PL 07/12/1989 - 30705CITY OF FRIDLEY
�
PLANNINa COlyIlMISBION MEETING, JIILY 12, 1989
________�__��___�__�______________________�___________________�__
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Betzold called the July 12, 1989, Planning Commission
meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg
Members Absent: ATone
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Steve Billings, Council Member
Jerome Farrell, 5871 Cedar Lake Road, Mpls.
Connie Lutten, Conoco - Jet Station
Debbie Hammock, Conoco - Jet Station
�
APPROVAL OF JUNE 21. 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the June
21, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N HETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S.
#89-02, SBF ADDITION, BY JEROME FARREL:
To replat Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2, Commerce Park, into
two lots, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to waive the reading
of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPER30N BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:36 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the site was recently rezoned to C-2, General
Business. One of the stipulations of the rezoning was that the
parcel be platted into two lots so the proposed movie theater strip
�
� PLANNING COMMIBSION MEETING, JIILY 12, 1989 - PAGE 2
mall complex will be on one lot, and the free-standing restaurant
building will be on the other lot.
Ms. McPherson stated both proposed lots meet the minimum lot size
requirement of 20,000 sq. ft. However, Lot 2, Block 1, does not
provide the parking spaces required by code for the free-standing
restaurant building. That is the reason for stipulation #1 which
states that cross parking easements shall be recorded between Lots
1 and 2, Block l, of SBF Addition.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending approval of the request,
P.S. #89-02, by Jerome Farrell, with the following two
stipulations:
1. Cross parking easements shall be recorded between Lots
1 and 2, Block 1, SBF Addition.
2. A park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior
to issuance of a building permit.
Mr. Barna stated that according to code, if parking is up against
a lot line, a curb is required.
,� Ms. Dacy stated that with the cross parking easement, that really
negates that requirement, because the previous approval was for an
overall variance for the entire number of parking spaces on site.
It is a mixed use situation, but they are creating a separate lot
for the free-standing building.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if parking easements are dependent upon meeting
other code requirements such as setbacks. If this plat is
approved, then they would also need additional variances for
setbacks for parking as well as the cross parking easements. The
variances have been granted for the number of parking stalls for
the entire development as well as the setback along Osborne Road.
Now, with two lots, don't they need additional variances for
setback of parking along the common property line?
Mr. Dahlberg stated if the site was two lots and a combination was
done under the same owner, then there was no issue. However, if
there are two separate owners, then aren't the additional variances
necessary as well as the cross easement?
Ms. Dacy stated Section 205.14.05 in the C-2 District, stated that
parking shall be no closer than 5 feet from any side lot line,
except for a common drive approved by the adj oining property owners
and the City. She stated this has been done in some industrial
districts as well because there is the same language in the M-1 and
^ M-2 Districts. Staff took the interpretation that if there is a
common drive or parking aisle, if the lot line falls across the
stall, they are still sharing the internal circulation of the
� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. JIILY 12. 1989 - PAaE 3
traffic. So, according to staff's interpretation of this section
of the code, variances would not be necessary.
Mr. Dahlberg stated his interpretation would be more strict from
the standpoint of a common drive. It is not common parking; it is
common drive.
Ms. Dacy stated they can easily shift the lot line 10 feet to the
west to accommodate the plat.
Mr. Dahlberg stated maybe an interpretation has to be made and
formally attached to this proposal, because he has always been
under the impression that each parcel or each development has to
stand on its own within its own property line.
Ms. Dacy stated that is not true in this case, because a variance
has already been granted for the total parking spaces.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that is correct, but at that time, it was one
project under one ownership with combined parcels. In this case,
they are taking a chunk out of the total development.
Ms. Dacy stated she understood what Mr. Dahlberg was saying, but
^ staff knew all along that the free-standing building was going to
be under separate ownership, and that was the reason for the
stipulation for the plat.
n
Mr. Saba stated wouldn't this be a permanent covenant between the
two properties, so the properties can basically be treated as one
property?
Mr. Barna stated the problem is that this is setting a precedent
for any future development of this type. He stated that when this
goes to Council, the Council should grant a variance for parking
at zero lot line or over the lot line, as well as the cross parking
easement. They don't want to allow something here that they would
not allow somewhere else in the same zoning.
Ms. Connie Lutton stated she is the District Manager for Conoco,
which owns the Jet Station on the corner of University and Osborne.
She stated Conoco's concern all along has been that the
ingress/egress from this proposed development will still coincide
with the ingress/egress to their property. The concern is that the
new driveway not block traffic going in and out of the Jet Station.
