Loading...
PL 03/07/1973 - 30369j� �� �� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNII�G CONAIISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER• MARCH 7, 1973 Chairman Erickson called the meeting to order at $:00 P,M, ROLL CALL• PAGE 1 Members Present: Erickson, Schmedeke, Zeglen, Fitzpatrick, Ministi Members Absent: None Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator �PPROVE FLANNING COI�IISSION MINUTES: FEBRUARY 21, 1973 - MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Coumnission mfnutes of February Z1, 1973 be approved. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. �ECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: FEBRIIARY 22, 1973 Ma'�IdON by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning �ommission receive the minutes of the Building Sta�dards-Design Control Snbcommittee of February 22, 1973. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PDBI.IC HEARING: REZOI�TING REQIIEST, ZOA ��'73-d2, BY ROBERT D. DEGARDNERt To rezone Lots 22 through 25, except the Westerly 60 feet, Block 7, Spsiag Brook Park Addition, from R-1 (single family dwelling ar�a�) - to C-R1 (general office and limi�ed business) for a realty office. Mr. Robert DeGardner was present. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Minish, tr�at the Planning Commis�ion waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice for rezoning request, ZOA ��73-02, by Robert D. DeGardner, to rezone Lots 22 through 25, except the Westerly 60 feet, Block 7, Spring Brook Addition, from R-1 to C-R1. Ugon a.`aoice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. DeGardner said he has been operating a real estate business out of his ha�►e for 42 years. He said when he.built his home, he planned it far a hc�me occupation by having an office in the basement, and now his business is growir.g, an�? he wants t,^ �YVar.d . r'Y .'�eC�rd^._Gr said he --���1? ' i_'ne ta continue livic.:, -;n the �. -:,�_� . . c` , bu�_ � _ : .. __:�.= _ ,?_:e :_.-- recreation room and,a ciouble gu<<_�e, �t would c,are the property m:,c'r. mu�� valuable, with its location on East River Road, but fox resale it would be almost nil. He said he could operate as he is now if he added on to his �"'�- � _- lannin� Commission Meetin� - March 7 1A7� pa¢p � house and used the entire basement for his business. He said the reason for the request was to expand the parking area and have more space for his business operation. I don't want this zoned residential, because if for some reason I would have to sell, this property would have no resale value as R-1. Mr. Erickson asked how many people Mr, DeGardner employed. Mr, DeGardner said he employs six people. He also has contractors who stop in. Mr. Erickson said you are actually operating illegally now. According to our ordinance covering home occupations, if qou hire anyone outside of qour immediate family, it is an unlawful home occupation. Mr. Erickson said all the property around Mr, DeGardner's property is zoned R-1. Mr. DeGardner said there is a lot of tax delinquent property around him and as far as a residential area, it isn't one oi the best. If I am operating illegally, I will have to get the property rezoned or move, and I prefer having my business where it is presently located. If I sell my property, it would most likely be purchased by sameone who wanted to have a home occupation because that's the way I built the property. Mr. Schmedeke asked Mr, DeGardner if he came in on his own for �, rezoning. Mr. DeGardner said he did, just because he wanted to expand. He didn't realize he was operating illegally. Mr. Clark said if the City had complaints on this business, we would have been aware of the situation and Mr. DeGardner would have been told his business was a non-conforming use. Mr. Bruce Rothman, 386 Longfellow Street N,E,, said he was against an fncrease in traffic. He said he didn't think Mr. DeGardner could provide enough parking on his propertq to handle an'increase in business. Mrs. Lester Frieze, 369 79th Way N.E „ said if you rezone this property, other people are going to come in and request rezoning on the vacant land in the area. I am against any rezoning in this area, Mr. Winfred Morphew, 7948 East River Road, said he was against the rezoning because he didn't want to see Mr. DeGardner's business get anq bigger in a residential area. Mr. Schmedeke said maybe a C-1t1 district should not have been created in our ordinance. It seems to create business �n a residential area. I think people should ba informed when they make a request that spot- rezoning isn't allowed. They should develop their business in a commiercial area before they try to rezone an, R-1 area, e �� Mr. Erickson said he didn't think that Adu�inistsation could tell .� anyone they couldn't ask for rezoning. Mr. Schmedeke said he meant they should be ad�ised of the difficulty ia obtaiaing spot rezoning. ,� � �.. Planning Commission�Meeting - March 7, 1973 Page 3 Mr. Minish asked Mr. Clark if the City was aware of the illegal nature of Mr. DeGardner's operation before this meeting. Mr. Clark said no. He said we lrnew Mr. DeGardner was in business but were not aware he was hiring people who were officed in his home. Mr. Erickson said the City does not go around policing home businesses unless there is a complaint. There �ave been no complaints on Mr. DeGardner's operation until tonight. The neighbors seem satisfied with Mr. DeGardner. They just don't want him to expand or rezone. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded bq Zeglen, that the Planning Coa�ission. close the Public Hearing on rezoning request ZOA �73-02, by Robert DeGardner to rezone Lots 22 through 25, Block 7, Spring Brook Park Addition, to rezone from R-1 to C-R1. