Loading...
PL 04/06/1967 - 30989� / i'i, � i / � � / �� � � /� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - APRIL 6, 1967 Page_1 ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Acting Chairman Hughes. Members present: Jensen, Myhra, Erickson, Ylinen, Hughes Others present: City Manager Wagner, Engineering Assistant Clark APPRG�IE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: MARCH 23, 1967: Member Jensen referred to Page 4, Item 6, the second sentence from the last paragraph which should be corrected to read "For the record, these suggestions are for designation purposes only and must be restudied before being included in the constructi�n program". � Member Jensen referred to Page 5, under Section 45.08, ��2, the word "therefore" should be changed to "therein" reading as follows: ��2. Multiple dwellings including service for tenants therein accessible to customers from inside the building." MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Erickson, that the Planning Commission minutes be accepted as corrected and stated above. Upon a voice vote, all ^ voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE MINUTES OF PLATS & SUBDNISIONS - STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING: MARCx 30, 1967: MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions - Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting of Ma.rch 30, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE MINUTES OF BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 22, 1967 AND MARCH 29,_1967: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals meetings of Ma.rch 22, 1967 and March 29, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried ' unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS - DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: MARCH 21, 1967: MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards - Design Control meeting of March 21, 1967. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADOPTION OF AGENDA: � The agenda was to be followed as written. Plannin� Commission Meeting - April 6, 1967 Page 2 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST (ZOA ��67-03) BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION: Rezone to M-2 all that part of SE� of Section 12 not presently zoned M-2. Present, representing the petitioner, were Larry Griffith and Robert Aspelin, Operation Ma.nager of Studebaker Corporation. The notice of the public hearing was read by the City Manager. Chairman Hughes explained that the procedure at a public hearing is to allow the petitioner to describe his desired change, then to give the Commission the opportunity to ask questions of the petitioner, and then to make time available to the public for questions. Mr. Griffith stated Boise Cascade Corporation owns the land, and he isirepresenting Studebaker Corporation who has taken an option on the land with the idea of possible construction of a new plant site on the property. Briefly, the rezoning is to reconcile the Northwest corner and the two 50 foot strips on the north and south of the parcel which were once used as a setback guard. He stated they hoped that Studebaker will be able to build out here. The plans are still tentative, and because we are only under an option, the plans which we have are somewhat preliminary. Ttao maps, one an architect's preliminary conception of the exterior view of the proposed buildings, and a blue print of proposed buildings and landscaping, were put on the wall. Mr. Griffith introduced Mr. Aspelin who would answer questions of the Commission and public. Chairman Hughes mentioned that the Commission, in considering rezoning � requests of this type, while preliminary plans are of interest, must consider this in terms of the impact of the change on the land. Member Erickson asked what they have in mind for the use of the building. Mr. Aspelin answered the owners are manufacturers of engines and generators and primarily this is what we would b� doing here. We checked your code . and we know that we can live within the code. Regaxding landscaping,,Mr. Aspelin stated there is a grove of trees which we would like to keep, will have grass and shrubs along 73rd Avenue, Central Avenue and to the east end of the building. There would be no outside storage as the product is not such that can sit outside. Regarding access, there will be three on 73rd Avenue and two on Central. In answer to the question if he could comment as to what the remainder of this one quarter section would be devoted to, Mr. Aspelin said that we are going to use all of the 1900 feet coming down to the railroad tracks, but as far as future development at this point, we do not know. The approximate footage of the structures is 400,OOO.square feet