PL 02/09/1972 - 30342�
PLANNING COI�IISSION MEETIN�
CITY OF FRIDLEY
FEBRUARY 9, 1972
PAGE 1
i
i"'�
The meetiag was called to order by Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick at 8:15 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Minish, Zeglen, Fitzpatrick, Schmedeke
Member Absent: . Ch�irman Erickson
Others Present: Darrel Clark, Engiaeering Assistant
APPROVE PLANNING COI�Il�IISSION MINUTES: JANUARY 12, 1972
MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the PZanning Commission minutes
of Tanuary 12, 1972 be approved. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the mofion
carried unanimously. '
. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONIMISSION MI.NUTES: DECEMBER 20, 1971
MOTION by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that the PZanning Commission receive
the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission meeting of December 20, Z971.
Upon a voice vote, a11 voting a,ye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCONIMITTEE MINUTES: JANUARY 13, 1972
MOTIOIV by Zeglen, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of
January 13, Z972. Upon a voice vofe, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick stated that, with the approval of the Com�aission
members, Item ,1�1 will be deferred until the petitioner arrives and Item ��2 will be
the first on the Agenda. �
1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
OUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP �71-17, bON'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 �155 except that part taken for highway and street purposes, per
Code Section 45.101,-6, 3-E, zoned C-2S. ,
Donald J. Michaels, applicant, and Gerald Rummel, attorney for U-Haul were
present.
2. _ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITZ SP ��71-18, RON'S
GULF SERVICE ST�,TION: Request for U-Haul rentals on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,
�� C.D. Hutchinson Addition per Code Section 45.1OL, B,3-E, zoned C-2.
� Ronald J. Plomdon, applicant, and Mr. Rummel were present.
e
Planning Commissi._on Meeting -�ebruary 9, 1972 Pa�;,e 2
� Mr. Schmedeke said that he hadn't changed his mind since the last meeting.
�• regarding U-Saul tra3lers being parked in service stations. Se had checked with
� , a n�ber 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. Se 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-Raul for a separate place of business. On 61st
� Anenue and University there was an EZ Haul in the service station. The station
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.
�,"1
�
1-. �
Mr. Minish asked if there were any stations with special use permits granted
to rent trailers. Mr. Clark answered there is one Gulf Station on 73rd Avenue and
Central Avenue, which was actually a relocation, and happens to be U-Haul, and the
Co�ission wi11 be getting a request from them very soon. The other one is on
62nd Avenue and Highway �i�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. C1ark said these are the people who will be coming in
within a few weeks asking for 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
Highway �47.
Mr. Zeglea said that he, too, agreed that the U-Haul is a business in itself.
�Se would not have any objections if they occupied a place of business of tl�eir
own, but if you let one trailer rental in, you have to 1et another. Some are
going to be busy, some not so busy. .
Nir. Minish said tiie City has an ordinance that raas drafted with minimum
criteria. They tried to get away from storage on service station property. There
seems to be very little difference between this operation and sale of camping
trailers. Se felt that they should have either an arbitrary restriction or a
separate location for the operation.
Mr. Rummel arrived and Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick explained to him that
the item under consideration was the request for U-Hau1 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 su�narizes the discussion at t'his point.
�
Planning Commission Meeting - Fehruary 9, 1972 Page 3
-- Mr. Fitzpatrick said that even though the public hearing has been closed,.if
,. there is anything new 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
. II-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, II-Haul has found in the 25 years they have been in business,
it does not work out. Where they put in a limited number of pieces of equipment
in the service station, and where the equipment can be serviced by the operator,
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. Ttiey have
tried it in some locations and have gone out of business. In the seven years he
has represented them in this metropolitan area, theyhave had the same type of
control either 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.
3fiey 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 U-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-Haul.
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 otYrer
end of the City and another under the grandfather clause.
Mr. Rummel said he would not disagree with that viewpoint. If an operator
could, under a special use permit, screen off the area, and the�station is not
a messy operation, he did not see where this is really too objectionable. It
is the individual. operator who lives in the City who wants to make a Iiving
operating a station.- He has got to meet the overhead and wants to make a living.
