Loading...
PL 08/24/1994 - 6938� �'_'1 , �--.. pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY� AIIGIIST 24� 1994 7:30 P.M• PUBLIC COPY City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1994 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER• ROLL CALL� APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 10, 1994 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #94- 09, BY GARY MACIEJ� Pursuant to stipulation #1 of a previous special use permit request, SP #88-12, specifically the.stipulation which states: "The petitioner agrees that any future re-use of the building i�s subject.to finding, through the�special use permit process, that the re-use would be compatible witi� the surrounding neighborhood." The r.equest would al.low the�building to be occupied by a cleaning service. The request is for Lots:27 and 28, Block 12, Hyde Park Addition, the same being 5973 - 3rd /� Street N.E. � REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #93-12, BY DOUG LEMAY OF ANIMAL MEDICAL CLINIC; 5895 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL OUAT�ITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19. 1994 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 1. 1994 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 9, 1994 OTHER BUSINESS• ADJOURNMENT /"°1 . � /" � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING CO1�lISSION MEETING� AIIGII3T 10, 1994 CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the August 10, 1994, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Presents Dave Newman, LeRoy Oquist, Dean Saba, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Dave Rondrick, Diane Savage, Connie Modig Others Present: Barb Dacy, Community De�relopme�it Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Glenn Vande Water, Peterson.Environmental Consultants, Inc. � Mike BYack, Royal Oaks Realty ICeith Eibensteiner, Biltmore Construction Warren Paulson, 6881 Highway 65.N.E. ^ David Darrell, Archite+ct, 4812 Larkspur Lane, Edina, Minnesota � � . Terry Reyes, 1479 N.�Danube Road N.E. � John Haluska, 5660 Arthur Street Dennis & Ann Dewing, 1501 Camelot Lar►e � Jan Filer, Burnet Realty, 10 Rice Creek-Way Timothy Strong, 10884 Avocet Street N.W., Coon Rapids, Minnesota Shirley Nevala, 1476 - 64th Avenue N.E. � APPROVAL OF JULY 13 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: � MOTION by Mr. Oguist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to approve the July 13, 1994, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER30N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 1. _(Tabled from Julv 27 1994 Planning Commission Meetin,g) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP �94-08, BY WARREN PAULSON: Per Section 205.09.01.C.(9) of the Fridley City Code, to allow the expansion of a motel in the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling District, on Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block i, Valley View Manor, the same being 6881 Highway 65.N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remov�e from the table consideration of the Special Use Permit Request, SP �94-08. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10. 1994 PAGE 2 MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the reading of the public hearing notice and to open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPER60N NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBI�IC HEARING OPEN AT 7:35 P.M. Mr. Hickok stated the property is located adjacent to Highway 65 in the Valley View Manor Addition. The site is zoned R-3, General Multiple Residential, and is located just north of 68th Avenue. The request for a special use permit is to expand the existing motel facility at the northeast corner of Highway 65 and 68th Avenue N.E. Currently, a 14-unit motel exists on the site along with office and living quarters.• The office and living quarters are perpendicular and to the south of the motel units. The proposal 'is to add a 2-story with a walkout addition to provide 9 additional units in the complex. Mr. Hickok stated tHe motel was built in 1960.and predated the requizements for a special use permit. In 1965, the complex was badly damaged by a tornado and was then reconstructed. In 1968, there was a request to replace the landscaping on the east edge of the site with a redwood privacy fence. The City Council approved the fence as a separation of the.residential area and motel site.� In 1982, a variance was.�approved to complete an addition on the south edge of the residential complex for a 26 foot x 10 foot dec7c and another to encroach on the setback ar.ea f or a, vestibule f�r � a�-:.,weather ��tight entry • into the of f ice area . In 1987 and in 1992, there were variances requested for�signs on the site. Mr. Hickok stated the Appeals Commission reviewed four variances related to this request at their July 12 meeting and recommended approval. Staff concur with the recommendation. These include: 1. To reduce the front yard setback from 35 feet to 10 feet. (This is an existing condition for the deck along the residential side of the complex.) 2. To reduce the side corner setback from 25 feet to 30.33 feet. (This is related to the new construction and proximity to the property line adjacent to Highway 65.) 3. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 19.44.feet. (The rear yard is�to the north and abuts to the Rice Creek area. .The new addition will not encroach any more than the existing structure.) . � n 4. To improve vehicle turning movement by reducing the parking setback from 20 feet.to 18 feet. /`\ � i �,, PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa, AIIGUST 10, 1994 PAGE 3 Mr. Hickok stated staff has worked with the developer to get a better understanding of how the addition would relate to the complex as it exists on site. At grade level, there are 2 stories. Along Rice Creek, there is a walkout. The walkout was not part of the original design but poor soil conditions in the area require either serious soil correction or, as an alternative, build a foundation rather than a 2-story addition on a slab. Mr. Hickok stated there are some transportation issues related to this. A stop sign has been r�ecommended on the site plan. The drive comes out to 68th Avenue. At the point where the drive meets 68th Avenue, a stop sign has been recommended for traffic control to stop traffic before entering.68th Avenue. The residents in the.area also voiced concerns about an uncontrolled intersection at 68th Avenue and Highway 65. Staff discussed this with the Public Works�Director �ho evaluated the need according to established criteria. It is the belief of the Public Works Director that this is not an intersection that w�rrants control. Therefore, staff would not recommend sto� lights at this intersection. � � NIr. Hickok stated the existing structure and the new additi,on. �''��:� represent 20� lot coverage. The existing structure is 6,220 square feet. The foot print o�f the addition is 2,728 square feet. Staff recommends appro�al with the following stipulations: ��:: .- 1. A stop sign shall be installed by the developer at�the poirit where the parking lot drive enters onto 68th Avenue. The � sign would be the cost and responsibility of the motel. 2. The addition shall be built with an architectural character consistent with the character of the existing motel complex. , 3. No windows shall be placed on�the secQnd story of the east side of the building addition. 4: The parking lot shall be re-striped to identify the 35 parking spaces indicated by the petitioner's site plan. 5. The new parking surface shall include curb and gutter around the expanded parking perimeter. The curb and gutter is to be concrete and of a staff-approved design. 6. Erosion control fencing shall be installed during construction to assure no construction-related soil is carried into Rice Creek or adjacent landscape. �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGQST 10. 1994 PAGE 4 /"� 7. Rip-rap erosion control shall be installed at the base of the roof drain and at the point where the parking lot swale empties surface water onto the landscaped portion of the site. 8. All landscape areas shall be restored. 9. Although not specifically required by Code, staff suggests that the three 20" oaks removed by construction be replaced by three 2 1/2" oaks in an alternate location on the site. Mr. Hickok stated the stipulations have been discussed with the petitioner. The concern by the petitioner concerning the oak trees is that there may not be a place for those three oak trees. Again, the Code does not stipulate this. It was a suggestion by staff. Mt. Saba asked where the dumpster is located. Mr. Hickok stated he believed there was a service drive at the rear•which is used for the dumpster enclosure and�a util�ty shed. This will stay in the same location. Mr. Newman asked where staff thought it appropriate to p�ace three oak trees. Mr. Hickok stated the feeling of staff is•that_;whether,�t;;is�:oak ..:;�: trees or other trees it would be nice to replace those trees.. , The existing trees are in a location where they must be removed � for the addition. He felt staff.could work with the developer to identify a site for the•trees. . � Mr. Paulson stated he had no additional information.,.to�provide. The architect, Mr. David Darrell, is present if there°are any questions. As far as the landscaping, there is a row of pine.and blue spx�uce trees across the front already. Since he has purchased the property, he had planted other trees in just about every place it is possible to put a tree. On the west side, there will be some foundation shrubs along the sidewalk to landscape that area. It is possible to put some trees on the north side of the property right on the property line and that would almost be part of Rice Creek Watershed. Mr. Darrell stated there is a mass of trees along the creek that provide a nice backdrop. That beside.the present landscaping is sufficient. Mr. Newman asked where the dumpster is located. Mr. Paulson stated, along the back side of the property, there is � a 3-stall garage with a fence that comes�out 8 feet and the - i"�, PLANNINa COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIBT 10. 1994 PAGE 5 dumpster is behind-that fence. It is only visible when driving. back on the service road. There will be no change in that a.rea. Mr. Oquist asked Mr. Paulson if he was aware of the stipulations and if he had problems with any of them. Mr. Paulson stated no, although Mr. Hickok did mention something earlier in the day about curb and gutter to come out to the street. Mr. Hickok stated the curb �ias been proposed to terminate at the property line. The Engineering staff would prefer the owner to bring the.curb out.to tY�e radius at the entrance of the drive at 68th Avenue.. At the time when 68th Avenue is improved, that new curb would match up with the property curb and would be complete back into the development. It does serve as the drive into this development and with the construction and addition of curb our Engineering staff has asked to look at extending that curb to the south. � Mr. Newman asked if 'the Rice Creek Trail was in.front of the � building. � -� Mr. Paulson stated the trail is in front of the motel�near the entrance to the motel: � . . " Mr. Newman asked if the curb posed a p�oblem. � __ � � Mr. Paulson stated it does not pose a problem. That area is city property but the additional expense would be minimal and he could do that. He would need staff to indicate where to locate the curb�so it is properly located. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close'the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIATG AYE, CHAIRpERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T$E pIIBLIC HE1�iRING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend approval of Special Use Permit, SP #94-08, by Warren Paulson, to allow the expansion of a motel in the R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling District, on Lats 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, Valley View Manor, the same being 6881 Highway 65 N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. A stop sign shall be.installed by the developer at the point where the parking lot drive enters onto 68th Avenue. The sign would be the cost'and responsibility of the motel. '�� 2. The addition shall be built with an architectural character consistent with the character of the existing motel complex. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 6 � 3. No windows shall be placed on the second story of the east side of the building addition. � 4. The parking lot shall be re-striped to identify the 35 parking spaces indicated by the petitioner's site plan. 5. The new parking surface shall include curb and gutter around the expanded parking perimeter: The curb and gutter is to be concrete and of a staff-approved design and is to extend out to 68th Avenue. The point of termination shall be specified by the Engineering Department staff. . 6. Erosion control fencing.shall be installed during construction to assure no construct•ion-related soil. is carried into Rice Creek or adjacent landscape. � 7. Rip-rap erosion control shall be installed at the base of the roof drain and at the�point where�the parking lot swale empties surface water onto the landscaped portion of the site. 8. Al1 landscape areas shall be restored. 9. Although not specifically required by Code,'staff.suggests �^, I that the three 20" oaks removed by construction be replaced by three.2 1/2" oaks in an alternate location on the._si�e.• - � . _ �r� ? QPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPER80N NEWMAN DECLARED 7 T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. � - Ms. McPherson stated the requests for t'!ie Special.Use Permit and Variances would be reviewed by the City Council at their meeting on August 15. ., , 2. jTabled from City Council mceting of Julv 25, 1994) PUBLIC HEARING• CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT RE4UEST, P.S. #94-05 BY KEITH EIBENSTEINER FOR BILTMORE CONSTRUCTION OF. NEW BRIGHTON, INC.: To subdivide part of Lot 1, Block 1, Grac� High School Addition into nine new single family lots, generally located in the southeast corner of the Totino-Grace High School property at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to remove from the table consideration of the Preliminary Plat Request, P.S. #94-05. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTIOld CARRIE� IINANIMOIISLY. �� �, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10. 1994 PAGE 7 Ms. McPherson stated the Totino-Grace plat request was tabled by the Planning Commission at the June.29, 1994, meeting., The plat request is to create 9 single family lots - 2 lots on the west side of the Totino-Grace property which will front directly on Matterhorn Drive and 7 lots on th� east side with access on a cul de sac proposed to be titled Royal Oak Court. This area of the site is heavily wooded with a variety of oak and maple trees. The property has 2 wetlands on the site which fall under the protection of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act and the City's 0-4, Wetland Overlay Ordinance. The petitioner is not proposing to impact the wetlands by draining or filling them in any way so they would be exempt from the provisions of the 1991 Wetland Conservation Ac� as well as the 0-4, Wetland Ov�rlay Ordinance. Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission at their June 29, 1994, meeting moved to recommend that the request for an Environmental.Assessment.Worksheet (EAW) by the Friends of Innsbruck Park be.considered by.the City Council. The City Council at its �uly 11, 1994, did consider the question which was tabled to allow staff time to research a number of items. Staff worked with Pe�erson Environmental Consulting to address the issues raised.in the petition by the Friends of Innsbruck Park.� Their response is included in the agenda packet. At the Julg,22, ;^� 1994, meeting, the City Council determined an EAW would not be required and that it would not.authorize any further ecological or environmental studies. The Friends of Innsbruck Park have�� requested that the City consider::acquiring the':3.5 acresr.and add it to the.City's open space system. The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the request at their August 1, 3994, meeting.. The Commission stated they would accept the 3.5 acres into the park system if it were to be donated by an outside group or if municipal funding other.than park funds was to be used. If it was not to become part of the park system, the Commission stated that the property could be developed with careful scrutiny of compliance with tlie stipulations that staff has presented to the Commission. Ms. McPherson stated there are some amendments to the proposed stipulations. The petitioner sen_t in writing a response to staff's stipulations originally submitted for review on June 29. Staff has reviewed the stipulations presented by the petitioner and have made some amendments to their amendments. She reviewed those items amended as follows: Stipulation #4, the petitioner has requested that we use the term "significant" trees. Staff is defining significant trees as those which are 6" or greater in caliper. This will clearly differentiate between shrubby materials on the site as opposed to.mature trees. n • PLANNING CON�II88ION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 8 � Stipulation #14 adds the language "Individual grading, erosion control, and tree preservation plans are to be submitted for each lot prior to the issuance of a building permit:" Stipulation #17 has been amended to add the terms "the lowest basement floor opening shall be at the 950 or above elevation for Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1" and also has been amended to read and "the lowest basement floor opening shall be at the 955 elevation or above for Lot 7, Block 1." This is in response to the discussion regarding the vertical distance of these lots from the wetlands on the site in addition tp the horizontal distance which is.ac�dressed in Stipulation 18 where staff set the iaaximum dista.nce of the � dwellings from the lot lines. . Stipulation #20 concerns the preservation of trees.. The . ��+I petitioner has submitted a more specific and revised . •�, stipulation. This stipulation now reads "Individual M grading, erosion control, and tree preservatior� plans for 5` each lot shall�clearly show a) the grading limits for the � �' construction of the new home; b) the location of warning signage (tree protection ribbon) that will be placed around the perimeter of the construction limits protecting all � �, significant trees outside the const�uction limits; and c) the location of any significant trees to b� saved inside the construction limits. ,Any significant.trees to be saved -� shall have fencing around it extended out to the dripline." � � Staff has amended the stipulation to include the words ".Work� shall not commence until City staff has field inspected �tems B and C of the stipulation." Stipulation #21 has been amended to add the words,."The lot . . shall not be clear cut of sicrnificant trees." L .- Ms. McPherson stated the Commission does not have the Park and Recreation minutes before them. During the discussion regarding the plat, Mr. Young had discussed the impact of clearing the . understory vegetation adjacent to the properties to the south. Staff is proposing to add another stipulation, #22, to establish a 15-foot."no cut" easement along the south property lines of Lots 1�5, Block 1. The easement would prohibit cutting trees or clearing understory except to remove dead or diseased trees. Mr. Newman stated they had.a letter dated August 2 from Royal Oaks Realty and askecl if those are the comments incorporated into the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated yes. As a�result of that letter, some of the original stipulations have been removed. '� �", PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 9 Mr. Newman asked, concerning those items contained in the letter of August 2, are there any areas of d�isagreement which should be considered. Other than the fact that the developer objects to. some of the language, he does understand the stipulations. Ms. McPherson stated this was correct. The petitioner called Ms. Dacy regarding stipulations #4, #22, and also has comments regarding the necessity of stipulation #18 based on the changes to #17. The petitioner can address this. Mr. Oquist stated #22 is there to cover during construction. What is to prevent the home owner from clearing afterward? Ms. McPherson stated they would use similar language in #22 as in� #16, which would require recording restrictive covenants which would become part of the property. Mr. Saba asked what is to prevent heavy equipment operators fr.om knocking'down trees in that area. Is there any kind of bond required that would be consistent.�ith the number of trees to be saved? Ms. McPherson stated under the current ordinance the City has no. !"''�, mechanism to require a bond. The petitioner has indicated they would be submitting a performance bond to insure proper � construction.of the utilities and road, but there is no.,;,,such mechanism for tree preservation. _.. .-:,u� :,..: Ms. Dacy stated what they are trying to accomplish with the stipulation on grading and erosion control is for staff to review when the permit is submitted and the Planning and Building Departments would work closely on this project and go to the field�and inspect the trees. During the street and utility construction, there will be a staff person there to�moriitor. She believed the Engineering Department has an inspector who is prepared to do that. Staff's approach is to allocate manpower on every l.ot as the permit comes in and monitor construction for the road and utility work closely. Mr. Newman asked if the City had considered a developer's contract. Ms. Dacy st�ted the City has typically done the road and utility installation. In.this case, she believed the Public Works Department would be working with the-developer on an agreement so the road construction will be done by the developer but according to the City's specifications. As par•t of that, there may be a letter of credit to assure the proper installation of the road and utilities. � PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10. 