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Fitzgatrick, that the Planning Co�ission recommend to the City Council denial of the rezoning request ZOA ��73-02, by Robert D. DeGardnex, to rezone Lots 22 thro�gh 25, exe�pt the Wester]"y 60 feet, Block 7, Spring Brook Park Addition, from R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to C-R1 (general office and limited business), because this business was developed contrary to the home occupation ordinance and if we grant this request we would be sanctioning violation of our Code. Mr. Erickson said he was asking for rezoning so he could expand and run his business legally. Mr. Miaish said he thought this was the wrong way to go about it. We �ould be granting de facto rezoning to samething developed illegally. I think the character of the neighborhood is residential. Mr. Erickson said he would have to go along with the motion, but he thought it was unfortunate that Mr. DeGardzer wasn't aware his business was in violation of the home occupation ordinance. I think it is possible that in time, all East River Road will be zoned commercial, but I don't think it should be started on one piece of property. This may work a hardship on Mr. DeGardner and I don't feel it's his fault. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP ��73-01, BY STANDARD OIL COMPANY: For instaliation of a drive-in back-out car wash unit in the existing stall of a service station. " Representing Standard Oil were, Mr. Harland McGregor, Real Estate Department, Mr. Fred Housenga, Engineer, Mr. Albert Lake, Sales Representative and Mr. Robert Rabe, operator of the service station at 7609 University Avenue N,E; - � � MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission waiv� the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the special use permit SP ��73-01, by StancL.rd Oil Company, for installation of a car wash unit. Upon a voice vote, all voting aqe, the motion cargied unanimously. � Planning Co�ission Meeting - March 7, 1973 Page 4 r� - Nix. McGregor said rather than make a presentation, he would answer any questions the Co�ission had. Mr. Erickson said as he understood the request, you want to install a car washing machine in an existing stall. Mr. Erickson asked Mr. Clark if this was one of the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Clark said the service station definition doesn't allow a car wash unit, so it has to come under a Special Use Permit. Mr. McGregor said that because the station used the Spring Lake Park sewer facilities, they had talked to Spring Lake Park and they had no objection to the car wash. . Mr. Minish asked the purpose of installing the car wash. Mr. McGregor said it was an iaducement to create more business. We have installed 96 of these units in the Metropolitan area and sub�rbs and have shown a 30P/a increase in business where we have installed these units. Mr. Schmedeke said we have a car wash business a few blocks away and I frown upon putting another car wash operation so close. Mr. McGregor said this was just a quick wash and the cars came out wet. They are not dried or vacuumed on the inside as at a regular car � wash. Mr. Rab@ said the businesses. in the shopping center were in favor of the car wash because they thought it would help draw people to the shopping center. � Mr. Schmedeke wondered if the property owner would be in favor, because it could lead to icing conditions on the common driveway, when the cars come out wet. Mr. Zeglen said as this station is quite new, why wasn't the car wash.unit put in when the station was built. Mr. McGregor said it probably should have been put in then, but these units weren't so popular when the station was planned. Mr. Minish asked the economic effect of this car wash. If you aren't able to put this in, will the station survive. Mr. McGregor said he thought it would. Mr. Erickson asked what per cent of the time they were busy in both bays of the station. Mr. Rabe said they have only been open since November 21, 1972. In the winter they use both bays most of the time. The colder the Greather, the more both bays were used. Otherwise, the bay with the hoist was used the most. He didn't think this would pose ^ any problem because they didn't expect people to want a wet wash during / freezing weather. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked how they would charge for this service. Mr. McGregor said it would be free with a fill of gasoline. � r �^ , --� . � Planning Commission Meeting - March 7, I973 Page 5 MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Cammission close the Public Hearing on Special IIse Permit, SP ��73-01, by Standard Oil Company, for installation of a car wash unit. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Schmedeke sa$d he favored denial of the request because he hadn't been in favor of another service station on Oniversity Avenue; of the icing conditions that might occur; and because there is a car wash operation aot over ? mile from this statian. Mr. McGregor said that because there was a station in Fridley with a car wash unit, he would request that everyone be treated equally and allow them �o have a unit also. Mr. Minish said this was the second request for a car wash unit we have had recently and the other request was denied. He said he was sure we would see more of these requests and he quoted an excerpt from an article from Forbes magazine that stated that 100,000 stations could be doomed over the next decade because of .over expansion. Mr. Erickson said this Commission voted against allowing a service atation at this Iocation so it is only consistent with our feel�ngs that this request be denied. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Cammission recommend to Council denial of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP ��73-01, bq Standard Oil Company, for installation of a drive in-back out car wash unit in the existing stall of a service station. Upon a voice vote, Erickson, Fitzpatrick, Schmedeke, Zeglen, voting aye, Minish voting nay, �he motion carried. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Fitzpatrick, to have the report from the Forbes magazine inserted in the minutes. Mr. Minish felt this report should be considered before allowing any more service stations in Fridley. IIpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. From Forbes magazine Is your friendly neighbor- hood service station going the way of the corner ci- gar store and the mom- and-pop grocer? It looks that way. Mobil and Shell Oil have. about 10,000 few- er gasoline stations today than they did in 1960. While gasoline consump- tion has been going up steadily� the number of service stations in the U.S. is declining. � "The gasoline-station pop- • ' ulat'ton of the country is probably overbuilt by 100 peccent," says Albert An- ton� the highly respected senior oil analyst at Wall Street's Carl H. Pforzhei- mer & Co. If these esti- mates are conect, some- thing like 100,000 gasoline stations could be doomed over the next decade or so, an investment of bil- lions of dollars. Why? Essentially because most of them are too small to compete in an era of high d�•a�;es anu scarce skilled labor. Ho�:� did tite majors get tcapped in a basically inefficient distri- bution network, with as many as three or four small stations all fighting for a limited arnount of business? It was the temp- tation of cheap cnide oil. There was so much money in the oil itself that the majors didn't much mind losing some money at the retail end so Iong a6 they could move all the oil they could produce. But cheap oil has succumbed to do- mestic scarcity and Arab nationalism. Volume for votume's sake is no longer profitable. It looks like a slow :;r,od- by to one more piece of Americana as the friendly local station goes the way of Life magazine, doctors' house calls and homemade ice cream. Plannin� Cammission Meeting - March 7•, 1973 Pa�e 6 � 3. PUBI.IC AEARING: REZOI�TING REQIIEST, ZOA �73-03, BY SAMUEL TEMPT.IN: To rezone Lots 1 and 2, 39 through 42, Block 6, Fridley Park Addition, fra�m R-1 (single family dwelling areas) to R-3, (general multiple family dwelliags) for towahouses. Mr. Sam Templin was present. MO'�.TON by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commissio� waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the rezoning request ZOA ��'73-03, by Samuel Templin, to rezone Lots 1, 2, 39 through 42, Block 6, Fridley Park Addition, from R-1 to R-3. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said these can't be called townhouses because the property doesn't have the acreage required for townhouses. When you see the plans you will see they are a towahouse type of construction. Mr. Erickson said the plan shown has a four unit building facing Rice Creeic Way and a five unit building facing East River Road. Mr, Erickson asked Mr. Templin where the entrances would be. Mr. Templin said the entrance would be between the two units coming out on Rice Creek Way, He said he had talked to the County Commissioner and he said theg didn't want any entrances on East River Road. �'�, Mr. Erickson asked if these would be rental units. Mr. Templin said �hey would. He said he hadn't checked �rith the City or the Assessor to see if ttzey could be sold individually. Mr. Erickson asked how many square feet are involved in this property. Mr. Templin said it was about 33,000 square feeC. Mr. T�mplin said he felt that the rezoning request for East River Road was the best use for the property. Mr. Don Smith, 81 Rice Creek Way, wondered if everyone understood the project 1�. Templin is proposing. Mr. Erickson answered that he understands that Mr. Templin wants to build twc� buildings; one with four units and one with five units. The four unit �uilding will face Rice Creek Way and the five unit building will face East River Road with a common driveway on Rice Creek Way, The buildings will be rental. He said he was sure that all the people present were familiar with the land and it would appear it would have to be filled rather ex- teusively. Richa�d Larson, 6580 Hickory Street N;E,, said to hi� R-3 was a nasty word. It's like a disease. We have apartments behind us now and we have nothing but migrant type individuals living in them. They seem to have more dogs than people. If you want R-2 on East River Road, O:.K., but � /� don't put i3.-3 on Hicicory or Rice C_eek 6�'ay, He said dcn't give us thar e traffic. He also said he couldn't imagine Hickory Street ever going R-3. Planning Commission Meeting - March 7, 1973 page 7 � Fred Halverson, 85 Rice Creek Way N.E „ said one of the things we did check when we bought our home was that there was R-1 zoning around us. To the best of my knowledge, this is the fourth time this property has come up for question or rezoning. If the Commission starts allowing rezoning, it will keep encroaching on residential areas. I'm not concerned about rezoning on East River Road, because of all the traffic. He asked if these units had to face Rice Creek Way or could they face Hickory. Mr, Erickson said it was possiBle the units could face Hickory. Mr. Halverson said he wouldn't wani any units facing his property. He was also concerned about the maintenance of rental property, Mr. Ericicson asked Mr. Templin why he doesn't feel he can build on this property as it is presently zoned. Mr, Templin said this property has been sitting idle for years, and if any developer felt this was a good site for homes, it would have been built on long ago. I personally feel it wou2d be a mistake to keep this area zoned R-1. Mr. Erickson asked if Mr. Templin didn't think Lots 1 and 2 couldn't be built single family. Mr. Templin said if he builds houses on these lots, the back of the five unit building would be behind them. I thought a long time of the best way to use the property and this is the plan I decided on. Mr. Erickson asked if the people liad anq suggestions on how this � property should be used. Mrs, Larson and Don Johnson, 6600 Hickory Street N,E., said there wasn't any park in the area and this is what they would like it used for. Mr. Erickson said he had heard before about a need for a park in this area, but the property is in the hands of a private developer now. Mr. Larson said he questioned why we have to have every piece of land filled up right now. He said as time goes by, something would fit on this property that would satisfy both