Loading...
PL 08/21/1974 - 30404CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 21, 1974 PAGE 1 � CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8s�0 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Drigans, Lindblad � Members Absent: Fitzpatrick, Blair Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant James Langenfeld, Chairman of Environmental Quality Commission APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTESs JULY 17, 1974 MOTION b� Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commis- sion approve the minutes of the Ju1y 17, .Z974 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JULY 18, 1974 MOTIDN by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Desi�n Control ^ 5ubcommit�ee meeting of Ju1y 18, 1974. �� � Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Drigans what the Board of Appeals had done on the request for variances by the R. W. Murray Company. Mr. Dxigans said this item had been tabled. ' UPON A VOICE VOTE, a.Zl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JULY 23, 1974 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of Ju�y 23, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 9, 1974 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission meeting of Ju1y 9, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL FROM JAMES LANGENFELD �'IC�TION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning � Commission receive informational material from James Langenfeld. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. �� Planning Commissian Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 2 /"1 RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JULY 25, 1974 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Commission Subcommittee meeting of Ju1y 25,..1974. Upon a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: AUGUST 14, 1974 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission r�c�ive the minutes of the Plats & Su�bdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee meeting of August 14, 1974. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ARTICLE "WHY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS NEED A SHOT.IN THE ARM", FROM JE�RROLD BOARDMAN � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Comrnission receive the article "Why Planning Cbmmissioners Need A Shot In The Arm" from Jerro2d Boardman. Upon a voice vote, a11 votir�g aye, the motion carried unanimously. �1 Mr. Drigans said he found this a���`icle very interesting and wan�ed to thank Mr. Boardman for putting i� zn the agendae The other inembers concitrred e RECEIVE INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL FROM JI�MES LANGENFE�D MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive the informational materia.I from James Langenfe3d. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Langenfeld asked the Commission if they fou.nd the information he gave them from time to time helpful. Vice-Chairman I3arris said they did. Mr. Langenfeld said he had a letter from Jean iieilman, a special as�sistant in the At�orney General's office in relation to thE Env,iror,- mental Quality Council which states informatior. that was sent to �,im. This includes (1) Environmental Policy Act, (2) Environmental Quality Council�Act. (3) Power Plant Siting Act, (4) Critical Areas Act, (5) Recycling of Solid Wastes Act, (6) Minnesota Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, (?) Subdivided Land Sales Practices Act, and a capy of the Power Plant Sitingi�egulations and Critical Areas Regulations that were adopted by the Environmental Quality Council. He said he also had a report of the Environmental Legislation 1973-74 Symposium, which he was going to have made up into a separate booklet and distributed � to the Environmental Quality Commission's mailing list. Mr. Harris said he was particularly interested in the article on Oak Wilt and Dutch Elm disease. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought the article "Wildlife May Be Killed With Kindness" interesting also. s Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 3 Mr. Langenfeld said he would continue to send the Planning Commission material as long as they found it useful. l. REQUEST FOR Split off t Subdivision and Central A LOT SPLIT e Southerly No. 10, to Avenue N.E. , L.S. #74-15, 137.5 feet of made a saleable RUBY M. ANDERSON: Lot 16, Revised Auditor's 1ot, located at 69th Mr. Blaine Edmundson was present to represent the petitioner. Mr. Boardman said the main thing the City was concerned about on this lot split was that a house could be built on the North lot without requiring any variances. The house that had been on this lot before the tornado, was setback 75 feetm If the house that could be buil'c on this lot faced Central Avenue, then the sideyard setback could be reduced to half of the setback requirement, which would make a sideyard setback,of 35 feet. Mr. Edmundson.presented. a sketch.of a house and gar�age on a survey of the No�th ],ot. On this sketch, the house was 28 feet by 46 feet with a 24 foot square garage. He said he had drawn the sideyard setback as 30 feet, but the house could be moved over 5 feet �.nd still fit the lot. He said he would correct this drawing before this lot split request went to Council. � Mre