Se 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 like 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-Saul 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 w�re tabled until after there were requests by others.
'� Chairman Fitzpatricklsaid that along the lines of the opening statement, he
agreed and rejected the idea that we can assume our neighboring suburbs will
Plannin� Commission Meetin� - Februarv 9, 1972 - Page 4
supply the service. We have tried to set up a criteria for the operation of filling
atiations and we might be one of the first to reverse this recommendation.
�� It was noted there were three requests for U-Aaul, one request would be coming
in for E� Haul, and there �robably will be one coming in for Ryder Trucks.
MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the PZanninq Commission recom-
mend to Covncil approval of the continuous use of Don`s Gulf Service for gasoZine
sales, under the request of a Special Use Permit, SP #71-17, on the Easterly 351
feet of Lot I2 and Easterly 35Z feet of the Southerly 20 feet of Lot I1, Auditor's
Subdivision #I55 except that part taken for highway and street purposes, per Code
Section 45.I01, 6, 3-E, zoned C-2S. Upon a voice vote, aIZ voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recom-
ment denial to the Council for that part of the Special Use Request b,y Don's Gulf
Service Station, SP #7I-17, for the rental of U-Hau1 trailers on the Easterly
351 feet of Lot•I2 and Easterlr� 351 feet of the Southerly 20 feet of Lot 11,
Auditor's Subdivision #I55 except that part taken for highway and stxeet purposes,
per Code Section 45..I01, 6, 3-E, zoned C-25. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,
the motion carried unanirrrousZy.
Mr. Minish asked if this denial would refer 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.R.'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
condifiioned 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 ma.ny
parking spaces for employee cars, cars being serviced and that area can't be
used for parking by U-Haul equipment. U-Haul realizes when they apply for an
application, they were not going to get into a location where there isn't room to
allow f or the off street for the station itself. It won't work out because it is
encroaching and over crowding.
MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that fhe Planning Commission recom-
mend approval of that part of the Special Use Permit, SP #71-I8, by Ron's Gu1f
Service Station to the Council for the continuous use of Ron's Gulf Service
Station as an gaso.Zine outlet on Lots Z and 2, BZock I, C. D. Hutchinson Addition
per Code Section 45.I01, B, 3-E, zoned C-2. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye,
t.�ie motion carried unanimousZy. ,
.
MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recom-
mend denial of the SpeciaZ Use Permit Request, SP �'7I-18, by Ron's Gu1f Service
Station for U-Hau1 renfals on Lots 1 and 2, B1ock 1, C. D. Hutchinson Addition
per Code Section 45.101, 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 requests for every service station site
in the City of Fridley.
r -�
Planning Commission Meeting -�ebruary 9, 1972 Pa�e 5
�, UPON A VOICE VOTE, Zeglen, Schmedeke voting aye, Minish and Fitzpatrick voting
•• ° nay, the MOTION FAILED.
� �
�� Mr. Minish said he felt different about this station because o£ the location.
The Commission 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 PZanning Gommission table untiZ March 8, I972 the
SpeciaZ Use Permit request, SP #7Z-I8, by Ron's Gu1f Service Sfation for U-HauZ
rentals on Lots 1 and 2, Block I, 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 wilZ 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 tihe action then would'be for the Planning Commission
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 �hat it would be difficult for
them to make a substantial profit. Now we hear that station operators need
additional means of income to stay open. We should keep in mind what we heard
tonight.
3. PUBLIC AEARING: REZONING REQUESTa ZOA ��72-01, BY ALVIN A. NITSCHKE: To
. rezone from R-1 to R-3, Outlot 4�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 Planning Commission waive
the reading of the Official Notice for the Public Hearinq of the Rezoning Request,
20A #72-01, by Alvin A. Nitschke to rezone from R-1 to R-3 (g�neral multiple
family dweZlings) Outlot #1, Rice Creek P1aza South and Lot 32, Block 4, Lowe11
Addition to Fridle� Park together with the vacated street Iying between the before
mentioned parcels. Upon a voice vote, a1Z voting a�e, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Clark said that about a year ago Mr. Nitschke applied far 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
!'� has taken place. Iie has deeded the amount of the property as agreed to. .
