Loading...
PL 02/23/1972 - 7408; , ! • , t. : � � , A G E N D A � . , . -- , ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY_23; 1972 8:00 P.M. � , , CALL TO ORDER: PAGES ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 9, 1972 1-11 APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSIQN MLNUTES: FEBRUARY 16, 1972 12-15 RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIUISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE 16-18 _ MINUTES: FEBRUARY 9, 1972 RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTR4L SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: 19-23 � FEBRUARY 10 � 19 72 �, . RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES: FEBRUARY 15, 1972 24-27 . CONTINUED: STUDY: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: . �,.�.��.�-s�., - �K� `���.���-� -�� ' -�r�C ,, � a�� - � - , � , � CITY OF FRIDLEY ^ PLANNING COrII�ISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 1972 PAGE 1 • The meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Minish, Zeglen, Fitzpatrick, Schmedeke Member Absent: . Chairman Erickson Others Present: Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant APPR4VE PLANNING COi�iISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 12, 1972 MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the PZanning Commission minutes _ of Januarz� 12, 1972 be approved. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the moti.on carried unanimousZg. • : _ RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 20 1971 MOTION by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of December 20, Z971. Upon a voice vnte, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousiy. � RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JANUARX 13 1972 MOTION by Zeglen, seconded b� Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission recezve the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of _ January I3, 1972. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motian carried unanimousl�. Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick stated that, with the approval of the Commission members, Item �I wi11 be deferred until the petitioner arrives and Item �d2 will be the first on the Agenda. • 1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP ��71-17, DOi�1'S GULF SERVICE STATION: Request for U-Haul rentals on Easterly 351 feet of Lot 12 and Easterly 351 feet of the Southerly 20 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision 4�155 except that part taken for highway and street purposes, per. Code Section 45.101, 6, 3-E, zoned C-2S. Doaald J. Michaels, applicant, and Gerald Rummel, attorney for U-Hau1 were present. _2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP ���1-1s, RON'S GULF SERVICE STATIONc Request for U-Haul rentals on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, C.D. Hutchinson Addition per Code Section 45.101, B,3-E, zoned C-2. � Ranald J. P1.omdon, applicant, and Mr. Rummel were present. Planning Comm.issi.on Meeting - February 9, 1972 pa�e 2 � Mr. Schmedeke said that he hadn't changed his mind since the last meeting �. regarding U-Hau1 traiiers being parked in service stations. He had checked with ^ a number of people and the majority would prefer to have the U-Haul people come in as a separate business and operate as a separate enterprise. He did not think the Commission should be cluttering up the service stations with this type of activity. He knew of a man who was a trailer rental operator and did a great busi- ness. He didn't think the Fridley service stations are designed or planned to • accommodate trailers. There is a trailer rental on 50th Avenue and University, so that a person would not have to go too far to rent a trailer. He would favorably consider an application from U-Hau1 for a separate place of business. On 61st Avenue and University there was an EZ Haul in the service station. The statian was told to move the trailers which they did. If U-Haul is�allowed to come in, pretty soon the service stations will be in the rental business. That is something we do not need. � /"� Mr. Minish asked if there were any stations with special use permits gran[ed to renti trailers. Mr. Clark answered there is one Gulf Station on 73rd Avenue and Central Avenue, tahich was actually a relocation, and hagpens to be U-Haul, and the Cammission will be getting a request from them very soon. The other one is on 62nd Avenue and Highway �65, the Texaco Station across from the bowling alley. The Texaco station was in business before the ordinance required the special use permit. Mr. Minish then asked that if, when you move, is the grandfather clause no longer in effect? If that is so, why are the people on 73rd and Central allowed a special privilege? Mr. Clark said these are the people who will be coming in within a few weeks asking far a special use permit. Asked about other companies applying, Mr. Clark said Ryder Truck might apply at Osborne Road and Highway �47 and EZ Haul will be applying at 61st Avenue and Sighway ��47. Mr. Zeglen said that he, too, agreed that the U-Haul is a business in itself. He would not have any objections if they occupied a place of business of their own, but if qou let one trailer rental in, you have to let another. Same are going to be busy, some not so busy. . Mr. Minish said the City has an ordinance that �ras drafted with minimum criteria. They tried to get away fram storage on service station property. There seems to be very little difference between this operation and sale of camping trailers. He felt that they should have either an arbitrary restriction or a separate loca:tion for the operation. Mr. Rummel arrived and Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick explained to him that the item under consideration was the request for U-Haul trailer permits. The gist of the statements so far has been that several of the Commissioners would not have any objections to a business of this kind operating individually as its own business rather than renting out to a service station, and another state- ment was that there is a question if this kind of permit is issued would it set a pattern. We would have a number of the same kind of requests from other companies. That pretty much summarizes the discussion at this point. � ., . � � �� Pl,anning Conunission Meetin� - Fehrua� 9, 1972 Page 3 '>� , Mr. Fitzpatrick said that even though the public hearing has been closed,.if � . there is anything ner� or pertinent, the Commission wi11 hear it at this time. � � Mr. Rummel said that in order to run a business strictly on a rental of . U-Hau1 trucks and trailers, it is virtually impossible unless you have a huge . operation -- 50 pieces of equipment or more and a volume turn over on that type of equipment. Otherwise it is not economically possible to run it. Strictly on • ` that type of business, U-Haul has found in the 25 years they have been in business, it does not work out. Where they gut in a limited number of pieces of 'equipment in the service station, and where the equipment can be serviced by the operatoz, it gives the operator additional income. Going to the other way, it has not worked, .otherwise he was sure U-Haul would be renting the trailers themselves. They have tried it in some locations and have gone out of business. In the seven years he . has regresented them in this metropolitan area, they have had the same type of control eiLher through leasing or special use permit. Through controls, there has been screening, designated area where equipment is being kept. With these controls, � if there were-violations, the.rental contract can be closed. They have controls • with the contract, too. They realize problems will come up even with controls as with any type of _ _. business, not just service stations. There have been 3 or 4 stations that have been closed down by II-Haul. Mr. Schmedeke said he did not think any of the members of the Commission were trying to pick on U:Haul in any sense of the word. When a permit for a station comes in, the people applying never tell us that they are going to put in U-Hau1. So we have felt we are not interested going into that type of thing. We are not � picking on your company. You have a franchise on 50th Avenue, one in the other end of the City and another under the grandfather clause. Mr. Rummel said he would not disagree with that viewpoint. If an operator couZd, under a special use permit, screen off the area, and the station is not .a messy operation, he did not see where this is rea],ly too objectionable. It is the individual operator who lives in the City who wants to make a living operating a station. He has got to meet the overhead and wants to make a living. He can pick up some`additional income this way and it can make the difference of being in business. You may feel you have too many stations, but I assume you would not Iike to have a lot of them shut down and sitting there vacant. Mr. Zeglen said that the station on SOth Avenue was, the last time he was there, a mess -- trailers were moved all over the place. He did not know what kind of inspection U-Haul has, but this situation could happen any place. Mr. Rummel was asked if it would be possible to put the trailers under a roof. He answered that U-Haul is trying to offer a service to people where they can go ahead and economically move themselves. They can't be put under a roof, it would be too expensive. Mr. Minish said that one point which has some validity and the Commission . should be concerned, was the idea this is a service to the community for others besides U-Haul. In considering the granting of these requests, he wondered if they were tabled until after there were requests by others. � Chairman Fitzpatrick.said that along the lines of the opening statement, he agreed and rejected the idea that we can assume our neighboring suburbs will ..