the neighborhood and the developer. Mr. Erickson said this is one of the problems of both the Planning Commission and the Council. There is vacant land in an area, and people want it left thaC way. But someone is paying taxes on the land and they do have a right to use it. John Swingdorf, 90 Rice Creek Way NoE., said he thought we should go along with the rezoning on East River Road, but not on Hickory Street. I think we should be able to make some sort of compromise. Mr. Erickson said the Co�ission does have the authority to rezone a portion of the property and leave the rest as zoned. Mr. Richard French, 1469 Gardena Avenue N.E., said he doesn't live in the area, but is member of a Subcammittee, and has been listening to � ��` the discussion. He th�ugizt a possihl� solutior� would be to let :��-r. Te�n�-_- ,_ rezone the lots on East River Road for his five unit building and ke=p the lots on Hickory zoned R-1. Planning Commission Meeting - March 7, 1973 Page 8 � Allen Bergquist said he is building a home at 77 Rice Creek Way, so he is new to Eridley, but he would agree to Mr. French's proposal. Chairman Erickson said he would suggest that the Public Searing be continued until the next meeting to give the petitioner and the people in the area:.time to think it over. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission continue the Public Hearing on rezoning request ,�73-03, by Samuel Templin, to rezone from R-1(single family dwelling �r�as)to R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) Lots 1 and 2, and I,ots 39 through 42, Block 6, Fridley Park Addition, until March 21, 1973. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 4. VACATION REQUEST: SAV �73-02, BY SAMUEL TEMPI,IN: Vacate the NortY�/ South alley in Block 6, Fridley Park Addition. Mr. Sctmaedeke said the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & IItilities Subcommittee recommended approval of vacation request SAV ��73-02, by Samuel Templin, to vacate the North/South alley in Block 6, Fridley Park Addi�ion, subject to a 12 foot utilitq easement being retained. Mr. Clark said there was encroachment on this alley by a cemetery. � Mr. Minnish said that because Iair. Templin's plans could be subject to change, he would Iike to see the vacation request continued with the rezoning request. . MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission continue vacation request, SAV �k73-02, by Samuel Templin, to vacate the North/South alleq in Block 6, Fridley Park Addition, until March 21, 1973. Upon a voiee vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. PIIBLIC HEARING: REZOAT7:NG REQUEST, ZOA #73-04 BY NORTH AIR HOME ASSOCIATION: To rezone from R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) 'to C-2 (general business areas) Lot 1, Block 1, Harstad Addition, aad the Southerly 150 feet of Lot 18, Brookview Addition, subject to road easement over South 50 feet, to bring it up to right code classification. (Rnights of Col�bus) Mr. Richard Schintgen and Mr. Richard French representing North Air Home Association and the Rnights of Columbus were present.. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Minish, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice of the rezoning request, ZOA �73-04, by North Air flome Association, to rezone from R-3 to C-2 Lot 1, Block 1, Harstad Addition, and the Souther7y 150 feet of Lot 18, Brookview Addition, subject to road easement over South SO feet. Upon �� a voice vote, all voting aya, t:�e �otion carrie�l unani�<�ssly. '� Chairman Erickson, asked how this property was built in this zoning classification. Plaaning Commission Meeting - March 7, 1973 � Pa�e 9 � Mr. Clark said it was built under a Special IIse Permit. Now, under the ordinance, it cannot expand because it is a non-conforming use. Mr. Schintgen said they wanted to add a 70'x.24' addition to the building to be used for storage. Mr. French said this addition would not increase the business portion of the Knights of Columbus. fle said we are sadly in need of storage space and office space. Mr. Erickson asked if the plan presented was on an old print or if this was a new proposal. Mr. Clark said it was an o1d print, but Administrati� had realigned t�e parking spaces, and marked off 20 foot setbacks, which are required by the ordinance. This would mean the utilization of a parking area they have recently purchased, and the tak;ng up of some surfacin�, to ma.intain the proper setbacks. Mr. French said they have delayed in surfacing the new parking lot because it required a lot of fill and they want this to settle before it is surfaced. Mr. Minish asked what they would be storing in the addition. Mr, Fresch said they would be storing items used in connection with a hall theq rent out for wedding receptions, etc, These items are such things as chairs, tables and utensils, As the number of people attending these � functionsshow great variation, we do have a storage problem. These items can't be kept in any kind of order and are not taken care of properly. Mr. Minish asked where this equipment is stored now. Mr. French said it was piled anywhere we can push it in. We lost some storage areas when rest rooms were installed in the basement. Mrs. Adele Swanson, 6663 Lucia Lane N.E,, said she was against the C-2 rezoning. She said she did not object to the Knights of Columbus being in this area, 'Mr. Robert Minder, Suburban Engineering, said he was against the rezoning. He thought there should be some other way of handling this besides rezoning the property to C-2. This gets back to spot rezoning. There is a lot between this groperty and mine, and I wouldn't want someone to be able to come in and rezone this lot because the Knights of Columbus property had been rezoned. There should be some other way this property could build its addition without rezoning. Mrs. Swanson said if, for some reason, this property was sold and it was zoned C-2, then something quite different could use this property. Chairman Erickson said that was correct. Mr. Zeglen asked Mr. Minder what he went