Loading...
PL 03/18/1970 - 7349_... . ... . �. ... . � � . . . 1 ' � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 18, 1970 7:30 P.M. R4LL CALL• PAGES APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MARCH'4, 1970 RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: MARCH 11, 1970 ; 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGs REZONING REQUEST, ZOA ��70-03, GEORGE N. NELSON: The N� of Lot 30 and the N� of Lat 31, except the North 125 feet of Auditor's Subdivision ��129 to be rezoned from R-1 (single family) to R-3A (apartments and multiple dwellings). 2. CQNTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �E69-12, � ROBERT V. PRITCHARD: The South 2/3rds of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision ��108 to be rezoned from R-1 (single family) to R-3A (apartments and multiple dwellings). . — �%C- � , �`�- " °�� . � �� �� PLEASE USE YOUR AGENDAS OF MARCH 4, 1970 FOR SUPPORTING DATA 1-6 . 7-11 � ^ PLANPIING COMMISSION MEETING MARCIi 4, 1970 PAGE 1 The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Acting Chairman Jensen. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Myhra, Jensen, Fitzpatrick Members Absent: Erickson, Mittelstadt Others Present: Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant APPROVE PLANNING COI�IISBION MINUTES: FEBRLTARY 18, 1970 MOTION by Myhra, second�d by Fitzpatrick, that the P.Ianning Comrru ssion approve the Planning Comraission rninutes or February 18, I970. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CO�SSIOPT MINUTES: FEBRUARY 23, 1970 MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded°by Mgh.ra, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of February 23, 1970. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the motian carried unanimously. ^ ORDER OF AGENDA: The Agenda was to be considered i.n the order written, and added as Item 5, was the Lot Split #70-02 by Eugene Bonnett. Acting Chairman Jeasen stated that Items 1 and 2 would be considered together as both were public hearings relative to the same property. 1. PUBLIC SEARING: REZO1�'ING REQYTEST.ZO� #ID-02, STEVE CODDON: Lot 1, Block 3, Co�erce Park to rezone from C-1 (local business) to C-2 (general business). 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMLT, SP �70-01, STEVE CODDON: Lot 1, Block 3, Comm�erce Park. For automatic car wash gasolene sales and self servi¢e car wash. The public hearing notice for the rezoning request, ZOA �70-02, by Steve Coddon for Lot 1, Block 3, Co�erce Park to be rezoned from C-1 (local business) to C-2 (general business) was read by Acting Chairman Jensen. The public hearing notice for the Special Use Permit, SP #70-01, for Steve Coddon on Lot 1, Block 3, Commnerce Park requesting an automatic car wash, � gasolene sales and self service car wash in a C-2 District was read by Acting Chairman Jensen. Mr. Coddon introduced Mr. Ron Heskin, attorney, who represented Dameron, ^ Inc. Mr. Heskin showed a scale size model of the automatic car wash snd com- udented on the capacity of the two types of car washes involved in this develop- PlanninA Commission Meeting March 41 1970 paAe 2 meat. He indicated that there would be no access onto University Avenue or 73rd Avenue and that the access o£f the service drive would be 75 feet from � � the corner. The Acting Chairman asked for coa�ents from the public -- there were none. !R?TION by Myhra, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the public hearinq for the reaonfng regaest, ZC�A #70-02, to rezone Lot 1, BZock 3, Camtnerce Park �y�.� Steve Coddon from C-1 (local business) to C-2 (general business) and the public hearinq for the Special Use Pez�m.it, SP N70-01 by Steve Coddon for an automatic car wash, gasolene sales and self service car wash, be closed. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Heskin said the automatic car wash would be masonry and have a Maai- sard roof. Inasmuch as the Dameron, Inc. is a Southern Company, the plans of the buildings are now being adapted to the Minnesota climate and the Uniform Buildiag Code. The building design and layout.would go before the Building Standards-Design Control Subco�u.ttee. MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Fi�zpatrick, that the Planning Corr�nission reco�nend appaovaZ to the City Council of the rezoning request, ZG1A #70-07, Steve Coddon, to rezone from C-1 (Zocal business) to C-2 (general business), Lot 1, BZock 3, Corrm�erce Park. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, th+e motion carried unanimously. 