Loading...
PL 09/27/1989 - 30709� CITY OF FRIDLFY PLANNING COMMIBBION MEETING� BEPTEMBER 27, 1989 MMIrNMMwMMMN�Y�AM�Y�Y�Y�Iy�MNMM�►MNM�YMN�N�YA�YM�Y�YMwN�►�y��yIrMMM�N�MNMMw�Y�►��MIrM CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the September 27, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Father John Magraam, Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ Jack Lemley, Ashland Oil Bob Mikulak, Ashland Oil Hank Berkholz, 218 - 57th Place Anthony Zmuda, 218 - 57th Place � Doug Strong, 5720 Regis Drive APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 13, 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES• MoTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the September 13, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPE1t30N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 1. TABLED: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SP #89-11. BY ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, INC.: Per Section 205.07.01.C.2 of the Fridley City Code to allow churches in a residential district on Lot 3, Block 1, Parkview Oaks First Addition, the same being 1201 Hathaway Lane N.E. Mr. Betzold asked the status of this request. Father John Magraam stated he needs to get more information, and the architect has not yet submitted a new drawing showing a different front elevation for the house. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETIATG. SEPTEMBER 27. 1989 - PAGE 2 i "1 MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to continue on the table special use permit, SP #89-11, by the Orthodox Church of the Resurrection of Christ. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 2. PUBLIC HEARIIVG: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING ZOA #89-04 BY ASHLAND OIL COMPANY (RAPID OIL): To rezone Lot 4, Block 6, City View Addition, from R-2, Two Family Dwelling, to C-2, General Business, the same being 5701 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOI,D DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE PIIHLIC HEARING OPEN 1siT 7:34 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated the property is located on the northeast corner of 57th Avenue and University Avenue, immediately east of and adjacent to the existing Rapid Oil facility. The property is vacant and measures approximately 40 ft. in width and 140 ft. in depth. At the September 13, 1989, meeting, the Planning Commission considered � a special use permit by Ashland Oil to reconstruct a new facility on the property. The site plan included in the agenda packet is a revised site plan which meets all the setback requirements and lot area requirements in the C-2 district. Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is proposing to relocate the access drives into the site so that the parking setbacks can be met. Two existing driveway cuts into the property will be removed. Ms. Dacy stated that in evaluating a rezoning request, the City should look at whether or not the proposed district is compatible with existing zoning and uses and whether or not the uses contained in that district would be compatible with adjacent properties. The existing zoning pattern in the area is C-2, General Business, along the east side of University Avenue, abutted by R-2, Multiple Family, or R-1, Single Family, to the east. Because this proposed request would merely extend that commercial zoning 40 ft. to the east, the rezoning should not have an adverse impact to the adjacent uses or zoning districts. Ms. Dacy stated that in the Staff Report on page 2, 3rd paragraph, the first sentence under ��Analysis" should be changed to read: "The uses proposed in the C-2 district will � be compatible with the surrounded uses and zoning.�� Ms. Dacy stated staff had advised the petitioner that the City has ^ limited the use of automobile-related uses along major entrances into the City, mainly University Avenue. The City has implemented this policy primarily through the use of its development contracts PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINC,. SEPTEMBER 27. 1989 - PAGE 3 � with the HRA, specifically on the Vantage property development at 81st Avenue where The Wholesale Club is located. The HRA is currently studying the 57th Place site as a potential redevelopment site; however, the HRA wants to wait to evaluate the soil tests currently being conducted on the site to determine whether or not a redevelopment project should be pursued at this location. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the issue of light rail transit, staff sent Ashland Oil's site plan to BRW, the consultant for Anoka County, and received BRW's comments back on Tuesday, September 26. Anoka County is looking for a station location to the south of the site where SuperAmerica and the,used car lot are located. That is the first priority. Whether or not the station is located there depends on future decisions as to whether or not the LRT will go over I-694 or will go underneath the bridge at I-694. The second alternative would be to locate a station on the subject property. BRW�s comments, however, were that it was very early in their planning process to make any commitments at this time, but they were encouraged to see that the Rapid Oil building was moved farther to the east. That would give them additional room if additional area is needed beyond the University Avenue right-of- way at this location. Ms. Dacy stated that at this time, the proposed site plan does not ^ conflict with the intent of the plans for the LRT; however, the petitioner should be aware that the site is a second alternative as a station location. �, Ms. Dacy stated staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval subject to three stipulations: 1. Compliance with the site plan submitted with the application. 