` - February 9, 1972 4 �.�.�-.. ,.... supply the service. We have tried to set up criter' for the operation of filling . stations and we might be one of the first to reverse this recommendation. n It was noted there were three requests for U-Haul, one request would be coming in for EZ Haul, and there probably will be one coming in for Ryder Trucks. MQTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the PZanning Commission recom- mend to Council approvaZ of the continuous use of Don's Gulf 5ervice for gaso.tine sales, under the request of a Special Use Permit, SP #71-17, on the Easterly 351 feet nf Lot Z2 and Easterly 351 feet of the 5outherl� ZO feet of Lot Z1, Auditor's Subdivision #Z55 except that part taken for highway and street purposes, per Code Section 45.101, 6, 3-E, zoned C-2S. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planninq Commission recom- a�ent denial to the Council for that part of the SpeciaZ Use Request by Don's Gu1f Service Station, SP #71-17, for the rentaZ of U-Haul trailers on the Easterly 351 feet of Lot 12 and Easterly 35.Z feet of the SoutherZy 20 feet of Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision #155 except that part taken for highway and street purposes, per Code Section 45.101, 6, 3-E, zoned C-25. Upon a voice vate, aIZ voting aye, the mation carried unanimously. Mr. Minish asked if this denial would xefer to this specific situation or to all requests. When a building permit is issued for a service station in Fridley, he was sure they do not have this type of use in mind. Most stations do not have enough parking space for trailers. If this request is O.K.'d, they will get at least two other Gulf Stations demanding similar treatment. In Don's Gulf the ^ proximity to Target Store and all the traffic on 53rd Avenue during the rush,hours would not be desirable. Mr. Rummel added that as to the reasons given, you might consider this, whether or not you consider it valid enough. Every community that he has been where a conditioned use or lease has been allowed, U-Haul can't encroach upon the off street parking necessary for the station. The stations have been given so many parking spaces for employee cars, cars being serviced and that area can't be used for parking by U-Hau1 equipment. U-Haul realizes when they apply for an application, they were not going to get into a lacation where there isn't room to allow f or the off street for the station itself. It won`t work out because it is eneroaching and over crowding. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission recom- ! mend approval of that part of the Special Use Permit, SP #71-18, b� Ron's Gu1f Service Station to the Council for the continuous use of Ron's Gu1f Service Sta�ion as an gasoline outlet on Lots 1 and 2, B1ock 1, C. D. Hutchinson Addition per Code Section 45.101, B, 3-E, zoned C-2, Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , . MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recom- mend denial of the Special Use Permit Request, SP #71-18, br� Ron's Gu1f Service Station for U-Hau1 rentals on Lots Z and 2, B1ock 1, C. D. Hutchinson Addition per Code Section �5.101, B, 3-E, zoned C-2. The comment was made that if the Commission approves this permit, they would � be letting themselves in"�for a flood of xequests for every service station site in the City af Fridley. ^ ^ Plannin� Commis.sion Meeting - February 9, 1972 Page 5 UFON A VQICE VOTE, Zeglen, Schmedeke voting aye, Minish and Fitzpatrick voting nay, the MOTION FAILED. Mr. Minish said he felt different about this station because of the location. The Cammission should consider whether the use of this type should be allowed at one or more of the locations as a service to the citizens. It has been indicated that there will be another request for a Special Use Permit for U-Haul rentals on Central Avenue. He would like to consider this request in relation to the other one. This may give the Commission time to see if Ez Haul would apply. He would like to have this portion of the request tabled. MOTION by Minish that the Planning Commission tabZe until March 8, Z972 the Special Use Permit request, SP #71-Z8, by Ron's Gu3f Service Station for U-Hau1 rentals on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, C. D. Hutchinson Addition per Code Section 45..ZOZ, B, 3-E, zoned C-2, to see if, in the interval, other applications have been indicated that they wi11 be filed and consider other sites and number of operations the City would like to have. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND. , Chairman Fitzpatrick said the action then would"be for the Plannin�Commissic to pass this request on to the Council without action and the minutes should show that these motions were made for the second reguest being a permit for U-Haul - rentals. The petitioner was informed Council would receive his request on February 28, 1972. Mr. Minish said for the time he has been on the Planning Commission they have had several requests for service station sites. He has always wondered if the City doesn't already have too many stations and that it would be difficult for them to make a substantial profit. Now we hear that station operators need additionaZ means af income to stay open. We should keep in mind what we heard tonight. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUESTs ZOA �72-01, BY ALVIN A NITSCHKE: To rezone from R-1 to R-3, Outlot ��1, Rice Creek Plaza South and Lot 32, Block 4, Lowell Addition to Fridley Park together with the vacated street lying � between the before mentioned parcels. Mr. Nitschke was present. MOTION by Schmedeke,'seconded by Minish, that the P.Zanning Commission waive the reading of the Official Notice for the Public Hearing of the Rezoninq Request, ZOA #72-01, by Alvin A. Nitschke to rezone from R-1 to R-3 (g�neral multiple family dwellings) Outlot #1, Rice Creek Plaza South and Lot 32, B1ock 4, Lowe11 Addition to Fridley Park together with the vacated street Zying between the before mentioned parcels. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said that about a year ago Mr. Nitschke applied for a special use permit to build a double bungalow and was involved with trading of lands where the City traded a portion„of its property with Mr. Nitschke. This Cransaction 1`� has taken place. He has deeded the amount of the property as agreed to. . e � � . �Planning Comcnission Meeting - Februarv 9, 1972 Pa�e 6 fle wi11 receive the Cit.y's deed for the ZO foot Outlot. He wants to build a three fatnily townhouse type of building on the same lot as contained in the special use permit. He di.d not proceed with the special use request. The land area is in excess of 10,000 square feet which is large enough for a triplex and R-3 zoning does allow a triplex. Mr. Nitschke explained that he did have some of the elevations and Darrel saw them. Unfortunately the architect was using them to complete the plans. The structure will be a townhouse, quite similar to the type that is being built now, the front court provincial type. There will be five parking places, two double garages and additional parking space in between. He will be living in one of the unfts. He would try to make it look as nice as possible as it is not a speculative project. ,He changed the request because it would be more economi,cal to have a triplex. Mr. Clark said he had seen the plans. The garages are on living area. There is a court between the garages and houses. he would want to co�nent on was the front yard would be mostly concrete. - the front of the The only thing blacktop or He continued that the building site is $0'x136'. There is a two family structure in the block to the Narth, the Park is to the South, single family dwellings off Mississippi Street and across the street the land is zoned light industrial. There are apartments on 2nd Street. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Public Hearinq be closed for the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-01, by A1vin A. Nitschke. Upon a voice vote, � . aI1 votinq a�e, the motion carried unanimously. � MOZ70N by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that the P.Zanning Commissian recom- mend to Council deniaZ of the rezoning request, ZDA #72-01, b� A1vin A. Nitschke to xezone from R-Z to R-3 (general multiple family dweZlings) Outlot #1, Rice Creek P1aza'South and Lot 32, Block 4, Lowe11 Addition to Fridleg Park together with the vaeated street lying between the before mentioned parcels, for the fo.Zlowing reasons: This request is out of keeping with the rest of the block which is residential with one double unit; objects to blacktop facing the street; the proximity of the park and the extra cars this tripZex would have makes it undesir- abZe becau$e the park does not have enough street parking area; and is inconsis- tent w�th surrounding one and two family residences. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA ��72-02, BY ROBERT L. MC GREGOR: To rezone from R-1 to R-2 (limited multiple family dwellings) the North 824.7 feet of the West Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter af Section I3. . Mr. McGregor and Mr. Floyd Foslien were present. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded b� Minish, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearinq notice for the rezoning request, ZOA #72-02, by Robert L. McGregor. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Y , � Plan:nizk� Commiss.i.on Meeting -�etaruary 9, 1972 Page 7 Mr. Mc�regor explained that they are proposing to put in a townhouse project. � • Suburban Engineering has been employed to do the general layout. He has known � about the property for some time and he has been a resident of Fridley for ten ' years. He consulted the designer, Herb Fritz, who worked with Frank L1oyd Wright, but they will use a structural engineer licensed in Minnesota for the townhouse project. The project will be called Timber RidgE. They plan to dig out an area and create a series of ponds going down to the creek. They would pump water out of the creek into the pond and then drain back down to the creek by gravity so it will Iook like a stream. The alternative would be to dig a well to supply water to this pond and discharge the excess water into the creek. In the winter they wouZd close the lock-and make two skating ponds for the children and put up a warming house for the children. Originally in the preliminary drawing the idea was to front the townhauses on the ponds, but they might want the entrances to exit on 69th Avenue. Mr. McGregor continued that R-2 zoning would give them 43 townhouses on this property. They would deed property below the 890 contour to the City for park. That would be a little over 10% of the area they own. Mr. Clark said that this was the Kaye Westerlund.request and was approved for ... R-3 zoning for 109 units providing he would dedicate the Southerly 60 feet and purchase the Outlot from Mr. Foslien, and deed it to the City also. Another stipulation was to dedicate 17 feet along the Easterly edge of this parcel to go together with the 33 feet of land we got from the East. � • Mr. McGregor said there would be no problem to give land for a common road. This would make a second egress from their property to the road. They plan to have the townhouses owner occupied and a.townhouse association type of arrange- ment. There will be a double car garage, either "drive under" or "attach to" and there will be no single car garages. Mr. Clark said the request meets the townhouse ordinance requirement in density. The area next to this property (Roger Larson fownhouse development) is R-3 and the density is considerably higher. '� . Mr. Foslien said that this looks like a nice project. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the P.Zanning Commission close the pubZic hearing of the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-02, by Robert L. McGregor fo rezone from R-I to R-2 (limited multiple family dwellings) the North 824.7 feet of the West Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmedeke said that being a layman on this type o£ construction, he would like to make a motion to table the item until Mr. Erickson, being a builder in his awn right, gets a look at it. • MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeqlen, that the Planning Commission table the rezoning request, ZOA #72-02, by Robert McGreqor until the meeting of February 16, 1972. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 votinq aye, the motion carried � unanimously. Planning Conunission Meeting - Februaxy 9, I972 pag� g , � , 5. COIVTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE�ST, ZOA ��71-10, BY MR.S LLOYD ^ . MITRPHY: To rezone from C-1S to C-2 (general busin�ss areas) the Westerly Ha1f of Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Va11ey Addition for a miniature golf putting course. '�� The petitioner was not present. At the last meeting, the.request was made to write the City Attorney for an - answer to the question if it would be possible to grant a Special Use Permit - under C-1 zoning. Darrel Clark said an answer was received from the City Attoxney. His opinion was "no". The letter was included in the Agenda on Page l9. _ __. _ _ _ __ _ _ . Mr. Minish said that because there is no provision under the present zoning, _ that the request can't be granted by a Special Use Permit. Chairman Fitzpatrick suggested recommending an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Schmedeke asked Darrel Clark if he had requested Peter Herlofsky to write the letter to the City Attorney and.Darrel answered "that was correct". Mr. Schmedeke then read an excerpt from the Planning Couunission meeting of January I2, 1972 at the top of Page S: "MOTION by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission table the rezoning request, ZOA ��71-ZO ----- and ask the City Attorney whether or not a Special Use Permit could be granted under C-1S zoning for this request --." He read the last paragraph of the letter from the City Attorney found on Page 5 of the Agenda: ''That if the zoning ordinance - permits-certain uses of property in C-2 and C-2S districts by special use germit and the zoning ordinance does not state that the same use is permitted in C-1 ^ districts, that the omission is intentional and, therefore, not permitted." Mr. Schmedeke said he did not want to be pursuaded into a zoning change, but if this parcel were rezoned, they would have other requests for rezaning in the area. The whole area probably should be,studied. Here is where we run across what he calls the Hyde Park Addition "Spite" Ordinance again. . In 1968 he asked to rezone Lots 16 through 19, B�ock I2 and Lot 30, Block 2, Hyde Park Addition from R-2,to C-2. The following excerpt from the Planning Com- mission meeting of February 29, 1968 is from a prepared statement by Mr. Erickson: "---It appears to me, however, that the petition represents the type of spot re- zoning that we should not condone. It surely will lead to a steady stream of rezoning requests for adjacent and neighboring property". and "I would like to state at this time that I have a completely open mind about the proper use for the 3rd Street area and am not saying that all or part of the area should not be _____ commercial. I say only that if it is to be, it_should be done in a reasonable manner." Excerpt of the motion at the same meeting "MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Myhra, that the rezoning request, ZOA �i�68-01, E1don Schmedeke, of Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park.Addition to be -�- -rezoned from R-2 (limited multi le distriets) to C-2 P (general business districts) be denied ---." . The following two excerpts are found on Page 3 of the same meeting; Tom Myhra: "---If an error was made in zoning seventeen years ago, he could not believe the present Planning Commission has a maral obligation to make a correction'in the apparent short while before professional help will become available.---" and ^ "Mr. Jensen wished to make a statement relative to the second paragraph of Member Erickson's motion. He thought the point was well taken relative to a steady ,, Rlanning Commission Meeting - k'ebruary 9, 1972 Page 9 stream of rezoning requests, and he thought it should be pointed out that this ^� "stream of rezoning requests", which could be anticipated, would put the Planning Commission in the position of being unable to turn down any request, even though unreasonable, once spot zoning takes place." Excerpt from top of Page 4: "Chair- man Hughes said he agreed entirely with that analysis, as it would be the logical result if the rezoning application were approved." Council Minutes May 4, 1970: Dave Harris speaking of the Hyde Park Spite Zoning Ordinance -- "The City ordinance does say that there must be 200 feet frontage and this could put some people in the position of not being able to use their property." Excerpt from botitom of Page 5 and top of Page 6, May 4, 1970 Council Minutes: "Mr. Carl Paulson asked if the 200 foot frontage minimum would be unconstitutional, and the City Attorney said no." "Councilman Harris said that this was one of his original. fears, that there would be some isolated lots that could not be used. There is a minimum of 25,000 squa�e feet required." "Councilman Lieb1 pointed out to Mr. Paulson that Councilman Harris felt very strongly that there should be a minimum square footage. It was felt that if the parcel was bigger,�it would give a commercial develapment a chance to grow. This was adopted for the whole of Fridley." Excerpts from Council Meeting of May 18, 1970: Page 2 and 3: "Planning � Commissian Request -- Mr. Eldon Schmedeke said that as to the Walquist request, the Ylanning Commission would like some guidance on what they should do with the smaller lots under commercial zoning. This lot is neither 200 feet front footage or 25,000 square footage as the zoning ordinance required. It was part of an older plat. He asked if there should be an Ordinance change in regard to the C-2 zoning." "Councilman