Mr. Jerome
have moved
order not
Station.
Farrell stated that because of Conoco's concern, they
the new driveway 150 north of its present location in
to affect the ingress/egress of traffic into the Jet
PLANNINQ COMMIBSION MEETINa JIILY 12. 1989 - PAGE 4
�
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
PIIBLIC HEARING CL08ED AT 7:50 P.M.
Mr. Barna stated the Council should be encouraged to grant a
variance on the parking stalls. Other than that, he had no
concerns regarding this plat request.
Mr. Betzold stated this might be something that the City Attorney
should look at it before this goes to Council.
Ms. Sherek stated that in the absence of a variance, maybe the lot
line could be moved over 5 feet.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City
Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #89-02, SBF Addition,
by Jerome Farrell, to replat Lots 1, 2, 28, and 29, Block 2,
Commerce Park, into two lots, the same being 250 Osborne Road N.E.,
with the following stipulations:
1. Cross parking easements shall be recorded between Lots
,� i and 2, Block 1, of SBF Addition.
2. A park fee of $.023 per square foot shall be paid prior
to issuance of a building permit.
3. The need for a variance be studied by staff prior to the
City Council meeting.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE� BETZOLD, RONDRICR, BAHA, SHEREK, BARNA� VOTING
AYE, DAHLBERG VOTING NAY, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION
CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 5-1.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he apologized for any comments he made to Mr.
Farrell at the last meeting that might have offended him. However,
he still thinks this is questionable planning because of the
traffic situation, and he just did not agree with this proposal.
He felt the property should not be developed this way.
2. LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT:
Mr. Robertson stated that on May 2-5, 1989, he along with Mr.
Betzold, Councilmember Billings, and representatives from Anoka
County, Blaine, Spring Lake Park, and Coon Rapids traveled to
Calgary, Portland, and San Diego to look at three LRT systems which
have characteristics similar to what is being proposed for the Twin
^ Cities.
Mr. Robertson presented a slide presentation of the three systems.
PLANNINa CO1rII�I88ION MEETING, JIILY 12, 1989 - PAGE 5
^�
Mr. Barna asked if any engineering studies have been done of the
soil types in these three systems. Are any of them sand like
Fridley and Southern Anoka County?
Mr. Robertson stated that the Pacific Northwest (Portland) is
characterized by sandy gravely soils and hilly terrain.
Mr. Billings stated this is a good question to ask when public
hearings are scheduled.
Mr. Rondrick stated that regarding the Twin Cities' LRT system, has
a final decision been made as to the LRT route south of I-694?
Mr. Robertson stated no. They are now in the advanced engineering
design stage which will take about nine months. The first stage
was the preliminary stage for the corridor. The corridor runs from
Northtown down the east side of University to I-694; then two
alternates are: 1) either switching over and going down Central
Avenue, or 2) continuing on University Avenue. There are also
alternates when the University route gets down to the Shoreham
yards, whether it would go on the Soo Line or Great Northern to qet
to the final link before crossing the Mississippi River into
n downtown Minneapolis. At the moment, those two alternatives are
being evaluated, because there are some obvious pluses and minuses.
The narrower Central Avenue has higher potential ridership, and
there are some trade-offs in parking and turning lanes at cross
streets.
Mr. Robertson stated that within a couple of months, a draft
Environmental Impact Assessment will be done. Hearings will have
to be held on that. At this stage, each city is being asked how
it wants to handle the public input and the public hearings that
are required for the assessment in each local government. The
options were brought to the City Council on Monday, July 10, 1989,
and the option picked by the City Council is for the Planning
Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed advanced design
at a regularly scheduled meeting. It will probably be late
summer/early fall. The City Council is also required to hold a
public hearing.
Mr. Robertson stated it is important to remember that the final
authority is not the City, but the Anoka/Hennepin Regional Rail
Authority.
Mr. Saba stated he sees the biggest benefit of the LRT system as
downtown Minneapolis. Yet the people who are paying for the system
are not the downtown Minneapolis merchants, hotel/motels, or
^ convention center people. It is the local property tax, motor
vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle excise tax, gasoline tax,
�
�
�"1
PLANNING CO1rIl�'iI88ION MEETING, JIILY 12, 1989 PAGE 6
local sales tax, etc. The people who are getting the biggest
benefit are not the ones paying for it.
Mr. Billings stated these are proposed revenue sources. Right now,
70� of the MTC funding comes from property taxes and only 30� comes
out of the fare box. The Legislature said that only 400 of the
rapid transit can be funded through property taxes. The rest has
to be funded other ways.