2. 3. Compliance with all the stipulations of the special use permit request, SP #89-12. Approval of the special use permit request, SP #89-12, by the City Council. Mr. Jack Lemley, Ashland Oil, stated he is representing Rapid Oil. He stated he did talk to BRW that day, and it was his understanding after talking to them, that it is going to be quite awhile before the LRT is built. Their guess was about 10 years. He stated, as pointed out by staff, they are setting the building back where it should not cause any problems for a future LRT. Staff has done a very good job in helping them lay out these plans. Mr. Lemley stated he has no problem with any of the stipulations proposed by staff. � PLANNIN(� COMMISSION MEETIN(i, BEPTEMBER 27, 1989 - PAGE 4 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council approval of rezoning request, ZOA #89-04, by Ashland Oil Company (Rapid Oil) to rezone Lot 4, Block 6, City View Addition, from R-2, Two Family Dwelling, to C-2, General Business, the same being 5701 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. Compliance with the site plan submitted with the application. 2. 3. Compliance with all the stipulations of the special use permit request, SP #89-12. Approval of the special use permit request, SP #89-12, by the City Council. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, AI,L VOTINC, AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. � Ms. Dacy stated the City Council will establish a public hearing date on the rezoning at their October 23, 1989, meeting, so both the special use permit request and rezoning request will go to the City Council on November 13, 1989. 3. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY SIGN CODE: Ms. Dacy stated staff welcomed any proposed changes, comments, or suggestions to the amendments as proposed by staff. Mr. Betzold referred to #36, "Special Event", under Section 214.02, DEFINITIONS, which states: ��An event which occurs within a designated time period on an annual basis". He suggested it be changed to read: "An event which occurs within a designated time period lfor instance, on an annual basis)." Mr. Barna referred to Section 214.07.O1.B (Changeable Signs) which states: "The message shall not change more than once every fifteen (15) minutes except for a sign displaying time, temperature, and/or date.�� He stated it should be changed to read: "The message shall not change more than once every fifteen (15) minutes except for the displav of time temperature and�or date." The present wording sounds like a sign displaying time, temperature, and/or date can change more than every fifteen minutes. � Mr. Saba referred to Section 214.06.03 (Political Signs). He stated he would like to see a reduction in the maximum allowed size for political signs (32 sq. ft.). PI,ANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. SEPTEMBEIt 27. 1989 - PAGB 5 /'� — - Mr. Betzold stated maybe they should address the size of the sign and the length of time a political sign can be up. Ms. Sherek stated that the City of Arden Hills allows political signs to be put up 30 days before the primary election, and the signs must be removed within 48 hours after the general election. Her suggestion would be that political signs can be put up 30 days before the primary election and must be removed 5 days after the general election. This gives people time to get the signs down if there is cold or inclement weather. Mr. Dahlberg stated there is a state law that addresses the removal of signs and signs within so many feet of the polling place. A suggestion would be to add language such as "...to be removed within five days following the election and/or as required by state law." Mr. Dahlberg stated that a$15 deposit for the erection of political signs is no incentive for anyone to remove the signs. Ms. Dacy suggested they make the deposit consistent with the deposit for temporary signs--$200. ,� Mr. Dahlberg stated that is a possible solution. Mr. Saba stated it is an excellent idea. Mr. Betzold stated $200 might be appropriate for a business, but $200 might be a little out of line for these organizations. Mr. Barna stated he would agree with the $200 deposit. If it is a problem, anyone can come before the City Council and ask to have the deposit waived. Mr. Betzold stated that during 49�er Days, there was a craft show and Taste of Fridley, and someone posted bills advertising this all over the City. Some of those bills are still up. Is something like that covered in the sign ordinance? Mr. Saba and Ms. Sherek stated it should be. Ms. Sherek stated another example is the posting of bills for the Game and Sport Show, etc. It is visual pollution. Mr. Saba stated he liked the idea of requiring a deposit for this type of situation also. Any organization, even a volunteer organization, should be required to put down a deposit before posting bills to ensure the removal of those bills. `� Ms. Sherek stated that under Section 214.06.05, Special Events Signs, maybe another paragraph could be added that anyone posting ,� � � PLANNING COMMISBION MEETINC�. BEPTEMBER 27. 