through to get his addition. �� Mr. Minder said he went through the Board of Apneals. ??e said he d�_1 e;---_�� thing the City aslced him to do. Plannin Coa�►ission Meeting - March 7, 1973 Page 10 � Chairman Erickson said that both these buildings are the same. They were both built under a Special IIse Permit and they both have requested an addition. Both should be handled the same. Mr. Clark said he feels theq should be handled the same, also. At the time Mr. Minder got his permit, I wasn't involved in it, so I don't know why it could be handled this way. As far as the ordinance, they both should have asked for rezoning. I feel the way Mr, Minder went is the easiest to handle, and the most proper way, but the ordinance doesn't allow this, as I interpret it. Mr. Erickson asked if there was any waq this could be handled by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Clark said they could ask for a code interpretation. Mr. Erickson said there are three choices involved here. One is to rezone. The second choice is go to the Board of Appeals and see if the addition could be built under an appeal, or third, get into our ordinance something that would permit alterations or improvements on a building that is under a legal non-conforming use. Nobody seems to want the rezoning, including the petitioner. All he wants is permission to build an addition. Chairman Erickson said if it is agreeable with the Commission and the petitioner, I would like to see this tabled until we can get an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not this can be handled through � the Board of Appeals, and if he says no, if he can't then write an amendment to our ordinance to permit something like this under a Special Use Permit. MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeolen, that the Planning Commission continue the rezoning request, ZOA ��73-04, by North Air Home Assoc�ation, �o rezone from R-3 (general multiple family dwellings) to C-2 (general business areas) Lot 1, Block 1, Harstad Addition, and the Southerly 150 feet of Lot 18, Brookview Addition, subject to road easement over South 50 feet, until March 21, 1973. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6• RETURI+TED BY COUNCIL: SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP ��72-19, BY FRANK GABRELCIK: To continue the existing 'Jse as a Used Car Lot and conduct an Inside Repair Garage Shop, to be located on Lots 6 through 10, Block 28, Hyde Park Addition, and expand the Use to Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, City View Addition, per City Code 45.101, 3B, D an �, Mr. Frank Gabrelcik was present. Mr: Clark said Mr, Gabrelcik �as asked by the Council to come back to the Planning Commission and supply the information the Commission had requested. Mr, Gabrelcik did bring in copies of deeds to the property, The deeds or contract for deeds are for Lots 6 through 10, Block 28, Hyde Pa:k Addition, and Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, City View Addition. Mr. �1 Clark �ave copies of the deeds to the Co�issicn to exa�ine. � Plannin Cammission Meeting - March 7, 1973 � Pa e 11 i`� MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission r�open the Public Hearing on the Special Use Permit, SP �k72-19, by Frank Gabrelcik, to continue the existing Use as a Used Car Lot and conduct an Inside Repair Garage Shop, to be located on Lots 6 through 10, Block 28, Hyde Park Addition, and expand the .Use to Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, City Vie� Addition, per City Code 45.101, 3 B, D and G. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Mr. Gabrelcik explained his plot plan to the Coa�ission. Mr. Erickson asked Mr, Gabrelcik if he was proposing to rearrange his parking according to the plaa presented. Mr, Gabrelcik said this is about the �ray the cars are parked now. Mr. Erickson told Mr. Gabrelcik he has cars park�d in the aisles at present. He asked how long the cars would remain in the aisles. Mr, Gabrelcik said theq would be there until he got the cars repaired or sold. � Mr. Minish said some of the contracts for deeds were dated 1970. Mr. Gabrelcik said he has been using the property for 15 years, but just purchased the land in 1970 from Carl Sorenson. Mr. Erickson asked when the building was constructed on his property. Mr. Gabrelcik said the building was about 15 years old. Mr. Erickson asked how many parking spaces are provided on the plan. '� Mr. Clark said there were 54. Mr. Erickson asked Mr, Gabrelcik how many . cars he has on the lot. Mr, Gabrelcik said about 70. �-'"'� Mr. Clark said there was an error on the presented p�an in that the South driveway couldn't be located as shown. Mr. Schmedeke said we are only considering the property South of 58th Avenue now. He said he wasn't opposed to this request, but there has to be clean-up of the property. Mr. Schmedeke said there is a road going by the property now, so it is visible from the street. He said he would like to see a survey made of this parcel, and I would like to stigulate that 58th Avenue be continued as a street until the street plan for the area is determined. If a street doesn't go•in, Mr. Gabrelcik should have first chance to obtain the property. Mr, Schmedeke said that in regard to Mr. Gabrelcik's pian, he would like to see some plantings and shrubs in the front of the building. I think we are trying to be as minimal as possible. Mr. Minish asked what would happen to Mr. Gabrelcik's operation if the Special IIse wasn't granted, Mr. Clark said this Special Use Permit was asked for by the Council the last time Mr. Gabrelcik's license came up f�r renewal. I think it was the hope of the Council that in obtaining the Special Use Permit, the business area could be better arranged and cleaned up. �'�airman Erickson said the license is up for annual reviewal, but how long does a Special Use Permit last. Mr. Clark said you can speciiy how long a period it covers, Mr, Gabrelcik needs a Special Use Permit to enlarge his use of the property as a stipulation of his license renewal - . .