PL 10/09/1985 - 30640,�
�
L
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNIfdG COMM�SSZON MEETING, OCTOBER��9, -1�985
. ................................................... .... ..
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairwoman Schnabel called the October 9, 1985, Planning Commission meeting to
order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL-CALL:
____�._..__,
Mem6e.rs Present: lys,. Sc�nafie.l , 1�s,
�Mr. S�ba
Mem6ers A6sent: I�r, Oqu�,'�t
Gab-e7' Mr, Minton� i�r, Kondrtck�, I�r. �[ellan,
Others Present; �iin Ro6�son, Pl ann�;ng Coot^di,hator
�erry Ungl aub� 6425 Asfiton � AY�. . N, E.
Harol d Ung1 aufi:, 830�- I�. �loore. Laf�e llr �ie
APPROVAt OF SEpTEMBER��5;��gg,;�p'LANNING'COf�INIISSION'MINUTES:
MOTION BY MR. MIIVTON, SECONDED BY MR. SABA, TO APPROVE 7:'HE SEPZ'. 25� 1985, PLANNING
COMMIS5ION MINUTES AS WRITTEN.
UPO1V A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PUQL I CERATTON G(S� ' A.�. S�EC IAL' ' Cls E' P�RM �F, �,�I� `��5�r1�; 'B��'9ER�� �I��l' A[16.
1. �CONSID'
er Section .., , o rt ey� �. y o e, o a o�r construction
of a second accessory 6uil ding, a 24 ft. 6�r 32 f�i, util ity sfied on Lots 11
and 12, B1 ock 13, Fridl ey Par�C, .t�ie same 6e1'Y�g 6425 As�fi-ton Avenue N. E:
MOTION BY MR. SABA, SECONDEb BY MS. G.�1BEL, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEA.RING ON
SP #85-11.
UP�N A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARING OPEN AT 7:3% P.M.
Mr. Robinson stated tfiis property was located just west �f the tracks on
Ashton Ave. and north of���64th Way. It was zoned single family and was surrounded
by other single family. The special use permit was for a second accessory
building, 24 ft. by 32 ft., located to the rear of the lot towards the tracks.
The proposal was for 3 ft, setbacks off the rear and side lot lines which does
meet code. The peti`tioner is proposing to bufld without a verifying survey
which he can do with a letter from the adjoining property owner. An agreement
from Arnold Kastanek, the owner of the property at 6435 Ashton Ave., was
included in the agenda stating that Mr. Kastanek had no objection to the con- `
struction of the utility shed.
�
�' Mr. Robinson stated staff had no stipulatfons other than the building was not
to be used for motor vehicles that would require a driveway as there was no
room for a driveway.
. .. .. ... ... .. .. ... ...... .. _ ...... . - . _ _
� PLRNNING'COI�IISSIOW�N1��TIN6�'OCT66ER'9;'1985 ........... ... . . ... . PAGE 2
Mr. Jerry Unglaub stated he wanted the building for storage of boat, wood,
trucK topper, lawn mower, etc. He stated he only has a single car garage
and in the t�ree years he has lived in tfiis-.home, he has been unable to use
his present garage for anything 6ut storage. The new building will help him
clean up his yard, and fie a6solutely had no intention of parking motor
vehicles i.n it.
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK� SECONDED BY MR. WELLAN, TO C.LUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
ON SP #85-11.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTIFJG �� CR,AIRWOMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE PUBLIC
HEARI111Q CLO5ED AT 7: 47 P. M.
MOTIOIV BY IKR. SABA, SECONDED BY MR. KONDRICK, TO 12ECOMMEND TO C'ITY CDUNC.IL
THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL U5E PERMIT, 5P #85-11� BY JERF2Y UNGT�XIUB� PER 5L�'CTION
205.07.1� C, 1 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE TO ALLOW THE CONS1'RUCT.T'ON OF A SECOND
ACCES50RY BUILDING, A 24 FT. BY 32 FT. UTILITY SHED O1V LOT5 ZZ �1ND 12, BLOCK
Z3, FRIDLEY PARK, THE SAME BEING 6425 ASHTON AVENUE N.E.