1HOTION by Myhra, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit, SP #i70-01, ^ to construct an automatic car wash, gasolene �sales and self service car wash requested by 5teve Coddon, on Lot 1, Block 3, Comn:erce Park. Upon a voie� vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE(�UEST, ZOA ��70-03, GEORGE N. NELSON: The N'� of Lot 30 and the N'� of Lot 31, except the North 125 feet, of Auditor's Subdivision ��:�29 rezoned from R-1 (single family) to R-3A (apartmeat and multiple dwellings). MOTION by Myhxa, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that t�e Planning Corr�n.i.ssion dispense with the reading of the Public Hearing Notice. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. William Merlin, lawyer for Mr. Nelson, Sr. and the Ynvestment Company, explained that the rezoning request was approved by the Planning Commission last year and the Council had asked that the request be held up until the apartment study was completed by the Planning Co�ission. At this �tage, they were especially interested in making the middle of the lots favorable for proper development. Mr. Nelson, Sr. said they would like to develop the South Half of the lots for apartmenta constructing the kind of b�ildings which t,iould be an asset to the commnunity and economically sound to operate. The area near R-1 would be used for parking and open space. They feel there i� a need for this type of units. Mr. Otto Schmid of Urban Planniag and Design, Inc. explained further the plans for Lot 30. The rezoning request was for an R-3A District between a � R-1 and R-2 District, and using the problem area in the middle of the lot for parking and recreation. He continued that the most prominent thin� Q� �ka� n /'\ �1 Planning Commission Meetin� March 4, 1970 Page 3 site of apartments is the parking lot and their design would have the parking lot pretty much out of sight by the use of berms to screen them. Mr. Nelson, Sr. answered Acting Chairman Jensen's query regarding aa easement for street purposes saying they had agreed not to use the strip along the West edge of Lot 30 (25 feet back of the lot line) so that in the event the property owners facing 73rd Avenue and Onondaga Street want to open acceas to the back of their property, they could. In the meantime, they �vould landscape the easement and use it until such time as the property owners would want a street. The EngineeYing.Assistant referred to the garage which was built close to the lot 2ine and would have to be moved if a street went through. The awner had stated at a previous.meeting that he was not interested in getting the road na�, and did not want to look oat on the aervice area of apartments. Mr. Schmid continexed they felt that if this land c�rere allowed to develop by itself, it �tould end up as a problem area and would be developed in a haphazard waq. If thia were zoned f or R-3A, s tmore logical, better planned laqout could be preseated incorporating the landscaping and recreation, aud as far aa they could see, the homes aronnd it would not be affected. Mr. Dennis Herbst, 1482 Onondaga, admitted he was the awner of the garage re£erred.to earlier in the meeting. �Ie asked, even if the street was left in, who would pay for moving his garage so that people could go through there. He.could not �ee apartments. Irir. Myhra asked Mr. Herbst if it would be possible to sell the back part of his lot without moving the garage. Mr. Herbst said ��yes" . George A. flanson, 1476 Onondaga, said he was not in favor of apartments. In the event they would have to sell off the back of their lot, they would be selling to people who would want to build homes, but he was not aure they would if surrounded by apartments. The land was zoned R=1 before their request for R-3A and the petitioners were well aware of that fact. He did.� not think this was proper. He felt it would devaluate the surrounding properties. He felt the Planning Comnnission, by approving the rezoning, would be encroaching on residential area, and planning a future ghetto. The owners are trying to maintain single family homes. Gordon Gnasdoskey, 1491 Onondaga: he said he lives in Flanary Park. There are lots of children using the park and it creates an awful lot of traffic. They moved fxom Minneapolis to get awas from apartments. If apart- a�nts are put in, there will be more traffic. He would not want to see a nice area spoiled by apartments. Everett Schmidt, 7400 Lakeside Road: �ie reported that all the people in the area are against the rezoning. Robert Persgard, 7430 Lakeside Road: Ae said that this was the third time he came to the meetings to object to the rezoning. He stated this was a residential area and there are new homes going up and it is a potential tnarket for more. There is always room for new homes in the area. ^ n � Planning Commission MeetinA March 4, 1970 Page 4 Mr. George Hanson: He attended the meeting last year for the rezoning and then the request was tabled to another meeting. He works nights and has to take time