Mr. Saba stated he thinks a real emphasis should be placed on
getting a greater amount of financing from downtown Minneapolis to
pay for the maj or portion of this system, not Fridley, Columbia
Heights, and Northeast Minneapolis.
Ms. Sherek stated that raises another issue that has bothered her
during these discussions. Mr. Billings brought up the MTC issue
and that citizens are payinq for roughly 70% of those costs. That
has fallen over the years, but not as fast as it was anticipated
originally. The other issue is, she sees all the capital costs
outlined, but where are the operational costs? What is it going
to cost on a day-to-day basis to run this system, and how much of
that cost are the people going to pick up in addition to the
capital costs? She did not see the MTC being abandoned. Possibly
some of the express routes might be abandoned along the corridors,
but cross routes will be added. They are not going to be reducing
the other public transit costs. Yet, they are not going to get
ridership (the MTC proved it to themselves with all the fare
manipulations) if the fares are set at a level that is going to
cover costs.
Mr. Saba stated a big problem is that the LRT system studies are
based on old data. Why aren't they looking at future statistics?
He hated to see an LRT system built, having to pay for it, and then
seeing the subsidy get greater and greater because no one is riding
it.
Ms. Sherek stated the last survey made by the Metropolitan Council
said only 20% of the total commuting trips are from suburb to
downtown. The rest of the trips are suburb to suburb or city and
out. She did not feel the suburb-to-suburb trips are going to be
served by light rail transit.
Mr. Robertson stated he will get a summary table of how the three
systems, Portland, Toronto, and San Diego, were financed.
Ms. Sherek stated that whenever the City wants anything done along
University Avenue or Highway 65, it is a perpetual fight with the
Department of Transportation. They will get yet another state
governing body in the LRT to deal with when it comes to maintenance
issues and upgrading issues. Is the LRT going to be built to the
standards Fridley is trying to establish for the University Avenue
!"�
PLANNINa CONII�SIBBION MEETING. JIILY 12, 1989 - PAGE 7
Corridor, or is this governing body going to build it to its own
specifications?
Mr. Robertson stated the one hopeful note here is that the proposed
landscaping improvements along the Corridor are very pedestrian-
oriented, pedestrian-friendly. By its nature, the LRT has the same
objective. In all three of the systems visited, there are
elaborate crosswalks and landscaping to make a pedestrian-friendly
and pedestrian-receptive environment.
Mr. Barna stated he questioned the ridership projections at 20,000.
Ms. Sherek stated that ridership will happen, but it is a long way
in the future.
Mr. Kondrick asked how the Commission members can get these
concerns to those people will make the decisions.
Mr. Billings stated he assumed that will happen in the public
hearings that will be held before the Planning Commissione
Mr. Dahlberg stated their concerns will have
and then distributed to the committees, so th
^ goes on record as establishing a position.
to be put in writing
e Planning Commission
Mr. Betzold stated the county commissioners and state
representatives are ultimately the ones who will be making the
decisions.
Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the ridership projections, it is
her understanding that BRW got that information from a Metropolitan
Council study that was done in 1986. Information like that is
easily obtained, and representatives from Metropolitan Council can
easily come to a meeting. The Planning Commission�s questions and
Metropolitan Council's responses can be discussed prior to any
public hearings.
Mr. Saba stated that regarding the data, it is extremely valuable
to know where and when the data was taken, what type of sampling
procedure was used, and what kind of proj ections were made from the
data.
3. DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE•
Ms. Dacy stated she would like any comments and/or direction from
the Planning Commission on the following issues regarding the
Comprehensive Plan:
�,,, 1. Review process
2. Length of planning horizon
3. The Plan approach
�
/'�
PLANNINa CONII�lI88ION MEETING. JIILY 12, 1989 PAGE 8
4. Land Use Map versus Zoning Map
5. Metropolitan Land Planning Act
6. What are the issues for the 1990's?
Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought one of the hardest things will be
convincing the general public that their input is valuable and that
the Comprehensive Plan potentially affects them.
Mr. Kondrick stated the City should make every reasonable effort
to get citizen participation.
Mr. Barna stated the best idea is to come up with some options and
then hold public hearings for citizen input on those options:
Mr. Betzold stated some thought has to go into how they want to
present this information to the public.
Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the "Review Process", she would like
some concurrence from the Planning Commission on items A- I. When
they get through the draft chapters and see how much information
they have to present, then they can reassess the public hearing
process.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to accept the
Comprehensive Plan Update as presented by staff.
