PL 10/11/1989 - 30710�
/"�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNINa CONII�lI88ION MEETING, OCTOBER 11, 1989
�MNNMMw�►w�N�YN�Y��w►.►���� V MMMM�������MN�MrMM�www.Yw�M�A�.►��N�►M��MMw�Mw
CALL TO ORDER•
Chairperson Betzold called the October 11, 1989, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Don Betzold, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna,
Paul Dahlberg
Members Absent: Dave Kondrick
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Jock Robertson, Community Development Director
Donald Tessmer, RMS Company
Steven Hardel, RMS Company
Jay Andrea, 670 Janesville Street,
Pete Shifstrom, 8420 East River Road, Coon Rapids
Chris Denardo, 10715 Linnet Street, Coon Rapids
APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1989. PLANNIPTG COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTIOId by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the
September 27, 1989, Planning Commission minutes with the following
amendment on to the motion on page 11, item 5: "seconded by Mr.
Saba" should be changed to "seconded by Mr. Dahlberct".
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #89-05. BY
�2MS COMPANY :
To rezone Outlot 1, Nagel's Woodlands, from C-2, General
Business, to M-1, Light Industrial, the same being 990 Osborne
Road N.E.
Mr. Dahlberg excused himself from discussion and voting on this
issue, because he is the architect for RMS Company.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, 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, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
n,
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARINa OPEN AT 7:32 P.M.
PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETINa� OCT. 11. 1989 - PAGE 2
�^�
Ms. McPherson stated RMS Company currently owns the building at
980 Osborne Road, which is adjacent to 990 Osborne Road. The small
outlot is zoned C-2, General Business. RMS Company is proposing
to construct an addition onto their existing building and a minor
portion of that addition will encroach into the outlot, therefore,
the petitioner is requesting the outlot be rezoned to M-1, Light
Industrial. Adjacent parcels in the area are currently zoned M-1,
Light Industrial, including the parcel with the existing building.
Ms. McPherson stated that since the existing building is on M-1
property and adjacent parcels to the west and south are also zoned
M-1, it would be appropriate to rezone the small outlot to M-1,
Light Industrial. This will allow RMS Company to add onto their
building and be in compliance with the Zoning Code. The remainder
of the parcel will be used for employee parking.
Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the rezoning request with three stipulations:
1.
2.
�"�.
3.
A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A landscape plan with underground irrigation shall be
submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The rezoning of Outlot 1 of Nagel's Woodlands shall be
continqent upon approval of the variance request, VAR
#89-26.
Mr. Tessmer stated he had nothing to add. He stated they are in
agreement with the stipulations as outlined by staff.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public
hearing.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTI1Ja AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Mr. Barna stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of
both variances requested by RMS Company on October 10, 1989. He
stated he had no problem with the rezoning request.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City
Council approval of a rezoning, ZOA #89-05, by RMS Company, to
rezone Outlot 1, Nagel's Woodlands, from C-2, General Business, to
M-1, Light Industrial, the same being 990 Osborne Road N.E., with
the following stipulations:
^� 1. A grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for
approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
PLANNINa CO1rII►SIBBION MEETINa, OCT. 11. 1989 - PAGE 3
��
2.
3.
A landscape plan with underground irrigation shall be
submitted for approval prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
The rezoning of Outlot 1 of Nagel's Woodlands shall be
contingent upon approval of the variance request, VAR
#89-26.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BTTZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that on October 23, 1989, the City Council
will set a public hearing for this item on November 13, 1989.
2. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO COMBINE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMISSION AND ENERGY COMMISSION:
Ms. Dacy stated that this subject was discussed by the Planning
Commission several months ago. The Environmental Quality and
Energy Commissions are now embarking on a solid waste fact-finding
process by interviewing various employees from other cities and
counties regarding their approach to recycling.
^, Ms. Dacy stated a factor in that fact-finding process is the
ability to get quorums on both commissions. That has been a factor
for the last year.
Ms. Dacy stated at a recent Council meeting, Councilmember Billings
initiated this request. The Energy Commission and Environmental
Quality Commission have reviewed the proposed changes to Chapter
6 of the City Code regarding Commissions. Included in the agenda
was the proposed changes along with a copy of Chapter 6 showing
where the proposed changes would be.