to come down to City Hall and it costs him money every time. Mr. William Merlin: He stated they had considered the possibility of an East/West street gaing through so they would not be sitting with a large piece of property that was landlocked. He knew Mr. Nelson was doing everything pos- aible to avoid hurting the neighbors. Whatever kind of screening was necessary to make the site look nice, they would want to do. They are proposing to aink the parking lot to improve the site and use screening. If the people would like something further in the way of,screening, they would cooperate. The Engineering Assistant explained that there was no definite dedication for a road, but there is an overall plan which includes a street from the East to the West. Mr. Nelson, Sr. said, that as far as the lots on Onondaga S�reet are con- cerned, single family dwellings are being platted, but the trend is to more multiple dwellings, partly because of the very diffieult money situati.on in financing private homes. As far as having access to run through people's yards, they have agreed to an easement on the West side of Lot 30 and this would permit anyone to go through. Mr. Hanson said that he did not know who would buy property from him if there were apartments all around him. Mr. Nelson, Jr. stated that improvement cost f or street and utilities would make this land so high priced that it would be difficult to sell. Mr. Hanson objected to the petitioners buying land on the assumption that it would be rezoned. He said the people there already had $4,000 assessments and that the petitioner should be able to pay the assessments without rezoning-- the same as the rest of the people had to. In discussing the disposition of the rezoning request, Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that this was the tenth time this area had been on the City Agendas. The Planning Conom�iasion does have a problem in that it has recommended approval of this same request a year ago. The motion from the Planning Com�is- sion minutes of May 22, 1969, Page 5, was read by Acting Chairman Jensen. Mr. Myhra reviewed the past action of the Planning Commission when the motion to recoa�mend approval of the rezoning request was made unanimously, referring to the proposed street pattern study made by the Planning Commission for this area if, and when, it was developed. This pattern would enable the o�wneYS of the large lots, which f ace Onondaga and 73rd Avenue, to sell off the back part of the lots and have street access to either Onondaga Street or 73rd Avenue. Tt►e property on the South side of 73rd Avenue was industrial and the property North of Onondaga'was residential. This rezoning request provided an R-1 strip facing Onondaga, and the piece facing 73rd Avenue would be R-3A. There were also further stipulations regarding easenents. Mr. Hanson had stated that he worked nights and took time off from work to attend the meetings, and this was an unnecessary hardship coming four or five times. . � Plannin� Co�iasion Meetin� March 4, 1970 Page 5 �____ Acting Chairean Jensen explained that in.stipulation �2 in the prear�ou� motion reco�ending approval of the rezoning requeat. consideration was given �`1 to the road pattern that would be required if the property awners desired to sell off the back portion of their lots without rezoning. The Planning Commis- sion has kept the master plan open for this possibility. He continued that the only.r�sy for a person to determine whether a rezoning would, or would not be poasible, waa to apply for rezoning and anyone who owns property in the city of Fridley has the privilege of coming in to apply for a rezoning. He did feel the Planning Comm�ission is attempting to have the best interests of the psople at heart. The Planning Commission was unanimous in the feeling of having all members present for the recomm�endation. 1�tOTION by Nyhra, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the PZanning Couanission continue until �},, 18, 1970 the rezoning request, ZOA #70-03, by Georqe Nelson of the North Aa1f of Lot 30 and North Half of Lot 30, except the North 125 feet, of Auditor's Subdivision #129 to be rezoned from R-1 (single family) to R-3A (apartment and multiple dwellings), and notify the people on the maiZing list if the meeting wi11 not be held at that tiuie. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST ZOA i�69-12, ROBERT V PRITCHARD: The South 2/3 of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision #108 to be rezoned from R-1 (single family) to R-3A (apartanents). Mr. Pritchard explained that he had been out of town, that he had not � been able to get together with all the people involved in th� area, and he had been trying to contact the owner of Lot 32. He then asked permission to continue his rezoning request to the February 18, 1970 meeting in order to get together with Mr. Nelson and the other property owners to try to develop the area as one piece. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Myhra, that the Planning Commission continue until March 18, 1g70 meeting the rezoning request, ZOA #69-12 by Robert V. Pritchard of the South 2/3rds of Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision #108 to be rezoned from R-1 to R-3A. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unania�ousZy. Acting CAairman Jensen informed Mr. Pritchard that if he were successful in his plans, there will be further delay because a�new publfc hearing would have to be held for the new request. 5. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: L S. �70-02, EUGENE BONNETT: The rear 101 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, Nagel's Woodlands. The Engineering Assistant explained the background of the area. Four lots in this end of the plat were owned by Vi Nagel. Jamison constructed the telephone building on Lot 1 and the easterly part of Lot 4. A lot split was approve at that time for Lot 4. Mr. Bonnett is asking for approval to split that part of Lot 4 Sou�th of his property (Lot 2). The original drainage and utility easements between Lots l, 2, 3 and 4 being on the South edge of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and the North edge of Lot, were vacated and transferred to the ,�'1 South edge of Lot 4. The only problem is that we would end up with a very small corner lot. Mr. Bonnett was informed that a certificate of survey ion 4 Yage 6 �• Nould be requi.red ii ize were to build, but the present reguirement is for a legal description of the split, and that it be short and accurate. 1Nl�TION by Myhra, seconded by Fi tzpatrick, that the PZanning Corrsnission recommend approval of the Lot Split request, L.S. #70-02, by Eugene Bonnett and that the portion of Lot 4 South of his Lot 2 be combined with.Lot ? and that the remaininq Westerly portion of Lot 4 be combined with Lot 1 as one bu3lding site. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried ,unanimovsly. � � 6. LAND USE AND TAX SURVEY REPORT: � 1MDTION by 1�lyhra, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolvtion: �. A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE PUBLTCATION " .. . OF TXE LAND USE AND TAX SURVEY REPORT BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota as follows: WNEREAS, in recent public hearings before the Planning Commission regarding rezoning of property to multinle dwelling, references � have been made to the recent Land Use Tax Snrvey Report, piXERE1IS, information contained within said report is useful, factual, . and does answer many questions previously unsubstantiated with Zocal conditions, . � TNEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Fridley Planning Comraission recommends the Fridley City Council authorize the Administration to prepare said report for public use wzth the omission of the supportive data re2ating to 1ega1 descriptions, valuations and - � censvs data relative to individual parcels. ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TY.E CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 4lX DAY OF MARCX, 1970. pLT VER R . ERICKSOA' CiIAIRMAN . FLANNING COMMISSION i. _ _. _ - . Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � ADJOURNMENT : MOTION by Myhra, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission meeting of Marc� 4, 197C be adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Upon a voice vote, the ,r�Q�ion caz'ried. Respectfully submitted . Aazel 0'Brian - Recording Secretary � - I THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 11, 1970 The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Minish at 7:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mittelstadt, Minish, Harris, Ahonen MEMBERS ABS�NT: 0'Bannon OTHERS PRESENF: A1 Bagstad-Building Official Clarence Belisle-Building Inspector MOTION by Ahonen to approve the minutes of the February 11, 1970 meeting as written. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimousiy. 1. A RE UEST FOR VARIANCES OF SECTION 45.053 4A TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD DEPTH RE UIREMENT FROM 35 FEET TO 27 FEET AND SECTION 45.053 4B T0 REDUCE THE'SIDE°YARD WIDTH RE UIREMENT FROM 10 FEET TO 7.9 FEET TO ALLOW THE enntcTUTt�'r�nN OF AN ADDITION ONTO THE FRONT SECTION OF AN EXISTING DWELLING CONS LOT 18, PART OF LOT 19, MAIN STREET N.E., k'RIDL iN TNC�RPQRATED. 