for the plant and 100,000 square feet, including office buildings, which will have three floors. �.,, Paul L. King, 13Q1 Norton Avenue N.E.: You mentioned that you would , have a dock coming out onto Central Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1967 Page 3 Mr. Aspelin replied that a road will be put in through the central part � of the property to the docks, but the traffic will come out on Central Avenue. Mrs. Michael Silk, 7006 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View: Will there be any type of fumes? Answer: The only thing would be the steam in the winter time, but that does not contaminate the air. Mrs. Silk: How much trucking? Answer: There are seven truck docks on the main plant and three in the other. I presume we have twenty-five or thirty trucks a day, but they are not all diesel. Mr. King: Are the docks enclosed? Answer: The docks downtown are not enclosed except in the warehouse. Mr. Silk: Do you have protection and dust facilities? Answer: We do. Mr. Aspelin continued that the plant downtown is running two shifts, and we expect to be down to one shift with the new plant. We have checked the noise and we can go within the code easily. With the muffling we are proposing, I do not think you are going to notice any more noise. Mr. King: Once you get up into cheap rates over the rail, you would probably be using the railroad track more. Answer: Most transportation is by truck. Mrs. Wesley Ehlers, 6929 Pleasant View Drive, Mounds View: I am not ^ familiar with the zoning of Fridley and wonder if there is a buffer zone on the border. Does the industrial line go right up to the City line? Chairman Hughes explained that Fridley has different buffer zones for each category. For example, there is not a separate zoning category along ... the edge of property. Rather we write into the zoning code for each particular category the setbacks, screening requirements, etc. In the case of heavy industrial zoning, 100 feet is the setback. In this case, the boundary will be 50 feet plus the street. Mr. King: If they are going to plan on building a plant of this size, I think it woul3 behoove the City of Fridley to have railroad crossing si�nals put in on Central Avenue. Chairman Hughes stated they (Studebaker) would not cross Old Central with the railroad traffic as they are on the East side of Central Avenue. Mr. Aspelin said they would probably haVe about 10 cars a month. Mx. Griffith stated, if at all possible, we would appreciate it if action could be taken on the matter some ti.me this evening inasmuch as we are operating under a short term option. We have to have an answer on the proposal in order ;:o make a d:termix�ation on the option. This is only an option situation and that the decision has not been finally made to locate here. � Planning Commission Meetin�- April 6, 1967 Page 4 MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the public hearing of the rezoning request (ZOA ��67-03), Boise Cascade Corporation, to rezone to n. M-2 all that part of the Southeast Quarter of Sectiori 12 not presently zoned M-2 be closed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Hughes stated that it appears from the way this land is presentl: zoned that what is being requested is essentially to correct the existing zoning. We have a circumstance of commercial and residential in small parcels surrounded on two sides by industrial property. It seems likely that if we were zoning this territory for the first time that we would make it a ma.jor industrial tract. The petiCion is completely justified and should be considered in terms of a correction of what, at best, was a mistake in the first place. The City Ma.nager added that this was zoned that way in 1955, probably for the matter of convenience only. MOTION by Exickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the rezoning request (ZOA ��67-03) Boise Cascade Corporation to rezone to M-2 all that part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12 not presently zoned M-2, be granted. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried. 2. REOPEN LOT SPLIT ��65-14, H. M. NYGARD: Part of Lot 14, Auditor's Subdivision ��129 . � Member Ylinen reviewed the discussion and motion of the Plats & Subdivi- sions - Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting of March 30, 1967, thE ^ minutes of which are in this agenda. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Jensen, that the Planning Commission Concur in the second portion of the Plats & Subdivisions - Streets & Utilitie� Subcommittee motion in their mim.