Ms. Dacy stated, essentially, the Environmental Quality and Energy
Commissions would be combined into one commission and would have
seven members. The impact on the Planning Commission would be that
there would be five members plus two at-large members appointed by
the Council. She believed that is consistent with the Planning
Commission's original discussion and direction.
Ms. Dacy stated staff would like the Commission to review the
proposed changes to Chapter 6, recommend any changes, and direct
staff to schedule the first reading of the ordinance to change
Chapter 6 before the City Council on October 23, 1989.
Mr. Saba stated both the commissions would like the membership to
stay at seven members. It will help in being able to have a quorum
�
for meetings.
� PLANNINa CONIlyIIBBION MEETINa� OCT. 11. 1989 - PAaE 4
Mr. Dahlberg stated there is quite a diversity among the EQC and
Energy Commission members in terms of interest and expertise. It
is healthy to keep the membership at seven members to be able to
retain that interest and expertise.
Mr. Dahlberg stated they would like the flexibility that if, at
some point they cannot maintain a membership of seven, they could
reduce the membership to five.
Mr. Betzold stated it is a good idea to merge the two commissions.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by
Council the approval of the
Commissions, of the City Code and
Commission and Energy Commission
Mr. Barna, to recommend to City
proposal to amend Chapter 6,
combine the Environmental Quality
into one commission.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOI.D DECLARED
THL MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
3. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED STATION LOCATIONS ALONG UNIVERSITY
AVENUE:
Mr. Robertson stated that since the Planning Commission last
discussed the proposed LRT system, staff has received some updated
� information from BRW that staff feels warrants more review by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission might want to
consider updating some of their recommendations about locations and
type of station.
�-�.
Mr. Robertson stated that at the February 8, 1989, meeting the
Commission did not know the parking requirements for commuter
stations, and the Commission recommended station locations at 57th
Avenue, Mississippi Street, Osborne Road, and 81st Avenue. BRW now
feels that the commuter (°park and ride" as opposed to "walk and
ride") station on University and Mississippi will now require 300
parking spaces. That is approximately equivalent to the two Target
parking lots. BRW states the 10,000 Auto Parts parking lot will
only accommodate 125 spaces, so they are asking about the use of
other Municipal Center parking facilities. He stated the new
parkinq ramp was built to handle the overflow parking and help
correct the parkinq problem the City already has in Center City,
and the use of these facilities was discouraged since the office
building is not fully leased and an expansion is planned for the
Fridley Plaza Clinic.
Mr. Robertson stated the next dimension of this problem is that
the Center City redevelopment is about 2/3 completed. However,
they still have a 10 acre parcel in the southwest quadrant, and
the HRA is looking at three proposals for it at its October 12,
1989, meeting. The question is: Do they reall.y want to jam up
the intersection with 300 more cars in the morning and 300 more
cars in the evening where, during the day, there is going to be
� PLANNINa CO�I88ION MESTINa� OCT. 11, 1989 - PAaE 5
�
nonproductive use of that land? Perhaps the solution would be to
convert the "park and ride" station originally conceived for
University/Mississippi to a"walk and ride" station and "drive up
and drop offn station and then provide those additional "park and
ride" facilities at Columbia Arena.
Mr. Robertson stated staff is asking the Planning Commission to
reconsider Columbia Arena. Does it make sense to have a"park and
ride�� station at both Columbia Arena and Osborne Road?
Mr. Betzold stated that if there is a station at the intersection
of Mississippi/University, isn't it going to be second nature for
people to park in the City's parking lot anyway? They are going
to have 300 cars parked there even if they do not have room for
them.
Mr. Barna stated people will park there or at Holly Shopping Center
or on the residential streets.
Ms. Sherek asked if they want to add 300 additional cars to the
intersection of 73rd/University in a residential area that is going
to be newly burdened with the Northco development. Probably a
minimum of 1/2 those cars will be during rush hour adding to an
already horrible traffic situation on 73rd Avenue.
Mr. Robertson stated 73rd Avenue is going to be widened.