UPON A VOICE T10TE, ALL VO�ING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLA.RED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNAIVIMOUSLY.
2. RECEIUE SEPTEMBER' 17;�' 1985; ' ENVIRONP�9ENTAL' ' QUAL' ITIf ' COMI�ISSI0�1' I�I�lI�TES:
�"'1 . . .
- 'MOi'ION BY MR. WELLAN, SECONDED BY N�2. KONDRICK, TO RECEIVE TH� 5EP�'. 17� I985,
ENVIRONt�1ENTAL QUALIi'Y COMMISSION MINUTES.
Mr. I�ellan stated Ms. Merriam has been trying to contact Mr. Beerman of Beerman
Services to find out how the partici.pation rate is in the recycling pick-up
program.
Mr. Robinson stated they should probably invite Mr. Beerman to a EQC meeting
to talk about the program.
Mr. Minton stated he lived in a townhouse. He stated he and some of his
neighbors p�t out recyclables for pick-up last month, but the recyclables were
never picked up. When he called Mr. Beerman, he w�s told that rec,yclables
were not collected from multiple units.
Mr. Wellan stated they had pretty much restricted the pick-up program to single
family residences.
Mr. Minton stated that fact had not been made clear to him, and it would be
nice if the recycling pick-up p�ogram included townhouses whi�ch were not the
same as apartment 6uildings.
1�r. Saba stated a centrally located pick-up spot at townhouse complexes would
be a good idea.
�' Mr. Wellan stated this was something that shDUld be discussed �tith Mr. Beerman.
��
�
n
._. _
PCANNING' COI�IMMISSION �IEETIf�G; ' OCTO�ER' 9; ' 1985' " � � � " � � PAGE 3
Ms. Schnabel suggested that some type of pre-printed card be developed and
printed in the city newsletter that a homeowner could cut out, fill in the
day and week of their pi.c�-up, and post somewhere in tFieir home to remind them
of their picfc-up day.
Mr. Robinson stated something like that could be put in the city newsletter.
Ms. Schnabel stated she had read that Ramsey County and Nennepin County and
several other counties have composting sites. Since there still seems to be
an interest in composting, she wondered if Anoka County u�ould be willing to p�tt
a compost site somewhere centrally located where it could be shared with Fridley
and Columbia Heights,for example.
Mr. Wellan stated they have talked about composting in the City of Fridley many
times. It isn't the problem of just dumping the leaves and grass clippings;
it is the problem of mai�ntenance. He stated they could discuss this with
Anoka County and see if there was any interest.
Mr. Robinson stated the mandatory 1a� has passed that t[[1.eei^e v,�71 be no land
fil'Cing after 1990, and 25-30� of all solid �aste is grass cli;pp�;ngs and leaves.
Something will have to 6e done soon.
Ms. Schnabel stated this was another good reason wfi�r tf�e County sG.ould get involved.
3. OTNER'BUSINESS:
a. Parking Stall Size
Mr. Robinson stated that as the Commiss.ion kneu�_, afwut a year ago, Untty�
Hospital applied for a special use permit for the expansi;on of th.eir parKing
lot, but 6ecause of cost problems and expansion,.it was delayed. When they
final�ly got around to putting in the parking lot, they decided to try for
9 ft, stalls with a variance rather than put in a piece of parking lot that
might have to be removed at some point in time. The 9 ft, stalls would be
only for employee parking.
Mr. Robinson stated that as the issue moved througf� th.e Appeals Cornmission
and City Council, there were some questions a6out �rhat dther c%ties were
doin� regarding parking stall size. He stated the subur6s were polled, and
it ap�Qared that Fridley and Brooklyn Park are the only two suburbs which
require ten ft. stall widths. Six of the cities allow nine ft. stalls while
three allow 8% ft, stalls. Several cities also allow for a percentage of
the total stalls to be designated as compact stalls under certain circumstances.