�tes of March 30, 1967 and recammend to the City Council approval of the Lot Split ��65-14, H. M. Nygard, being that' • part of Lot 14, Auditor's Siibdivision ��129 lying west of east 273.0 feet, except west 17.0 feet taken for Central Avenue and except easement over north 30 feet for road purposes for the modification of the request being 175 feet for the lot facing Central. Avenue and 75 feet for the lot to the east. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L.S. ��67-01, MYLO PA.RKS: ParceTs 2000, 2010 and 2020, Auditor's Subdivision ��10 (Revised) - splitting for special assessments. The City Manager explained the circumstances of receiving the request at the last minute. The lots were split in Anoka because of taxes, but the Gounty will not split assessments. The former owners have sold portions and have not gone through the formality of a lot split. One of the present owners will have to pay the assessments on land which he does not own, in addition to his property, if the lot split is not granted. The Engineering Assistant was requested to make a drawing to be ready for the Council meeting on Monday, April lOth, showing the lots to be, from West to East, approximately 110 feet, 125 feet, 109 feet, and 90 feet ^ of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision ��10 (Revised). r � MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Lot Split ��67-01, all of Lot 10, Auditor's Subdivision ��10 (Revised) with frontages on Mississippi Street from West ta East of Plannin� CoTCUnission Meetin� - April 6, 1967 • Page 5 approxima.tely 110 feet, 125 feet, 109 feet and 90 feet, subject tu verifi- cation and clarification by the Engineering Department. Upon a voice vote, n all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � It was noted there are two zoning categories in the above parcel, but the Commission felt that no further action was required now, but there is the possibility of a request later on to extend the commercial zoning. 4. APPLICATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS: S. CHMIELEWSKI: Lot 12, Block 2, Osborne Mano"r, special use permit for two family dwelling. Member Ylinen said he visited the property and talked to adjacent property owners and only one indicated mild disapproval. He stated it was a good lot. The petitioner lives in one of the adjacent homes. The proposed structure would be two stories. MOTION by Ylinen, seconded by Jensen, to recommend approval of the petition of Severin or Eleanor Chmielewski, to the City Council for this two family dwelling on Lot 12, Block 2, Osboxne Manor with the specifica- tion that there be a garage stall for each dwelling unit, connected to the street with a hard surfaced driveway, and the remainder of the lot shall be sodded including the boulevard, and further stipulate that the owner enter into an agreement with the City in connection with the above ' requirements that if�the owner does not comply with said requirements, the City shall complete said requixements and assess the cost back to the property. Upon a �oice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ^ 5. THIRD STREET PATTERN: Copies of the letter from Erickson Petroleum Corp. indicating their desire not to participate in plans concerning carrying Third Street through to 57th Avenue �aere passed out to the Commission members. In answer to Chairman Hughes question, Member Jensen (chairman of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & L'tilities Subcommittee) said it is pretty hard to summarize. It invQlves literally months of study by the Subcommittee and resulted in a fairly complete division of opinion as to the merits or demerits of the proposal. The Subcommittee ma.de two motions, the first motion failed which favored the recommendation of the proposal. Since there seemed to be no real feeling for continued review of the problem, it seemed to be the wisest move to forward it to the Planning CoIIUnission. This letter from Erickson Petroleum Corp. is a complete surprise in view of the Subcomr►ittee meeting which took place on March 30th. In a very short time they have more or less reversed their feeling. Mr. Wagner called me after a discussion with Bob Rote so that I would be aware of the reversal and I called Bob Rote, because the comments made to me really did not say anything except they were no longer favoring this gro- posal. Bob Rote informed me they own additional property north of 57th Avenue across the street of their present si�e and it is the feeling now of'Bob Rote and the management that the street which they have in the past proposed could actually become a deterrent in the development of this property. They could be in the position of having fostered a road which, n in a year or two, they might wish not to be there at all. They have not developed specific plans at this writing, but did not wish to delay any action if the Committee wished to continue the study. Chairman