Ms . Sherek stated it is not the width of the street that is the
problem; it is the volume of traffic on the street, and that volume
will be increased by putting a commuter station at Columbia Arena.
So, are they improving a situation or making it worse?
Ms. Sherek stated if they have a choice between putting a"park
and ride" station in an area that enters and exits in a residential
area or in a commercial area, she would vote for the commercial
area, whether it is Osborne Road or Mississippi Street.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that in the early stages, there was minimal
discussion about this, but it seemed it was always intended that
the LRT would go on the east side of University Avenue. It appears
to him that there is more land available for parking facilities on
the west side of University Avenue.
Mr. Robertson stated he believed the east side of University Avenue
was chosen because of the availability of right-of-way.
Mr. Robertson agreed with what Mr. Betzold had said earlier that
even with a��walk and ride" station on the southeast corner by the
Target building, they are going to get a certain amount of renegade
parking in the area. The idea would be to try to make a"park and
'�' ride" station as attractive as possible and the parking as close
to the station and loading platform as possible.
� PLANNINa COrIIrlIBBION M88TINa� OCT. 11, 1989 - PAa$ 6
Mr. Betzold stated that the Columbia Arena location seems ideal
because the lot is available during the day.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that is true; however, it was BRW's original
analysis to utilize the property Northco now has, not the Columbia
Arena lot.
Mr. Robertson stated that was true; however, he has now been
informed by BRW that they will consider the joint use of the
Columbia Arena lot because it is already an Anoka County facility.
Mr. Dahlberg asked the capacity for the Columbia Arena lot.
Mr. Robertson stated they are not sure, but know it can hold in
excess of 300 cars. However, there is still the remaining problem
of traffic on 73rd Avenue.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he believed some of that traffic will be
distributed onto 69th Avenue. They are assuming all the traffic
will be coming east and west on 73rd Avenue to get to the station,
but that is not necessarily the way it is going to work.
Mr. Robertson stated that is an excellent point, and they should
!�-�, get a follow-up projection from BRW on what percentage of traffic
will come east/west on 73rd Avenue and what percentage of traffic
will come north/south on University Avenue.
Ms. Sherek stated another way would be to get an analysis of how
traffic could be rerouted to 69th Avenue to distribute the traffic.
Mr. Barna stated there has been some discussion about the frontage
road being eliminated at 73rd Avenue. If that is the case, traffic
would have to go throuqh the Northco development to and from 73rd
Avenue.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that when staff asks for follow-up information,
the information be based on two scenarios:
1. If the frontage road is not there to 73rd which forces
all the traffic to 69th or through Northco's development
to get to 73rd Avenue.
2. If the frontage road remains so traffic can get onto 69th
Avenue and 73rd Avenue.
Mr. Robertson stated the question is: Will the "park and ride"
people arrive at the station all at once or earlier than people
arriving to work at the Northco development? If the latter is
true, then that would spread out some of the traffic.
;��
PLANNINa CONIIrlI88ION MEETINa� OCT. 11, 1989 - PAGE 7
,�,�,1 -
Mr. Betzold stated another question that can be asked of BRW is
that if BRW is committed to having a"walk and ride" station at
Mississippi/University, where will the cars be parked and how can
the City control the parking situation?
Mr. Dahlberg stated if the northeast quadrant of University/
Mississippi becomes a 125 car lot, how is the parking to be
controlled? By permit for LRT?
Mr. Dahlberg stated he had a concern regarding 73rd Avenue. Of
all the east/west streets in Fridley that provide access to
University and Highway 65 and Central Avenue, 73rd Avenue is the
only street without stop signs, and that is why it is used as
heavily as it is. It would seem to be wiser to have Osborne Road
as the street without stop signs or have Osborne with traffic
controlled intersections.
Mr. Betzold stated when they first started the LRT discussions,
they agreed that at some point the public should become involved.
He is now getting very concerned about making these kinds of
discussions without any public input. He felt they are getting to
the point where they should have a public hearing fairly soon.
Ms. Sherek stated they have to give this a lot of consideration.
,� There are other sites they could be looking at for the "park and
ride" stations. Once the LRT is in, it is going to be here for a
long time. If it means exploring the idea of having the corridor
run down the west side of the street with a pedestrian bridge over
University Avenue, then maybe they should do that.