1994 PAGE 10 �-.,, Mr. Newman suggested that staff pursue execution of a development agree�en� especially regarding the tree removal. Ms. Dacy stated she agreed that a developer's agreement would provide more enforcement. This has not been the policy in the past. Mr. Newman stated the public hearing was closed but he would like to provide an opportunity for additional comments for new information not provided at the last meeting. Mr. Black stated they would be happy to enter into a developers agreement with the City. They have done that with othe� cities. �hey are happy to work with staff and happy to report that staff has done an excellent and thorough job in addressing the issue and following their.application through the process. Mr. Black stated, when he was here i� June, they were at a point where they were beginning to�discuss the stipuLations. We have been side tracked, have addressed more issues, and are 99% in : agreement,with staff ori the stipu�ations.. There are two th�t he would like to provide comments. . Mr. B1ack stated stipulation #1� refers to putting restrictive � covenants on Lots 1 and 2, Block•2. Those are the two lots on the west end of.the development that stand alone. He is concerned with the wording. Staff is recommending to pi�ce restrictive covenants on those properties. If indeed tYiose ' restrictive covenants indicate there will be no removal of any vegetation, little could ha.ppen on the site. He thought staff was looking for protection for the wooded area on the back side of the lot. Part of that wooded area is off the subject lots on the high school property s.o some of the area is beyond future owners of those parcels. They suggest using the same protection of "significant trees" in that area. � �,. Mr, Black referred to stipulation #18 which talks about dwelling units on Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 1, which are the lots adjacent to the wetlands on the east side of the development. Staff recommends that the homes on those.lots be setback as close as possible to the lot line away from the wetland to limit encroachment. With the reconstruction of stipulation #17, he was not sure that #18 was needed. Stipulation #17 refers on all three lots a minimum floor elevation have a vertical.distance above the 100-year flood plain on the adjacent wetlands, no� grading below a certain elevation and a minimum setback from all the wetlands. This stipulation covers both the horizontal and vertical setbacks from the wetland. At the last meeting, there was a commen� made that r.equirin,g the setback to 10 feet from the lot line away from the wetland may not accomplish anything if � someone builds a large house or elongated house that would �"1 �, �,. PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa. ADGIIST 10. 1994 PAGE 11 stretch toward the wetland. He thinks they have covered what staff has been concerned with. Mr. Black stated stipulation #22 recommends a"no cut" zone. They do not agree with the wording. They agree with no cutting of significant trees without review by the City after submitting grading and site plans. They are concerned that this will limit the homeowners right to use their property in a way that others have been able to use their property. If a homeotamer wants to clear underbrush and restore the ground in the manner they wish to do so, he thought they should have that right. The lots are deep lots, but we may find the property owners once they are living there will not care to main�ain all the way to the.back of the �roperty line. But, they should be allowed to do that if they wish. He is also concerned that we are going to customize the grading plan initially only to accommodate the construct.ion of the utilities and streets and leave the lots in their natural state. Once soineone wishes to purchase a lot, that person.will . design a home to fit that lot. In most cases where we don't masquerade,. what we can end up with is pockets of drainage problems. Drainage does not always work as.good as if working with an overall drainage plan. He would like to have a clause� that would indicate that, subject approval by the Planning Department or Engineering Department, veqetation may have to removed in order to accommodate drainage. There are four abutting property owners to the south. Three of those four property owners have some clearing within 15 feet• of t2i� �: ; � backyard. If our property owners want..to have the beneiit of a garden or being able to�sit in the backyard.or clear an area for a patio, they should have the opportunity.to.do so also. Mr. Newman asked, on the vegetation preservation for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, is staff looking for a no cut area. Ms. Dacy stated yes. Mr. Newman stated legal description that area subject it seems the only alternative is to put in the for that area that there will be no cutting in to the.same conditions.made on Lots 1- 5. Mr. Black stated this was not a problem to identify the amount of land or distance to be protected. He has a concern with placing a restrictive covenants on properties that have more protection than any other property in the City, especially those on Matterhorn Drive. They have woods beyond the proposed lots on the school property that will be left in.a natural state. He has no problem with protecting significant trees. Mr. Haluska stated he would speak for the neighbors. First, they are appreciative of staff's work on this. They fully support the stipulations which do much to mitigate the damage. Second,. they PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 12 �, do not support the environmental appraisal done. They.think it .is superficial. They will argue that point at the City Council meeting. Third, they do not have any objection to the.Planning treating the parcels separately. There are different issues involved. Fourth, as far as the question of the no cut zone, they think�it is important that the language be maintained and the integrity be maintained as the stipulations presented. As far as the consideration for drainage, they agree with the developer that the language could perhaps cause some problems and they have confidence in staff to mitigate any problems and would . not obje�t if there were problems. Mr. Newman asked.the Cammission members.for their comments. Ms. Saba stated he would feel �nore.comfortable with a developer's agreement between the City and the developer for the preservation of trees. Too many things can happen between the time of . approval and the time of construction. Mr. Oquist stated, after reading the reports and.alternatives, he � thought it would be a good development. He.appreciates the drainage consideration but also likes the no cut area. However, a landowner:has the right to do some clearing of trees and shrubs • as need-be but he wants to keep significant trees. ,^�. Mr. Sielaff asked:.he would like to see a separate stipulation on a deveioper's�agreement: �� Mr. Newman referred to Stipulation #1. Along the south portion� of Lot l and 2, he understands the need for a buffer. In � response to the developer, he�does not think this is an unusual � request. The.school-has a right to do what they want with the property. The neighbors had some reasonable justification in thinking this would remain public property and the request for screening is understandable. The buffer would screen from the ball field. Ms. Dacy stated, during the site visit, it seemed like it was a unique stand. It does provide some scr.eening from the ball field area and, because it is part of.the 2 lots and a unique stand�of trees, staff wanted to prevent clearing of the entire stand or at least the portion on their lot. : Mr. Newman stated limiting this to significant trees should cover. � Ms. Dacy stated significant trees to be left are large and there is some large underbrush as well. The intent was to preserve the existing stand as it is.now. In order to be consistent with the south 15 feet of Lots 1-5, the intent was to preserve it in its � existing state. Staff prefers that the 2 stipulations be ^ PLANNING COMMISSION ME$TING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 _ PAGE 13 maintained and hopes that the vegetation'there would be preserved. Mr. Newman stated stipulation 18 states homes are to be a maximum of 10 feet from the lot line opposite the wetland. Does staff feel strongly about a house at 10 feet? Ms. Dacy stated she looked at the request and determined that with Lot 7, based on the plan submitted by the petitioner, the elevation proposed would dictate that the home be at 10 feet. However, the elevation on Lots 5 and 6 would permit the structure to be placed closer to the wetland. If they enforced the stipulation that the pad be 10 feet from the far lot line, it would be at the maximum horizontal distance. If the petitioner can submit other information to show how the distance c.an be maintained or preserve the wetland, staff would be�happy to evaluate it. Mr. Newman stated.stipulation �22 should have language added stating "subject to the determination of the Public Works Department that the "no cut"� easement would not affect drainage." Stipulation #23 should be added stating,."The City shall ent�r � into-a developer's aqreement with the petitioner for the �'"1 enforcement of these stipulations." MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to recommend approval of Special.Use Permit, SP #94-05, to subdivide�Ypart of. Lot 1, Block 1, Grace High School Addition,.into nine.new single family -lots, generally located in the southeast corner of the Totino-Grace High school property at 1350 Gardena Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. A restrictive covenant shall be recorded against Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, preventing the removal of vegetation except for dead/diseased trees. 2. Outlot A shall be named as a"lot" in the plat. � 3. The dwelling on Lot 1, Block 1, shall face Royal Oak Court. 4. The significant trees along the side lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, within the 17.5 foot setback shall be preserved. "Significant trees" are defined as those six inches or greater in caliper. 5. Verifying surveys.shall be submitted prior to the capping of the foundation. 6. The petitioner shall pay a.park dedication fee of $1,500.00 �� per lot (9 X$1,500.00 =$13,500) at the time of building permit issuance. � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 14 ,/"\ 7. The stormwater pond shall be siz.ed to meet the detention requirements of the City. 8. The Archdiocese shall execute and record a stormwater pond maintenance agreement providing for ongoing maintenance of the pond. 9. A drainage easement shall be dedicated over the stormwater pond. 10. The design details of the 6-inch watermain loop as proposed by the petitioner shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 11. The petitioner shall install water and sewer services to the lots on Matterhorn and shall pay the appropriate connection f ees . 12. SAC fees shall be paid at the time �of building permit issuance�. . 13. �he petitioner shall comply with the comments.listed in .Scott Erickson's memo dated June 16, 1994. � 14. Individual grading, erosion control,:and tree preservation . plans shall be submitted for each lot prior to the.issuance. of a `building permit.` �:- 15. �The improper fill in the wetland shall be removed and�the wetland restored. � 16. Restrictive covenant shall be recorded against Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, preventing any filling of wetlands including brush, grass clippings, trash, etc. Accessory structures and footings for decks, additions, gazebos, etc. shall not be located in the wetlands as delineated on the plat. The language shall be reviewed by the City Attorney. 17. No grading shall occur below the ele�ation o� 948 on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, and �he lowest basement floor opening shall be at the 950 or above elevation. No grading shall occur below the elevation of 953 on Lot 7, Block 1, and the lowest basement floor opening shall be at the 955 elevation or above. 18. The dwellings on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1, shall be located a maximum of 10 feet from the 1Qt line opposite the wetland. 19. Two street trees per lot shall be planted by the petitioner. � �"`, PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING, AIIaQBT 10, 1994 PAGE 15. 