0
�Planning Co�issi.on Meetin�- Februa� 9, 1972 Page 6
fle will receive the City's deed for the 20 foot Outlot. He wants to build a three
family townhouse type of building on the same lot as contained in the special use
� permit. He did 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. fle will be living in one
of the units. He would try to ma.ke it look as nice as possible as it is not a
speculative project. .He changed the request because it �aould be more economical
to have a triplex. .
Mr. Clark said he had seen the plans.. The garages are on tha front of the
living area. There is a court between the garages and houses. The only thirig
he would want to co�ent on was the front yard would be mostly blacktop or
concrete. -
He continued that the building site is 80'x136'. There is a two family
structure in the block to the North, 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 Hearing be cZosed
for the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-01, by A1vin A. Nitsahke. Upon a voice vote,
� aI1 vo ting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ,
� MO1'ION by Minish, seconded by 5chmedeke, that the Planning Commission recom-
mend to Council denial of the rezoning request, ZOA #72-OI, by Alvin A. Nitschke to
�rezone from R-Z to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) Outlot #I, Rice Creek
PZaza South and Lot 32, BZock 4, Lowe.Z1 Addition to Frid�ey Park together with
the vacated street Zying between the before mentioned parcels, for the foZlowing
reasons: This request is out of keeping with the rest of the block which is
residentiaZ with one doubZe unit; objects to blacktop facing the stree�; the
proximity of the park and the extra cars this triplex wou.Zd have makes it undesir-
able because the park does not have enough street parking area; and is inconsis-
tent with surrounding one and two family residences. Upon a voice vote, a11
voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONYNG REQUEST, ZOA ��%2-02, 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
of Section 13. .
Mr. McGregor and Mr. Floyd Foslien were present.
MOTION bz� Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the Planninq Commission waive
the reading of the Public Hearing notice for the rezoning request, ZOA #72-02,
b� Robert L. McGregor. Upon a voice vote, aII voting a�e, the motion carried
unanimously. ,
�
Planning Commission Meeting - Fe�ruar� 9, 1972 Page 7
Mr. McGregor explained that they are proposing to put in a townhouse project.
' * Suburban Engineering has been employed to do the general layout. He has known
� abaut th� 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 Lloyd 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 p"ump water out of
the creek into the pond and then drain back down to the creek by gravity so it
will look 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
would 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 townhouses
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. C1ark 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 toget�er w3th 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.Cownhouse 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 b,y Minish, seconded by Zeqlen, that fhe PZanning Commission close the
public hearing of the Rezoning Request, ZOA #72-02, by Robert L. McGregor to rezone
from R-I to R-2 (.Zimited multiple family dwellings) the North 824.7 feet of the
West puarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section Z3.
Upon a voiae vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Schmedeke said that being a Iayman on this type of construction, he would
like to make a motion to table the item until Mr. Erickson, being a builder in his
own right, gets a look at it. .
MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, �that the PZanning Commission table
the rezoning request, ZOA #72-02, by Robert McGregor untiZ the meeting of
February 16, Z972. Upon.a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried
� t�nanimously.
Plannin� Commission Meetin� - February 9, 1972 pa�g
. 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE�UEST, ZOA �'71-
� MURPHY: To rezone from C-1S to C-2 (general business
Half of Lot 18, Block 1, Spring Valley Ad.dition for
' putting course.
/"'�
�
The petitioner was not present.
10, BY MRS LLOYD
areas) the Westerly
a miniature golf
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 Permi�
under C-1 zoning. Darrel Clark said an answer was received from the City Attorney.
Sis opinion was "no". The letter was included in the Agenda on Page 19.