Harris said that his intent when this was discussed was that the stipulations be either 200 feet front footage or 25,000 square feet, but not necessarily both. He felt that it should be either/or. As it reads now would praduce some unbuildable lots. Mr. Schmedeke said that there would be other parcels with a similar request." � Continued excerpts from Council meeting of May 18, 1970, pages 19 and 20: "Receiving the memo from the City Attorney regarding Ol.iver Erickson Request: The City Attorney said that as concerns the requirement of 200 feet front footage and 25,000 square feet in a C-1 and C-2 district, he felt that in most cases, variances must be granted by the Board of Appeals where the use of the property would have been proper under the old Ordinance. It was agreed by the Council that the intent when discussing the Ordinance was that either the 200 front foot- age must be met, or the 25,000 square foot requirement, but not necessarily both. An amendment to the Zonin� Ordinance is to be prepared for the June l, 1970 Meeting. MOTION by Councilman Sheridan to receive the memorandum from the City Attorney concerning the granting of variances, as brought up by Oliver Erickson, dated May 18, 1970. The motion was seconded and upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Harris Pro tem declared the motion carried. "MOTION by Councilman Sheridan to instruct the Administration to bring back �'1, an amendment to the Zonirtg Ordinance to allow for meeting either the 200 foot footage requirement, or the 25,000 square footage requirement in C-1 zoning." End of excerpts. /'1 �'1 �1 Planni.ng Co�nission Meetin� - February 9, 1972 Page 10 Mr. Schmedeke said in summary that he coutd not see where we can live by this Spite Ordinance. The area it was created for has not used it. He believed Chat the ordinance should be changed and he will work for its correcti:on. It is too stiff and it was just done for one area. We will have to change it to smaller square footage in C-2. He thought some of the people are entitled to it, but it should not be made so stiff that they will have to get a variance. If you are C-2, you are C-2 and let's get it done so people can live with it. hairman Fitzpatrick said that an ordinance that applied to one area and is d in many other cases, and that the opinion here that we could rezone an area immediately creating a non-conformance by rezoning, should be considered further. The item under consideration now is the request for a rezoning from C-1 to C-2.. He continued that unless there was further discussion of the merits of this particular case, he thought the Commission was prepared to make a recommendation. Recommending approval would immediately create a situation that would nat conform within the zoning we are moving to. It would create a lot in C-2 that can't be used for C-2 purposes without a variance. Darrel Clark said that we do not have very much land in C-1 and C-1S that is vacant. The area requirement far a11 C's is the same; they require 200 front feet or 25,000 square feet. He did not think when the Planning Commission was studying this ordinance in 1969 that it included lot area for commercial. He be- lieved it was added at Council level. Mr. Sehmedeke said that between the Engineering Department, Council and the Planning Commission they came up with some of these zonings, square footages and the like. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that unless there is further discussion of the merits of this particular case, he thought the Commission was prepared to make a recommendation. In his opinian to recommend approval would be to immediately create a situation that would not conform within the zoning they are�moving, i.c. C-2. It would create a lot in C-2 that does not meet the area requirements. Other reasons for denial were listed as temporary use and can't be used after temporary use is given up. There is a problem to begin with that the Commission can't grant a special use permit for this in a C-1 dist'rict. If a special use permit could be granted, there would be less tampering with a zoning district. There should not be an area requirement in which there is a continuous granting of variances. MOTION.by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the Council for the zoning request, ZOA #71-10, hy Mrs. L1oyd Murphy for the Westerlc} Ha1f of Lot 18, Block Z, 5pring VaZ1ey Addition to be rezoned from C-1 to C-2 (genera.Z�business areas) for a miniature golf putting course and further recommend considerinq amending the zoninq ordinance for C-1 to a1.Zow a 5pecial Use Permit and specify certain types of Uses which"would a11ow go.Zf putting course and 1et the petitioner then submit a request for a Special Use Permit under the present zoninq to avoid the problem of rezoning back and forth a11 the time. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Darrel Clark was asked if the Engineering Department could get a survey of substandard commercial lots and the size of other communities' size of commercial lots. _. • P lannin� Commission Meeting - February 9, I972 Page 11 Mr. Clark stated that there were many substandard commercial lots; however, . most are adjacent to other lots so they could be combined to meet the area ;/1 or footage requirements. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting • at 11:00 P.M. � �1 Respectfully_submitted `,r,l. � C' � �%:.i�� �.,. ' . t Haz� 0'Brian Recording Secretary e � �� � ' � ` CITY OF.FRIDLEY ^ _ : PLANNING CONIMISSION MEETING _ FEBRUARY 16, 1972 PAGE 1 . The meeting was called to order by Chairman Erickson at 8:05 P.M. _ ROLL CALL: '_ _ Members Present: Minish, Erickson, Schmedeke, Fitzpatrick, Zeglen .. Members Absent; None Others Present: Nasim M. Qureshi, City Engineer-Director of Planning, -. .-. Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant. .- APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES : FEBRUARY 9 z 1972 MOTION br� Fitzpatrick, seconded by Minish, that the PZanning Commission defer approving the Planning Commission minutes of the February 9, 1972 meeting because they were received at the meeting this evening. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion earried unanimously. Z.. CONTINUED PUBLZC HEARING: REZONING REQUEST, ZOA �72-02, BY ROBERT L. MC � - �GREGQRz To rezone from R-1 to R-2 (limited multiple family dwellings) the ^ _ _ NorCh 824.7 feet of the T�� of the NE� of the.N� of Section 13. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Robert L. McGregor was present. � Because the Chairman was absent at the February 13th meeting, this item : - was tabled in arder to give him an opportunity to comment on it. . Mr. McGregor explained that it was their proposal to put in a 43 unit Townhouse project. The plan was to take this flat piece of ground and excavate two man made pcnds, use the material to construct berms ta give the property some character. It was proposed.that they would do this either by pumping water from the creek with a permit from the Conservation Department or by instal- ling a we1L The water, in either case, would overflow back to the creek. In winter the drainage pon d would be closed creating two skating rinks. A warming house would be built and maintained through the townhouse association at no cost to the City and would be basically used for the people in this immediate area. The Iand is narrow and long. The people to the East have given property for dedication of the road on the East side. They would also consent to give 17 feet to coincide with this road for egress Mr. McGregor cantinued that he indicated they would deed to the City the back of the property that is helow the 890 contour for park purposes which ^ would be a little over 10% of its land area. Mr. Qureshi used the projector to show the land in the�whole area to be acquired by the City. . / i - �� , t �. Planni� Commission Meeting - February 16, 1972 � ' Page 2 ; . Chairman Erickson said when the Commission first discussed this property; they were talking about a contour of 8$0. Mr. Qureshi said that what happened i /� was they were tallcing al�out a lower elevation at that time and the developer a was going to develop all the facilities down to 880. Roger Larson, who owns the property ta the East, is going to build tennis courts, picnic tables, benches � and barb�ecues. Once it is built, he wi7.1 turn it over to the City. He will also pravide parking for six to ten cars. � Originally when this property was to Council, Council considered the zoning for.apartments and were trying to get the land to the South. The zoning didn't go through because the deveioper was unable to purchase the creek bottom to give to the City. Chairman Erickson said they were concerned with the contour lines and not the proximity. The City should have, as a condition rezoning to the creek area. He was not so certain that any extension northward of the line would be of any advantage to the City Park. Mr. Qureshi said the only development you could.expect in this area is a walking trail. The land below the 890 con�Cour is very steep and fa11s about 45 to 50 feet to the creek. The Chairman wondered if the City should have.more property on the tog of the hill. Z`he Engineer said that if we had more property, it could not be used for anything more than walking. , , Mr. McGregor said the 890 contour is about 110 feet North of their South line. The density would be under the R-2 density allowed for townhouses. The town- houses would be owner occupied. Mr. Qureshi said the townhouse association will have to have agreemenCs with the City. Chairman Erickson asked Mr. Qureshi if he had any particular objection on the City`s part as to the 890 contour line. The only thing he would suggest was if the petitioner dedicated the land, h� also should provide a trail across his property. -Chairman Erickson said then it was his understanding the developer is e�cpected to pravide a trail on City property. Mr..Qureshi said there would be no problem with the plans they have for the � ponds, but Mr. McGregor would have to have a permit from the Conservation Department. +/'1 .