Loading...
PL 09/21/2011 - 30026.� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 21, 2011 Chairperson Kondrick called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Approval of Minutes: David Kondrick, Jack Velin, Brad Sielaff, Tim Solberg, and Dean Saba Leroy Oquist and Brad Dunham Stacy Stromberg, Planner June 15, 2011 MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to approve the minutes as presented. Secanded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Resolution for �a Speciat Use Permit SP #11-02, by Sc6midt Osborne LLC, to Allow Limited Outdoor Storage, Generatty Located at 7580 Commerce Lane NE. MUTION by Commissioner Saba to open the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHATRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AT 7:03 P.M. Stacy Stromberg, Planner, stated the petitioner and property owner of 7580 Commerce Lane NE, Mr. Cote, is seeking a special use permit to allow limited outdoor storage on the property. He is hoping that if a special use permit is in place to allow outdoor storage that it will make this site more marketable and will help with the potential sale of the property. He understands the Code requirements to allow for limited outdoor storage and is agreeable to those regulations. Ms. Stromberg stated the property is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial, as are the properties to the north, west and south. The property to the east is a commercial complex and is zoned C-2, General Business. The subject property is located on the corner of Commerce Lane and Osborne Road. The existing building was constructed in 1972, with an addition being constructed in 1974. A loading dock was added to the building in 1991. Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 2 Ms. Stromberg stated permit approval to have remains unoccupied. i 2003, Malton Equipment Co., applied for and received special use outdoor storage on this site. They have since vacated the site, and it Ms. Stromberg stated in 2008, the petitioner purchased the subject property. He is also the property owner of 100 Osborne Road, which is west of the property. At that time the petitioner purchased the triangular piece of land west of the subject property that was part of 7580 Commerce Lane, to combine it with 100 Osborne Road. The additional land area was needed for 100 Osborne Road to create a new driveway to the multi-tenant building as a result of the quiet zone changes to the rail crossing. This change in land area for the subject property changed the outdoor storage area that was originally approved with the 2003 special use permit. Therefore, staff determined that a new special use permit for outdoor storage would need to be obtained. The 2003 special use permit will be repealed and replaced with this special use permit. Ms. Stromberg stated City Code allows limited outdoor storage in the industrial districts that is up to 50 percent of the building footprint with a special use permit. The building's square footage is 21,754 square feet, so City Code would a11ow up to 10,877 square feet of outdoor storage on this site. The petitioner is requesting to have outdoor storage in one designated area on the west side of the site. The proposed area is 10,877 syuare feet in size, which is exactly 50 percent of the building's footprint. Because a tenant has not been identified for this site, at this time the items to be stored are unknown. Ms. Stromberg stated before the special use permit can be issued for limited outdoor storage, several additional requirements need to be met. Those specific reyuirements relate to height, screening, parking, and the types of materials allowed to be stored outside. Ms. Stromberg stated based on the breakdown of uses within the building, which was provided by the petitioner, parking needs for this site are 16 parking stalls. The petitioner has shown on the submitted site plan 19 parking stalls, which meets code requirements. If the building is used for anything other than warehouse, additional parking may be required. Ms. Stromberg stated the outdoor storage area will need to be screened from the public right-of- way. There is a chain link fence already installed, with screening slats; however some of the slats are missing. New slats will need to be installed where there are missing slats to ensure proper screening from the public right-of-way. Ms. Stromberg stated the proposed site plan meets all other outdoor storage code requirements. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff heard from the business owner to the south of the subject property who had questions about the types of items to be stored outside and the type of business occupying the site. Those items are unknown at this time; however any new tenant would be required to comply with all code requirements for outdoor storage. 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 2l, 2011 Page 3 Ms. Stromberg stated City Staff recommends approval of both special use permits, with stipulations as limited outdoor storage is a permitted special use in the M-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district, provided specific code requirements are met, subject to stipulations. Ms. Stromberg stated this Special Use Permit, SP #11-02 wilt repeal and replace SP #03-23 that was approved to allow for limited outdoor storage in 2003. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends that if the special use permit is granted, the following stipulations be attached: 1. Outdoor storage on this site shall remain in the approved outdoor storage areas only. 2. The existing fence shall have screening slats installed to allow proper screening of the outdoor storage area before occupancy of a new tenant or buyer. 3. If parking becomes an issue on this site, based on use of a new tenant, additional parking shall be required. 4. Any new tenant or property owner shall be required to comply with code requirements for limited outdoor storage. Commissioaer Saba asked at what point do they identify that what is being stored is in compliance, before a tenant takes occupation of the building or do they require the petitioner to come before the City Council or community development staff to make sure he is not storing any chemicals or flammables? Ms. Stromberg replied, once a tenant has been identified staff will do an inspection and, like all of the City's special use permits, staff reviews them annually to make sure the property continues to remain in compliance. Chairperson Kondrick stated he knows the City has ordinances regarding odors, etc. He wanted to mention that is something on their mind as it does bother people. He asked how close to Osborne is the fence now, should it be further away, or are they satisfied with the location of it? Ms. Stromberg replied, she would assume the fence is on the property line along Osborne Road; and that is sufficient. It is according to Code requirements. Chairperson Kondrick asked how tall is the fence? Ms. Stromberg replied, she believed the fence is eight feet, which is what Code reyuires. Chairperson Kondrick stated the City would not like it if they store materials in there that was bundled or stacked taller than the fence. 