Boardman said there had to be an easement granted on the North lot for utilities.to serve the South lot. The sewer and water would be coming frcm`69th Avenue. � Mr. Harris said the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee had recommended that this easement be 20 feet instead �of 15 feet, so all the utilities could be on the same easement. This easement would be for sewer and water, gas, electric power and telephone lines. � Mr. Drigans said the survey shows a garage slab on the North lot. Mr. Edmundson said that was left after the toxnado, but it would be removed. Mr. Edmundson said that because of the grade on thase lots, the driveway for the North lot would exit on 69th Avenue, and the lot on th.e South would have a tuck-under garage. Mr. Drigans said both of these lots were buildable lots then. Mr. Edmundson said they would prefer to have the 20 foot easement on the East side of the Narth lot, the Central Avenue side. Mr. Drigans said there were some trees on this property. Mr. Edmundson said they would lose some trees whether this utility easement was put on either the East or West side of the property. Mr. Harris ^ son said it was said the purpose the utilities on asked where the existing povser pole was. Mr. Edmund- on the Northwest corner of the North lot. Mr. Harris of having the 20 foot utility easement'was to have all the same easement. If the utility easement was put on �� ;�' r:_,_...y . $' v Planning Commission Meeti�ng -� Au�gust 2�1,� 1974 Page 4 . the Easterly 20 feet, there would have to be another easement for the utility poles on the Westerly side of the lot, unless the power � poles were moved. Mr. Edmundson said he thought there was a power pole Southeast from the Southerly lot, and maybe they could serve this property from that pole. He said he would check on this before this went to Council for the final decision on which side of the property the utility easement should be placed. MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, that the PZanning Commission recommend �o Council approval of the request for a Zot split, L.S. #74-15, by Ruby M. Anderson, to split off the SoutherZy .Z37.5 feet of Lot 16, Revised �luditor's Subdivision No. 10, to make a saleable 1ot, located at 69th and Central Avenue N.E., with the stipulations that a 20 foot utility easement be provided on either the Easterly or Westerly side of the North 1ot, and �hat the petitioner bring in a corrected copy of a drawinq�of how a house could be placed on the North lot without requiring variances. Upon a voice vote, a.Z1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' � 2. VACATION REQUE5T. SAV #74-03, BY JAMES LUND: Vacate �the Westerly 50 foot easement for public purposes on Lot 30, lying Nor�th of the Southerly 30 feet, Auditor's Subdivision No. 129, located in � the 1500 Block between 73rd Avenue Northeast and Onondaga Stree-� and replatted as Jim Lund Estates. Mr. Boardman said this was more or less an oversight when this praperty was replatted as Jim.Lund Estates. It would affect Lots 1 and �'1 9, B1QCk 1; and Lots 1 and 8, Block 3, of the replat. This easement was asked for when there was a different street pattern planned for this area. Because the administration feels that the street pattern as platted in Jim Lund Estates is a better plan for this area, it is a reasonable request to ask that this Westerly 50 foot easement be vacated. � Mr. Harris said that when this loi was tax for£eit property, the County also took an additional 27 foot easement along 73rd Avenue, which they will not vacate. This easement is only on Lot 30. They don'ic have this easement on the adjacent lots, so this easement is not going to do the County any good, but they want to hana on to it. The County has a policy that they take an additional 30 foot easement along every County road on any property that goes tax forfeit. He said Mr. Lund didn't know about these easements until he got the deed from the County. Mr. Drigans asked how this County easement would affect the front setback on the houses facing 73rd Avenue. Mr. Boardman said this was just an easement and was being used as part of the setback requirement. Mr. Lund is going to setback one house 50 feet, and three houses 43 feet, but this was because of the average f�ob.f�t yard setback requirement, instead of this easement. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning � . Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a vacation, 5AV #74-03, by James Lund, to vacate the Westerly 50 foot easement for public purposes, on Lot�30, lying North of the Southerly 30 feet, Audi- tvr's Subdivision No. 129, located in the 1500 BZock between 73rd p�r � Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 5 Avenue Northeast and Onondaga 5treet and replatted as Jim Lund Estates. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3: REVIEW ZONING ORDINANCE Mr. Boardman asked the Planning Commission if they wanted to put a time limit on this review. Mr. Harris said they could go through up to the R-3 zoning, which was as far as they got in'�.their discussion on August 7, 1974 when they didn't have a quorum for a meeting. Mr. Boardman said there were some problems with the def iniicions. There are soane things that should be included in the definitions that aren't. Other things needed clarification. He said that one of the definitions we need is a definition for a warehouse. What is a ware- house? Also, anything we have as a permitted use, if it°s not clear, we should have a definitioa. He said he had talked to Darrel Clark about Wick's Furniture. Although this is a warehouse, it is a retail business, and is built in a M-2 District which is heavy industrial. The point is this, is a warehouse in a heavy industrial zoriing al�owed to do retail business? This can't be determined unless we have a definition for a warehouse. Mr. Boardman said he didn't think they should really go into definitions at this �time, until staff had had time to go through the definitions. Mr. Lindblad asked if the purpose of reviewing the zoning ordinance was to clarify and correct. Mr. Harris said it was, and it needed to be updated also. . ^ Mr. Boardman said there were a lot of things in the Zoning Code that were right on the borderline of what you can and can't do. There are things we are doing as a matter of policy thaic are not really clear in the code. Mre Boardman said one thing that should be discussed are mother- in-law apartments. Are they an allowed use in an R-�1 area. What control do we want to have on this use? If the mother-in-law dies, can they move somebody else in? He said it was his opinion that a mother-in-law apartment was not that bad a thing. The definition of a family states, "An individual, or two or more persons related by blood or marriage, or group ot not more than five persons (excluding servan-ts) who need not be related by blood or marriage, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling area". If we take this definition as stated, it could mean your brother, sis�ter, cousin, etc. You may want to add is here "related by blood,(restricted to one genex-ation)". This wauld allow a son to come back and use this apartmcnt but not a na.ece or nephew. Mr. Harris said what they were concerned about is when the mother-in-law was no longer using this apar.tment, P�ow'�they wou�3�d �ontrol havincy:�this apartment rented to another family unit, thus making a R-1 dwelling a 2 unit dwelling. ^ , Mr. Lindblad asked if this was a problem in Fridley. Mr. Boardman said we are getting many inquiries about mother-in-law apartments, and 0 Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 6 if they can convert their basements into these apartments. Mr. Harris ' said t�e way the economy is going, we are going to have a lot of these � requests. � Mr. Drigans asked if there was any way this could be handled with a special use permit? You could allow this use for a certain period of time, and it could be renewable. Mr. Boardman said then it could be restricted to a parent or a child. Mr. Lindblad asked i£ they thought people would abide by such an ordinance. How would you stop people from letting their brother live there, for instance, maybe rent free. Mr. Harri� said what he thought they were looking for ��s someway to control this use, not to really limit it, so we don't end up with R-1 property being used as double bungalows. We want to control parking and sanitary facilities, and we just don't want secondary apartments in an R-1 district. Mr. Drigans said ma�be we could control this with square footage requirementsm So much square footage if one pe�son lived in the apartment, with so much square footage needed for each additional person who was going to live in this auxilliary unite N1ro Boardman said the square footage requirements were set up by the State, and if we set up different standards, he didn't think these standards would hold up in courte He said he thought the best to handle �his was with a special use permit, with a review process. Mr. Harris said he would like this to come �nder the Fire � Marshall also, so this could be checked as to the safety of such an apartmente Mr. Lindblad said he thought that such an ordinance would make crooks out of honest people, and the crooks wouldn't pay any attention to our ordinance anyway. Mr. Drigans said we have to have some type or control when you see fifteen people coming out of an R-1 dwelling and cars parked all over. You have to keep something like this from infringing on the next door neighbor. We are trying to .foresee a problem, and�determi�e how we will handle it, such as a special use permit. As the economy tightens uP� We will probably see more and more of this. Nlr. Boardman said it seems to be the concensus of opinion that a mother-in-law apartment should be put in the definitions and be handled under a special use permit. Mr. Boardman said another def inition that needs clarifi�ation is a kennel. For instanc�, what is a residential kennel and what is a commercial kennel. The main thing �ae would like to see in a residential kennel is to try and control the location and the number of dogs allowed. Right now, anyone who has a residential kennel, usually has it back along a fence next to their neighbor's property and pushed away from their own housee Mr. Drigans said he though�. a home kennel should be a minimum of so many feetaway from an adjacent property owner. Mr. Boardman .�.