1989 PAGE 6 bills and posters is also subject to a deposit and that the bills and posters must be removed. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there is a definition for "Bills". Ms. McPherson stated the definition for "Banners and Pennants" is: "A temporary sign constructed of cloth, canvass, paper, plastic film or light fabric. �� That would include posters and bills unless the Commission wanted to be more specific. Mr. Dahlberg asked why modifications to the Sign Ordinance are being proposed. Ms. McPherson stated that many of the modifications being proposed, particularly the ��Special Events�� definition and the modifications to ��Special Events�� and "Banner" sections of the temporary sign ordinance of the Sign Code are the result of conversations with many of the churches in the area upon notification that churches had to follow the temporary sign ordinance just as businesses in the City do. Several discrepancies were pointed out to staff, and there were some other areas that needed some more clarification from an administrative viewpoint. Mr. Saba asked how the City could restrict or allow banners hung over a street. Ms. McPherson stated those are defined as ��temporary signs��. She believed Mr. Saba was referring to the Michael Servetus Unitarian Church's banner over Mississippi recently which advertised their upcoming auction. She stated the church got approval from the City Council several years ago to do that and has also received special permission from the Nortel Cable and Anoka County. She wanted to note also that the Fridley 49�er Days Committee did not obtain a temporary sign permit to post its banners. Mr. Saba stated he would like to see something in the ordinance that says that banners cannot be hung over City or County streets, except those banners which advertise city-related events such as 49'er Days or those events recognized by a City Council declaration. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not agree. That is very arbitrary and discriminatory and why should the City be allowed to hang banners when no one else can? Mr. Rondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Saba. For special city functions where the information on the sign benefits the City for a City-approved function, he thought it is an allowable use, but he thought it is offensive to have a business advertise on a banner on a City or County street which does not benefit everyone in the City. They could have banners everywhere then. ^ PLANNINC, COMMI88ION MEBTING� BBPTEI�iBER 27. 1989 - PAaL 7 Mr. Betzold stated that in other cities, Anoka, for example, during its Halloween Festival, banners are put up all over. However, he could not see businesses being allowed to do the same thing. Mr. Dahlberg asked if the biggest objection to the banners is from the standpoint of safety (motorists reading the banner and not watching the road) , then why is it going to be any different if the City puts up the banner? If not, what is the objection to having a business put up a banner across a street? Mr. Kondrick stated his objection is it is visual blight. Mr. Dahlberg stated attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Again, if they are not going to allow these types of signs by legitimate businesses or individuals in the community, then he did not feel, just because something is a city-related event, that it is a legitimate reason to allow that sign. Ms. Dacy stated right now a business can only put up a temporary sign on its property. Special Event Signs are defined as: "Banners or pennants commemorating a special event not connected with a business.�� So, they are really talking about city, church, or institutional functions that could potentially hang a sign over a street. � Ms. Dacy stated maybe a compromise would be that if it is a non- city related function (a special event not connected with a business), they have to get City Council approval. Mr. Betzold stated 49'er Days is not a City function per se. The City participates in it, but it is still a non-profit organization that organizes and operates the function. That organization should also come to the City Council for permission to hang any banners or signs. Ms. Dacy stated under 214.06.05, they could add an item B which would have language regarding the posting of bills and a deposit; and Item C would have language stating banners over right-of-ways would require City Council approval. Mr. Dahlberg stated the issue is really to clarify these things in the Sign Ordinance as much as possible. Mr. Dahlberg stated that "Banners and Pennants�� are defined as a temporary sign constructed of cloth, canvass, paper, plastic film, or light fabric. Does that mean with or without graphic or text or writing? Is a windsock or a streamer considered a banner and pennant? Are the pennant-shaped plastic flags used in car lots considered banners and pennants? � Ms. McPherson stated it has been interpreted in different ways. The pennants that are strung together at service stations, etc., � PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION MEETIN(3. BEPTEMHER 27. 