20. The individual grading, erosion control,�and tree. preservation plan for each lot shall clearly show: A. The grading limits for the construction of the new home. B. The location of warning signage (tree protection ribbon) that will be placed around the perimeter of the construction limits protecting all significant trees outside the construction limits. C. The location of any significant trees to be saved inside the construction limits. Any significant trees to be saved shall have fencing around it extended out the dripline. Work shall not commence until City staff has.field inspected items�B and C of the stipulation. 21. The lots shall not be clear cut of significant trees. 22. Restrictive covenants shall be recorded against Lots 1- 5, Block 1, Totino-Grace Addition,_establishing a.�5-foot."no � cut" easement along the south property line of Lots 1- 5,• Block 1, Totino-Grace Addition. The covena�ts shall prohibit the cutting.of trees or clearing of understory � except for the removal of dead or diseased trees within the �easement, subject to the determination of the Public Works Department that the "no cut" easement would not affect drainage. 23. The City shall enter into.a developer's agreement with the petitioner for the enforcement�of these stipulations. , Ms. Dacy stated, to clarify, stipulation #22 regarding the "no cut" easement, the Planning Commission•has asked about including that as part of the restrictive covenant, and stipulation #18, based on further analysis, Lot 7, Block l, can be droppgd because. of elevation issues. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPSRSON NEWMAI�T DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOII3LY. Ms. McPherson stated the City Council would establish a.public hearing at their September 6 meeting. The public hearing would be for September 19, and interested persons should attend�.the meeting on September 19. � PLAIdNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 16 3. CONSIDERATION OF A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #94-03, BY STRONG BUILT HOMES' To create two additional residential lots at 1490 and 1476 - 64th Avenue N.E. The legal descriptions for the four lots are as follows: Parcel A- The west.half of the north half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. Parcel B• The east�half of the north half of Lot 1, Block 2, Sp�ing� Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. Parcel C; The southerly 75.00 feet of Lot l, Block 2, Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. Parcel D: That part of the south half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley, lying northerly of the southerly 75.00 feet thereof, City of Fridley, Anoka County,�Minnesota. Ms. McPherson stated�the request is for a Lot Split, L.S.�#94-03, by Timothy Str.ong, Strong Built Homes. The subject parcel is . located in the southwest corner of the intersection of �,��4th ��_: Avenue and Arthur Street. Located on the subject parcel``are-two dwelling units - 1476 and 1490 - 64th Avenue. There is a City maintained open ditch located along the south property.line.� The property is zoned R-1, Single Family, as.are the surrounding parcels. The subject parcel is legally described as the east and west halves of �,ot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley Addition. The lot was originally platted in 1941. It is 125 feet wide x'300 feet deep. It is unclear from City records as to when the property was split in half. Staff is aware this was done prior to 1955 which is the.first survey of record on file. Ms. McPherson stated the subdivision would create two single family lots by splitting the subject parcel in half and then in half again. The 2 new parcels will face Arthur Street and access directly onto Arthur Street. All parcels for the existing dwellings meet the minimum R-1 setbacks with the�exception of the lot widths o.n parcels A and B. Ms. McPherson stated the some of the existing vegetation on the site seems to indicate there may be wetlands on the site. The petitioner contracted with the Anoka Conservation District who investigated the site and determined that no wetlands are located on the site other than the ditch section located along the south property line. The petitioner will be required to use proper � � � t � � R 0 �--.,, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 17 erosion control measures to prevent erosion from leaving.the site and going into the public ditch. The petitioner has submitted a preliminary grading plan which establishes the lowest fl,00r elevation at 886 feet. The elevation at street level on Arthur is approximately 890 feet. The Engineering Department has requested additional information including: 1. Clarify the amount of fill in the front yard by adding additional spot elevations and drainage arrows on the grading plan. 2. Clarify how the shallow ditch section along Ax�thur Street will be handled. 3. Provide accurate first floor elevations to insure proper grades for the sanitary sewer services. 4. Provide an erosion control plan in compliance.with Chapter 208. . Ms. McPherson°stated the proposed lots are not curr.ently serviced by the municipal water and sewer services. They will be requi�ed to be connected; and the petitioner will have to pay sewer, ,� availability charges as required by the SAC. The subdivision ordinance required the payment of a park dedication fee.of $750.00 per lot payable at the time of building permit__issuance. The Inspection Department �equires the submission��f a�vgerified , survey prior to capping the foundation. •The parcel:is heavily wooded with a variety of plant materials. Preserving much of the� vegetation would.be an asset for the subject parcels.as well as the neighborhood. Staff has suggested recording a•"no cut" easement over the westerly 15 feet to provide a buffer to the lots to the west, and the petitioner should.attempt to save any many large trees as possible. • � Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends�approval of the lot split, L.S. #94-03, with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall provide the information requested in Items a- b prior to the issuance of a building permit.. a. Clarify the amount of fill in the front yard by adding additional spot elevations and drainage arrows on the grading plan. b. Clarify how the shallow ditch section along Arthur Street will be handled. c. Provide accurate first.floor elevations to insure ^ proper grades for the sanitary sewer services. �, PLANNING CON�IISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 19 would be the same as the other homes. There will be much fill to .b�ing the lot up to the right level and to get proPer drainage. The farther back he needs to go, the more trees will need to be removed. His intention is to save every tree and this will make it more attractive. On the back 62 feet of the lot split, there is grass and only one tree which will be left there. It is important that definition be changed to significant trees. Mr. Newman asked for staff's response to the 15 foot "no cut" easement. Ms. McPherson stated staff would be okay with revising the stipulation that the petitioner is to preserve all significant trees on the site and we can use the definition of 6n or greater to be consistent. Mr. Newman aSked how they would submit this. Ms. McPherson suggested wording the stipulation to r.ead, '!The petitioner is to preserve all significant trees on the subject parcels outside of the areas to be filled and outside of the dwelling pad," and then eliminate the current.wording under �7. ,�� Mr. Sielaff stated significant trees.was based on 4n in diameter and�6" was negotiated. Ms. McPherson stated they compromised for:.the previous �;�., " petitioner. She felt they should-be consistent between��` applications. Mr. Sielaff asked if there was language in the code. Ms. McPherson stated there is not a definition fo� significant trees. The landscape ordinance defines a large tree a� a tree that is 4�� or greater in caliper. Ms. Dacy suggested that the petitioner and staff ineet prior to the City Council meeting. The reason for proposing 6" on the previous request was that it seemed to be a good measure for that particular site. That site has significantly larger trees. For this site, she would suggest staff and pe�itioner�go to the site and specifically identify the trees. There are different types of trees at different locations. Mr. Sielaff stated he did not want to make this too arbitrary. Mr. Strong stated he foot setback. He is where the vegetation �`` ' foundation forward to wants to express the importance of the 20 planning a walkout split. The walkout is currently lies. From the back line of the the street�will be filled and n.othin.g will � �� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10, 1994 PAGE 20 �, survive because of the fill. The setback is important to preserving the trees. Mr. Newman stated the Planning Commission will only make a recommendation on the lot split. The Appeals Commission will consider the variance. Mr. Newman recommended the current stipulation #7 will be deleted, and replaced with, "Prior to City Council action, the petitioner and staff shall designate which trees shall be preserved and protected pursuant to the recorded restrictive covenants." MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr.. Oquist, to recommend approval. of a Lot Split, L.S. #94-03, by Strong Built Homes, to create two. additional lots at 1490 and.1476 - 64th Avenue.N.E. with legal descriptions for the four lots as follows: Parcei A: The west half of the north.half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley, City of�Fridley,.Anoka County., Minnesota. Parcel B: The�east half of the north half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota. Parcel C: The southerly 75.00 feet of Lot 1, Black 2, ^ Spring Valley, City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota: Parcel D: That part.of the south half of Lot 1, Block 2, Spring�Valley, lying northerly of the southerly 75:00 feet thereof, City of�Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota; with the following stipulations: 1. The petitioner shall� provide the information requested in Items a- b prior to the issuance of a building permit. a. Clarify the amount of fill in the front yard by adding additional spot elevations and drainage arrows on the grading plan. b. Clarify how the shallow ditch section along Arthur Street will be handled. c. Provide accurate first floor elevations to insure proper grades for the sanitary sewer services. d. Provide an erosion control plan in compliance with Chapter 208. 2. Water and sewer services shall be provided to the dwelling units. ;�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AIIGIIST 10. 1994 PAGE 21 3. The sanitary sewer connection shall be made via the manhole located at the intersection of Arthur and Camelot Streets. 4. The petitioner shall pay the appropriate connection fees and SAC charges ($800.00 per unit) at the time of building permit issuance. 5. The petitioner shall pay a park dedication fee of $750.00 per lot at the time of building permit issuance. 6. The petitioner shall provide a verifying survey prior to the capping of the foundation. 7. Prior to City Counci.l action, the petitioner and staff shall designate which trees shall be preserved and protected pursuant to the recorded restrictive covenants. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALI� VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. McPherson stated the Appeals Commission would consider.the variance request on August 23 and the City Council would review both the lot split and variance requests on September 6. � 4. RECEIVE THE�AUGUST 2 1994 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: . MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive�,the August 2, 1994, Appeals Commission minutes. � IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRpERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. ADJOURNMENT . , MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTT� ALL VOTING AYE� CBAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE AIIGU3T 10, 1994, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOIIRNED AT 8:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, % � Lavonn Cooper Recording Secretary �"'�. , � � � S TAFF REP O RT �, Community Development Department I � Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date : August 24, 1994 City Council Date APPLICATION NOMBER: ♦ Special use permit request, SP #94-09 ♦ Gary Maciej, petitioner Donald Dickison, owner LOCATION• ♦ 5973 - 3rd Street N.E; corner of the intersection of 3rd Street and 60th Avenue. REOIIEST: ♦ To allow the re-use of the property for a cnmmercial enterprise in the S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood District, which requires that all non-residential uses revert back to single family dwellings. . BACRGROIIND• ♦ In 1978, the City rezoned the property bordered by 61st Avenue on the north, University Avenue on the east, 57th Avenu� on the south, and Main Street on the west, to S-1, � Hyde Park NeigYiborhood. The purpose of the zoning district is to reestablish the residential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood Y�as a variety of commercial uses located along University Avenue. They include Custom Mechanical (subject parcel), Werner's Furniture, and Frank's Used Cars. In 1985, the City began issuing a series of a special use permits to the subject parcel: 'SP #85-12, by Midwest Classified SP #87-18, by John Glenn copier repair business SP #88-09, religious book store, church, and parsonage SP #88-12, by Custom Mechanical � The�_City Council; as a condition of approval, included the fol�:owing stipulation on the Custom Mechanical request: . a � Staff Report ^ SP #94-09, by Gary Maciej � Page 2 , 1. The petitioner agrees that any future re-use of the building is subject through the special use permit process that the re-use will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Although there are no special uses listed in Section 205.21 of the zoning code, it has been an administrative policy to require a special use permit prior to allowing re-use of any Hyde Park commercial property. ANALYSIS' ♦ Donald Dickison owns the property at 5973 - 3rd Street N.E. Ctirrently, Custom Mechanical occupies the space; however, the owner has been contacted by an organization out of Spring Lake Park who have made an offer to buy the building Quality Cleaning, Inc., in conjunction with T-Type Graphics, would share th� space. T-Type Graphics employs three individuals who perform pre-press electronic computer publishing. Quality Cleaning, Inc. has a staff of 15 people who report from their home to their job sites. There would ^ be one clerical person and very few internal staff persons at this loc�tion. No on-site outdoor storage is required fnr either oualitv Cleaninq or T-Type Graphics. In 1988, Donald Dickison was granted a special use permit for Custom Mechanical to occupy his building at 5973 - 3rd Street N.E. At that time, the owners of the Custom Mecha�ical building spent a considerable amount of money in an ext�rior retrofit which included re-siding and re-roofing the bu�lding, installing new asphalt and B612 curb and gutter, and also installing landscaping to c.omply with the requirements of the 1988 special use permit they received. One stipulation was placed on that special use permit which required that the petitioner agree that any future re-use of the building is subject to a special use permit whi�h will assure compatibility'with the surrounding neighborhood. Lisred�.in the S-1 Special Districts, it states the purpose of th� district is to: l. Change the present "legal non-conforming use" status of the residential dwelling in the neighborhood to a "conforming use" status. 2. �•To reestablish the residential character of the ^ �-' neighborhood. a � /"'�. /"\ !"'� Staff Report SP #94-09, by Gary Maciej Page 3 3. To protect the property rights of all presen� land owners as much as possible while promoting the residential development of the neighborhood. 4. To establish a zoning mechanism for the neighborhood that will encourage residential investment and development in Hyde Park. As for specific principal uses permitted, one family dwellings are listed. Commercial entities are not permitted if they were not constructed prior to the adoption of the S- 1 district. Staff has asked for a legal opinion regarding the present special use permit application, to allow re-use of an existing commercial structure. Specifications for lot size, coverage, and setback dimension were based on residential standards which appear to staff to indicate that there were to be no provisions for new construction or additions to the commercial entities. There are request: at least three options for responding to this 1. The City could table action on the item pending amendment of the S-1 district to include special use permit provisions for the re-use of the commercial entities such as Custom Mechanical. � 2. The City could deny the request based on the,intent of tYie ordinance to reestablish the residential�character of the neighborhood. 3. The City could approve a special use permit based on the 1988 Custom Mechanical stipulation requiring a special use permit for any re-use of the building to assure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION/STIPIILATIONS: Y ♦ Staff believes it is premature at this time to make a recommendation; however, at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday evening, staff will provide an update of the City Attorney's opinion and a recommendation. k!. �' �, � Communi#y Deveiopment Department July 22, 1994 6431 University Ave N. E. Fridley, MN. 55432 Community Development Department: We Quality Cieaning Inc. presentiy rent office/warehouse space to run our business in Spring Lake Park, MN. Tim my partner and brother and my sister Faye who has a Graphics Company (T Type Graphics) share this space. Our arrangement is T Type Graphics occupies our office space and Quality Cleaning Inc. uses all the warehouse space. � TType Graphics is currerrtly a 3 person Company, doing Pre-press Electronic Publishing. This is strictly computer generated graphics. Quality Cleaning Inc. is a Contract Cteaning Service. We are currerttly a 15 person company. �ur workers report directly to the job site from home. We use our warehouse space stri�tly for 2 trailer storage, inventory and equipment. The amount of traffic generated by Quality Cleaning or T Type Graphics is minimal. TType Graphics clientele is on the job site generated. Eighty percent of there � business is on the out-skirts o# the Metro Area. They have a UPS pick-up on a call bases oNy. Delivery services are used on the average of 3 io 4 times per week. Quality Cleaning Inc, again generates very little traffic with employees all workers go directly to the job site. The only time employees come to the shop is when equipment and cleaning supplies are needed at the job site which then our traiters are loaded and used. We tiwould alsp have a rec:eptionist answering phones daily and doing computer entry work. � Quality Cleaning or T Type Graphics park no company vechicles over weekends at the place of business. Nor is there any outside storage of any type needed. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding the above, please call me at Business: 4343456 Pager: 969-4510. Sincerely, � .� Gary S. aciej, Owner Quality Cleaning, Inc. �. �-'- � m " .SP 7174—�7 Gary Mac�ej/Donald Dickison � � J l___J �Nwr Ue�t -- — _ _/z�saz�--- •.'•u * !� t� N po � ilao r�� ,� / i i s{ .-- t U " i % e� - ,3°_✓.- .I i �.f/% ^'`�� ' °.�� / �s�w" �°' -�° /n,� ( 6e;" ^�.-• 3 p`Y.� � c� e� f 1 �---�-' �i z9 �; 2 � ° 29 2 B�i�9�� 3 z9 � z � 26��J 3 s? , ZEi -j� ). $ 3 2B�� ; 3 �� � � . z� (u� � ' � 7 ' 27(�c) 4 ��� 27 ; ¢ � : �b J� -S?�• = �G�c H� J �� � ��—ZE-- ---�---- 2E `t , 'S J zs'4s� 6 -,-z-s -- 6(� • z 5�v� 6 r►� - 2 5 6� ; L 1� is�J � ' �4!os) ' 7 2�- - -?- - - : : 21 2¢ '�y, 7 i : � 3,4f B G 3t�� 8(�!'> ' Z3�^ 8 l� ' '.� L �� 2z 9 �� Z2 9 -`'l __9_�'i : :� Zz l4� `�9 � , z, �� /o ` 2 i �j /o �� � 2/ � _ Ja _ 2 / �� `� �o � - 2� //:s�? 2� // 20"` //� : 20 �//i � /9 (�,r) /Z!S>> : /9 �j /Z �y /9 � ---/2_ _ _ /9 l�` / � 18 /3 �)° .B /3 � /B /3 � _ /B � � 1 �i, 171W� /4 . l7tst� i /Q/..�r� � _ _ /7.� -.--I4:�1= : � 17 al , •� ' Q� 3°'�� � �-�� � ; � j°" �' -- J-�� � 2� 2 � : 29 Z z8 �"1 3� : : 2B 1 3�1 : z� g -._27__ 4 26 �C1 5��• 26 �o� 5 1 j � 25 F = --2.5---�. 6 . G,s � y ��`• . 2 :� `y 7 � , Z3 0� B " `L' - B 9 ` � 22 . = � -��. --9 --- - • z/ �1 �o W z.•' Ml io �1 � 41 � zo �i ��• � ° � � b� - �1_ _ _ Z /9 .q1� /Z /9 �Z C9��• - yB- - /3 /B �� _ /3 _ �' io '�h�, � /¢� = � ---a -- � qa` �-- � � � � N �6 �i9. � � �6 � �.s 59TH ,- ;, ,�,r. .,� ' � � �� � �% \�1 c Z � v° L.g � ` ��' — ._ � �, � ,� � : ��6 � 5 . � 5 ul (, � . ' � -�-- ., l � ` .. . —`, » y • ��2; � ` : � _�`LV � � �� N N AVENUE � i �1 � /d �a� L° e 'oJ.�• �.�n.� � dd'X7 �%E N i LOCATION MI�P r.: •r� i '�!� � �lv�11v�[!`�►�II!�: �� SP ��94-09 Gary Maciej/bonald Dickison _. .. LANDSCAP� � �°�� p�q � N 0 � their approval. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N Mayor Nee declared the�E t-�'�• �rc'�,, THE ABOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and �n carried unanimously. 3. RECEIVING THE MINIITES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14, 1988: � A. CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL IISE PERMIT. SP #88-12, TO ALLOW AN AIR CONDITIONING HEATING AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR OFFICE IN AN S-1. HYDE PARK_ NEIGiiBORHOOD ZOATING DISTRICT ON LOTS 27 AND 28 , BLOCR I2 , HiiDE _PARIC, THE SAME BEING 5973 3RD STREET N.E., BY DONALD DICI�SON: Mr. Robertson�, ;:�Community Development Directar;����stated this -is a request for a special use�permit to allow an air conditioning, heating and electrical contracting • office in an S-1 zone in the Hyde Park neigiiborhood.-• He. stated special- use permits •were previously qranted for different commercial uses for this property despite the fact that the uses did not comply-with the intent of the Hyde Park:special=zoning area..:Mr. Robertson stated staff is, therefor-e, recommending denial �of this special use permit based on the .code whici�, states that whenever a lawful non-conformi.ng use of a structure is abandoned for �a: period of 12 months, any future use of said structure -: -or . land �_: shall be in � conformi�ty with the provisions of the zoning°code. ' _, :� . _ _ , ,��;_ . _ - ��..;_ _ - -. Mr. Robertson stated the Planning Commission has recom�riended approval of the special use permit with the provision the permit is for � this business ,only and, � if the property ° is sold; the � special use permit will expire. He stated in conjunction with the special use permit�; several variances were requested which the Appeals Commission reviewed. He stated the Appeals Commission recommended approval of��the variances, with.one exception. � Mr. Robertson stated the Planning Commission recommended to Council that either rezoning or modifying the S-1 zone in the Hyde Park neighborhood be considered to permit a wider range of special use perraits than are allowed in the R-1 zoning district. He stated �the S-1 zone is more restrictive than an R-1 zone and it does not allow non-residential uses with a special use permit. Councilman� Schneider stated, as he recalls, the intent was if property in the S-1 zone was destroyed, it would lose its non- conforming status and revert to R-l. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated the purpose of adopting this S-1 zone was to ultimately work towards R-1 zoning in this area. .