3 Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 4 Ms. Stromberg replied, actually the City's outdoor storage regulations say the materials cannot be taller than 12 feet. Chairperson Kondrick asked, then the people who rent the space could have materials that are visible above the fence? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes. Chairperson Kondrick asked, and there is nothing the City could do about that. Ms. Stromberg replied, no. Chairperson Kondrick asked whether the City is insisting the slats in the fence be replaced? Ms. Stromberg replied, yes, if there are missing slats new ones need to be put in so that everything is screened from the public right-of-way. Chairperson Kondrick asked the petitioner if he was in agreement with the stipulations? Bob Cote, Petitioner, replied, yes. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Sotberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING .AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED AT 7:12 P.M. Chairperson Kondrick stated he has no problem with this. Comraissioner Saba replied, he does not either. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to approve Special Use Permit SP #11-02, by Schmidt Osborne LLC, to Allow Limited Outdoor Storage, Generally Located at 7580 Commerce Lane NE with the following stipulations: l. Outdoor storage on this site shall remain in the approved outdoor storage areas only. 2. The existing fence shall have screening slats installed to a11ow proper screening of the outdoor storage area before occupancy of a new tenant or buyer. 3. If parking becomes an issue on this site, based on use of a new tenant, additional parking shall be reyuired. 4. Any new tenant or property owner shall be required to comply with code requirements for limited outdoor storage. 4 � Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 5 Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. Receive the Minutes of the June 2, 2011, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Receive the Minutes of the May 23, 2011, Parks & Recreation Commissioa Meeting.. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 4. Receive the Minutes of the May 10, 2011, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5. Receive the Minutes of the July 6, 2011, Appeals Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Sielaff to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Velin. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Receive the Minutes of the July 12, 2011, Environmental Quality and Energ,y Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 5 Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 6 7. Receive the Minutes of the August 4, 2011, Housing and Redevelopmeat Authority Commission Meeting. MOTION by Commissioner Saba to receive the Minutes. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. OTHER BUSINESS: To Repeal Chapter 510 Tree Preservation Ordinance Ms. Stromberg stated at the Planning Commission's last meeting on June 15, 2011, they heard from Jack Kirk, Parks and Recreation Director, and Scott Hickok, Community Development Director, regarding an amendment to Chapter 510 Tree Preservation. Ms. Stromberg _stated that amendment would allow more discretion when removing trees on publicly-owned property not only for diseased/infected trees but also for City projects. Ms. Stromberg stated that amendment still required the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City Council to review plans for removal of trees before they can be removed. Ms. Stromberg stated since the City Council approved that text amendment, several situations have arose that have made it clear the City's best action may have been to repeal the entire ordinance instead of modifying it. Ms. Stromberg gave the following examples of Code conflicts: ■ Fairview Medical Center/City of Fridley Electronic Sign ■ Three trees needed to be removed to allow for the sign install. ■ Extra 90-day process to allow both commissions and council to approve tree removal. ■ Even though the sign install was already approved by the HRA and City. ■ HRA had already agreed to pay for three replacement trees in a preferred location — yet the process of Chapter 510 needed to be followed. ■ Boulevard trees along 73�d Avenue next to Sam's Auto Parts ■ The trees are unsightly and in the way of the private property owner own landscape plan and fencing plan which are required as part of his SUP for a recycling center. ■ Time is of the essence as we move towards winter to get the unsightly trees removed and new trees installed. C� -t Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 7 ■ City's street department and the City Forester have agreed is better to have these trees removed from the boulevard and have new trees installed on the private property. ■ Yet because of the requirement in Chapter 510, an additional 90-day process is reyuired before the trees can be removed. Ms. Stromberg stated City staff, Commissions, and Council know the value of trees; and trees are not going to be removed haphazardly, simply because Chapter 510 is not in place. Relaxation of the City's ability to remove the trees, however, would be a valuable advancement in efficiency. Ms. Stromberg stated staff recommends repealing Chapter 510 on public property, to leave the preservation task to those who have been trusted with the task of managing the City's forest, the City Forester. Commissioner Sielaff asked, would the plans be in another part of the ordinance or is that just considered policy? Ms. Stromberg replied, it looks like the Parks and Recreation Commission is interested in creating a policy; and Councilmember Bolkcom had also suggested creating a policy to review plans for removal of trees on park land only. However, City boulevard trees would be left up to the discretion of the City Forester. Commissioner Sielaff asked whose responsibility is it to make sure the policies are followed? Ms. Stromberg replied, in this situation she assumed Jack Kirk, Park and Recreation Director would make sure that any changes or adjustments to park land would go before the Parks and Recreation Commission since they are the ones asking to be involved in that process. Commissioner Sielaff asked who oversees the policy on other City land that is not parks? Ms. Stromberg replied, they would leave that up to the City Forester. Commissioner Sielaff asked, the City Forester's title would be in the policy then? Ms. Stromberg replied, the policy statement has not been written yet; but she thinks that is the idea the Parks and Recreation is asking for and is what they are hearing Council wants to see. Chairperson Kondrick stated he thinks they are on track and taking all possible protective measures to protect parks and City-owned property from indiscriminate tree cutting. MOTION by Commissioner Velin Repealing Code Section 510 Tree Preservation. Seconded by Commissioner Solberg. 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2011 Page 8 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Saba adjourning the meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Sielaff. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON KONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:27 P.M. Respectfully submitted, �'�� �, .�G�iao� Denise M. Johnson Recording Secretary 8 CITY OF FRIDLEY SIGN-IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING s ,��-� �-,� Name Address/Business