5125 QU 5. PL' AVENUE- NORTH ON, THE SAME BY ALLEN . MINNES4TA.) Acting Chairman Minish asked Mr. Allen to come forward and present his request. n Mr. Steve Al1en, of A1Len Construction Company, was present to present the = request. Mr. Al1en explained that the addition would be an enlarging of the present kitchen. The kitchen is now 8 feet by 10 feet, which includes the setback for the cupboards, and with a table and chairs for a family of four it is rather crowded. He stated further the proposed addition will increase the size of the kitchen to 16 feet long by 8 feet wide. The sideyard variance for this addition would only be an alignment with the present structure. � n Pictures of the present house and the two adjacent homes, taken by the Building Inspector, were shown to the Board: Mr. Allen stated the two adjaeent homes had completed similar remodeling, and the pictures verified this statement. A survey, dated February 10, 1970, showing the house location and the location of the proposed addition, and also the 1 ocation of the two adjacent homes, was presented to the Board for their review. The two adjacent praperty owners had signed this survey showing that they had no objections to the proposed work. Mr. Mittelstadt arrived at 7:45 P.M. The measurements on the survey verified the house is now setback 34.6 feet - and with the proposed addition the setback would be 27.6 feet. This would mean the applicant would need only a 7 foot variance instead of the 8 feet that he requested. Mittelstadt pointed this out to the applicant and Mr. Allen agreed. Mittelstadt also pointed out that since the adjacent neighbors have already completed similar remodeling, the proposed addition would be only 2.6 feet ahead of 4709 Main Street and 2.8 feet ahead of 4701 Main Street. MOTION by Ahonen to close the public hearing. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no:nays, the motion carried unanirnously. � . � The Minutes of the Board of A eals Meetin of March 11 1970 pa e 2 � . : MQTION by Ahonen to recommend to the Gity Council approval of the new variance . req�est, from 34.6 feet to 27.6 feet for the following reasons; 1. It has been shown that the additional kitchen space is needed. 2. The addition will not detract from the neighborhood structures. 3. The applicant had the concurrance of the adjacent property owners, and there were no objections from surrounding neighbors. 4. The sideyard variance requested is just an alignment with the existing structure. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the mation passed unanimously. Mr. Mittelstadt did not vote. Acting Chairman Minish then turned'the meeting over to Chaixman Mittelstadt. ' Chairman Mittelstadt reported to the Board the City Council's action on the Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes of February ll, 1970. 2. A RE UEST FOR VARIANCES OF SECTION 45.063 PARAGRAPH 4A TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD RE UIREMENT FROM 35 FEET TO 28 FEET SECTION 45.063 PARQ.GR�IPH 4C. TO ^ REDUCE THE REAR YARD RE UIREMENT FROM 25 FEET T0 10 FEET AND SECTION 45.063 PARAGRAPH l, T0 REDUCE THE LOT AREA RE UIREMENT FROM 10 000 SQUARE FEET TO 9 883.16 S UARE FEET TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO FAMILY DWELLING ON LOT 17, BLOCK 1 MURDIX PARK ADDITION THE SAME BBING 5453-55 7TH STREET N.E, FRIDLEY MINNESOTA. RE UEST BY TWIN CITY APARTMENT DEVELOPERS INC. -5747 WEST BROADWAY MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55428.) Mr. RoberC Kullstrom, representing Twin City Apartment DeveLopers, Inc., was present to present the request. He presented plans of the duplex, and a survey of the lot, showing the proposed dwelling on it,to the Board for their review. He explained the duplex will face 7th Street with the driveway on Cheri Lane. They had tried facing the duplex toward Cheri Lane but then the cars would be backing out onto 7th Street. Mr. Roger Axmark 532 Highway �100, presented to the Board a petition that read, "We the Undersigned Request that this variance be not granted", which was signed by 12 property owners. . MOTION by Minish to receive the petition. Seconded by Ahanen. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion passed - � unanimously. . ^ Mr. & Mrs. A�►ark, Mrs. Agnes Burhite, Mrs. William Remarke, Mrs. Walter Olson and Mrs. Wallace Schwab were in the audience to speak against the proposed duplex. Their main reasons against it were as follows: 1. The lot is too small for a duplex as it doesn't allow enough yard space for the children to play in. 2. Rental people would not keep up the property like the people in the neighborhood who own their homes. t. � The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of March ll, 1970 _ Page 3_ ^ � � , 3. The duplex would devaluate theix homes. Chaix�►an Mittelstadt explained the lot was large enough to accomodate a duplex before part of the lot was taken for the highway. Minish asked Mr. Kullstrom if his compan� had thought of building a single family dwelling on the lot. Mr. I�ullstxom answered Chat they felt they would run into the same type of vaxia.nces with a single family dwelling. - Mrs. Remarke stated the people who had signed the petition against the duplex had said they would not be opposed to a single family dwell�ng. 1'here was some diseussion on the publishing of the public hearing notices in the paper. Chairman Mittelsiadt explained to the audience that since the new Zoning Ordinance was adopteds it was no longer necessary to publish the notices in the paper. Chairman Mittelstadt and Harris agreed that they would still like to see the notices published in the pager. MOTION by Ahonen to close the public hearing. Secoxided by Minish. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Mittelstadt summarized by saying there is indeed more disadvantages than advantages in developing this property into a two family dwelling. He then went over a few of the complaints that the.surrounding ne�ghbors had talked about, and also the possibility of building a single family dwelling on the land. MOTION by Minish to recomanend to the City Council denial of the requested variances for the follo�ing reasons: � 1. There was no hardship shawn as a single family dwelling could be built on the land which would forstall the objections of the surrounding property owners. 2. There were adjacent property owners and surrounding-property owners that had camplaints and objections to the duplex. 3. The building and detached garages would i�e taking up too much of the . lot and not leaving enough open space for the chil.dren to play. Seeonded by Ahonen. � Harris stated he felt the duplex would not fit in�o the overall neighborhood as the neighbors all.have single family dwellings. He also felt that this is another case of spot zoning which he is against. Upon a voice vote, there being no.nays, the motion carried unanimously. � � , The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of March 11, 1970 _ Page 4 3. VARIANCE OF SECTION �6.05, PARAGRAPH 6A T0 INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ARF�1 OF A FREE STANDING IDENTIFICATION SIGN FROM 80 SQUARE FEET T0 3Q0 SQUARE FEET (12' X 25') TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK l. GREAT NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL CENTER--FRIDLEY, THE SAME BEING 5401 EAST RIVER ROAD. (REQUEST BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY, 1700 WEST 78TH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA.) Mr. Bob Naegele and Mr. Harry Harkmeyer were present to present the request. 10 _' Mr. Naegele explained the sign will be located a few feet East of the temporary sign tha� is up now. It will be a back to back sign and this would be the best location to catch the view of both the West bound and East baund traffic. It will be a painted sign with a permanent message. It will be a free standing sign without any guide wires and will be illuminated. The total height of the sign will be 25 feet. He explained the sign has been tested for wind pressure and it will with- stand 30 pounds per square feet. Ahonen asked Mr. Naegele why the sign had to be so large. Mr. Naegele answered that it was partly because of the amount of letters to be put on the sign and to make it readable whiLe driving in freeway traffic. /''� He added further that Mr._Boshwitz, of_Plywood Minnesota, had wanted a sign _ that told people that he sold plywood and that this was the home of Plywood Minnesota. � ; , :a � Chairman Mittelstadt read, to the Board members arid the applicant, the parts of the Sign Ordinance that applied in this case. MOTION by Minish to close the public hearing. Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. . MOTION by Ahonen to table the request to a11aw the members to view the size of the signs in the same area. The motion died for lack of a second. MOTION by Minish to recommend to the City Council approval of the request for the following reasons: l. The number of letters that make up the sign make it difficult to keep the sign within the confines of the Sign Ordinance. 2. It is located by the freeway and a larger sign is needed to make it easily readable in fast moving tr�ffic. 3. It will be the same size as the "Welcome to Fridley" sign located on University Avenue. 4. The petitioner was made aware of the requirements he has to meet and he agreed to them. � The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of March 11, 1970 Fage 5 Seconded by Harris. Upon a voice vote, Minish, Harris and Mittelstadt voting aye, Ahonen voting nay, the motion carried. ADJOURI�IENT : � . �he meeting was adjourned by Chairman Mittelstadt at 9:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ; - L 1 - ����� ��� �i� MARY HINTZ� � , , , Secretary ' /`1 ��'1 � �. E_...