� -- -
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. Schmed�eke 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 Commission meeting of January
12, 1972 at the top of Page 5: "MOTION by Minish, seconded by Schmedeke, that
the Planning Commission table the rezoning request, ZOA ,�71-10 ----- and ask the
City Attorney whether or not a Special Use Permit could be granted under C-1S
zoning for this request --." fle 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 permit
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 rezoning 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.
Ia 1968 he asked to rezone Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 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 �68-01, Eldon Schmedeke, of
Lots 16 through 19, Block 12 and Lot 30, Block 21, Hyde Park.Addition to be
rezoned from R-2 (limited multiple districts) to C-2 (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 moral 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
�lanning Commission Meeting -�ebruar� 9, 1972 Pa e 9
stream of rezoning requests, and he thonght it should be pointed out that this
�.,1� "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 zbning 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
2oning Ordinance -- "The City ordinance does say that there must be 200 feet
frontage and this could put some pe.ople in the position of not being able to use
their property."
Excerpt from bottom 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�."
"Counci].man 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 Liebl 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 development 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
,,.� Commission Request -- Mr. Eldon Schmedeke said that as to the Walquist request,
� the Planning 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 produce 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 Oliver 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 Zoning Ordinance is to be prepared for the June 1, 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
� an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to a11ow for meeting either the 200 £oot
footage requirement, or the 25,OOQ square footage requirement in C-1 zoning."
End of excerpts.
.
planain� Commission l�ieetin,g - February 9a 1972 Page 10
- Mr. Schmedeke said in summary that he could no� see where we can live by
this Spite Ordinance. The area it was created for has not used it. He believed
,� that the ordinance should be changed and he will work for its correction. It is
. too stiff and it was just done for one area. We wi11 have to change it to
smaller�square �footage in C-2. Ae thought some of the people are entitled to it,
but it s�ould not be made so stiff that they will�have to get a variance. If you
are C-2, you are C-2 and 1et's get it done so people can live with it.
Chai.rman Fitzpatrick said that an ordinance that apglied to one area and is
e�egted in.many other cases, and that the opiniQn here that we could rezone an
area immediatelq creating a non-conformance by rezo�ing, 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 m2rits,
of this particular case, he thought the Co�ission �aas prepared to make a
recommendation. Recommending approval would immediately create a situation
that would not conform within the zoning we are monfng 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 Iand in C-1 and C-1S that
� is vacant. The area requirement for 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 3t was added at Council level.
Mr. Schmedeke said that between the Engineering Department, Council and the
Planning Commission they came up with some of these zonings, square footages
and the 1ike.
� 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 reco�andation. In his opinion 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 requizements.
Other reasons for denial were listed as temporary use and can't be used after
te�porary 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 district. 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 ZeqZen, that �he Planning Commiscion recomnend
denial to the Council for the zoning request, ZOA #71-I0, bg Mrs. LZo�d Mur.phy
for the Westerl� Ha1f of Lot I8, Block 1, Spring Va1ley Addition to be rezon�d
from C-1 to C-2 (general business areas) for a miniature goZf putting course
and further recommend considering amending the zoning ordinance for C-1 to a1.Zow
a Special UsE Permit and specif� cerfain t�pes of Uses which would a1low golf
putting course and Zet the petitioner then submit a�equest for a Specia.Z Usa
Permit under the present zoning to avoid the problem of rezoning back and forth
a1I the time. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq ar�e, the motion carried unanimously.
Darrel Clark was asked if the Engineering Dep�rtment could.get a s.urvev
of substandard commercial lots and the size of otl�aer communities' size of
• commercial Zots.
,,""� -
P lannin� Commission Meeti� - February 9, 1972 Pagze 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
r—.� or footage requirements.
ADJOURl�'I'ENT :
There being no further business, Chairman Fitzpatrick adjourned the meeting
at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
�'f - � �-� ✓��.�.�-..�....'.
+ Haze�O' Brian
Recording Secretary
,
�--.
0
��'. -' �
0