Mr. Dahlberg stated the Commission's recommendation was that if
the corridor is on the east side that they retain all the parking
facilities on the east side as well. Now, they might have to
compromise and say they will allow it on the west side only if
there is a pedestrian walk bridge over or under University Avenue
to the station so pedestrians do not have to compete with the
traffic on University Avenue.
Ms. Dacy
is that
process.
for its
process.
has made
It might
does not
stated her understanding of the public hearing process
BRW is still going through the preliminary engineering
Then Anoka County will forward the plan to each community
review and approval. She thought that was a 6-9 month
Even with the change from last winter to this winter, BRW
the demand projection of 300 cars at the intersection.
be more harmful to go to the public now if Anoka County
have adequate information.
Mr. Robertson stated a public information meeting was originally
scheduled by BRW for September but it had to be cancelled.
�'� Mr. Betzold stated it is a valid concern that they do want to have
all the information together before going before the public; but
PLANNINa COI�II�iI86ION MEETING. OCT. 11, 1989 PAGE 8
'� -
the Commission does not control this process. He is afraid that
there is going to be a point in time when a lot of rumors and
misinformation can start coming out, and he did not want someone
to point to the Fridley Planning Commission that they were the ones
who made the decision without public input.
Mr. Saba stated it could be worse, though, if they do not have
adequate information.
Mr. Robertson stated he would forward the Planning Commission's
concern about public input to BRW.
Ms. Sherek stated that when they do have a public hearing, she
would like representatives from BRW to attend that meeting.
Ms. Sherek stated she felt BRW does have to make a decision on the
corridor first before they can start talking about stations.
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, that the Planning
Commission recognizes the updated information presented by staff
and is willing to update their recommendations after staff gets
more information on the following issues:
1. The closing off of 73rd; directing traffic to 69th; or
,�, traffic through the Northco development to 73rd.
2. The traffic assignments east/west on 73rd Avenue and the
impact of that traffic on the residential area to the
north.
3. The impact on renegade parking in the Center City area
if there is a"walk and ride" station located at
University/Mississippi.
4. The implication of parking facilities on the opposite
side of the roadway from the rail right-of-way with a
pedestrian bridge.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRILD QNANIMOIIBLY.
4. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO LOT COVERAGE REOUIREMENTS IN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS:
Ms. McPherson stated the reason for the initiation of the code
change was in response to a variance request by Cortron
Manufacturing in September 1989. In the discussion at the City
Council meeting, it was discussed that information be gathered on
how other cities handle lot coverage requirements. That
information was included as items B and B2 in the Commission
�'�` agenda .
PLANNIN� COMMIS�ION MEETINa, OCT. 11, 1989 - PAG$ 9
� -
Ms. McPherson stated, as proposed, the increase by 10� of all the
lot coverage requirements would occur for both commercial and
industrial districts. Staff has recommended, however, that the
increase only be allowed in industrial districts as the lot usage
in commercial districts in usually more intense, the parking
requirements are higher, and the ratios are greater. In industrial
districts, many times the expansions that cause the increase in lot
coverage are usually for warehousing and some manufacturing uses.
The parking ratios are 1 parking space for 2,000 sq. ft. so the
parking demand is not as greatly increased as the retail use which
is 1 parking space for 150 sq. ft.
Ms. McPherson stated also included was a list of lot coverage
variances that have been requested in past years. As stated in
the memo dated October 6, 1989, all lot variances were within
industrial districts.
Ms. Dacy stated it was Councilmember Billings� proposal to increase
lot coverage by 10� as a special use permit (Exhibit A).
Mr. Dahlberg asked why the special use permit situation would be
any better than just increasing the allowable lot coverage by 10�
to 50� without a special use permit in the M-1 district.
,t'� Mr. Barna stated maybe the Council could just give the Appeals
Commission some direction that the Council was comfortable with
variances for lot coverage up to 50�.
Ms. Dacy stated that to choose between amending the ordinance or
considering each case on a variance basis, she would recommend that
the ordinance be changed so that there could not be a challenge if
a variance was denied for whatever reason.