1989 - PAGE 8 are interpreted as temporary signs; however, they do not have a legal opinion as to whether or not windsocks and flags would be included. Ms. Dacy stated staff will look into the windsock/flag issue. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if a business tries to find out what they can do to put temporary signage up all along the boulevard and not have to go for a permit, according to Section 214.16.O1.E.(8), under Sign Permit Requirements (��Any signs having an area of three (3) square feet or less.��), the business could use the old "Burma Shave" sign technique. The business is not required to get a permit and the signs can be left up indefinitely according to this section of the ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated he saw some of the changes being made to this ordinance as creating a more restrictive ordinance. If enforcement also becomes stricter, they are going to find some businesses or people going through the ordinance to look for a way to advertise more important events than two, because they are only allowed two temporary signs per year. Potentially, they could start seeing the Burma Shave-type signs because it is allowable. Ms. Dacy stated the City allows a free-standing sign up to 80 sq. � ft., wall signage up to 15 times the square root of a wall length, plus window signage, so the ordinance is being very liberal in allowing business people to have adequate signage, for permanent and temporary signage. Ms. McPherson stated the Sign Ordinance does not say a business or church cannot have a readerboard as part of the permanent signage. There is ample opportunity for businesses to become creative with signs within the restrictions of the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg asked if there were any planning organizations or associations that have created a model sign ordinance. Ms. Dacy stated she is not aware of any. Mr. Dahlberg stated he feels two temporary signs per year per business, church, or institution are somewhat restrictive. Mr. Betzold stated he is not so much concerned about the loopholes a business or person might find in the ordinance to put up a temporary sign, but he is more concerned about the permanent sign that a business or person goes to a greater expense to install. Mr. Dahlberg stated referred to the letter dated September 19, 1989, from Bruce Brown, President of the Fridley-Spring Lake Park ^ Ministerial Association, in which Pastor Brown expressed concern about churches being subject to the same limitations as businesses for temporary signs. n PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINa� SEPTLMBER 27. 1989 - PAGE 9 Mr. Barna stated he agreed with Mr. Dahlberg that two temporary signs per year per business or institution is too restrictive. Mr. Dahlberg stated Ms. McPherson has suggested the use of readerboard signs. He stated a readerboard sign is generally a monument sign on the ground, and he did not see a readerboard sign as being that effective for advertising major events. Mr. Barna stated readerboards are also expensive to install. Ms. Dacy referred to Section 214.16.01.D: ��Signs erected by a nonprofit organization are not exempt from obtaining a sign permit, but the City may waive the fee requirement." Ms. Dacy stated that at this time, if the Commission wanted to make a recommendation on adding a fee and deposit requirement for nonprofit organizations and possibly excluding them from the temporary sign restrictions, now is the time to do that. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if language was added that "these organizations may be allowed 4-5 temporary signs a year", that was also risky because then they are saying nonprofit organizations get more temporary signs than a retailer or business. He did not know ^ how something like this could be handled. Mr. Barna stated he thought the original intent for this change in the Sign Ordinance was to limit the use of porta-panel signs, and not necessarily temporary signs. Rather than define them as temporary signs, maybe they should define them as porta-panel signs. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not think the Commission has enough information to make any decisions at this time. He suggested staff contact other communities to see what they do about the use of temporary signs for non-profit organizations, particularly churches. Ms. Dacy stated there is the interpretation that churches are displaying special events signs which are permitted temporary signs and would not fall under the temporary sign category. She stated there is a conflict in interpretations here. She stated staff will do a survey of other communities and come back with a recommendation. Ms. Sherek stated she would like to address Section 214.15, Signs Within Public Right-of-Ways. She did not see any reason why signs needed to be allowed in the public right-of-way. ^ Ms. Dacy stated this section of the code was specifically designed for the Central Avenue Corridor. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEBTING� BEPTEMHER 27. 