�, �� � �, Planning Commissi�on Meeting = August 21, 1974 Page 7 asked how many dogs a person could have before it was classified as a kennel, three.or more dogs? � � Mr. Drigans said we could classify a kennel as any structure or enclosure in which dogs are confined outside. Mr. Harris said this would have to apply to three or more dogs. Mr. Boardman said we should have a top limit of how many dogs that can be kept on one , property. Mr. Drigans asked if there was any way to limit the number of domesticated animals that would be allowed for a single family dwelling., Mra Boardman said we could li.mit the number that are conf ined outside. We couldn't control the ani �ls that are kept insi3e all the time. We could say that so many dogs constitute a kennel, and with a kennel you could have only so many dogs. A commercial kennel would still have to be in a commercial area or M-2 area. Mr. Drigans asked about the definition for home occupa�ion? Mr. Boardman said he thought this definition was all�right, and the staff could work with it as it was. Mr. Boardman said he thought there should be a definition for a condominium or cluster housiri.g. He said th� staff was going to check around with other communities to see how they define them. Mr. Harris said he thought they should put a statement of policy � saying what we were endeavoring to do with the zoning ordinance. Mr. Boardman said there was already a declaration of policy under SECtion 205.041. Mre Drigans said that in regard to Section 205.03, Establishment of District, when we had the request for a medical office building to be built on R-1 property, we had a lot of controversy because this wasn't a hospital or a public building going on R-1 property. He said we don't have a medical district, but some other communities have this district. Mr. Boardman said we have districts where medical facilities can be built. These are CR-1 and CR-2. This is not the only thing that is allc�wed in these districts, but it is an allowed usee Mr. Harris said the hang up on the medical building, was that the hospital itself is in an R-1 district, but it is an entity of its own. It is a separate governmental unit. Mr. Boardman said this is a public building. Any public btlilding can be built in R-1 zoning. This includes the City Hall, the library, schools and churches, parish houses and convents. Mr. Boardman said that one thing we are going to have to do with public buildings is to add some restrictions. Gve are going ico have to say that even if they are building on R-1 property, they are going to have to meet the setback requirements that they would normally fit under in commercial or industrial property. He said that right now the City was having a problem with the expansion of Woodcrest Baptist Church. They are ^ f�ollowing the setbacks of R-1 zoning� and we have had complaints from the neighbors. He said the setback on their property is only 14 feet, and if this was considered a commercial area, the setback requirement ��-�a� t- � Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 8 � from R-1 property would be 50 feet. We do have a statement in the R-1 zoning under Section 205.051, Paragraph 4, Other Uses, which ' states "For other uses, other than dwelling units, permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permi�, requirements as to lots, setbacks, buildings, parking, landscaping, screening, and exterior material shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other distric�s, but also subject to additional provisions as provided by the City". Mr. Boardman said this should apply to permitted uses and uses requiring a special use permit or any structure that is not a single family dwellingo , He said we also want 205.051, Raragraph l, B, which states as a principal use "Agriculture, including farm, truck gardens, and orchards, but excluding animal and poultry raising" omitted�.from the R-1 zoning code, and the corresponding sections of R-2 and R- 3 omi�ted also., This is not something people would be using R-1 zoning for, so it is obsolete. Mr. Boardman said that under Accessory Uses in the R-1 zoning, we want to change'C to read "Customary home occupations including rental of guest rooms for occupancy to not more than two persons per dwelling unit". Mr. Boardman continued that we want to add residential kennels under uses permitted with a special use permit as G. Mr. • Harris said this could be explained as a humane reason for having this under a special use permit. ^ Mr. Boardman said that under Other Uses, he wan•ted to just change some wording to make it clearer. He said it should read "For permitted uses, and uses requiring a special use permit, other than dwelling units, requirements as to lots, setbacks, building, ' parking, landscaping, screening and exterior materials shall be at least comparable to similar uses in other districts, but also subject to additional provisions as provided by the City.