Mr. Robinson s.tated that the issue
a few years ago and vetoed by the
stall size are less hard-surfaced
run-off. On the other hand, it is
smaller stalls.
of smaller parking
City-Council. Some
area, less cost for
stalls was discussed
advantages to smalier
development, and less
hard to get btg cars in and out of
� PL'ANNING'COMMISSION'�EETI�6;'OCTOBER'9;'1985'�������� � ��" ����� ���PAGE 4
Mr. Robinson stated that in the case of Unity Hospital, he felt the variance
was warranted because the 9 ft. stall-wldth was just for�the employee park-
ing lot. By redueing the stall width, they are saving green space and
will have a greater 6uffer between residential and the hospital parking lot.
Mr. Robinson stated the question has now come up: Should the City be
looking at 9 ft, stalls? The City Council has as�ed for some input from
the Planning Commission.
Ms. Gabel stated the reason she voted in favor of the variance to 9 ft.
stall width for Unity Hospital was because the 9 ft, stall �i.dth was for
employee parking oniy. She felt employee parking was more stable parking.
People are parking and staying at least a 4-9 hr, shift, and there are not
cars coming in and out all day.
Mr. Saba sta�ed he th�ugh-t what made logic�] sense at this point was to look
at the possi6ility of�a compact car percentage li�e some of the other
communities have done.
Ms. Gabel stated Unity� H.ospi.tal v,ws not in ��vor of ��he Appeals Comm�;ssion�s
suggestion of setti,ng as;i.de s.paces for compact cars. They felt there could
6e some pro6lems witFi employees 6ecause of where �the compact car spaces
were locat,ed. Some employees with larger cars might not like it that �the
� people with compact cars got to park closer to tFie 6uilding, or vice versa.
Mr. Wel]an stated that the cost of everything Ts a big concern these days,
and the City should not overburden their industry by keeping l�mitations
such as 10 ft. par�ing stalls. He felt a 9 ft, stall was adequate. He felt
a 10 ft, stall was a waste of space, especially in an employee parking lot.
Employees tend to 6e more careful and respectful of other people`s cars
than people do in a general parking 1ot.
Ms. Gabel stated she felt the City has been somewhat inconsistent. Nine ft.
parking stalls were allowed by the HRA and the City for the Target employee
parkfng lot in the Center City Redevelopment are�. 7hey should decide what
they are going to do and do it. If 9 ft. parking stall width is the way
tfi�y want to handle it, then it should be handled by changing the code and
not with a lot of variances.
••MO,�Z'.LON BY MR. MINTON, SECONDED BY MR. WELLAN, TO REGOMMLND TO CITY COUNCIL
THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE CHANGED TO STATE- THAT 3 FT. PARK.ING 5TALL5 BE
ALLOf�E'D FOR DESIGNATED EMPZOYEE PARKING AREAS.
UPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRWOMAN SCHNABEL DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Possible Development on Soutla�rest Quadrant of Center C�ty Redevelopment District
^ Mr. Robinson stated there has 6een some interest from a couple of developers
in the southwest corner of tFie downtown area of'tFie Center Ct''ty�Redevelop�
PLANNING'COM�ISSION��EETING;'OCTOgER'9;'1985 � '�� �� � �� PAGE 5
ment District. Some of the things that could be developed tbere would
require a number of special use permits and possible variances. They are
quick7y getting fnto an area of development �n the city where they will
be seeing some parking ram�s. The Fridley Plaza Clinic just received
approval �or two small parking ramps. The possible development on the
southwest corner pould require a parking ramp and others might be needed on
the drive-in site.
Mr. Robinson stated Staff's thinking at this point i.s that rather than go
to the Planning Commission with numerous special use permits that they
try to again utilize the S-2 District where a preliminary plan would be
approved. With S-2 zoning, all changes would require formal review by tbe
Planning Commission and City Council but would not require additional public
hearings after the preliminary plan was approved wi�h the rezoning to S-2.