Hughes said that sometime ago a number of the members toured PlanninQ Conunission Meeting - April 6, 1967 Page 6 this area. This is a sample of an area on the boundary of an existing n primarily residential area and an existing commercial area, and typically, we find at such a boundary, there is pressure for change. We have several items for consideration. One is the ultimate use of this area. The other is traffic flow from North and South to the Holiday Stores, and further consideration of traffic flow within this immediate neighborhood. The neighborhood is set off by Main Street, University Avenue, 61st Street and 57th Street to the South. This neighborhood is zoned from 57th Place and North R-2 at the present time. 57th Place and 57th Avenue abut commercial and residential. There are Uses still existing from the time of the origin- al zoning which are non-conforming under our present Code and these are not to be disregarded. With the advent of University Avenue with no service road along that side of the property facing the highway, there was some significant division of opinion how the property should be resolved. Mr. Schmedeke, a visitor, stated that within a week the party he figured would come to the meeting with him backed out so that he was only a listener until things are clarified to him what has happened. He was not notified of the change until 4:00 o'clock. The Commission wondered, because the prime petitioner had withdrawn, if it might not be desirable to continue this ma.tter until a later meeting. Chairman Hughes asked Member Jensen that, as Chairman of the Subcommittee, did he feel it would be desirable to study the problem here and try to reach some conclusion on the basis of likely development of the area? � ^ Member Jensen said he could see no goint or purpose in bringing it back to the Subcommittee, in view of the letter giving full consideration of what Erickson Petroleum Corp. really desired. We have had some good discussions and there certainly are no hard feelings regarding the outcome, as far as I am concerned. We have no new approach to study it at the present time. Member Ylinen felt the Planning Commission should continue to give a lot of thought to the problem of the area so that they can come to a conclusion, as it has been on the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee agenda for three months. There has been some expression from the residents living on 3rd Street regarding a way out to the South, and their desires should be considered. Member Erickson said that the Commission has not heard from the rest of the people in the area, and should not forget Mr. Zizak who wanted a vacation on 57� Avenue. • Chairman Hughes said it seemed the Commission was in general agreement along the line to continue the item for a pexiod of 30 days. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission continue the Third Street Pattern until the first meeting in May (May llth) and further that we invite the residents or anybody else affected by this � proposal so that we can get the feeling of the people other than the peti- tioner. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Plannin� Commission Meeting - April 6, 1967 Page 7 It was agreed this could be done on an informal basis. ^ The City Manager was asked to send letters to the residents on the West side of 22 Street between 57th and 61st Avenues all the way to University, and to residents on.both sides of 57� Place from Main Street to University Avenue. Erickson Petroleum was to be invited and asked if they can formulate their plans more definitely. It was to be understood that at this hearing a final decision will not be made in order to give the people ample time to be heard. /� Chairman Hughes said, as the Subcommittee has not given a recommenda- tion, it is reasonably clear the members of this Commission are not in a position to make a recommendation. The Commission does not feel it would be helpful to take the matter back to the Subcommittee and it does feel it would be helpful to have the opinion of the people in that neighborhood. 6. REZONING INFORMATION: A. L. WILLIAMS: Lots 6 thru 9, Block 5, Spring Brook Park. Rezone from R-1 to R-3 including study of area between Ashton and railroad tracks. Chairman Hughes reviewed the problem by stating that the Commission indicated they would like to consider the matter, not only for these four lots but� alsc� for the general vicinity. We have both manufacturing and single family residences in both blocks. 1) We should not have a dividing line, between zones, running down the middle of the block. 2) Rezoning these four lots is spot zoning. 