°' Mr. Boardman said that one thing we don't have in our code is that you can`t build R-1 housing in commerical or industrial zoned praperty. �He said he would like to see added in every zoning district under "Uses Excluded" a clause that would exclude any use allowed in any, other district, unless it was specifically allowed in that district. This is SECtion 205.052 in the R-1 zoning. For instance, single family dwellings are specifically allowed in R-2 and R-3 zoning, but should not be allowed in commercial or ind�strial zoning. We are ignoring the zoning laws if we allow a lesser use into a greater use. Mr. Harris said we did get into a discussion on lot requirements and setbacks. Mr. Boardman said we did decide that the requirement5 we have are workable. At some later date we migh� have the Metropoli�an Council looking at our requirements. Nlr. Harris said the only problem was�that the City has some 40 faot lots that could give us trouble. Mr. Drigans /"'� said they are already giving us trouble. �r. Boardmar� said this is something you could discuss at your meeting with th2 Council. Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 9 Mr. Boardman said there had been discussion on eliminating R-2A and R-3A zoning classi�ications. At the present time nothing � is zoned under these classifications and we do not even show these districts on our zoning map. Mr. Harris said these districts are ambiguous because there really isn't any differenc� between R-2 and R-2A or R-3 and R-3A. Mr. Boardman said these classifications are obsolete. Mr. Boardman said they had discussed automobile parking lots under uses permitted with a special use permit, Section 205.051, E, an� to change the sideyard and rear yard minimum setback to 10 feet instead of the required 5 feet. This will allow for some p��ntings. Mr. Harris said you can't plant anything in 5 feet. This section should read "Automobile parking lots for off-street parking spacPs for any use on adjacent land, when the following minimum requirements have been met: 1) The minimum front yard setback is 25 feet, except where adjacent property has existing front yard setbacks exceeding 35 feet; additional front yard depth may be required. A sideyard and rear yard minimum setback of 10 feet is required". This same section should be changed in R-2 and R-3 also. Mr. Lindblad said he had been at the Council meeting when they were discussing single and double garages. He said he had been in favor of making double garages mandatory. He said �here wouldn't be so many requests for storage sheds if people had larger garages, and . most people have two cars. Mr. Boardman said our requirement says they can build a single garage, but they have to have room for a double n garage. Mr. Harris said while it may be true that double garages are desirable, it was shortly after this Council meeting that something came out of Washington D.C. saying the suburbs were going to have to stop these discriminatory housing requiremen�s. It won't be too long before there will be federal and state legislation that will force us to do a housing study. He said the Metropolitan Council would be getti��g into this area also. He said he thought they would all call our present zoning ordinance pretty discrim.inatory. Mr. Boardman said that by forcing people to build a garage, we are raising the cost of building a house, and are therefore excluding low income hausing. There is going to be a lot of pressure to cut housing costs. We should do our own housing study. We don't know how many 40 foot, 60 foot and 75 foot lots we have in Fridley. We don't know the basic cost of building on a 9,000 square foot lot, or the basic cast of building on a 7,500 foot square foot lot. Mr. Harris said he thought this should be brough'c up at their meeting with the Council, because if they do come in here to ' check our requirements, we should have some answers. We may be able to defend ourselves on some of these codes then. If we don't have any answers, they could really clobber us and tell us this is what you have to do, regarding our codes. Mr. Boardman said one power the Metropolitan Council has ��: to rate communities for federal funding, and as we have no program for providing low income housing, we are not even rated, so we can°t get any federal funding. We haven't taken any positive approach for low income housing. We don't know if we are providing for our..own_people. ^ We don't know if elderly persons can even stay in r•ridley. If we•don't tatke the initiative, the state legislation wilk tell us, in two or three years,_that this is what we have to do. �� ° Planning Commissi�orr Me-etirig - August° '21�,� 19�74 � �� Qage 10 ^ Mr. Drigans said we have a lot of work in this area. He said he had been thinking, for some time, that the Planning Commission should have an extra meeting a month that would just be a working meeting. Mr. Boardman said he agreed. He said that reviewing the zoning code, for instance, was di:ffic�lt to do after their regular meetings where they have had public hearings on other items. Mr. Drigans said we could even turn these working meetings into training mee-tings where someone from the Metropolitan Council could come in and discuss our codes, etco He said he thought that if the Planning Commission had one meeting like this a month, or it could be flexible, it would be very helpful. Mr. Harris said we could have this meeting on an of� Wednesday. Mr. Drigans said �chat another possibility would be to have it on a Monday night when Council has their public hearing meeting. We may want to attend some of these hearings. We don't have to meet in the Council Chamber. Mr. Boardman said the Council Chamber was not conducive to in-depth