Mr. Dahlberg agreed with Ms. Dacy. He stated it should not be a
variance situation, but what is the benefit to having it allowed
with a special use permit?
Ms. Dacy stated staff's initial concern was to make sure that the
requests would have adequate parking, to analyze the long term
situation if the use was to change over in the future, and to look
at adjacent uses. In the case of ELO Engineering, there was an
issue about shared parking.
Ms. Dacy stated the City has the burden of proof to show if there
are any problems with the special use permit.
Mr. Barna stated that with the ELO Engineering lot coverage
variance, it was revealed that there was insufficient parking. The
Appeals Commission put on a contingency of gaining additional
,� property which ELO was not able to do and, therefore, denied the
�` variance for a variance from 46.5o to 49.5�. Handling it that way
has kind of limited lot coverage to 45-47�.
PLANNINQ COMMI88ION MEETING OCT. il. 1989 - PAGE 10
�.�;\ -
Ms. Sherek stated that if someone comes in requesting an increase
in lot coverage from 40% to 50� and the ordinance says 50�a, doesn't
the petitioner still have to demonstrate adequate parking? If they
cannot meet their parking requirement, it makes no difference if
there is a special use permit procedure or not. The value she saw
in the special use permit process is if the ordinance is set for
50�, then they will get requests for 55�.
Mr. Saba stated the whole electronic industry and sheet metal
industry is changing, and corporations are requiring more space
for storage of inventory in their buildings. By denying this type
of lot coverage, they could lose a lot of business. That is what
is happening to companies like ELO Engineering.
Mr. Betzold stated the variance process is always available, but
then the burden is on the petitioner to show a hardship. If they
go ahead and increase lot coverage to 50� with a special use
permit, then they are saying it is all right, and the City has to
come up with good reasons why the request should be turned down.
They have only had five lot coverage variance requests in five
years, so he really did not see this as an issue. He would almost
rather see a sunset provision where there would at least be some
review at some point in the future so they do not have a needless
,� procedure on the books.
Ms. Sherek stated allowing 50% lot coverage with a special use
permit is still the same thing as allowing 50�, but the City is
requiring the petitioner to jump through some hoops. She felt they
should either allow 50% or just leave it as it is now.
Mr. Barna stated he basically agreed with Ms. Sherek. If they are
going to have a percentage at all, he liked what some of the other
cities are doing where the sethack requirements and parking
requirements basically control the lot coverage.
Mr. Dahlberg stated the danger there is if they increase the number
too much (and 50� is not outrageous), they have to take into
account that there is parking lot and hard surface that has to be
accommodated on the parcel. At around 40� lot coverage and adding
the parking and hard surface, the total building and hard surface
area on the lot could be at approximately 75-80� maximum. That is
all right, but as soon as they start to increase the lot coverage
to 50�, then maybe the total developed piece of property including
parking and hard surface is closer to 90�, and that becomes a
little more difficult to deal with. The objective is to have some
green space and landscaped treatment on each parcel.
Ms. Sherek stated maybe they should add an additional statement
that says the total lot coverage cannot exceed a certain
�` percentaqe.
��
�
��
PLANNINa CON�lI88ION MEETING. OCT. 11. 1989 PAGE 11
Mr. Dahlberg asked staff if there has been any language to that
effect in other cities ordinances.
Ms. Dacy stated some ordinances do not have a building coverage;
they will have a total impervious surface. She stated the City's
parking setbacks and building setbacks are set up so that 88� of
the lot can be covered. She stated staff looked at that option,
and they could state in the ordinance that lot coverage maximum is
88�, but they felt uncomfortable stating that. On the other hand,
they looked at what would happen if they reduced that to 75� or 80�
total. Based on how Fridley has developed, they would probably
render a number of properties nonconforming because basically
everyone has built to those parking and building setbacks in the
commercial and industrial districts.
Mr. Barna stated that with the variance process, they look at each
individual lot and each individual situation.
Ms. Dacy stated staff wants to avoid the variance procedure,
because of the hardship test. She would rather have the special
use permit process rather than the variance process.
Mr. Betzold stated the issues are:
1.
2.