3) Problem concerning setbacks on all sides. The area East of Ashton Avenue and North of 79th is presently under multiple type uses ranging from single family dwellings, multiple dwel- lings and industrial. Ashton Avenue is not in as a street. Between Longfellow and Liberty tliere is a half block of dirt street, the closi�g of which is in dispute. It was felt park area should be considered as this area is cut off entirely from other areas. The engineering department was asked to prepare a ma.p showing how the area would look with a street through as discussed in the meeting and give it to Mr. Williams at the meeting of the 27th of April and ask him if he wants to circulate a petition. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, to ask the Engineering Depart- ment to prepare a sketch showing the thinking that we have applied to fihis tract tonight and to have it ready for our meeting of April 27, 1967. Upon a voice vote, .all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. FUTURE LOCATION OF_PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE AND YARD: Engineering Assistant Clark said the appraisals for the suggested locations of Public Works garage and yard have not been returned. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Jensen, that inasmuch as appraisals for suggested locations for the Public Works garage and yard have not n been xeturned, this item should.be carried over to the April 27fih meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unani- mously. Planning Commission Meeting - April 6, 1967 Page 8 Member Jensen wished to suggest a possible site for the Public Works �, Department -- the property of Al Johnson which is in Section 2 and zoned industrial. Mr. Johnson is taking some test holes to find out how good or bad his property is. The price is $2500 an acre. It has a ditch, it is zoned properly and in not a bad spot. 8. DISCUSSION OF ZONING FOR VETERINA.RIAN CZINIC: Chairman Hughes explained that at fihe last meeting of the Planning Coimnission there was a request to consider the possibility of locating a veterinarian clinic in a commercial zone North of St. Phillips' Church. The amount of land involved is two or three lots. A mortuary is planned for the corner and a clinic north of there. � Under the present zoning, veterinary clinics can be located only in M-1 or M-2. The question is whether we want to reconsider the special use to the extent of saying veterinary clinics can be located in com- mercial zone; consider the possibility of a small industrial zone, or Section 45.19 Use Permits. Member Jensen recommended that this item be carried forward and c�nsidered in a fuxthex study of Chapter 45. As �he two gentlemen indicated they were not in a big hurry, perhaps we can just continue this item in an orderly fashion. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Ylinen, that the Planning Commission ^ table this item until the meeting of April 27, 1967. Upon a voice vote, /� � all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT : There being no further business, tlie meeting was adjourned by Chaixman Hughes at 11:15 P.M. Re�ectfull� submitted, �C3� u��,,.- Haz�1 0'Brian Recording Secretary � .. . ..,. . .�� ..... .......... ........... • ------....:.:..:r.. .. ..................................... !i - PLANDTING COI�IISSiON MEETING - APitli 6, 19ti'/�' SIGN ��RBT :� �� � ��1; __ __ N — -_ _ __ ADDRESS ITEM Ni1MBER __ __ _-- - - >- -- _.._ _ _ _ ___ __ _.. _.___ _ __ _ , / _ � _ � - _ _ _ _ S b � S _ %�.� � �� � L 1��G/��-�-Y . � ��n�� � , __ Ge4�- 1�.�• 7a o� f'L�'A.fA��l�/El.�J �/1 /��� - - - _. - --- . - - i CI � _ , � __ _ _ __ � � � .�-�-C-�<�X,._ . _ _ _ _ .._ _.__ ._. 2 a Y� _ _ � �e.e� __ ` < � .z�f ~ c� ; �, �� _ _ . . _ I _ _�9�../"�=��' - /1 ' �_e�_i°����-G�C_�,,./"' !/�..._. . _ ___ _ _ _.��'��-,'._ ` . __.. _ ; '�/� .__._- v � . /� 1 // /� � ._. . j _ _ .._.+`-� �-�-.___ . ... _. . ___-- - --. _ . . .__.. . ._.. _ �_/.'_`..�. _ . _.._ . . ._..._.__. _.i/. ���/C/'_ I_ _-- � . _.. . _. .__._ . . _... .. ' � _ __ __ _ _ __ __ /3�0 — 69 �C�� 7'1C' . _ _ - __ _ _-- � __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ s _ -- -- -- - -- ' _ __ _ . �_ _3 y ° eo �� �i ' _ - -���� , - Uu�a-rc.. ���- . � � � - _- � -- _ _ -- -- _ _ _ _ __ _ _. __ _____. _ _ _ __ _ _ _7_.� � �____ i�� -�y�-,� _ _� . __ _ _-__�� �° � _ ; ___ _ _ - -- - ��3 � � -��-�`�=_►� _,g_.� __ �. � _ _ _ _ - � �, _--�,����� _ _ _ _ � 3 `7 � _ . � � o��..e,u,,•d a � , _- --___ _--- -- , --- _ _. _ _ - _ , - --- i _ _ __ . � " _ .. _ _ 5�0� -// _ ��a_ . _ _ _._ _- _ _ --_ _ _- --_____ __ � __ _ „ il_ __. _ _ __ _ E, I _ _ _ --_ _ _ _ --____ �I _ _-- - , _ __ _ I� - _ _ __ _ � _ _ _ _ . _— � _ __ ____ _ '; _ ___ _ (�_ _ _ I _ - _ _ _____ _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ . _ __ 1 __ I _ __ _ __ ___ ____ __ __„— -- - _ _ ._ s ,. _., .�,�-._