� Mr. Fitzpatrick added that the narrowness of the property to be dedicated by Mr. McGregor could become a problem unless the City had property on both sides of the creek. - In answer to the suggestion that a fence be put up between the townhouse area and the park property, Mr. McGregor said they would pre£er not to do that. He felt that people take the path of least resistance and if a trail or walk were provided, the people would use that, The Engineer suggested this problem could be worked out with the Park Department. Chairman Erickson said that the Commission is not actually approving the townhouse project itself,and they expect it to go before the building board. It will come back to tiie Gommission wi�h a complete concept. ; � �� 4 .. �� � . � . . � � � . � � � . � . � ' . � - � � . . � � . � . � . ... � . . Planni.ngzCommission Meeting - February 16, 1972 Page 3 : � Mr. McGregor asked if the Commission could foresee any problems with the -ponds and the drainage because they would have to get an agreement with the City ^ to dYain across City pxoperty. The City Engineer said he did not expect any problems, and other details :they would work out with the petitianer. It would serve as a storm sewer at certain times. Mr. Minish said they could ha�e the second reading of the ordinance held up untiil all problems are solved. MOZ'ION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen,_that the Planning Commission recommend approvaZ of the rezoning request, ZOA #72-02, by Robert L. McGregor, to rezone from R-1 to R-2 (Zimited multiple family dwellingsj: the North 824.7 feet of the West Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 13, -for townhouse proposed developrr�ent with the following stipulations: 1) That Iand South of the 890 contour be dedicated to the City. 2) Construct a walk- way in park area. 3) Dedication of the Easter.iy 17 feet of this parcel. 4) Separate agreement for surface and ponding drainage with Engineering Depart- ment. 5) Second reading of the ordinance be withheld until the final plan of the tawnhouse has been approved, Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimotzsly. 7. ZETTER TO PLANNING C4MMISSION CHAIRMAN FROM`CITY MANAGER DATED JANUARY 24, 19%2 REGARDING.PROCEDURE OF BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MINUTES: ^ The Ietter was regarding the minutes of the Subcouimittee being presented to Council before the Planning Commission received them. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he was on the Subcommittee at one time. He made the co�ent that the Planning Commission and the Subcommittee spent a:great deal of time on the requests. The biggest objection the petitioners had was the delay. There is considerable delay already, but it is no fault of anybody. Mr. Schmedeke said he felt to have the Subcommittee minutes before the Planning Commission before going to Council, would gut�a lot more work on the Commission. He would then recommend heads of the departments attend the Commission meetings to explain the requests in order for the Commission to have a complete background on the problems. He felt there should be some way that all facts should be brought to the attention of�all Subcommittees so that they would not make a false decision. � � Chairman Erickson said they feel the procedure should be left as it is. If somebody shows up ati a committee and have not given a week's notice, that they should be sent back to the City staff so the City staff can revise the plans, Chairman Erickson said he would write a letter to Mr. Davis explaining the position of the Planning Commission. 3. STUDY: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: � The City Engineer reiterated that this study is only a guide and the map used is not a zoning map. " � � . - �� Planning Commission Meeting - February 16a 1972 Page 4 : Referring to the general introduction, Mr. Minish asked if they were over stating the case in saying that the Comprehensive Flan had no legal value. If a rezoning were denied, he would think if the Gity got into a law suit, their overall plan could have evid'ential value, and a sCatement like this can be damaging. If the Conunission turned down a request and the existing zoning ordi- nance was not in accordance with the overall plan, the overall plan would be in accordance with our action and make it more defensible. He could see a time when they would want to use the Comprehensive Elan as evidence. Mr. Qureshi said that comprehensive plans in other communities have created a lot of controversies by misinformation. This is merely a guide and can be changed from year to year depending how the City's thinking and develogment changes. The Comprehensive Flan does not rezone any property, but it does point out some areas where the City might want to change. If the awner of the property agrees, the request must go to the Planning Co�ission and the regular channels. Chairman Erickson commented that Council can deny any rezoni�g, even though the Comprehensive Plan suggests the way it should go. Mr. Qureshi continued that this study book is a rough copy -- the real plan- ...- ning is done by the Planning Commission. The legal requirement is one public hearing. Council can discuss and adopt by Resolution or Ordinance. If Council wants to make changes and have a public hearing, they can do it, but it is not required. When once adopted, the Planning Commissian and Council have to enforce it. Mr. Qureshi, referring to the population area, said that for the first time since the beginning of time, the suburb population is almost the same as the � total population of the central cities. Fridley's increase has been substan- tial. We have gotten over our greatest growth period and the growth from now on will not be so great. Underground utilities were mentioned and ttie n�ed for a criteria. The Commission members felt the graphs would be easier-to read if they . were pnt together in color. Under Housing, Mr. Qureshi said basically Fridley has a unique mixture. Planning Commission members mentioned that there are 409 units of Mobile Homes which come under R-4, Trailer Courts. Some of the older trailer courts have personal units too close together for comfort. The density of trailers require more area per unit than townhouses. To change the rezoning to a non- conforming use, would make it easy to eventually eliminate those which do not meet the area requirements. They agreed on the statement not to encourage Ioopbacks, to with detached service roads and to find some way to discourage the areas being used for filling stations. The discussion was terminated on Page 51. ADJOURNMENT: � . There being no further business, Chairman Erickson adjourned the meeting at 11:30 P.M. Respectful,ly submitted �zel 0'Brian Recording Secretary CITY OF FRIDLEY �� ^ PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS- STREETS & UTZLITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 9, 197 2 7:00 F.M. PAGE 1 The meeting was called to order by Chaixman Schmedeke at 7:05 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present:` Schmedeke, Meissner, Engdahl, French, Forster Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Engineering Assistant 1. CONTINLTED L0� SPLIT REQUEST� L.S. ��71-08, BY CLIFFORD T'HOE: East 125 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, Central View Manor. Mr. Clifford Thoe was present. Chairman Schmedeke explained that Mr. Thoe had been before the Subcommittee on June 16, 1971. This request reminded him of a similar situation in his own exper- ience. The City Manager, at the time he was going to build on his three lots, suggested the home be put on the Northwest corner of the three lots. Afterwards he wished that he had put the building whPre he wanted to instead of taking advice. He felt this could be a similar situation. The Subcommittee knows that this parce� does.not meet the area requirements of a C-1 district even before splitting, it /'\ has only 22,0(�0 square feet. Mr. �hoe said that he was informed he would h�ve to reta.in an easement for sewer and water to serve the house; however, the sewer is in the street and he is hookec� up to the sewer. The water he gets from the station. He used to have a well tfiat suppli�c� both the house and station. When �aater came through, he hooked up to the service station. He has been paying the water bill for both the statiom and the house. Mr. Sehmedeke said that if the split went through, Mr. Thoe would probdbly want to have a separate hookup for the home. Mr. Clark said he did not think it would be hard to get a water easement along the Western side of the service station up to 73� Avenue. He would meni:ion that Mr. Thoe would have to get a certificate of survey for the exact location of the house and service station. However, as it is expensive to get a certi�f�_�ate of survey, the P'lanning Commi-ssion may not require it until the Council makes a decision. Mr. Meissner said the driveway was discussed, bu� not�solved. Ae asked Mr. Thoe how wide a driveway was he anticipating and how much room did he-actuallg h ave? Mr. Thoe answered that the house is 24 feet from the East Iine and he would have a l0 foot wide driveway. The drivecaay could also be put on the West sid� of the house. The people who used to live in the house drove out that way. It � :, /'1 �#� Plats & Subs-Str & Util. Mt�• - Fehruary 9, 1972 page 2 , . . . was just a matter of moving the fence. After the exact location of the lot line was determined,, the fence could be replaced. Regarding the address, Mr. Thoe said there were two mail boxes outside of the . filling station now. The house would have a 73rd Avenue address and the filling . stat.ion Central Avenue. � :;;. � .:....