�! . Mr. Qure�i, City Manager, stated the intent was to convert this area to ;residential. He stated if, however, the use of the �� �` � 41�3 ,.-•.� FRIDLEY CITY COIINCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 PAGE 8 property remained the same, it would retain the non-conforming status. He stated if this lawful non-conforming use of a structure was abandoned for a period of 12 months, any future use shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code. Councilman Billi.ngs stated this building is vacant and is an eyesore in the community. He felt even though it was vacant for a year or more, it probably would never revert to a residential use. Mr. Qureshi stated single family zoning does allow for other uses besides homes, such as churches and senior housing. Councilman Billings stated last year the Gouncil did approve a special use �permit..for a photocopy business which never materialized. He stated the Planning Commission also reconnaended approval of_ a special use permit for a church on this property which would have been an acceptable use. He stated the owner withdrew.this request before the item was submitted to Council. Councilman 8illi.ngs stated the proposed'purchaser af this property, Mr. Dickison, was present this evening to answer any questions�by � the Council. � . � Mr. Dickison,stated when he first approached�the nwner to purchase this property, he�was told it had been sold, but that the deal had not pro�eeded, ther,efore, he applied for the special use �permit and variances . ' , � y; . Mr. John.Magraam stated-they had petitioned to use this building as a church when �he awner told him it was sold to somone else. He stated this was a complete surprise to them. � Councilman �illings asked Mr. Dickison if he would agr`ee to the stipulation ;that if he sold the property, the prospective purchaser would need to apply for a special use permit which may or may not be granted. He pointed out to Mr. Dickison that his prospects of selling may be severely limited with this restriction. Mr. Dickison asked if a future owner wished to conduct the same type of heating and air conditioning business if another speciai use permit would be needed. � Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated he felt comfortable if the special use permit is issued for the use, and not this particular � owner. He.stated the other question is if a special use permit is permissible in this zoning district. He stated, frankly, he did not research this guestion, but believed someone from his off�ce indicatecl� it was permissible. He pointed out that this was previousl�i a commercial use and there are other commercial uses in the area.� :.2i �':_:: (�13�'� FRIDLEY CITY COIJNCIL MEL�ING OF SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 PAGE 9 Councilman Billings felt the question that needs to be addressed is if the Council wishes this property to become residential. He stated there was no opposition from neighboring residents when this special use perm�:t was considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Herrick stated probably the ques.tion -on the ultiiaate use of this property needs to be addressed by tlie Council. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated he has advised other property owners who wished to have a multiple use of their property that this would not be permitted. Mr. Herrick stated there�is a difference in the use of an existing building as opposed to new construction. • Mr. Dickisony�tated he�would make substantial i.mprovements to the property over the�next several years. He stated he plans to close on this property.�next:week; however, if no action is taken on the special use }�er�mit, he:would not consider purchasing this property. � Mayor Nee stated'.he �as.not sure a single family home would be the best use of�this�property and didn't especially feel a commercial use was wrong. He felt the question is.really,what is the best use of .the land. :�:... �;�: . . . . .. . � � Mr. Herrick statred-the market value for a single family home on this�property would be very low. 'a: °� . . _- _ . , MOTION�by Councilman Billings to grant special use permit, SP #88- 12, with the-following stipulations: (1) petitioner agrees that any future re-nse.of the building is subject to finding, through the specia�.use permit process, that the re-use would be compatible with the_.s�urrounding neighborhood; (2) a portion` of Lot 29, approximately 1,604�square feet will be leased from the City for $1.00 per year as long as the business_ is in operation at this s�ite; (3) landscaping to be installed�as per plan by September l, 1989; (4j a performance bond or letter of credit for 3 percent of the construction value be given to the City prior to issuance of the building permit; (5) parking demand shall not exceed nine spaces unless additional s$aces are provided; (6) install six inch concrete curbi.ng around the entire perimeter of the parking lot including d�iveway opening by September 1, 1989; (7) parking lot to be seal�oated and striped with nine spaces by September 1, 1989 ; (8) bollards are to be removed upon installation of landscaping; and (9j petitioner to maintain site immediately by cutting grass and eliminating weeds. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilman Schneider stated if the building had been destroyed, he felt the S-1 zoning is very specific and it could not have been rebuilt.�°�ie stated he does agree it is an eyesore. Councilw�man Jorgenson stated under the S-1 zone, the property would have reverted to R-1, if the structure had been destroyed. t � �..�� __. � FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 26 1988 PAGE 10 She stated she is in favor of this business on the property, bt�t did not like to rezone for one parcel. -� Councilman Biliings stated he would agree that by granting the special use permit, the strictest interpretation is not being applied. Mayor Nee stated there have been proposals for various uses for this property, therefore, the property has not really been abandoned. UPON A VOICE VOTE TAI�N ON THE ABpVE MpTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. � B• RESOLUTION NO 83-1988 APPROVING A SIIBDIVISION LpT SPLIT. L S #88 04. TO SPLIT A FOIIR FOOT TRIp�1�TGLE OFF THE SOIITHEA$TERLY [`nR�� n� T .,.., .. � �JJV J�anL AV�lVULr ANjJ AVENUE. BY STANI,Ey AND pgyrrrS PROROPOWICZ : � MOTION by Councilman Bi3.lings to adopt Resolution o. 83-1988. ' Seconded by Councilman Schneider. IIpon a voice v e; all voting l� aYe, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried u n a n' us lv. �� C.- IN THE' CITY -OF FRIDLEY: � MOTION b� Councilman Schneider to refer is item to staff for a proposal, in consultation with the Ci Attorney�s Office, to be presented �at some future Confere e Meetin Councilman Billings. Upon a voice ote, all voting aye,cMayor Nee declared the motion carried unan' ously. D. ITF'M Fnniur mv� � ,,,.,-. _ _ - - - - - 1988• 1. � CONDITIOATING HEATING AND ELECTRICAI,L CpNTRACTOR OFFICE ON LOTS 27 AND 28 BLOCK 12 HyDE PARR THE �s. SAME BEING 5973 3RD STREET N. E. gy I�NAI,D DICKISON: by�Councilman Billinqs to grant the vari � ances, VAR �gg-22� c��s .. 1'• � �: � _ Cl"IYOF FRIDLE.Y CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FR[DLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 CITY COUNCiL ACTION TAKEN NOTICE ��' V'�`*�" ����'" October 3, 1988 Donald Dickison 1321 - 26th Avenue N.W. New Brighton, MN 55112 On September 26, 1988, the Fridley City Council officially approved your request for a special use permit, SP .#88-12, to allow an air conditioning, heating and electrical contractor office in an S-1, Hyde Park Neighborhood, zoning district on Lots 27 and 28, Block 12, Hyde Park, the same being 5973 - 3rd Street N.E. with the_ following stipulations: l. Petitioner agrees that any future re-use of the building is subject to finding, through the special use permit process, that the re-use would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood." 2. A portion of'Lot 29, approximately 1,604 square feet will be leased from the City for $1.00 per year as long as the business is in.operation at this site. - -� 3. 4. 5. �� �� ---� 8. C LandscaRing to be installed as per plan by September 1, 1989. ; A performance bond or letter of credit for three percent of the construction value be given to the City prior to issuance of the building permit. Parking demand shall not exceed nine spaces unless additional spaces are provided. Install six inch concrete curbing around the entire perimeter of the parking lot including driveway opening by September 1, 1989. • Parking lot to be sealcoated and striped, nine spaces, by September l, 1989. Bollar,�ls are to be removed upon installation of landscaping. �� � �� � / ` �, . . �� Donald Dickison � SUP �88-12 Page 2 9. Petitioner to maintain site immediately by cutting qrass and eliminating weeds. If you have any questions regarding the above action, please call the Planning Depart�nent at 571-3450. Sincerely, ��c, John L. Robertson Connaunity Development Director JLR/dn Please review the noted stipulations, sign the statement below and return one copy to the City of Fridley Planning Department by October 17, 1988. ,�. .�8 � i ,, � Concur with action taken. a ' � �,-� �x�"«,.. �� } y �� M� ���" y � �:� `dt ,. �t ��� ,.� �' ,#� � a �'�'`�� � 1;; a `�' � °P'�`.�,��� ��r- '��" '' ` ��i �"', c`k'�3 �3"�'y4:� ,-, t�r.:r "``�.�{+�� �`�'" "�'s�:��^`��' �� f :� �`-v� �i �'.�_".�w �`.F `�".'� ��: �,�� f�+ .:�: '� a "�. '.�z�,.� �.�. _.� �Y:"� � ` ��;,"��. � ; �� � �Y �r j¢ j t:� �:'�,�;,2.,ka,���� `��� `��� `i `wri za . .'.r�`��4. �§.'".^�'z�,t'R.�4�� �'� � "� � � � � �;�� 4 �[�..1!, � ��� .a.. ..p :;:kfu � f g r +� �. ��' � . �J �� x �,�r � ��� t =� �_ . �� ,K � . � � . �:�,-�� s" 3 ,n s � � � � 5.���i _ r � �5�� i"°�a�`��P` �-���� � ��,.����� i 3".�'+,< �,� �P {,� �t�,� �'` ,'w'� �"�'x��'�'�"t r �"' a° „;� i�., *���Y,.�r �. � ��.� a ��%.• ' ,� -�� �^'`' �,� �� 'v� r ,�,� ri,��. �� �"6,� .�``��s � ,� �� � � e C y � � } r < rig� ��� , .•qw�..�.�'� 3�� �' LT .��„ M1�"�,�� ��r��� '�,� � , .� �,�s ��n :€ � � � M� ,�+��*,� f ?a ��{ u �"`-,��� `�� s�',�1�� �a � � `_ `�� ��`"�'��'. s�,�: r�+ +;,;�.psrt.. �j�.�'yx t ,�� �:.�� � � � , � �e . " �z3' . °65T'Y � � b�s ) a'� � "�a . a � - .4 �5 �" x c � S •�g rC x �� � w� ��;<g� r- �,,,� '�`y4 �. i� �. � "��.._v�z �;- y —����� " � a.`f'a%.� �,'�^�; . �? �.� =. ,4 �, �T "` '.,.� �° ,� "`"o- �,' / �� � , '�� �rt s° < ���`� ��,3 � '�ct��'� ;. -�. i�� ,�,F.s�� ,� a� �sz.���' �*`.�'S,�l; � r � t4A � Ti "� � ���"�������,'� ,�„��'�.�r�r� �'������ � ��,, '' � Y-� , � �tk� k �'' ff <�:< � 3i� � ; f:.� �'R a .�5�`�„�s,'�'"�^ ""X�� . '-d '*f .5 ' n '� ��``I �r^',�,.�* ' �,rt�^^ -s._.�.. � . -�x .�v =.�' ,��, � ��. .�t'� ,.��5 � r� �.^ � x�„�� i , , :. ''� �dt` � ,�, . y �1"`.ey � . �' .�X" "'�a»- r�Sa:�'�� �.�f�'�'�.+Y'���^� ����,���`�� x6, *:'^'"��; 1 s'' ii�. ^` ?' Z��''�'�����'��� -"��� �rY`e . t ,�. �� f x � T �,,'�`' ���*` �'` ��. �rc`�..a3 � I 4��-. � � � ,�t��,,wY �� ��� l-u� �����,� ��C^������� �fi �r � r� }'�'' s �S -y� �+r �» � -;. fs�.,,�` a �"' € � �� Q� , � � �y��'��3,y� f;�� �i �i��� '�'i {�� � � � r �x, "�. a° �i ' �'i� �.' �� ; .t^ .: '� ���,,,9'�f�t� .�. t .e � � rr/�„� `�;.*. "xS k ? t � � .w,.�"' ^P . � � ` f�" � %i-� � t w� ck"A +t Sss�' � ��� �� ���� ¢ , �� . xz x'�� �� , � _ � ��`�i. �;. ��ry' ' �a �� r } ��`����"� cc, �� � �' � 4 �* � '' �I �: ���' � k' r 4 �- � �,ai �'� �e '�4 �,„ "�`��q. p;,t M a`��'�i w��y�F�#�" ya,..�",��F ,.� s�. � � � '� ' � ,4� . r�^ �r v k5'£� ��,��x�? �'�:- � �� �., �w, ,�.. '�`} �� if y ���t�� � � ... aiR we'' � - ': �- # ��$ x"�' � �i �� �?,; �� � � T � . . . ��? � a �E � ��� � �a� &�+. M � . .z._. _'w�a� � �„ky �� h }'�' � a� -��"� , '� it � � .' � �r. Y � �! � i � 1 ��` e�Yi � � �5'ai �� 'fG .G*i � I y� 3 ; �,.