� : �:n:,.�, �- Planaing Cammission Meeting - March 7, 1973 Pa e 12 � � Mr. Gabrelcik sa3d he was given permission to use 200 feet of his property for a used car lot in 197I. Mr. Erickson said that according to the legal descriptions of Mr. Gabrelcik's property, this letter covers the five lots in Hyde Park. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission close the Public Heariaig on special use permit, SP ��72-19, by Frank Gabrelcik, to continue the existing Use as a IIsed Car Lot and conduct an Inside Repair Garage Shop, to be located on Lots 6 through 10, Block 28, Hyde Park Addition, and to expand the Use to Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, City View Addition. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Erickson said if the Commission did recommend approval of this Special Use Permit, w� can put enough stipulations into it so that in � say, three months time, if it isn't cleaned up or whatever we want done, the Special Use can be withdrawn. Mr. Clark said that before any stipulations were made he would like to make some comments because they do pertain to the Code. According to the Cod.e you cannot pask less than 20 feet from anq right of way. On Mr. Gabrelcik's plan, tae is parking right up to the property line on 3rd Street an�i 58th Av�nue. Mr. Erickson said one stall could be taken out on 3rd Street and this would get the cars at least 10 feet away from �'� the street there. He didn't think it was so important on 58th Avenue, because there wasn't any traffic there. Mr. Clark said he agreed with Mr. Ericicson because it wasn't too practical to try and get this business to me�t all the Code requirements. Mr. Minish asked if the boulevard would be sodded. Mr. Clark said that could be a stipulation, and also if this is going to continue to be a car lot, you could stipulate, that over a period of time there be hard surfacing of the lot aa�d some plantings. Mr. Erickson said the license is renewed annually so the stipulations of the Special Use Perffiit can be reviewed annually. MOTION by Minish, seconded bq Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the Special Use Permit, SP �k72-19, by Frank Gabrelcik, to continue the existing Use as a Used Car Lot and conduct an Inside Repa�.r Garage Shop, to be located on Lots 6 through 10, Block 28, Hyde ParF� Addition, and expand the Use to Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, City View Addition, per Citq Code 45.101, 3 B, D and G, with the following stipulatgons: 1. The area cleaned up-and cars parked as shown on the plan. A 6 foot redwo� fence used around the storage area on the plan. No parking oa 58th Avenue. This is to be accomplished in 90 days. �� 2. At the end of one year (1974-1975), the parkin` Zo� to be ;r«a��d and drained azid some type of surface treatment on the parking lot. Provide laridseaping. . 3. At the end of two years (1975=1976), the�parking lot should be blacktopped aad curbing be put in. P1_ anning Commission Meeting - March 7_, 1973 Page 13 �'�'1 4. Lots 12 and 13, Block 2, City View Addition, not be included in the request. 5. No cars will be visible on the lot that are not for sale or operable. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 7. VACATION REQUEST: SAV ��73-03, BY LAWREftCE MUGGLI; Vacate unused portion of Lots 29 and 30, Hyde Park Addition, the unused portion all being South of 60th Avenue Slip-off. Mr. Lawrence Muggli was present. Nlr. Schmedeke said this vacation request was before the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee a week ago. The Subcommittee reco�nended to the Planning Commission denial of this request at this t3me with the following stipulations: 1. That Lot 30 never be sold. 2. That Lot 29 not be sold until traffic pattern is solved. 3. The buyer be charged at least as much per square�foot as the people in the area�pai� for this parcel. � 4. That this parcel be sodded and planted into evergreens, including the 12 foot alley attached to the East end of these two lots. 5. That the opposite triangular parcel created by this street, be �1 treated in a similar fashion of sodding and evergreens. 6. That the present alley should be plowed and reasonabl� maintained up and includ�ng Lot 28, because of its location along Fridley's main expressway, Highway ��47. Mr. Schmedeke said he wanted to make some comments on the January 22, 1973 Council minutes on the discussion with Mr. Muggli.. Councilman Nee asked Mr. Muggli how he was going to use the property, Mr. Muggli stated he had no special use for the property at the present time. Mr. Nee suggested that evergreens be planted for a softening affect in this area, Mr. Muggli also s,tated that people are using this alley and drive through his property. The City has put up a dead end sign and this has eliminated that problem. Councilman Utter said he wanted the loopback and objected to the City selling the property. Mr. Schmedeke said he agreed with both Councilmen. Mr. Mugglie said he started this request to find out the standing of the plan for this street. He said that if this parcel was ever available he would like first chance to obtain it. Mr. Muggli said he was the only property owner that could use this parcel. He said that if he ever sold his property, for some reason, he would want who ever owned his property, to have first chance on this paxcel. Mr. Clark said it �ould be put in the Citq record to notify the owner adjoining this parcel if at any time this land would be for sale. �� Mr. Erickson said it would be possible this parcel could be sold by "� resolution. v _. _ _ �_� ^1 Planning_ Commission Meetin� - March 7, 1973 Page 14 MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Coumnission recommend to the Council denial of the vacation request, SAV ��73-03, by Lawrence Muggli, at this time, to vacate the unused portion of Lots 29 and 30, Hyde Park Additian, the unused portion all being South of 60th Street Slip-off, with the following stipulations: 1. That Lot 30 never be sold. 2. That Lot 29 not be sold until traffic pattern is solved. 