�_;. Mr. Schmedeke said consideration should be given that Mr. Thoe is the fee owner and the application for the lot split is the way he wants to go. He felt that Mr. Th oe should keep a l0 foot easement on the West side of the station for water. Mr. Clark summarized the comments as follows: A 10 foot easement should be retained either on the Southerly part of the property or the Westerly part. The size of the lot would be approximately 70'x100'. MOTIQN by Meissner, seconded by French, that the Plats & Subaivisions-5treets & Utilities Subcommittee recornmend approval to the Planning Commissi.on of the Lot Split Request, L.S. #7Z-08, b� Clifford Thoe, in accordance raith the latest drawing, dated February 4, 1972', presented t1�is evening in the Agenda creafing a residential Zot approximately 70'x100' with the recommendation that the owner retain an ease- ment for water access either to 73� Avenue ar Central Avenue a t his discretion and that he be required to get a survey prior to final approval because the house and station are gaing to be close to the new Iot Zine. Upon a voice vate, aI1 voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Thoe was-informed that the Planning Commission would hear his:request at the March 8, 1972 meeting. 2. REQUEST FQR A VACATZON. SAV #�72-D2, BY JOSEPH A. LAURENT: To vacate the . Easterly 4.5 feet of the Westerly 15 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, Swanstrom's Court Additian. Copies of the letter sent to Mr. Laurent on February 1, 1972 written by the Engineering Department were given the members. The letter was in response to possible vacation of a storm sewer easement adjacent to Mr. Laurent's home. The existing easement was 15 feet wide with a 12 inch pipe placed on the center. The pipe is between 6 and 6� feet deep. The Engineering Department and Public Works staff recommend that the top of the footing for the proposed garage would be at the same e].evation as the bottom of the storm sewer. Mr. French commented that the building would be roughly two feet from the center of the pipe. If the pipe had to be dug up, the deep footing caould prevent the risk of the ground collapsing. He cou_ld nnt see that he would have any objections. He felt the chance of having to dig up that pipe would be rather sma11. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Laurent could take bids or estimates to see if it would be a feasible thing to do. Normally, a reinforcement is not guL in. This request has been discussed with both Public Works and the Engineering staff. They �„� felt there would be no trouble going down to the pipe. Probably just the portion of the easement next to the house would be vacated. The manhole to the West and behind the house is 22 feet away and is four feet in diameter. It is f ar enough " . _ �� P1atis & Subs Str & Util Mtg - February 9, 1972 � Page 3 __ • away so there would be no trouble. The ground is relatively flat, but the ground ^ drops off and is pretty steeg from the North manhole to Highway ��694. MOT.ION by Engdahl, seconded by Meissner, that the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets , & Utilities Subcommittee recommend approval to the Planning Commzssion of the Vacation Request, SAV #72-02, by Joseph A. Laurent, to vacate the Easterly 4.5 feet ' � of the Westerly 15 feet of Lot 5, Block 1, 5wanstrom's Court Addition, only in the area to be occupied by the proposed garage and subject to the conditions in the letter dated February 1, 1972 to Mr. Laurent from Darrel CZark, Engineering Assistant, and subject to a certificate of survey giving the dimensions of the description before the Ordinance is passed. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion < carried unanimously. 3. LOOPBACKS: Chairman Schmedeke said he would like to mention the problem of loopbacks. They might have them up on the North side of Bob's Produce itanch, and the Pure Oil Station on Central Avenue and Highway 4�65. He was suggesting that on locgbacks all egress and ingress from the service drive should be something like that of the car wash on 73rd Avenue and University when you go to the post office. If the Subcommittee could decide on a solution, the suggestion could go through the Planning Commission and up to the Council. • , Mr. French thought the City was subject to enough accidents right now without adding-to it. ^ Mr. Schmedeke said that it wasn't necessary to limit the loopbacks to service stations as the land area is large enough for an office building and there might be ather suggested buildings. � � ADJOURNMENT : There being no further business, Chairman Schmedeke adjourned the meeting at 8•00 P.M. Res ectfu 1 �SUbmitted �c��J�� �.�.��-- Recording Secretary .? � , 0 � 0 /"� BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1972 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Zeglen at 8:10 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Zeglen, Lindblad, Tonco, Simoneau MEMBERS ABSENT: White � OTHERS PRESENTt Peter Herlofsky, Planning Assistant MOTION by Tonco to approve the minutes o£ the January 13, 1972 meeting as written. Seconded by Lindblad. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. I. CONSIDER.ATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A YARD OFFICE AND CABOOSE SERVICING BUILDING AND AN AUXILIARY SERVICE BUILDING AND ALSO PHASE I OF A DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP. ALSO REQUESTED IS CONCEPT APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE DIESEL LOCOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP �PHASE I AND PHASE IIe) ALL TO BE LOCATED ON LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4, BLOCK 5, AI�Ii LOTS 8, 9, AND 10, BLOCK 4. PORTION OF STREET BETWEEN BLOCKS 5 AND 4, BERLIN ADDITION, AND BLOCKS 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 AND 13, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION ��39, THE SAME BEING 4055 EAST . RIVER ROAD N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 554�2, (REQUEST BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN, 176 EAST STH STREET, ST. PAUL,_MINNESOTA 55101 ) Mr. A. C. Cayou was present to present the request. He said the plans the Board had were for Phase I and Phase II combined. He brought the plan for Phase I, only, with him to the meeting, He just had one set of plans. Mr. Tonco told him to bring two addi- tional sets to the Building Department as a total of three sets ��ere required. The entire diesel shop will have a 320 foot front, - a depth of �208 feet and a maximum height of 50 feet. Phase I will be 84 feet by 320 feet. It will be used to service locomotives. They will sand, fuel, water, and make running repairs. Mr. Tonco asked what the exterior finish would be. Mr. Cayou said it would be a metal building, a pre-finished textured panel in a creamy yellowyand concrete block. He said he couldn't give the exact description of the material as they didn't have a builder yet. Mr. Tonco requested that when they decide on the metal material to be used that a sample be brought into the Building Department for approval. Mr. Cayou agreed. Mr. Cayou said the concrete block would match the metal finish. They didn't know if they would use colored block or paint the block to match. The east wall would be all concrete and would be the fire wall when Phase II was completed in 1975. Mr. Tonco requested the Building Inspector check on the 8" block used with structural steel on the back wall. This request was made because of the height of the building. Mr, Zeglen said the plan has cx�u�hed rock parking lots, The Fridley Zaning Ordinance calls for blacktop in all parking areas so the crushed rock wouldn't be allowed. We also require poured concrete curbing ., :� Building Standards-Design Control Meeting of February 10, 1972 Page Z ^ around all blacktop areas. The Board also felt the parking areas should - be striped so they would know how many parking spaces they had and it would eiiminate haphazard parking in the parking Iots. Mr. Herlofsky said the plan showed parking area up to the property Iine. Fridley requires all parking to