��' �,�, �' S i �-4'` � �' �k� � vf � i ?7 .� f �� ?'� ���.T� t^�! � 4 t � s�k' � :�-aAa.�as - �+� � � t � �'�� �'� �'ac�';I� � �` . � � � � � ; °�� ���, { � a' ��`�"� � r�`�, a ., a� � s � ,a a n. '?�, . � >; } . .;�tt_ ��� � �� � ^� s ,� _� � � `f �. ���'! �t.sc :*� ` °�'s_. � �t'-"���,� u�� �. � i ; ,�; �n *> 1 �, x 3'"x�s ��.4 I ,� �>.. � �"`� �L�� � � �e { . � �� � � �ib� '��qi � �. } t �s�+ �'m,z. � ��,,. Y ,� k �,�£� S� �''r'��� . � �� � > � �. ��,..•--� �� � ., � � ' '����,,�1 � �,� � � � _ �"���,, �z���,��,,.� �,� ���t,,� �,ti -ro��,�1 �' �,s`� '�'r t�».�� � s�° i �* i�� ' t � `' �� 'r � - � �' e � g" ���,� f i" i 7 �`�� G `'����� �t � '�_ � 4 1 �. � ' � �3` � � a� � r� nQC� �t' �s��t��.��, ` �_u, '�- �" ���k' �� � + .. ���-M� � � ,¢,Ye,."� , x �� �»�E� �_ �,�'�`t �. ,�, ;F �, yy���. { f � �" � � � "�; I-� � � � . ...' +.'t��+��.'� � ;..�`'3S�it3' ;i I 4 r +«,.&`�T: i�4 P� ¢ �" �� '� �> � 'g�°'� . w�,� t ��`j,'s—�- '�' $�����'���� . �+' ��l � ^� ..^"� kt y "�'� �4(x � �.�+-� .�` �*1.�����q,�,����'St��� �� � r: �. ��� "s�'�`s. `c. ro..�� '� .: }r "f*�,.� Y� � � Y'r �., �1�!�� . �. �c'��� k�x'�i �� �` ��`'� . '�c �� ��.��z',�"� � � '� � � � , „s� 'k < � ��� r -_•+u °� �� x �?.��"����'�:°k/�t� � � ��� ��,f, ,,�;}'. .r �. �.. � �i . �+. �, ��'3' 4�.�: ' �� s.F` � ¢� �5���, � �: � � . �Y�,&iffi' � �,..Y�T"� �� i���x` ���.S.Y''���Y�C DY N4 d �4" �� k I . � �r�y Yg� .i �w3 ""q, � � � :� k'�" � ' �'�R§��,����"`'�'{+,Z 'xiJ°� y ���� �:t�1�� [* �st' ��-, z §ri �i�. a�y^ � i� Kxq��`�' � .. ������t,�^"�'�a�'�'�``��M�'�a��,�l�.�k� '��'�'�iS?�!� �g'�� �� z � . : 1 S � � �'� �� e�,g,a.'�?'9 (s � �4 � {'�i� � �; � ... . ��','�s'�rt� °?�''"' �9¢ g y� 2'� +'� � � $ f �"�`���7ia�. . ��'�?"`x �o-�ie� � `�°`r...��°.�F� . ° �.`��.2��.r� �+^'„.� ,c�;' �,�Y � ,��- .:.� �.: �� ezt9z, �.3� sd.a�,�.`°��'��l'���r�`��`� '2���e;� �°�s�,���) $��; �,�d, , �r� ,,�� .....�.�� ;'��} �y 1 �, - t7},'y<, �,y�'�"�{i �j��� Ax��'' ~ '�• "' � � � �'M1 tv rk�, �'b�l��' � y µ�. t� a4 a { � �,M 4w;� .#� t k'. �„ 4 ' �, r�'� ,�,� � � � � � ''� ��' �t„1' :. ^r,�'�.^�: �'�l'r�� Sc,�,� �,?�" � �°�'7�. � '�a, ' ` ' � ;.� � �`� � h� ���� ,.{:a�" �. � � �"�� � � ^. � �� � �,5i .Sl+^�33 "4 . r °4. ��^. . � : y� .1 1 � Y �.+�'� Y,�� A P., ��'.��� 'y%. � .�,f� {3 �� �d �.a.k t %� �P A��� � ... 1�F. r .- r�, �, F� x tc .� , ;- �a . e �,s . �) g .r'" [p � � a ua� �� � Y AI �� � ��;��i�� �� � #�'�, ��'� Q .,��� y. .,� �� , � F .�' � � `# ,� r r+. � -'�+ , k � �+ �r`r �„ �.�E 3t 4i X9� a � ��s '� � . } ;x � I�" . '�'. �+ h L5 `{. g{, � �t , �°'�` ... ,5` ��r "�' ���'s P�%���� ' �d ?�k � � vv '�"'1t�` f ""�%i � !c a � } . � & � � �.,s�„yP ��"�� r� '�� ; �_'Y,y:'a,�'�`r,n�,yry''�;�1 f�'%.tr '. � _ � �s`k � �;'� � .^a,c : %<y 'm §� � {�f a-�ca i � !" �°,!d5�{j ,p.: �-�� . -a "r2�.�'*� -�g" 3'aix-..�+ �"/g,� ',[,�`r `3�"` . i � +n"idl� 1yE..�.�� b�i t �r ..� �r`. �� � }'��'�9a � �+/ �.,1 f aa�� �'�•-�r t ,�.J d�,'^� � � �� , - h r: LX, C.�'a;:c.-'�-�"��"rt'+�� � '`.''' ' . '. � ��l :4�! r , . s �� 1 '. ����. A 1�� ��� � x � . � �. � 's� f'� - re �' �'�"'�"`k'�--";� t� � �: s �ii-�� `,�u, �v `�t _�, c��'� '� z �.�s� .,."+"�'' r - t,¢ , � �. i "'t�� � �..�,+d"`.3�Q5 `�-�Lv�?� °� � �'" h h. , a``�' ? � '��,; �Ma,�'e�+.A...3". �� ���. �' u� ���� �. Y...� �,:.'� y ::L � .. ... .. -�� �1 .��`�'�'�'�' ='..�i: ��r��,`�n � :,i'e� �k� .'.�y+" \ �; ' �° i�_ � �-` � '�--'-� �---z--'si ! �., g 4� t G '�' n..� 'r l°$ �x�`"�„, t ��g� � � z kt'� . .�,-K .v�'� �� �y 1'�� � y� � s 7,, s, ''v'x �;�-��r � h ����za.�..0 ,r: ! �'i''iyi 3'�`�C f 'Y�;� ,r4� �`^Y'�•l f,[�^a� �q S:,S �P 'ih � "Z: ?. ��„� �xg T�,� sfi� L i ���`'� at i 1 >amn � k � k=a. �� � `�?{�£ us�.� �"�' ����i'� !�'K � i'�'�W S�; �...�, .K4`5£�3 ,'���3 c`�Y,, i�C,�' .,�7ct .,��,5; �Fi �`n � �,L� + . , t��,.;;.< ...�. .;i a �•...:,. .�' ,5...>t.k k'`�� ��'��u1 Y'�`s�T'�wM�`.�^e„.� �i . �r@'_ -� ".� 6.a „�:y' �2 � w�'� �� �.1 �^ �AhT'axC'�"2��p� ,� '!1 b ^.���5������- � '.1 l(s,�� �,�, � °"� ���T��+�S I I i'; �`y ` "�°^ ��'� � '`� 'i ` �� � � � � �°�� �� � �? + �a"� � �' � �r . f � � .' �� ��� r � �'�'`�g P*��x � '� 4«f I ,y, �k. ��.�A,7i ?,`Y�'t$ .�`t � R� "" `� ��5 �'.�: *.t !,i=�°j � :M 3..i I i � a � �;"�`3��� �'�y I '`_� � � �: � � � r1�%-�# � s.��` � �a�x�`"k�I.. �»s^� � . � _ � . DATE: TO: Community Development Departmen�t PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley August 17, 1994 Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Scott Hickok, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SIIB.TECT: Review of Special Use Permit Request, S.P. #93-12, by Doug LeMay, 5895 University Avenue The Planning Commission reviewed the special use permit request to allow a veterniary clinic at�its July 28, 1993 meeting. The City Council approved the request with the recommended stipulation that the request be reviewed by the Commission after one year regarding noise and odor. . Staff has notified the neighbors regarding review of this item and requested comments. No calls regarding this use of the property have been received by staff. The petitioner has complied with the second stipulation to improve the landscaping and repair the fence. Attached are the staff report and the minutes for your review. M-94-430 ��t . REQUEST Permit Number Applicant Proposed Request l.ocation SITE DATA Size Density Present Zoning Preserrt Land Use(s) Adacerrt Zoning Adjacerrt land Use(s) Util'�ies ' Park Dedication Watershed Disfict ANALYSIS Fnancial Impiications Conformance to the I Comprehensive Plan I Compatibility with Adjacent � Zoning and Uses ' Environmerrtal Considerations I RECOMMENDATION Staff Appeals Commission Pianning Commission Author �I/dn � li n S TAFF REP O RT Community Development Department Appeals Commission Date Planning Commission Date : July 28, 1993 , August 24 , 1994 City Council Date : August 16, 1993 SP ��93-12 Douglas LeMay, Home Veterinary Service, Inc. To allow a veterinary clinic 5895 University Avenue N.E. 32,400 square feet C-2, General Business Vacant commercial building C-2, General Business to the north aad south; R-2, Two Family Dwelling to the east. . Retail to the north; restaurant to the south; and residential to the east. Six Cities Approval Approval � Staff Report SP #93-12, by Doug LeMay Home Veterinary Service, Inc. Page 2 Request The petitioner requests that a special use permit be granted to allow the establishment of a veterinary clinic. The request is for Lots 5-8, Block 3, Bennet-Palmer Addition, and Lot 17, Block 4, Bennet-Palmer Addition, generally located at 5895 IIniversity Avenue N.E. Site Located on the property is a single story building of masonry and brick construction. The building was previously home to Mr. Steak, Arnold's, and the Straight Arrow restaurants. The property is zoned C-2, General Business, as are the properties to the north and south. The property to the east is zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling. Analysis The petitioner proposes to use the building as a veterinary hospital. In addition, grooming and boarding services will be ^, offered. The maximum daily animal capacity as indicated b� the petitioner will be 34 dogs and cats combined. � Section 205.14.01.C.(10) of the Fridley City Code permits animal clinics, veterinary clinics, and animal hospitals, public kennels, obedience schools, and training services with a special use permit., provided the following conditions are met: 1. All windows in the area of the building housing animals shall be double-glazed with a fixed sash. 2. Any ventilation system shall be designed so that no odors or organism will spread between wards or to the outside air. 3. There are no outside pens or holding areas. The petitioner has submitted extensive plans regarding compliance with these three conditions of the zoning code. The petitioner is proposing to provide the windows as required. There are no plans to construct an outdoor kennel. The petitioner proposes to have the dog/cat ward and surgery suites on a single air conditioning and heating unit. Each individual ward is proposed to have a separate air exhaust with a charcoal filter. There will be in excess of 12 air exchanges per hour for each separate ward. � The petitioner has on file an infectious waste management plan with the Minnesota Department of Health. The petitioner is also Staff Report SP #93-12, by Doug LeMay Home Veterinary Service, Inc. Page 3 currently licensed and has submitted a copy of his license. As the property has been vacant intermittently for a number of years, general property maintenance has not been maintained. General clean-up of the site needs to be performed: 1. Repair fence. 2. Remove weeds in the shrub beds in the area adjacent to the fence and in the parking lot. 3. Prune trees and shrubs. 4. Add new rock to the shrub�beds. Completion of these ite�ns should �be stipulated� as' �a cond�ition of approval of the special use permit. Recommendation �� Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recom�nend approval �`� of the special use permit request by Doug�LeMay of Home Veterinary Services, Inc�. ; to �allow establishment of a veterinary clinic, with the following stipulation: 1. �General site clean-up, including repairing the fence, removing weeds located in the shrub beds, in the area.adjacent to the fence and in the parking lot, addition of new rock to the shrub beds; and the pruning of trees and shrubs, shall be completed by June 1, 1994. Planning Commission Action The�Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request to the City Council. The Commission added one stipulation: � 2. The special use permit shaYl be reviewed by the Planning. Commission in 12 months regarding noise and odor. City Council�Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council concur with the Planning Commission action. � /'"1 � � /'1� CITY OF BRIDLLY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING� JIII,Y 28� 1993 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Newman called the July 28, 1993, Planninq Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL' Members Present: Members Absent: Dave Newman, Dave Rondrick, Dean Saba, Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig Others Present: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Doug LeMay, �ome Veterinary Sexvice Jim Leuck, 5872 - 4th Street N.E. Ron Stelter, Friendly Chevrolet Geo, Inc. Steve Billings, City Councilmember APPROVAL OF JULY 14, 1993, PLANNING COMMISSION.MINIJTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to approve the July 14, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICl� VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRILD IINAI�TIMOIISLY. - NEWM�IN DECLARED THE 1. CONSIDERATION OF�A SPECIAL IISE PERMIT. SP #93-12. BY HOME VETERINARY SERVICE, INC. Per Section 205.14.O1.C.(10) of the Fridley City Code, to allow an animal hospital located on Lots 5-8, Block 3, Bennet- • Palmer Addition, and Lot 17, Block 4, Bennet-Palmer Addition, generally located at 5895 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to waive the reading of the public hearing.notice and open the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTL, ALI, VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEAMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the property is the site of the former Mr. Steak, Arnold's, and Straight Arrow restaurants. The property is zoned C-2 , General Business, as are the properties to the north and south. The property to the east is zoned R-2, Two Family Dwelling. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. JIILY 28. 