3. The buyer be charged at least as much per square foot as the peaple in the area paid for this parcel. 4. That this parcel be sodded and planted into evergreens, including the 12 foot alley attached to the East end of these two lots. 5. That the opposite triangular parcel created by this street, be. treated in a similar fashion of sodding and evergreens. 6. That the present alley should be plowed and reasonably maintained up and including Lot 28, because of its location along Fridley's main expressway, Highway �� 47. ^ 7. Owners of Lots 27 and 28, Block 12, Hqde Park Addition, be 1 notified if this property is ever available and this be noted � on the City records. � UPON A BOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 8. LOT SPLIT REQUEST: LoS. ��73-03, ANBER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY: Split � off the North 20 feet of Lot 1, B1ock 1, Worrel's Addition, and add it to Lot 18, B1ock 1, Amber Oaks Addition, to make a�"0 foot lot a buildab].e site. Mr. Roger Sevre and Norman Dahlberg were present. Mr. Schmedeke said that the Plats � Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee recommended to the Planning Co�►nission approval of lot split request, L,So 4�73-03, Amber Construction Company, to split off the North 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Worrel's Addition, and add it to Lot 18, B1ock 1, Amber Oaks Addition. Mr. Erickson asked how far the existing garage on Lot 1, Block 1, Worrel;s Addition, was from the lot line. Mr. Clark said it was about 10 feet, Mr, Erickson said this was a single garage and what would happen if someone would want to expand this to a dauble garage. Mr, Clark said, as far as the City is concerned, they would rather have that problem than have someone build an a 50 foot 1ot. Mr. Clark said the �� new building site would be 70 feet by 158 feet. � Planning Commission Meeting -�Marnh 7, 1973 � Pa e 15 MOTION by Schmedeke, seconded bq Fitzpatrick, that the Planning ^, Commission reco�end to Council approval of lot split request, L:S: ��73-02, by Amber Construction Company, to split off the North 20 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Worrel's Addition, and add it to Lot 18, Block 1, Amber Oaks Addition, to make a 50 foot lot a buildable site. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 9. LOT SFLIT REQUEST: L;S; ��73-04, BY DENNIS C,CZECH: Divide Lot 15, Parcel 1080, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, into two building sites, Mr. Dennis Czech was present. Mr. Clark said this is part of an old plat that was left out of Gunderson Terrace, between Onondaga and Fireside. He said Mr. Czech's lot is 120' x 25 0' and he would like to keep 130 feet on the lot where there is an existing house, to provide a larger back yard. The house on Onondaga is 52 feet back from the property line. The remaining parcel will be 75' x 120', which will be the new building site. Mr. Erickson said this would meet the minimum requirements. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this split isn't in line with the other lots in this block. Mr. Clark said it was off 10 feet so the 10 foot utility easement would all have to be taken off the one lot. Mr. Clark said he would have to check the easements on the other properties, and line �1 the easement up with the other lots. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission reco�end approval to Council of lot split request, L.S; ��'73-04, by Dennis C. Czech, to divide Lot 15, Parcel 1080, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, into two building sites, subject to the alignment of a 10 foot utility easement on the 130 foot lot. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 10. ARMOR4 REFERRAL William Cheeseman, Adjutant General of the State of Minaesota was present. General Cheeseman said he was here at the request of Mr. Clark to expand or answer any questions the Commission might have in regard to location or site, if a National Guard Unit is established in the City of Fridley, and for your recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Erickson asked General Cheeseman how much land they would need. General Cheeseman said they would need a minimum of 5 areas, which is Pequired by Federal directive, and we have to have fee simple title to the property. By we, I mean the State Armory Bu�lding Coumiission, Mr. Erickson asked who would purchase the property. �-'� � General Cheeses�an said the land must be donated by the �ommunit; to the State Armory Commission, who in turn, turn it over to the State of Minnesota. Planning Commission Meetin� - March 7 1973 Pa�e 16 � Chairman Erickson asked how large the armory would be. General Cheeseman said it would be approximately 18,000 square feet, with an additional 28,000 square feet used for. an asphalt road, sidewalk, parking area, etc.. Mr. Minish asked if the armory would be available for coumnunity use. General Cheeseman said civic functions where no profit is made, and it doesn't cost the armory money, there would be no charge for the use. Once the building is up, it doesn't cost the City anything for maintenance or upkeep on the building. If the use does cost the armory money, there would be a rental charge. Yf the Firemen or Chamber of Commerce were to use it for a dance, for instance, there would be a charge. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there were gymnasium facilities of any kind. General Cheeseman said the floor �as concrete and the assembly hall was� 7,000 square feet. This is large enough for a fu11 basketball court and they do install the baskets. As far as sports are concerned, it would have to be used for intermural sports because there are no facilities for an audience. He said the National Guard would onlq be using the armory during the week end. