ft. lots unless they meet a certain mi�imum lot size. The City has always felt that it wanted to maintain certain minimum sizes to be more consistent with the city overall. In fact, the City prefers, if possible, that the adjacent property owner or owners split the 40 ft. lots;and if it is a corner lot that the adjacent property owner keep the property rather than develop a 40 ft, lot. Ms. Schnabel stated that in the past also, the City felt it did not want anything less than a 60 ft. lot in Hyde Park and that was the reason the ordinance was passed. So, there was a problem with the width and the minimum lot size of this proposed lot split request. Ms. Schnabel stated the Hyde Park area has some unusual lot sizes and commer- cial mixed wit[� residential,because there was not a lot of tight controls when it was originally developed. Part of the reason the whole Hyde Park neighborhood area was developed was to try to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood,to upgrade it and make it a more desirable area, to improve t�e area, to get the neighborhood more conscious of its surroundings and image and preserve it's neighborhood. Ms. Schnabel stated they should also address the fact that they are creating the need for variances if the lot split is approved. and a house was to be built on the lot. Tfie Planning Commission has to decide how they feel about creating the need for variances. � Mr. Saba stated if they approve this lot split, the approval should be based � on the approval of the Appeals Comnission on the variances. If the variances are not approved, the lot split would not be approved. , PLANNIP�G COMMISSION NEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 7 �, Mr. Oquist stated the only variances they are actually requiring are the lot width and the lot size. Once the lot split was approved. it was his understanding that a house could be built on the lot without any variances. Ms. Schnabel esked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to make any comments about this request. � Mr. Frank Hart, 6000 3rd St., stated he was at the meeting out of curiosity and would have no objection to the lot split. Mr. Robinson stated that if the Planning Commission was uncomfbrtable with making a recommendation at this time, they might want to take a look at what kind of house could be built on this property and also wait and look at this request again after it goes to the Appeals Commission for variances. Mr. Saba stated he would be more comfortable with looking at this again after the Appeals Co�nission's decision. Mr. Minton agreed with Mr. Saba. Mr. Oquist stated having a variance with a lot split really bothered him. If the Appeals Commission approves the variances, the Planning Commission should approve the lot split. It was almost like the Appeals Commission ^ should rule on this and not the Planning Comnission, because the variances almost take a precedent over the lot split. There just seemed to be some- thing wrong with this combination. � MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK.T'O APPROVE LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. p84-10, BY HUGH CHURCXILL. MOTION DIED F1�R LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION BY MR. 1NINTON, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO TABLE DISCUSSION ON LOT SPLIT REpUEST� L.S. �184-10, BY HUGX CXURCHILL UNTIL THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECEIVES TXE MINUTES FROM TXE APPEAIS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCT. 9. UPON A VOICE Vt�TE, MINTON AND SABA VOTING AYE, KONDRICIC VOTING NAY, AND GABEL AND OQUIST ABSTAINING, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF �-1. Ms. Schnabel stated this item would be tabled until the Planning Comnission receives the minutes of the Appeals Cortmission meeti�ng on Oct. 9. Mr. Churchill stated he would think the City would want to see this lot improved and looking better. He stated he was tired of going through all this trouble, and he would just as soon have the City refund his money, and 6e would forget the whole thing. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 8 /""� Ms. Schnabel stated that if Mr. Churchill wanted to withdraw his request, he was certainly free to do so. . Mr. Churchill stated he would like to withdraw his lot split request. 4. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #84-03, MINCO PRODUCTS BY KARL SCHURR: Vacate 73r Avenue etween Lot 5, oc , Commerce ar an ot , Block 1, Paco Industrial Park from Comnerce Circle West to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on 73rd St. The petitioner has requested that 73rd, which is not a through street and deadends at the railroad tracks, be vacated from Commerce Circle back to the railroad tracks. This would allow•the petitioner to use the area for green space and ponding and would improve his setback requirements. Because he is actually the only property owner, no one else is affected by this vacation. Mr. Robinson stated Staff was recorrenending the following stipulations: 1. Existing utility easements which presently transect 73rd St. are not to be vacated. 2. P.rovide a 5 ft, wide utility easement along the north of 73rd St. right of way for buried NSP line �, 3. Provide a 15 ft, wide utility easement along the south of 73rd St. for buried Minnegasco line Mr. Robinson stated these utility easements would not affect the petitioner's plans. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. MINTON� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VACATION REQUEST� SAV #84-03� MINCO PRODUCTS BY KARL SCHURR, TO VACATE 73RD AVENUE BETWEEN LOT 5, BLOCK 4� COMMERCE PARK AND LOT 13� BLOCK Z� PACO INDUSTRIAL PARK FROM COMMERCE CIRCLE WEST TO THE BURLINGTON NORT7•IERN RAILROAD TRACKS� WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS: 1. EXISTING UTILITY EASEINEIVTS WHICH PRESENTLY TRANSECT 73RD ST. ARE NOT TO BE VACATED. 2. PROVIDE A 5 FT. WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT AIANG THE NORTH OF 73RD ST. RIGHT OF WAY Ft�R BURIED NSP LINE. 3. PROVIDE A 15 FT. WZDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH OF 73RD ST. FOR BURIED MINNEGASCO LINE. UPGaN A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CAR.RIED UNANIMOUSLY. . Ms. Schnabel stated this iiem would go to City Council on November 5. n, � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, SEPTEMBER 26, 1984 PAGE 9 5. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 6, 1984, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. MINTON� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE T8E_SEPT. 6, 1984, 11UMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Minton stated the Human Resources Commission looked at the Affirmative Action P�an�for the City of Fridley. Their main purpose for doing that was to monitor on an ongoing basis the hiring and promotion of women and minorities in the City. They received a five year report, 1975-1980, and that report showed quite a bit of advancement, especially in the promotion or hiring of women in higher positions in the City. The Comnission was quite satisfied with the report. He stated Staff will be providing an updated report from 1980 - present, and they will see if there is any further progress. When he gets the updated report, he will pass it on to the Planning Commission. Ms. Schnabel stated she would appreciate receiving a copy of the 1975-1980 report and the new updated report. She stated she appreciated the Human Resources Commission's interest in the Affirmative Action Plan. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � 6. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECE3VE TfiE SEPT. 18� 1984� APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. NIEIaSEN� TO ADJOUR2� THE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VO1'ING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE SEPT. 26� 1984� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT .Z0:00 P.M. Respectfully submi ted, Lyn e Saba Recording Secretary --�,