Loading...
PL 10/03/1984 - 30626, 0 ,� �'O� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COh1MISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 _ CALL TO ORDER: Chairwoman Schnabel called the October 3, 1984, Planning Comnission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Menbers Present: P1s. Schnabel, Mr. Oquist, Mr. Minton, Ms. Gabel, Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba Members Absent: None Others Present: Jim Robinson, Planning Coordinator Larry Perlick, 8406 Center Drive, Spring Lake Park Rob Taylor, Coldwell Banker, 6600 France Ave. Lewis & Velma Farr, 157 River Edge Way Gerhard & Olga Pragal, 152 River Edge Way Helen Mikulak, 129 River Edge Way Bert & Olga Slater, 128 River Edge Way Tom & Kathy Shelton, 1571 - 61st Ave. N.E. n APPROVAL OF SEPTEPIBER 26, 1984, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION BY MR. MINTON, SECONDED BY �� pQUIST, TO APPR+OVE THE SEPT. 26� 1984� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS WRITTEN. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMODSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING RE UEST ZOA #84-04 RRY PERLICK: Rezane from M-1 light industrial to C-R1 general office) t e ort er y 155 ft. of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, to allow the construction of a professional building, the same being 6095 East River Road N.E. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICIC� SECONDED BY MR. MINTON, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA #84-04 BY LARRY PERLICK. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCNNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC SEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. � Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on the southeast corner of 61st Way and East River Road. The property was currently zoned M-1, and the rezoning request was for C-R1 which was for a professional office-type building. The name of the proposed business was Communications and Special Software. The lot size was slightly over one acre. The building size will be 6,7?�3 �Sq� ft�. on two floors,and the lot coverage was well under the prescri e �/ imit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 2 � Mr. Robinson stated the plan as proposed would have the building located 95 ft. back from East River Road and 35•ft. from 61st. There will be 27 parking spaces which � is adquate, and there will be green space to buffer the building from 6oth the north and the west. Mr. Robinson stated the lots to the imnediate north are R-1 but are slated to be rezoned to R-3. That is tfie location for the Loft Homes. There is more light industrial to the south, Stevenson School to the west, and single family homes in other adjacent areas. Mr. Robinson stated the plan seemed to meet all code requirements, but Staff would recommend the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner provide a survey of the property 2. There be a 10 ft. bikeway/walkway easement along the northern portion of the property, consistent with the bikeway/walkway plan which will tie into the County's regi.onal trail system 3. An approved drainage plan 4. An approved landscape plan Ms. Schnabel asked the petitioner, Mr. Perlick, if he had any cor�nents regard- ing this request. Mr. Perlick stated his business was currently located in Spring Lake Park ^ away from the freeway system. This property was an ideal location for their building and their type of business, because it will give them easy access to the freeways and downtown areas. Their business is strictly a professional business--a computer software and hardware engineering company. They do build and design computers, but they do not do any manufacturing. He stated 50% of their staff (around 20 employees) are never in the office; they are usually at customer sites, so the need for 27 parking spaces will probably never arise. He stated there are very few visitors to the building. They feel t�ey would provide a nice 6uffer zone between the proposed housing (Loft Homes) and any other light industry. Ms. Gabel asked if they would rent out any portion of the bui7ding. Mr. Perlick stated the building would be exclusively for their business. Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Perlick had any problem with the stipulations out- lined by Staff. Mr. Perlick stated he had no objection to any of the stipulations. ` Mr. Bert Slater, 128 River Edge Way, stated he did not mean to detract from t�is particular rezoning request, but he wondered if the Comnission was aware that property was acquired from some of their properties some years ago to build a pathway to allow children access to Stevenson School, with the definite stipulation that no bikeways would come through there. If the � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 3 bikeway which is proposed is coming as close as this pathway as it sounds like it is, what was to prevent people traveling on bikes desiring to go north,to not go across East River Road, but to start using the pathway? When this bikeway system was built, he could see that pathway turning into a bikeway/walkway. He stated that for t��t reason t�e neighbors are very concerned about these bikeway/walkways. Mr. Kondrick stated he was chairperson of the Parks & Recreation Cor�nission. He stated he appreciated Mr. Slater's and the neighbors' concerns, and he would recommend that they contact Dr. C�arles Boudreau, Director of the Parks & Recreation Department, regarding these concerns. Ms. Schnabe7 stated this was a very valid concern, and she thanked Mr. Slater for bringing it to the Commission's attention. Mr. Lewis Farr, 157 River Edge Way, stated he would like to speak in favor of the building. He thought it was a very nice thing to ha�e in this area and would certainly enhance the area. The lot has been vacant too long, and the building would be a big plus for the City of Fridley. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO CLOSE TNE PUBLIC HEARING ON ZOA ,#84-04 BY LARRY PERLICK. � UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CNAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC ' HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M. C � MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. MINTON� TO RECOMME�ND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF REZONING RE�JUEST � ZOA � 84-04 � BY LARRY PERLICIC� 2�0 REZONE FROt9 M-1 (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO C—R1 (GENERAL OFFICE) THE NORTHERLY 155 FT. OF LOT 9, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 78, Z�O ALIAW TXE CONSTRUCTION OF A PROFESSIONAL BUILDING� TXE SAME BEING 6095 EAST RIVER ROAD N.E.� WITH TXE FOLLOWING STIPULATION5: 1. TXE PETITIONER PROVIDE A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY 2. THERE BE A 10 FT. BIKEWAY/WALKWAY EASEMENT A7ANG THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. 3. AN APPIdOVED DRAINAGE PLAN 4. AN APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN Ms. Gabel stated she thought this was a very appropriate plan, and she would much rather see this land dovm -zoned in terms of the R-1 property farther down and for tf�e sake of the Loft Homes t�at are going in there. This will create a much more pleasant environment to live in than if it were to go industrial. The Commissioners agreed with Ms. Gabel. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CIiAIRW0I��AN SCHNA.BEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY. ' PLANNING CON�1ISSION�MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 � PAGE 4 �"� 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #84-09, BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Split off the ort er y 55 ft, of Lot 9, Au i or s Sub ivision No. 78 to make a new building site at 6095 East River Road. Mr. Ro6inson stated the proposal was to split off the northerly 155 ft, of Lot 9. He stated 30 ft, of tfie most northerly portion is roadway easement so the lot size is actually 125 ft. in width. Mr. Robinson stated the only staff recommendation was that this lot split be registered at tfie County. This sfiould be done before October 15. How- ever the lot split will not be approved by the City Council by that time. ke recommended Mr. Pe�lick contact the County to get a clarification as to how this could be done. Mr. Robinson stated the park fee agreement has already been signed. Mr. Rob Taylor stated he was representing Burlington Northern. He agreed with Ms. Gabel that this building would 6e an improvement and would upgrade the area. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF LOT SPLIT REpUEST, L.S. #84-09� BY BURLINGTON �DRT�ERN TO SPLIT OFF TXE NORTFIERLY 155 FT. OF LOT 9, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISIOAI NO. 78 � TO MAKE A NEW BUILDING SITE AT 6095 EAST RIVER ROAD, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT TNE LOT SPLIT BE RECORDED WITX THE COUNTY PRIOR TO TXE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE l�IOTIDN CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION BY MR. MIN20N� SECONDED BY MR. SABA, �O RECOMMEND THAT THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST BE HELD UNTIL THE CITY COUNCIL AAS TXE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REZONING REQUEST ON NOVEMBER 5� SO THAT BOTH THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST AND THE REZONING REQUEST CAN BE HANDLED AT THE SAME TIME. UPO1G A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #84-18, BY . er �ection 0. ., 3, , of t e Fr� ey City Co e, to a ow t e construction of a second accessory building, a 20 ft, by 30 ft. structure to be used for a workshop on Lot 10, Block 1, River Edge Addition, the same being 157 River Edge Way N.E. � MOTION BY MR. ICONDRICK, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST, TO OPEN TSE PUBLIC XEARING ON SP #84—ZB BY LEWIS FARR. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CXAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC bfEARING OPEN AT 8:15 P.M. ^� ,�°� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 5 Mr. Robinson stated the proposal was for a 20 ft, by 30 ft. second accessory building to be used as a workshop. This structure would be located in the rear �f the yard and would be attached to an existing shed-type building. The property is in the critical area and,. as such, all new buildings have to be set back 40 ft, from the bluff line. This stipulation was enacted as part of an ordinance to preserve the view of the area. This building is set back a minimum of 60 feet. Mr. Robinson stated Staff has no problem with t�is special use permit request; therefore, there were no stipulations at this time. Mr. Kondrick stated one was noise. He asked Mr. building. thing the Commission was always concerned about Farr what type of equipment would be used in this Mr. Farr stated it would be basically woodworking equipment. Right now he does his woodworking in the basement of his house. He has limited space in the basement and has only a 1'a car garage. The woodworking is strictly a hobby. He stated he has lived in his home since 1958 and certainly did not want to do anything that would detract from the area. He would not put in anything that was obnoxious to the neighborhood. �...� Ms. Helen Mikulak, 129 River Edge Way, stated she was opposed to the con- struction of this building. She stated that if Mr. Farr ge±s this special use permit, then there would be half a dozen other people in the neighborhood who would be making requests for other buildings. She stated Mr. Farr will be using saws which will create noise. She stated a hobby usually turns into a full-time job at home, and the neighbors will be listening to the noise all day long. Mr. Farr stated he does womdw�orking in his garage right now, and he has never had a complaint ab�ut noise from his neighbors. As far as noise, there are plenty of other noises around the n�ig�bo�ho0d when people are doing things outside. He stated this building will be basically a closed shop. The building will have 6 inch walls so it will be insulated very well. The building will be located to the northwest end of the lot so he did not see noise as ever being a problem. Ms. Schnabel stated that as far as a home occupation, the City does not per- mit a business to be operated in the home, except by request to the City. If at any time, Mr. Farr would decide to turn this into a home occupation, he would have to make a request to the City. When people do request permits to build second accessory buildings, the Correnission is always very careful � to make sure there is not a business going into that building. Tfie Commission tries very hard to preserve the neighborhood concept within the neighborhoods. Ms. Schnabel stated she wanted to point out that the Commission had received a letter from the two property owners adjoining Mr. Farr's property, ^ Mr. & Ftrs. Cecil Gibson, 190 - 62nd Way, and Ms. Margaret Latz, 161 River Edge Way. Both property owners stated they were in complete agreement with the construction of the building. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 6 Mr. Olga Pragal, 152 River Edge Way, stated she was opposed to this building. When Mr. Far puts in this building, they will not be able to sell their home, because who is going to want to buy a house with a woodworking shop nearby? . Mr. Farr stated that if he could expand his garage, he would do so, but this way he was moving his shop farther away from the neighbors. He failed to see the problems expressed by the neighbors. MOTION BY MS. GABEL� SECONDED BY MR. NIELSEN� TO CLOSE TXE PUBLIC HEARING ON SP �84-18 BY LEWIS L. FARR. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PiJBLIC NEARING CIASED AT 8:36 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he but he did not believe be far enough away and noise problem. appreciated the neighbors' concerns regarding noise, noise was going to be a problem. The building would the building would be too well insulated to create a Mr. Saba stated that since there were concerns expressed by the neighbors, maybe one of the stipulations on the special use permit should be that Staff review the special use permit in two years to ensure the petitioner was concurring with the intent of the permit. MOTION BY MR. KONDRICIC, SECONDED BY MR. OQUIST� TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #84-18, BY LEWIS L. FARR� PER SECTION 205.07.1� 3, A, OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND ACCESSORY BUILDING� A 20 FT. BY 30 FT. STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR A WORKSHOP ON LOT 10� BLOCK 1� RIVER EDGE ADDITION� THE SAME BEING 157 RIVER EDGE WAY N.E.