Mr. Saba stated he liked what staff has done. The Comprehensive
Plan definitely needs updating. He liked staff's idea of
evaluating the Comprehensive Plan every five years.
Ms. Sherek stated she thought the Plan needs to be more focused to
look at some of the issues the Planning Commission identified a
couple of years ago. Examples are: tightening up the idea of land
use and projected uses of vacant land.
Ms. Sherek stated another thing that needs to be addressed is some
planning, not so much for urban renewal, but looking at some of the
city codes and seeing if the codes need to be updated. They need
to look at the whole picture as part of the comprehensive planning
for the City. Should they be reviewing all the building code
ordinances and things like that with an eye towards some of the
things that were done in the 1950's and 1960's that are really not
acceptable anymore? Maybe they should be involving even more City
staff, such as Public Works, Inspection, etc.
Ms. Dacy stated staff will re-present #6 and the Overview chapter
for Commission review at the next meeting.
� Mr. Saba stated he thought different sections of the Comprehensive
Plan can be used by all the commissions to help them develop their
agendas and goals. Then, when it comes time to re-review the
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JIILY 12. 1989 - PAGB 9
''� --
Comprehensive Plan in another five years, the commissions can give
valuable input.
4. DISCUSS DUMPSTER ORDINANCE:
Ms. Dacy stated that staff found two versions of the dumpster
ordinance (Version A, agenda page 4-B and Version B, agenda page
4-G). Staff also discovered some other issues that need to be
addressed in the dumpster ordinance.
Mr. Barna stated there needs to be definite definitions between a
dumpster, a temporary trash receptacle, and whether a recycling
container is considered a dumpster.
Mr. Betzold stated that as stated in the memo dated July 7, 1989,
staff is currently generating a list of establishments that would
not comply with the new ordinance by doing site inspections.
Ms. McPherson stated that Version A, under "Performance Standards"
states: "...Within 180 days of the adoption of this chapter, all
owners of such establishments must comply to this chapter." Staff
has to start somewhere by knowing what establishments would not
comply, so they are compiling a list of existing dumpsters and what
^ the enclosures are right now and the need for upgrading, if any.
Mr. Betzold asked if Version A and Version B could be distributed
to the Fridley Chamber of Commerce and some Fridley businesses to
get their input.
Ms. Sherek stated Version A came out of previous discussions on the
dumpster ordinance and is the most recent version.
Mr. Billings stated if there are codes and ordinances relative to
trash containers, signs, or anything else, if the property owners
of Fridley have to comply, then the City of Fridley should also
comply. He would like to see the Planning Commission make a
recommendation to the Council that Fridley city properties also be
brought up to code.
Ms. Dacy stated it was her intent to find out how many property
owners in Fridley would not comply if Version A is adopted, and
then notify those property owners who are directly affected. They
can also contact the Chamber of Commerce, hold another public
hearing before the Planning Commission, and then pass any
recommendations on to the City Council.
Mr. Billings stated that after the list is compiled, but before
letters are sent out to property owners telling them they are
� affected, he would like to see it brought before the Council to get
their reaction.
�
�
PLANNINa CON�iI88ION MEETING. JIILY 12, 1989 PAGE 10
Mr. Betzold stated
passed to the City
Planning Commission
public hearings.
Mr. Billings is right. He would like this
Council and then let the Council direct the
to reconsider the dumpster ordinance and hold
5. UPDATE ON KEITH'S AUTO BODY SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #89-08. TO
ALLOW A REPAIR GARAGE AT 7570 HIGHWAY 65 N.E.:
Ms. Dacy stated that staff followed up on the Planning Commission's
direction and found out that the building structurally is in good
condition. Mr. Mike Thompson is currently preparing some cost
estimates, but because one of the partners is in the hospital, he
cannot get a clear concurrence of what the partnership wants to do.
She stated Mr. Thompson does understand the need to connect to the
sanitary sewer as soon as possible and is looking at those costs
first. She has told him staff needs those estimates no later than
the first meeting in August, and the City will then have to take
some action.
6. RECEIVE JUNE 8, 1989, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINLITES :
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the June
8, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTIN(� AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
7. RECEIVE JUNE 27, 1989. JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
COMMISSIONIENERGY COMMISSION MEETING:
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the June
27, 1989, Joint Environmental Quality Commission/Energy Commission
minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOI�D DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the
meeting. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold
declared the July 12, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned
at 9:50 p.m.
Res ectfully s itted,
�� Ly Saba
Recording Secretary