Should they go to 50� lot coverage?
If so, should they also require a special use permit?
Ms. Dacy stated the Planning Commission must remember that the
proposal is to increase the lot coverage by 10% for more than one
story buildings.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to consider Ms. Sherek's
suggestion about an additional statement that total lot coverage
of building and hard surface will not exceed, in this case, 88�.
The Commission members agreed to limit the amendment to industrial
districts only.
MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City
Council approval of the proposed change in the Zoning Code for lot
coverage in industrial districts only as follows:
(4) The above maximum lot coverages in (1) may be increased
by ten percent (10�) of the lot size; however, in no
event may the total impervious lot surface exceed 88� of
the total square footage.
Ms. Sherek stated she did not want to require a special use permit
for the increase in lot coverage.
,� PLANNINa COMMI88ION ME$TING� OCT. 11, 1989 - PAa� 12
, --
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would rather see the special use permit
included as part of the proposed change, primarily from the
standpoint that if they do it at 50�, then it will be easier for
people to go after larger percentages. Most people will look at
this and say 40� is allowable, and the special use process to get
more than 40�5 might deter some people.
Mr. Betzold stated he did not know if the special use permit adds
any protection, because a person or a company still has to get a
building permit, and there are requirements with the building
permit, i.e., parking requirements.
Ms. Dacy stated Fridley�s parking requirements are based on square
footage, not on employee generation, so they could get a very small
warehouse with a large number of employees, or vice versa. Staff
is evaluating whether or not they want to change that to require
one space per °x�� amount of employees on the largest shift.
Ms. Sherek stated that is not an issue before the Commission now,
but her opinion on that is that commercial property changes hands
frequently enough that the parking should be planned to the highest
density of employees that are anticipated in that type of building
at any point, not necessarily for the use currently in the
building.
r''� Ms. Sherek stated she did not think they wanted to get into that
kind of evaluation, because that is more or less saying that the
use to which the building is put today is its use in perpetuity.
Whatever the parking requirement is at the time a person or company
comes in for a building permit, whether or not there is a special
use permit, that parking requirement has to be met. If they do not
change that and someone comes in with an unusual situation, there
is always the variance process.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, BETZOLD� BHERER, SABA, BARNA VOTIN(3 AYE�
DAHLBERa VOTINa NAY, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECI,ARED THE MOTION
CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-1.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he does not object to the 50� lot coverage,
but does feel the special use permit should be included.
5. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO PARKING STALL SIZES:
Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending a change in parking stall
sizes from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x 20 ft. (Option #3). Staff
feels the double striping is reasonable.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to discuss the issue of compact
parking stalls. Most municipalities have some language in their
parking ordinances relative to allowing compact stalls. Stall
,,,� widths for compact spaces vary from 7.5 - 8.5 feet, and percentages
of allowable stalls vary from 10-50� of the total in a given
parking lot. He was not sure he advocated compact stalls, but he
r�"�,
PLANNINa COIrIIKI88ION MEETINa� OCT. 11, 1989 PAaB 13
was sure that on occasion a developer is going to request some
compact spaces.
Ms . Sherek stated compact spaces work f ine in a parking ramp or
against a wall where the appropriate signage is posted that it is
for compact parking only so it can be somewhat controlled.
Mr. Dahlberg asked the Commission if they wanted to add some
language that relates to the issue of compact spaces.
Ms. Dacy stated some compact parking is fairly common now. She
has seen as high as 20% of a parking lot for compact stalls.
Mr. Dahlberg asked if compact stalls have been allowed by variance.
Mr. Barna stated they have never granted a variance for parking
stalls below 9 feet.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that he did not see too much benefit for
compact stalls. Nine feet will make a significant difference in
Fridley. If they get any requests for compact stalls, then those
can always go through the variance process and be judged on an
individual basis.
,� MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to the
City Council approval to amend the definition of a parking stall
size from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x 20 ft. with double striping
and retain the language regarding the reduction of stall depth when
abutting a boulevard (Option #3 as presented in the staff report).
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY.
6. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO SIGN ORDINANCE•
Ms. McPherson stated staff incorporated the suggestions discussed
at the September 27, 1989, Planning Commission meeting. Staff has
also received sign ordinances from other cities, the result of
which are in the °Signs�� chart located in the agenda. The chart
was limited to deal with those issues that were discussed at the
September 27th meeting: campaign signs, temporary signs, porta
panels, banners, streamers, etc.
Mr. Barna referred to Section 214.04.09, Signs Prohibited in All
Districts: Any signs which are attached to trees, fences, utility
poles or other such permanent supports, not specifically intended
as sign structures.
Mr. Barna stated chain link fences often have the manufacturers'
„� identification logo on them. Could some wording be added that
' allows this type of signage, also warning signs such as ��No
Trespassing", etc., on fences?
�,
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING� OCT. 11. 1989 - PAaB 14
Ms. McPherson stated staff will amend that section.
Ms. McPherson stated staff improved the definition for banners and
pennants. They also added a definition for non-profit
organization. She would like the Commission to discuss the non-
profit organization issue, as well as Exhibits A and B in the
agenda which deal with specific language for signs by non-profit
organizations.
Ms. McPherson stated under "Political Signs", they made the
suggested recommended changes to the size of the signs and made
the time limits a little more specific. There really wasn't a
consensus on the amount of deposit for political signs, so staff
used the $200 deposit which is consistent with the other temporary
fee requirement.
Mr. Saba stated he agreed with that amount.
Mr. Barna stated the person or organization can always go before
the City Council to have the fee waived.
Mr. Betzold stated he has trouble equating businesses with
political candidates, and he thought $100 would be more reasonable.
�^,
Mr. Barna stated the sign ordinance does not prohibit roof signs.
There is still a roof sign on what used to be Raphael's which
should have been removed years ago. Roof signs should be
prohibited in the City of Fridley.
Mr. Betzold agreed with the prohibition of roof signs.
Ms. McPherson stated she thought there should be some clarification
on special event signs. Did the Commission want bills and posters
to require a deposit also? They have added the language that
prohibits such signs on utility poles and non sign-like structures.
Mr. Betzold stated after what he saw this summer where the use of
posters was abused in the City of Fridley, he never wanted to see
anything like that again. People should be discouraged from
putting the bills and posters on utility poles. Garage sale signs
can always be put on posts in the ground with the property owner's
permission. He stated he is less concerned about the garage sale
notices that are put up and taken down within a few days, than he
is about the bills and posters.
Mr. Barna stated the ordinance should address recycling signs. They
should be allowed in the public right-of-way.
Ms. Dacy stated those signs could be added to the list of signs
�` permitted in all districts.
�,
PLANNINa COMMIBBION MEETINa, OCT. 11. 1989 - PAGE 15
Ms. McPherson stated at the last meeting, the Commission discussed
the issue of requiring two permits per year for non-profit
organizations. In going through the ordinances received from other
cities, there were two cities, Champlin and Brooklyn Center, that
allowed non-profit organizations special consideration for signage,
banners, porta-panels, etc., over business temporary signs. That
is the language in Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Does the Commission
want to include that type of language in the ordinance or do they
want to change the temporary sign ordinance to allow more signs?
What does the Commission want to do to resolve the issues of the
churches and schools and other non-profit organizations in the
issue of two permits per year?
Mr. Betzold suggested that rather than say "non-profit"
organizations, they refer to them as "community organizations".
Non-profit does have a very specific meaning. The non-profit
organization has to have some connection with the City of Fridley
as they do not want non-profit organizations from another city
wanting to put up banners in the City of Fridley. It should be a
civic community organization located within the City of Fridley.
Ms. McPherson stated that under "Special Event Signs", item B
states that "Signs over the public right-of-way must have City
Council approval." However, the two exhibits from Champlin and
^ Brooklyn Center call out the fact that there might be signs
existing that are not on the property where the event is being
held, and they have restrictions on those signs that are allowed.
That becomes another issue. Does the Commission want to allow
signage on property other than that owned by the organization?
Mr. Barna stated some non-profit organizations such as the Jaycees
do not own their own property.
Ms. Dacy stated she did not think they should be encouraging off-
premise signs. All signs should be on the owner's property.