Mr. Ro6inson stated one problem was that the City only allows up to six
s�ory buildings in the City. The proposal they are looking at for the
south�est corner was for a 10-story residential complex in conjunction
with commercial. They are looking at a multiple story building on the
dri�e-in site, so there are potential p�rking problems, lot coverage
problems, and possibly other variances.
Mr. Robinsbn stated the other thing discussed was the change to C-3 zoning
� Zn the Zoning Code to allow for qreater lot coverage becaus e of parking
r�mps and modifying the height restrictions so it accommodates the development.
Ms. Ga�el stat�d �hat °modifying the zo�ing:to ,aceommodate the development" was
something that concerned her. That was saying--let's not let the develop-
ment work within the community and the way it has developed over the years.
She wanted development to happen, but she did not want the developer writing
the code for the City. This particular area could very easily be over-
developed.
Mr. Saba`stated he agreed. He �elt there was a big danger in overdeveloping.
Ms. Schnabel stated that the possi6ility of 6uildings over six stories should
be re�iewed with the Fire Department to get their reaction.
Ms. Gabel stated there could be a lot of problems wit� a ten-story high
building in this area. How close would the building 6e to the residential
area and how high? What was the visual impact? What was the trafflc impact?
These were all important questions.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would be in favor of a ten-story elderly highrise
in thfs location. He felt it was needed, and the southwest corner would
be an excellent location.
Ms. Gabel s�ated it made good sense to dea] with the neighbors first so
� theY know up front what is going to happen. If they just rezone the
property to S-2, the_balTga�e �s�over. Then the develdper can do whatever
_he-wants and t�at doesn't mean the neigh6ors would then have any input;
w��eas, if they rezoned it with a plan to go with it, the. neighbors would
�ave a c�ance to give their input.
PLANNING COP�NIISSION'MEETING;'OCTOBER�9;�1985'� ��� ��� �� ����� �� PAGE �
Ms. Schnabel agreed. Once the property was rezoned to S-2, if the
developer is not able to follow through with the plan they have approved,
then the S-2 zoning was already there.
Ms, Gabel stated when they are talking about as big a n�ighborhood as
there was in this area th�t would be impacted, she thought the City had
some responsibilities to live up to the current zoning, and they shouldn't
do something that would be impacting the entire neighborhood. There was
no way she would turn her back on a whole neighborhood like that and say
this developm�nt was for the good of the whnle community. There was no
way that it is good for the wbole community. If the City has the neighbor-
hood's input and the neighbors are giben th� opportunity to speak, the
Cit� can make thes� things happen i.n a way that is a lot more conducive
to good public relations. She understood there were going to be some
people who will not want any c�ange, no matter �hat tt is.
Mr. Robinson stated there were t�ree options: �1� rezone to S-2 with a
pr�liminary plan; (2) change C-3 zoning to accommodate the development;
(3� leave the code tbe way it is now.
Ms. Schnabel stated she would be against changing the zoning code on
C-3 zoning.
,� The Commissioners basically agreed t�at rezoning to S-�2 wit� a development
plan was probably the b�st way to go. T�ey were concerned as to who would
make the judgement call to bring the plan bacK to the Planni�ng Commission
if there were substantial changes to that pl�n. When there are substantial
changes to that plan, the neighbors should definitely be involved.
Mr. Robinson stated they might want to put special sti.pulations on the
development plan which related to signifi.cant changes to the plan.
i4D�0URfV��ENT:
MOTION BY MR. KONDRICK, 5ECONDED BY MR. SABA� TO ADJOURN TXE MEETIIVG. •-UPON A
VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRin7QMAN 5CHNABEL DECLARED THE pC�"OBER 9� 1985,
PLAN111ING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
ynn a a
Recording Secretary