1989 - PAGTs 10 Mr. Dahlberg stated that if Central Avenue is the only street that this section applies to, then why don't they just say that? Ms. Dacy stated this was a way to try and establish criteria that would not give the appearance that it is singling out one right- of-way over another. However, staff went through the computer listing of streets, and Central Avenue is the only street that falls under this criteria. Mr. Barna stated the City approved a variance for a sign at 79th and University. Because the right-of-way is larger than the service drive, a variance was needed to allow a pylon sign to extend over the right-of-way but not over the curb. He stated maybe they should just continue as they have in the past and that is to allow these signs only with a variance. Ms. Dacy stated the City cannot give a variance for a sign in the right-of-way because the ordinance specifically states no signs in public right-of-ways. Mr. Barna stated then maybe they should say no pedestal of a sign can be constructed within the right-of-way without a variance or special use permit. That way each situation can be looked at on an individual basis, rather than pass an ordinance that allows just � a few businesses to do something. Ms. Dacy stated what staff is trying to say is that this right-of- way is unique, it is oversized, and they do think it is different than any other street in the City. Staff wanted to avoid the hardship argument. Ms. Sherek stated this section of the ordinance is, in fact, favoring one side of Central Avenue. The setbacks on the east side of the street from the curb are not the same as those on the west side. So, they are almost saying that businesses on one side of the street can do something businesses on the other side cannot do. It bothered her to draw up an ordinance that relates specifically to one area. Mr. Barna agreed with Ms. Sherek. Ms. Sherek stated if this is going to be in the ordinance, then they should be clear that they are talking specifically about Central Avenue and treat it as such. Mr. Dahlberg agreed. Ordinances he has seen for other communities do refer to special considerations in given development corridors. They should say this is criteria for the Central Avenue Corridor. � PLANNING CONIIrlI88ION MEETINC3. BEPTTsMBER 27. 1989 PAGE 11 � 4. CONSIDERATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, "HOUSING" CHAPTER• Ms. Dacy stated staff based the outline on the proposed theory that Fridley should promote the theory of life cycle housing, providing a variety of housing choices for persons living in the community at different times of their lives. She reviewed the outline with the Commission members. Mr. Saba stated that based on past experiences, he felt the City has to be really restrictive as to where they allow multi-tenant housing and elderly housing in the City, as far as the proximity to single family residential neighborhoods. There are a lot of multi-family dwellings in the City now, and maybe they should take into consideration the redevelopment or re-redevelopment of the existing housing stock in terms of multi-family as a priority before looking at going into residential neighborhoods to build new apartment buildings and senior housing, etc. He sympathized with people who have nice, quiet neighborhoods, and are then faced with the possibility of a large multi-tenant building going up in their neighborhood. Mr. Dahlberg stated that with some of the changes going on right now with the closing of state hospitals and those kinds of things, there is going to be a need for housing a lot of those people. The � comprehensive plan should address some of those trends and maybe make some projections relative to those trends in years to come. � Ms. Dacy stated that regarding the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council wants a more detailed discussion with Planning staff on what the Planning Commission reviewed earlier. This will be discussed at the October 30, 1989, Council Conference meeting. She has suggested the Planning Commission chairperson be invited to this meeting also. 5. RECEIVE AUGUST 15 1989, JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY/ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the August 15, 1989, Joint Environmental Quality/Energy Commission meeting. IIPON A VOICS VOTE � ALL VOTING AYE � CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 6• RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 5 1989 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the September 5, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ° 7. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 7 1989 HUMAN RESOUR,CES COMMISSION MINUTES: PLANNING COMMISBION MEETING. BEPTEMBER 27. 1989 - PAGE 12 � MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the September 7, 1989, Human Resources Commission minutes. Ms. Sherek stated the Human Resources Commission members have expressed an interest in being involved in the comprehensive planning process relative to human service type issues such as the Comprehensive Plan. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 8. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 19, 1989, APPEALS CONIlKISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the September 19, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD 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 ^ deolared the september 27, 1989, Planninq Commission meetinq adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, c.�-- Lyn Saba Reco ing Secretary �"