� WITH THE STIPULATION THAT STAFF REVIEW THIS SPECIAL U5E PERMIT IN TWO YEARS. Ms. Schnabel stated she appreciated the concerns expressed by the neighbors; however, she felt this was going to be removed even farther from the neighbors than the existing use of the property so that the noise level should not be there. If there should be a problem, the City does have ordinances that can deal with the problem. It is a matter of making use of the City's faci- lities and going through the proper channels to make the complaints. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. � Ms. Schnabel stated this special use permit request would go to City Council on October 15. ,-� � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 7 4. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #84-04 THOMAS & KATHY SHELTON: Vacate the Southerly eet o t e ort 0 foot utility easement on Lot 9, Block 4, Rice Creek Estates, to make a pool location and retaining wall in code compliance, the same being 1571 61st Avenue b.E. 5. � Mr. Robinson stated this property was located on 61st Avenue and Benjamin St. adjacent to Benjamin/Briardale Park. The petitioners wish to vacate the 10 ft. utility and drainage easement along the back side of their property. He stated Northwestern Bell, Minnegasco� NSP, and Storer Cable have been notified of this vacation request. He stated Northwestern Bell, Minnegasco, and NSP have no objections to the vacation. Storer Cable has an underground ca61e located within 2 ft. of the property line. Storer has requested that this cable remain as located and that 2 ft, of the utility and drainage ease- ment remain in effect for future construction if necessary. The remaining 8 ft, may be vacated. The petitioner, Mr. Thomas Shelton, stated he had no objection to this stipulation. MOTION BY MR. MINTON, SECONDED BY 1�2. SABA, TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF VACATION REQUE5T� SAV �84-04, BY THOMAS AND KATHY SHELTON, TO VACATE TNE SOUTXERLY 8 FEET OF TNE NORTH 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ON LOT 9, BLOCK 4, RICE CREEK ESTATES� TO MAKE A POOL LOCATION AND RETAINING WALL IN CODE CbMPLIANCE� THE SAME BEING 1571 61ST AVENUE N.E.� WITH THE STIPULATION TNAT A 2 FT UTILITY EASEMENT BE MAINTAINED FOR STORER CABLE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schnabel stated this would go to City Council on Nov. 5. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 18, 1984, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSIOPJ MINUTES: MOTIQN BY MR. NIELSEN� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO RECEIVE THE SEPT. 18, 1984, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES. Mr. Nielsen stated the Comnission had a guest speaker, Ms. JoAnn Nelson, from Recycling Unl.imited, who spoke about starting curb-side recycling programs in communities. Mr. Nielsen stated he would like the Planning Corr�nission and the City Council to know that the Environmental Qdality Commission has worked very hard in trying to get a curb-side recycling program going in Fridley. At the Sept. City Council meeting, a member of another organization stated their organi- zation had studied the possibility of getting a curb-side recycling program going with no mention of the Envlronmental Quality Commission's efforts. He stated that as far as he was concerned,he would like to see a curb-side recycling program get started as:soon as the City receives funding. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 8 6. Mr. Robinson stated that JoAnn Nelson of Recycling Unlimited would be willing to come into the City and start a curb-side recycling program for $5,000 (from the 50Q/household surcharae fee the City is entitled to), so there would be little cost to the City. Recycling Unlimited is a family- run organization that employs people..such as the handicapped to do cur6-side recycling. Pick-up would be on a once a month basis. Mr. Nielsen stated the curb-side recycling program would work in conjunction wit� SORT, and it would not put SORT out of business. Mr. Robinson stated that Ms. Nelson had stated that when Recycling Unlimited comes into a city where there is an existing satellite-type recycling center, that facility has usually done better because people are more aware of recycling. If people miss their recycling day, they will usually bring their recycled materials to the recycling center rather than throw the materials out. Mr. Robinson stated the only thing Ms. Nelson requested was that the City do the publicity for the program. He stated Connie Metcalf would be going before the City Council regarding this recycling on October 29th. The Environmental Quality Comnission suggested that Ms. Nelson of Recyling Un- limited also be allowed to present her proposal at that time. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRWOMAN SCNNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Lot Splits and Variances F1s. Gabel stated that at the last meeting, the question has again arisen as to whether the Planning Comnission should hear lot splits before the Appeals Comnission hears variances when the variances are related to the same property. She stated she felt a lot split appropriately came first. If a petitioner does not get the lot split, then the petitioner does not need to apply for a variance, because the lot split causes the variance. So, she thought the lot split should come before Planning before a variance goes before the Appeals Comnission. That seemed to be the proper sequence. Mr. Oquist stated that seemed to be a reasonable argument, but he could give the argument that if the Appeals Comnission does not grant the variance, why bother with the lot split? Mr. Saba stated that the lot split should be contingent on the approval of the variance. ,� i� Ms. Gabel stated that is the way the Planning Corrmission has dooe it in the past. The Planning Comnission has heard the lot split first, and � then made it contingent upon approval of the variance(s) by the Appeals Comni ssi on. - d PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 9 Ms. Schnabel stated maybe the Planning Commission should establish a policy that in the future, the Planning Correnission would handle a lot split in that manner. The Commissioners agreed that in the'future, they would hear lot splits regardless of whether there was a need for a variance and have the lot split contingent upon approval of the variance, if needed, by the Appeals Commission. b. City Code Compliance Ms. Schnabel stated Mr. Scott Holmer of The Lift Ski Shop made some comments at the last meeting regarding landscaping that, in some ways, were very valid. Mr. Holmer had made the comment that why should he be required to screen his parking lot when the City liquor parking store parking lot next door was not screened. Ms. Schnabe7 stated she felt very strongly that the City has to set the example. When there are city properties that are not in code compliance, the City should bring those properties into code so that members of the public cannot point a finger at the City. The City has got to be the leader in the whole city beautification project. ,� Ms. Schnabel stated another good example was the city bulletin board at the north end of the City on Highway #47. The billboard is very tacky and in need of repair. Again, if the City wants people to do things, the City has to get its act together. The City cannot deal from a position of strength to enforce code compliance when it is out of code compliance in a couple of areas. She felt this had to be a priority of the City's. Ms. Schnabe7 stated that af�er the City corrected its problems, the next responsibility of the City is to go to the County, another govern- mental body, and tell the county that people are complaining about its property. She was referring to the Fridley Library which has its dumpster „ unscreened. The Planning Commission members agreed with Ms. Schnabe7. MO_ TION BY MR. MINTON� SECONDED BY MR. Oj�UIST� TXAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS IT DIFFICULT Z1� ASK CITIZENS TO COMPLY WITH CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS WHEN THE CITY� COUNQ'Y� AND SCHOOLS ARE IN NEGLECT OF CODE COMPLIANCE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE � THE CITY COUNCIL TO ENCOURAGE ALL LOCAL GOVERNMEtITTS, INCLUDING THE COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS, TO COME INTO CODE COMPLIANCE. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY. PLANNING COMMISSIO�� MEETING, OCTOBER 3, 1984 PAGE 10 ,^ , c. New Chapter 126 entitled "Houses of Prostitution: Public Nuisance" Mr. Robinson stated the Comnissioners had received copies of this ordinance at the meeting. The Planning Commission shoutd review the ordinance for discussion at the Oct. 17 Planning Commission meeting. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION BY MR. KONDRICR� SECONDED BY MS. GABEL� TO ADJOURN TXE MEETING. UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE OCT. 3� 1984, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:40 P.M. Respectfully su mitted, � ' �;' �x �_ � t.� Lyn Sa a Recording Secretary � 0 � , �.