be twenty feet from the property line. This ' would eliminate some of their parking area but they would have an area for landscaping on East River Road. The Board requested they bring in a landscaping plan for East River Road �.nd they would check the parking requirements at that time to see if they were adequate. Mr. Zeglen asked about trash disposal, if they would use dumpsters, and if they would be stored inside. Mr. Cayou said they would be using some sort of dumpster or large container and he thought they would be stoxing outside for cammercial pick-up. Mr. Tonco said if there was any trash stored outside of the dumpster or container they would be required to provide outside screening. The Building Inspector will check on this and any trash spread around would not be allowed. � Mr. Zeglen asked about security lighting. Mr Cayou said he thought there would be flood light towers and some form of street lights. Mr. Tonco said they had to be sure no security lights were reflecting back into the residential area. He also said when the electrical engineer had the plan for the security lighting ready they should present it to the Building Standards Board. . _ __ ___ __ _- - __. ^ Mr. Cayou said the yard office and caboose servicing building will be a - steel frame and masonry building. It will be colored or painted block to match the diesel locomotive repair shop. Mr. Tonco said he noticed some paneled glass on the plan. Mr. Cayou said there would be glass weld panels on the east and west exterior but the south and north exteriors would be plain. The roof will have flashing trim. �; Mr. Tonco said they have an equipment door on the third floor. Mr. Cayou said they have a relay signal system, radio shop, air conditioning equipment and other electrical equipment on this floor and they wanted a door to deliver and replace this equipment as needed. Mr. Cayou said this building would be used by yard workers and switch crews but u�ostly by road crews. Mr. Tonco asked about trash disposal for this building. He said the same requirement as for the diesel locomotive repair shop was necessary, and if the trash was spread around we would insist upon a screened area. Mr. Cayou said they also wanted to construct an auxiliary service building that will be 24 ft by 80 ft by 14 feet in height. This building will 17.ave metal panels to match the diesel locomotive repair shop. It will have a lofv pitched roof. This will be used for storage of aIl types of oil and all the tanks would be buried. It would house the steam generators and the compressors and auxiliary generators. It has to be finished at the same time as the other buildings. Mr. Tonco asked if this wauld be a fireproof huilding. After being told it would be, he told Mr. Cayou that �Q � � �'1 k� Building Standards-Design Control Meeting of Februar 10, 1972 Pa e 3 _ _ _ _. _ _ _ no.permits could be issued for this submitted to this Board. Mr. Cayou building they wanted to construct at back with both plans• building until the plans had been said there was one other additional the same time so they would be Mr. Zeglen said Fridley required a 10 foot radius on all corners and a poured 6" x 12" curbing. The board felt the traffic pattern was hard to follow on the plan and the traffic pattern should be called to the attention of the Engineering Department. The Board also wants the Engineering Department aware of the sewage probl.em of waste oil. Mr. Cayou said their environmental engineers are working on this problem. The Board also was concerned that curbing or some barrier be installed at the foot of the ber m where the parking lot is located. The ber m is approximately 100 foot high in some areas and comes down at a 45° angle and the dirt could wash down. MOTION by Tonco to recommend to the City Council approval of the request to construcr a yard office and caboose servicing building and Ph�.se I of a diesel locomotive repair shop and concept approval of the entire diesel locomotive repair shop. (Phase I and Phase II). The_plans for the auxil- iary service building have to be presented to_.guilding Standards before any permits can be issued for construction. This approval has the following stipulations: 1. All parking areas to be blacktopped. 2. Landscaping plan for East River Road to be brought to Building Standards-Design Control �ieeting. 3. Lighting plan to be brought to Building Standards-Design Control meeting. 4. Traffic pattern to be checked by Engineering Department. 5. Sample of building material to be used brought to Building Inspector. 6. Enviro.-imental Engineers sewage system to be shown to Engineering Department. Seconded by Simoneau. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SERVICE STATION LOCATED ON ALL THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 11 NORTH OF OSBORNE ROAD NoE „ AND EAST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E „ PARCEL 2550, THE SAME BEING 7609 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N,E,, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432. SREQUEST BY THE STANDARD OIL DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, 1405 MELROSE AVENUE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55426.) Mr. W. G. (Fred) Housenga, District Engineer of the American 0i1 Company, was present to present the request. Mr. Housenga said the company had owned this property since 1956 or 1959 and thought it was time to develop it. Two 60" St. Paul water mains go under the property. These had ta be covered with 20 foot wide mats 8 inches thick with 2 inch reinforced steel. Mr. Zeglen asked about the blacktop bet-ween the concrete mats. He said they preferred the drive to be all concrete and Mr. Housenga , F , � ` Building Standards besign Control Mee�i�n� of �ebruarv 10, 1972 Pa�e 4 agreed to this. ` Mr. Herlofsky mentioned the 15 foot easement given to the City. Thirteen . feet of this will be roadway so the entrances to the station would have to be moved back this distance. Mr. Tonco said there was a 10 foot radius on corners of the driveways. Mr. Housenga had an artist's drawing of the service station,�with trees ` planted along the rear of the building. Mr. Zeglen said they wanted _ _ � --- _ _ _ these trees to be evergreens. They also wanted some low plantings in the green area in the front of the building. . Mr, Tonco asked about security lighting. Mr. Housenga said the back wall of the station would not have any opening of any kind so they weren't going to have any lights there. There would be two security lights inside the station that would be left on at night. This was satisfactory to the Board. Mr. Tonco said some residents of the area were opposed.to the service station because of the lighting and the Iights from cars. Mr. Housenga said the lighting around the roof of the station would all be indirect lighting. The Board remembered that one resident who was opposed to the service station had asked the �ompany to plant shrubbery on his property as a screen from car headlights. The Board felt it was a better policy to have the Company eliminate the problem ^ as much as possible on their own property. Upon checking the position • of the driveways and the projection of headlights coming from the driveway it was decided if the right hand turn lane could be adjusted the headlights wouldn't shine directly onto any certain progerty. The plan Mr. Housenga brought in tonite shows a 8 foot by 12 foot trash ' enclosure. The Board requested this to be 6 foot in height. Mr. Herlofsky said the parking lot on the east side of the building would have to be moved back 5 feet to meet the zoning ordinance. _ __ _ _ _ Mr. Housenga said the building would be reddish buff with a charcoal gray mans�•rd roof of aluminum shingle. Mr. Tonco asked if they had trouble maintaining the green areas. Mr. Housenga said once the sod took hold it maintained quite well. Mr. Zeglen reminded Mr. Hosenga that the outdoor sign was limited to 10 feet to comply with our sign ordinance. _ _ _. Mr. Housenga asked if the water from the roof could be drained through the building into the sanitary sewer or if it had to drain into the ground. The Board said this would be checked into and he would get his answer at the Council meeting. � �:o Fr 1 N� Building Standards-Design Control Meeting of February 10, 1972 Page 5 MOTION by Lindblad to recommend tQ the City Council approval of the /1 request to construct a service station with the stipulations noted in red on the plan. 1. Driveway to be all concrete. 2. Driveway moved back 13 feet tor roadway easement. , 3. East side parkircg lot moved in 5 feet. 4. Low plant�ngs in front green area. 5. 12 ft, x 8 ft. x 6 ft high trash bin. 6. Check on right hand turn lane. 7. A11 indirect lighting. Seconded by Tonco. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried uuanimously. Chairman Zeg�len adjourned the meeting at 10:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, G� 7 ��z�'a`?� Dorothy Even � n Secretary ^ ' 0 � • , M �� THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 1972 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Minish at 8:30 P.M. ^ ME�'NIBERS PRESENT: Minish, Crowder, Harju, Sondheimer, Wahlberg 4 MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Clarence Belisle-Building Inspector � �. - MOTION by Sondheimer to approve the minutes of the December 14, 1971 meeting as written. Seconded by Crowder. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. Each member of the Board received a aopy of that part of the Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 1971 concexning the Guidelines for Lots Substandard in Size, in the Plymouth Addition, and alsa, that part of the Council Minutes of Decembex 20, 1971 that showed the Council concurring with the Planning Commissioris recommendatior.s on these lots. Chaixman Minish explair.ad that the Board of Appeais has been receiving many variance xequests on 40 foot lots for which there are no specific codes. The Planning Commission reviewed this matter and came-up with some guidelines to follow for each specific substandard lot in Plymouth Addition. The Board now has a recommendation for each lot which it can follow if variances are again requested, 1. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 450053, 4A z TO REDUCE THE MINIrNM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIRLMENT FROM 35 FEET TO 15 FEET T� ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION Q� DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES ATTACHED ONTO THE FRONT, ON LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7, SLOCK 1, INNSBRUCK 5TH ADDITION. THE SAME BEING 5171. 5175, 5179, 5183, 5201 AND 5275 ST. INIIER DRIVE, FRIDLEY, rffNNESOTA. (REQUEST BY �ODI��Y BII.LMAN, INCORPORATED, 151 SILVER LAKE ROAD, NF.�'W BRIGHTON, MINNES�TA.� Mr. John Bogucki, representing Rodney Bil].man, Inc. , was present to gresent the request. Pictures of the lots, the Inr_sbruck 5th Addition plat and a sketch of the position of the h�use on one lot were sh�can to the Boaxd, Mr. Bogucki explained there are 7 lots that need a front �ard variance as they have an extremely fast drop off that star�:s almost immediately at the front of the lots. In order to maintain the 35 foot setback requirement for the dwelling and the garage, a great deal of fill would have to be used or some type of bridge, made of concrete or spancrete, wouZd have to be used for the driveway. Z'Eiis type of bridge could be dangerous in the cainter as far as cars sliding over the edge. They prop�se to have the house set back 35 feet with the garage attached to the front, having a setback of about 15 feet. He said they are aski.ng for I5 feet on the garages but they will listen to anything the Board may suggest. Mr. Belisle stated, upon recammendation of the City Engi.neer, that the setback has to be at least 20 feet because the car �engths would overlap onto the boulevard with a lesser setback. Mr. Bogucki contiriuEd that they plan ta pat fil2 in for the drivet��ays only � and wi11 possibly put tzao_driveways together, to make building easi�r, and f the driveways widero They 4�ould have a 3 car width driveway f�r a 2 car garage to keep the cars off the boulevard and off the streei. � �a_.s The Minutes of the Board of A eals Meetin of Februa 15 1972 Pa e 2 . Mr. Bogucki said there won't be any front yard to speak of, but the yard wil.l be Cerraced down. The ma.in floor of the house will be level with the sCreet ^, but they might have to build the equivalent of 2 basements under it and possibly it would look Iike a 3 story house from the back. The basement under the garage would probably consist of a laundry room. ^ ^ Mr. Belisle stated the northern corner lot, Lot 8, has an existing house on it, which has a 40 foot setback on the garage and a 47 foot setback on the house. �his house faces St. Imier as would the proposed dwellings. Chairman Minish.asked why they wanted a blanket variance on all of the lots and also if they had any plans drawn up for the type of house they propose to build. , ; Mr. Bogucki said they have not had any plans drawn up as yet. They feel it is better to wait until they have a buyer for a certain lot, and then to work with him on drawing up the plans for that lot. They want a blanket variance on all•the lots because they don't know which lot a buyer would want to build on> With the blanket variance a buyer could have his choice of th� lots. Mr. Crowder asked what would happen to the ponding area if these lots _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -- -- are developed. _ _ _. _ __ ..- -_ __ __ _ ... _ _ __ _. _ __ ___ _ --- _ — Mr. Bogucki said this is an unplatted outlot that will probably revert back to the City. It could be turned into a sma.11 pond if the people who buy the lots wauld keep water in it. Mr. Harju asked if this area was planned this way. Mr. Bogucki answered that when they bought this addition, they purchased so many lots. They had to take the good with the bad. ,A certain amount of_. money has been spent_for_these lots and we would like to develope them to _ __ _ get the money back out_of_them. If these lots could be developed it would _ _ ._ be a nice street. Mr. Belisle stated that we will require soil tests on the lots. Mr. Bogucki said they had planned on getting thase tests. Mr. Crowder asked if the steep decline continued the length of each lot. Mr. Bogucki answered that on some lots it tapered off at the back but most have the very steep decline. Mr. Belisle s�ated the inverts on the sewer will have to be obtained fxom the Engineering Department for each individual lot. - Mr. Crowder had to leave the meeting at 9:20 P.M. Mr. W. Culbert, 5270 St. Imier, said he lives directly across from the lots. He didn't have any objections to d�veloping the lots as a whole but he didn't think a blanket variance was the right way to do it. He said he has a large investment to protect and he �aould like to see some plans for the houses that would be being built, be€ore any action is taken on the variance. He said no /'\ . i4� The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meetin� of FebruarSr 15, 1972 Page 3_ attempt has been made to show them what this would involve. He added he is very pleased with the area as it is now. � Mr. Bogucki said they would never build anything that would devalue the surrounding property. The dwellings.that they would build on these lots would be more expensive than many of the homes already in the area as they would be bigger, having approximately two basements, and it will cost more for the ma.terials. Mrs. Murray, 5250 St. Imier, said she thought this should be taken on a lot to lot basis. On a blanket vaxiance they could build anything that they wanted to and we wouldn't have anything to say about it. She asked Mr. Bogucki if his architect couldn't draw up soxne sort of plans so they coul.d see some idea of what they plan to build. , Clzairman Minish stated that in 1969, Mra Billman asked for the same variances on the same lots. There wexe some ob}ections from the neighbors at that time also and he abandoned the request. There were no plans drawn up at that time either. He added he thought a lot to lot basis could be easier to make a decision ona Mr. Bogucki stated they don't like to draw up plans when they don't know what the buyers would want. He thought that since he was in the construction business, he could possibly see something that the neighbors could not see. He felt that if these lots are handled right, it could be the best area of Innsbxuck. � There was then a discussion on other areas where there are houses built on . a steep decline. It was brought out that some of these homes are built in a very attractive manner. MOTION by Sondheimer to close the public hearing. Seconded by Harju. Upon a voice vote, there being no nays, the motion carried unanimausly. Mr. Sondheimer stated he felt that there was to much talking in generalities. � He would like to see 2 ox 3 approaches that are woxkable bxought befoxe the , Board that the people could see. � MOTION by Sondheimer that 2 or 3 proposals be presented that can be evaluated on their own merits. Mrs. Wahlberg said she felt soil tests should be taken first. M(}TION dies far lack of a second. Chairman Minish said there was a hardship in the steep decline of the lots but he felt the Board should consider the variance on a lot to lot basis. He added the soil tests should be taken to determine whether a house could be built on each lot and he felt that the applicant could get some plans for a house af this design to show the neighbors and the Board. . . �r� The Minutes of the Board of Appeals Meeting of February 15, 1972 Page 4 . Mr. Bogucki asked if the Board felt he should take a specific lot and try to : draw up a specific plan for that lot and present it to the Board. ^ .. Chairman Minish answered that is what the Board would like to see. Mr. Sondheimer added that the plan does not have to be fully designed but should show how to arrange the basic elements. � MOTION by Sondheimer to table this request until such time as Mr. Bogucki can present some detailed consideration of the design approaches. � Seconded by Wahlberg. Upon a voice vote there being no nays, the motion carried unanimously. , , Chairman Minish added that when the plans are submitted to come back before the Board, notices be sent out to the surrounding property owners again so they � will be abJ�e to see the plans also. ADJOURNr�NT • The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Minish at 9:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, n 1���1�:1.� e L MARY HIN Secretary ^ _!..