1993 PAGE 2 � Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to remodel the interior of the building in order to establish a veterinary hospital. The petitioner currently conducts a home veterinary service out of his home in Roseville. Ms. McPherson stated the Fridley City Code permits animal clinics, veterinary clinics, animal hospitals, public kennels,� obedience schools, and training services in the C-2 zoning district with a special use permit. The following�conditions must be met for the special use permit: 1. All windows in the area of the building housing animals shall be double-glazed with a fixed sash. 2. Any ventilation system shall be designed so that no odors or organisms will spread between wards or to the outside area. 3. There are no outside pens or holding areas. Ms. McPherson stated that in addition to the proposed floor plan which includes a cat and dog ward, a lab area, grooming facilities, as well as typical accessory office areas associated with the veterinary service, the petitioner has submitted an extensive design for the ventilation systeai which will meet the Code � requirements. The petitioner is intending to provide the required windows in the�dog and cat wards where animals would be housed overnight. Each ward, as well as the surgery area, is proposed to be on individual ventilation mechanisms, and each of those areas will have its own air exhaust with a charcoal filter. There will be in excess of 12 air exchanges per hour for each individual ward � which will more than meet the Code requirement. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has an Infectious Waste Manage- ment Plan on file, and the petitioner is also currentiy licensed. Ms. •McPherson stated that as the property has been vacant intermittently for a number of years, the general site maintenance has not been kept up to required standards. The following things need to be accomplished by the petitioner: l. Repair fence. 2. Remove weeds in the shrub beds in the area adjacent to the fence and in the parking lot. � 3. Prune trees and shrubs.. 4. Add new rock to the shrub beds. � PLANNING CONIl�IISSION MEBTING. JIILY 28, 1993 PAGg 3 Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit with the following stipulation: l. General site clean-up, inaluding repairing the fence, removing weeds located in the shrub beds, in the area adjacent to the fence and in the parking lot, addition of new rock to the shrub beds, and the pruning of�trees and shrubs, shall be completed by June 1, 1994. Mr. Kondrick asked if staff has received any objections or interest from the neighbors. Ms. McPherson stated she did receive one telephone call from a neighbor who was curious as to which building would be the veterinary hospital. The resident indicated that she was glad the � building would be occupied and feit the use was appropriate. Ms. Savage asked if there is a need to require a landscape plan, in addition to the general site clean-up. Ms. McPherson stated that since the petitioner is not doing any exterior remodeling of the building or the parking lot, under the �Landscape Ordinance, the City cannot require additional � landscaping. If the Commission feels��strongly about th� land- scaping, they could add a stipulation for additional landscaping. Dr. Doug LeMay, Home Veterinary Service, Inc., stated he is looking forward to occupying�the building. If additio�al landscaping is required, that will have to be discussed with the owner of the property as he is only renting the property. As far as general clean-up, that needs to be done and he has no problem with that stipulation. NIr. Newman stated that in a discussion with another veterinarian, that person stated that the C�.t�r should be careful on issues of sound and odor. Since the building was not originally constructed for this purpose, there is a greater likelihood of sound and odo� emitting from the structure. Has Mr. LeMay addressed this issue of sound and odor in his plans? Dr. LeMay stated that the architect has�been looking at both those issues. As far as sound, they are looking at adding additional wall barriers that will further absorb the sound. As far as the odors, that is also one of his maj or concerns, and that is why they have designed extensive filters and ventilation system. The additional wall barriers should also trap any odors to the outside as well as the sound. He will discuss this with the architect and make sure there are no problems in the construction. �� PLANNING COMMI88ION MEFTIN(3. JIILY 28. 1993 PAGE 4 Mr. Rondrick asked if an animal, other than the typical domestic animals, is brought to the hospital, does Dr. LeMay have the provisions to house that animal overnight? Dr. LeMay stated he would normally not house any wild animals in the facility and would send the animal to the Wildlife Rehabilitation Clinic located at the University of Minnesota-St. Paul Campus. As far as other pets, they will be housed in an isolation area which has its own exhaust system where any diseases could not be spread to other animals. Mr. Ji.m Leuck, 5872 - subj ect property and located to the south several concerns: 4th Street N.E., stated he lives behind the also owns the Oriental House restaurant of the subject�property. He stated he has 1. As� a resident behind the subject property, he is concerned about noise �at night, specifically barking dogs. This building is not very soundproof, and since the dogs will be�unattended at night, it could be noisy. He would like the petitioner to consider soundproofing the building•since it is adjacent to a residential area. � �� 2. He is concerned about the� smell, not so much from �the � �ventilation system; but from the disposal of waste, �'` specifically animal feces. � � 3. Since �ie operates a restaurant, he is concerned., about the visibility of the animal hospital. It has been his experience that when people bring animals in and out of the �acility, the ani.mals usually defecate or urinate in tiie yard. He� is concerned that� customers eating in the restaurant will see this and it will spoil their appetites. -He would like to see�either some type of pet � enclosure near the entrance where people can�take their animals or a fence between the restaurant and the animal hospital. The fence would have to be approxi.mately 5 feet high and extend about two-thirds the length of the lot line. Dr. LeMay stated that regarding the issue of pet waste on the grass or in the parking lot, that wili be cleaned up a soon as possible by the animal hospital workers. As far as urine, there is not much that can be done if there is some odor from that. From his experience, most animals defecate or urinate inside the building. Most of the �animals will be entering the building on the north side of the building. If they establish a grooming facility, that will be on the south side of the buildi�ng� the side where the restaurant is located. Dr. LeMay stated that as far as the disposal of the pet waste, there is no ordinance governing�that. It will be disposed of in � �-�, PLANNING COMMISSION MEBTING. JIILY 28, 1993 PAGS 5 the trash enclosure at the far east end of the property. That can be moved to a different location if odor becomes a problem. Dr. LeMay stated he would have no objection to a fence between the hospital and the restaurant. �gain, that would have to be discussed with the owners of the property. Mr. Saba asked if screening could be accomplished with landscaping and shrubbery instead of a fence. � Mr. Leuck stated there is about three feet of curb between the two lots. It is possible some shrubbery could be planted; but, again, the shrubbery would have to be about five feet high as one of their seating areas looks directly out onto the side of the proposed hospital facility. . . _ Ms. McPherson stated that, in addition to the general landscape cleanup, staff and the petitioner might want to explore the possibility of some type of enclosure where animals could be taken before entering the building. Mr. Saba asked about Mr. Leuck's concern about dogs barking at night. �"'� Dr: LeMay stated it has been his experience that the-animals tend to settle down and sleep when the lights are out and then get noisy in the morning. They hope to set up the facility so the animals _cannot see each other. Hopefully, additional walls and sound- proofing in the ceiling will take care of any noise to the outside. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded.by Mr. Rondrick, to close the public hearing. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING �YE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Saba stated this sounds like a good use for this building. The petitioner has indicated a willingness to work with the City and the neighbors to solve any potential problems. He stated he would like to see the Commission stipulate a review period for this special use permit to make sure that any future problems are addressed. At this point, it is difficult to know what type of problems might occur. He suggested a review of the special use permit after six months. Mr. Kondrick agreed with Mr. Saba. It sounds like things can be worked out, and six months should be an appropriate length of time. Ms. Savage also agreed. Six months would also give them enough time to decide if additional landscaping is needed. �� PLANNING COMMISgION MEETING, JQLY 28. 1993 PAGE 6 Mr. Newman stated he would like to see a review after one year. That would give the animal hospital a full season of operation. Ms. Savage stated she would agree with a one year review. If there are any problems before that review, the neighbors can contact the City. Ms. McPherson stated that, administratively, a one year review period is easier for staff. If the�e are any complaints during the 12 month period, the complainant can work with staff and the petitioner. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Ms. Savage, to recommend to City Council approval of Special Use Permit, SP �93-12, by Home Veterinary Service, Inc., per Section 205.14.O1.C.(10) of the Fridley City Code, to allow an animal hospital located on Lots 5- 8, Block 3, Bennet-Palmer Addition, and Lot 17, Block 4, Bennet- Palmer Addition, generally located at 5895 IIniversity Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: ' � � 1. General site clean-up, including repairing the fence, removing weeds located in the shrub beds, in the area adjacent to the fence and in the parking lot, addition � of new rock to the shrub beds, and the pruning of trees and shrubs, shall be completed by June 1, 1994. �"�. 2. The special use permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission in 12 months regarding noise and odor. IIPON A 40ICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. NEWMAN DECI�ARED THE Ms. McPherson stated this item will go to City Council on August ' 16, 1993. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL SE PERMIT SP 93-13 BY FRIENDLY CHEVROLET GEO. INC.: Per Section 205.14.O1.C.(2) nd (3), and per Section 205.12. 02.B.(3) of the Fridley City Code, to allow agencies selling or displaying new and/or used or boats on that part of the 1/4 lying southerly of the na northerly of the southeriy westerly of the easterly 600 fE taken for road, and subject to located at 7011 University AvE Lcles, recreational vehicles, itheast 1/4 of the southwest ierly 50 feet thereof, lying 0 feet thereof, and lying thereof, excluding that part \sements of record, generally �t N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by reading of the public hearing notice � IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CHA MOTION CARRIED AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING . Oquist, to waive the open the public hearing. iON NEWMAN DECLARED THE � AT 8:00 P.M. .