studies. It would be better to all sit around a tablee Mr. Drigans said they could meet in the classroom, or any place in City Hall that was open, for these meetings. Acting Chairman Harris said he thought ichis was a good idea and they should set up such a meeting. TYiey really weren't getting very far in their review of the zoning ordinance at this meeting. We haven't even discussed the sign ordinance yet. . Mro Boardman said he thought this was a good time to stop the discussion, because they were getting bogged down. He said there were /�1 many things the Planning Commission could be involved in, if the staff brought them to their attention. There was housing, a beautif ication program for Fridley, and although the Parks & Recreation Commission handles the parks, he thought the Planning Commission should be made aware of some of the City's recreational needs, such as a swimming pool. He said there were aZso environmental issues•coming up, one being the Shoreland Management Act. � Mr. Harris said the Planning Commission should set a date for an extra meeting right now. After discussion, September 9, 1974 was set as a working meeting.- This is a Council night, but the Planning Commission would meet in the classroom. Mr. Harris said they wouldn`t need a secretary for these meetings, but he would like the meeting tape recorded as a permanent record, and they could refer back to the tapes. 4. REVIEW SIGN ORDII�TANCE Mr. Boardman said one of the things they are thinking of changing in the sign ordinance is setting it up on a more qraduated scale. Instead of using 15�a of the wall area, we'll use a constant multiplied by the squar.e root. That way, the larger buildings will get smalle�' si.gns, and the smaller,buildings will get larger signs. � Mr. Drigans said the Board of Appeals has a variance coming up for the lumber company going in at Spar�an's old location. They w�nt a variance from 100 square feet to 200 square feet and 20 to 40 feet in the-air. Mr. Harris asked if there weren't some billboards i,n:-that . area now. Mr. Drigans said there were two of them. Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 11 Mr. Lindblad said he couldn't ,� Either we are going to have them or areas have banned billboards, and he if they so desired. Mr. Harris said this with the Council. 5. MEETING WITH COUNCIL see the big squabble on billboards. we°re not going to have them. Other thought Fridley could do the same this is why we want to discuss Mr. Boardman said the Council would like three alternate da�es when the Planning Commission could meet with them. Mr. Harris said he thought a Saturday morning breakfast meeting would be fine. Mr. Drigans and Mr. Lindblad agreed. After discussion, the three dates given were September 7, 14 and 21. Mr. Boardman said he would see that the Council was informed of these dates. 6. DISCUSSION Mr. Lindblad said he would like some inpu� from the other members of the Planning Commission on whether it was up to the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee or the Board of Appeals, to reject a proposal for Fridley. He said he was thinking about the request by the R. W. Murray Company of Illinois to build a warehouse. Can we try to get something better than that for Fridley? We are getting to be a city of warehouses, pizza huts and oil stations. Mr. Boardman said you have to have pretty definite reasons for ^ rejecting, such as non-compatible use for th� area or detrimental �to the safety health and welfare of the area. You might have a case against this request because it is so close to the school. Mr. Harris said that wi�en Downing Box was being built so close to the school, there we�e objections, but it still went in. This area is zoned M-2, which is the proper zoning. Mr. Drigans said a warehouse is a warehouse, but when you have a building with 21 doors, it turns into a terminal. He said rhat was something else we should have in our defini�ions - what is a terminal? Mr. Harris said to answer Mr. Lindblad's question, it says in Section 208. Q7 of the Code, "Refusal oiE Permit: On hearing before the Building Board and on review by the Council, in the absence of .proof to �the contrary, a refusal to grant the building permit is deemed to be based upon facts supporting the conclusion that the exterior design, appearance and functional plan of the structure as noted in the application papers is so at variance, or so similar, with the exterior design, appearance and functional plan or structures canstructed or in the course of cons�truction, in the neighborhood of said proposed structure, which are in the same zoning district as the proposed structure, as to cause a material depreciation generally to property .in the neighborhood'a.. ^ Mr. Boardman said there have beer� court cases, when denial for environmental reasons has stood up in court, also. � ..� Planning Commission Meeting - August 21, 1974 Page 12 Mr. Lindblad said he thought this particular warehouse could be denied because af all the variances needed. Mr. Harris said it could be denied on that basis, but not because you don't like the design of the warehouse, when it's in an M-2 zone. Acting Chairman Ha�ris adjourned the meeting at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � � Dorothy enson, Secretary �� ;