Mr. Dahlberg stated it is virtually impossible for the Commission
to anticipate and come up with language for every conceivable
situation that can occur in the City of Fridley.
Ms. Dacy stated both the Champlin and Brooklyn Park ordinances
would be good if they want the ability for the Jaycees or Lions
Club to put up off-premise signage for special events. Those
ordinances list specific standards for signs on or off the
organization�s property.
Mr. Betzold stated Exhibit B spells out the requirements a little
better.
Mr. Saba stated Exhibit B seems easier to understand and allows a
�' little more leeway for non-profit organizations.
�,
�
�
PLANNINa CO1�II�I88ION MEETINa� OCT. 11. 1989 PAGE 16
Ms. McPherson stated the language in Exhibit B does not include a
permit, but they could have the organization fill out a permit so
the City knows when the sign is going up, when it will come down,
and who is the responsible party.
Ms. Sherek agreed there should be a permit, but she also thought
there should a refundable deposit.
Mr. Dahlberg stated that since it is a temporary sign, a deposit
would fall under that category.
Mr. Dahlberg suggested the following changes to Exhibit B:
(1) Add some language that states that all signs except
readerboards shall not exceed a certain square footage.
(2) Signs shall not be posted in excess of �e�r-(�e-} fourteen
(14) days prior to the event and shall be removed no
later than ���=_ '°` five (5) days following the final
:-.
date of the event.
(4) He would suggest staff add a statement similar to one
Item 1 in Exhibit A: ��If building mounted, these signs
shall be flat wall signs and shall not project above the
roof line. If ground mounted, the top shall be no more
than six (6) feet above ground level.��
Ms. McPherson stated they will add an item (7) and item (8) to
Exhibit B for controls on the permit and the deposit.
Mr. Betzold stated he would like the definition of non-profit
organizations changed to community organizations that include non-
profit organizations, churches, civic organizations, etc., located
within the City of Fridley.
Mr. Dahlberg stated wherever non-profit organization occurs in the
ordinance, it should be changed to community organization.
Mr. Dahlberg stated he again wanted to raise his objection to signs
over the right-of-way, even the language does state that signs are
allowed over the right-of-way with Council approval. He personally
objected to those signs across roadways.
Mr. Dahlberg stated the ordinance refers to the number of permits
allowed with specific instances based on zoning. It doesn't
specifically address the issue of non-profit organizations. Non-
profit organizations fall into a separate category. It was his
personal opinion that it would work better to include in Section
214.16 under Sign Permit Requirements a chart or table that
illustrates the number of permits allowed and how many permits per
year for each of the zoning districts and/or types of uses, i.e.,
non-profit organizations. It is like taking item 6 out of the
PLANNINa COrIIKIBBION MEETINa, OCT. 11, 1989 - PAGE 17
��
other sections and consolidating each one into the sigri permit
requirement section.
Ms. McPherson stated right now the interpretation is that non-
profit organizations can only have two permits per year which would
include up to 12 signs for each permit. Did the Commission want
to change the "two" to a larger number?
Mr. Dahlberg stated he would suggest they look at a larger number.
Mr. Barna agreed. Since non-profit organizations are dependent on
volunteer workers, it is hard to say how many special events they
will have.
Mr. Betzold stated he did not see any organization having that many
activities where it would be a problem.
Ms. Dacy stated she would prefer to have the non-profit
organizations not even referred to in the original ordinance but
in a completely separate section.
Ms. McPherson stated non-profit organizations could be added as
item (9) in E�chibit B.
r--� Mr. Saba and Ms. Sherek agreed that the non-profit organizations
should be included in the chart or table in Section 214.16.
MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City
Council approval of the amendments as discussed, to incorporate
Exhibit B to cover community organizations, and to request those
requirements be included in a table or chart for easy perusal.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY.
7. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 11 1989, PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the
September 11, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting.
IIpon a voiae vote, all votinq aye, Chairpereon Betzold deolare� the
ootober 12, 1989, Planninq Commiasion meetinq adjourned at 9:50
�
p.m.
PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETINa� OCT. il. 1989 - PAdE 18
�
Respectfully submitted,
Lyn Saba
Recording Secretary
�
�"