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there is a need for recreational areas for the Park Board. General Cheeseman said the armories have been used for this purpose and there are locker room and shower faciliti�s. r 1 General Cheeseman said the Federal Government pays 75% of the cost of the construction of an armory, within the specifications they set up by military ordinance. That leaves 257o which actually gets to be about 30%, that they won't provide, that must be paid by the community and the State. The State puts money in its appropriations and this money is for a new armory to lease the facilities from the State Armory Building Co�►ission. The armory does not belong to our department. That money goes into paying off the bonds. Also there is a payment by the community, as provided for by law, in regard to tax levy on taxable property. This is payment by the City, to retire the armory bond. General Cheeseman said, in Fairmont, Minnesota, where they just built a new armory, it will eost that City $6,000 a year for about 23 years. There is a basic plan for an armory, and this particular armory, was more expensiva than most. They asked for additions, aad every City has different requirements We can add anything that tr.e army can share the use. We had to turn down one request for an armory because they wanted an ice arena in connection with the armory and this cannot be considered a shared use. . Mr. Erickson said, in essence, the City is buying a piece of a building and if they want to use it, there would be some fee for using it, General Cheeseman said he thought it should be brought out that this will be Fridley's Guard Unit, and so was a part of the co�unity. The charge fox civic use would be very minimal, just the cost of clean-up, lights, and heat, if ' �� necessary . Iie said for ir.termural sports t.ie ice is $�.00 an ho::r u�_; �o;- _. a dance the fee would be $75.00. � Planning Commission Meeting - March 7, 1973 Page 17 ^ Mr. Erickson asked how much equipment would be stored on the property. General Cheeseman said that would depend upon the type of unit, but it would be vehicular equipment. Mr. Minish asked if our code calls for storage of all equipment, how this would be handled. General Cheeseman said this is what he meant that by meeting the requirements of different cities, the cost of the building could vary. General Cheeseman said that out of twenty communities, we only want an armory in five of them. Mr. Erickson asked how many men would use the armory. General Cheeseman said a single unit armory has 120 men. General Cheeseman said we do need highway access and should be able to move our equipment without driving on residential streets. We also need a11 the utilities. There must be sewer and water available. � Chairmau Erickson asked if General Cheeseman had looked at any sites in Fridley. General Cheeseman said he hasn't looked at any sites. He said we are making it known we want to locate five armories in the Minneapolis area.. If a community shows an interest in having an armory� and there is some sort of a commitment from the Council to support an - armory, which he said is quite intangible. He said he didn't want to wave the flag, but it needs the patriotic an d univeral support of the � community. He said the Council has shown an interest by referring this to the Planning Commission. He said a site should be selected and ear marked-f-or an armQr�, Th�ie should be no transfer of property until a request goes into the Federal Government for an armory to be located here. Mr. Erickson said if the City Council said; we want an armory at some designated location, then how long would it take. General Cheeseman said it takes some time. They are working on a ten year plan. He said the City would get a letter saying it is our plan and program to build an armory in Fridley, and give them a firm year. He said the Council.would then be asked to appoint a citizen's coumiittee that would work with someoae from the military, appointed by the Governor. Mr. Schmedeke asked if they are meeting with other suburbs also. General Cheeseman said they felt that Fridley would be a good location for an armory. � Chairman Erickson thanked General Cheeseman for coming. 11. REVIEW OF MINUTES ON ZOA �k72-11 and SP ��72-18 UNION OIL COMPANY �,� Mr. Erickson said they ask.zd for a revie��� of their ;ninutes �iecause the staLement nad been made that the Planni.nG i;Qmmission uidn't uii�ersra,ld the proposal. Mr, Erickson said they did understand the proposal, but the traffic solution presented with the proposal caused a lot of controversy at the Public Hearing. The Planning Commission also felt there could be a better solution. '"�i � Pl��ing Co�ission Meeting - March 7, 1973 Page 18 Mr. Minish felt a better plan could be made if the City were willing to �pend some money at the intersection. He felt this was a bargain- bas�e�ent solution. �ir. Fitzpatrick said he wasn't convinced this was a problem intersection, and thought the problem was mostly one of convenience, He said if we have a ps�blem intersecian here, it should be solved without tj�ping it in with wha� iTnion Oil would agree to. �lr. Schmedeke said it would have helped their recoa�endation if they had 1a�en told that this was the plan Council, Administration and the petit�.oner had agreed upon. �ir. Clark presented a plan that had some changes in it from the original proposal. Mr. Erickson said he could live with the amended pLan if tt�re was signal and synchronization with the existing signals. �ir. Minish said he thought this was a better plan, but not the opt��um plan. �he Planning Commission made no recommendation. 12. I,ETTERS FROM THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ^ �hairman Erlckson said he had received two letters from the Metropolitan 1 Council. One stated they had received their copies of our proposed comgsehensive plan. There was also a notice of review, that the Metropolitan Couneil is by law, required to send to the contiquous units of goverment aad a�.l units of government and special districts that may be affected by t� proposal. 14 communities were informed they had the right to revi�a our plan. Chairman Erickson adjourned the meeting at 12:35 A.M. Respe�tfully submitted, � �� �� �� . oro�ay Eve sn, Secretary �'`'