Loading...
PL 12/04/1974 - 31177;�1 d� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANIdING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 1974 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. ROLL CALLs. � Members Present: Drigans, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad, Langenfeld ' Members Absent: Blair Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: NOVEMBER 20, 197� MOTION by Drigans, seconded b� Lindblad, that the Planning Commission minutes of the November 20;� 1974 meeting be approved . raith changes which are: Page 10, paragraph 3, sentence changed to read, There was also discussion as to some t�pe of policy ordinance that shovld be developed whereby the Environmenta.Z Quality Commision would be used by the City as a viable commission in the area of envir- onmental concerns, and on Page 13, paragraph 2, sentence changed to, Mr. Drigans said he had mentioned at the meeting on November 19th that if the City is going to have some type of �nvironmental Policy Act, such as the State has, and until that time, the Counci.Z could pass a resolution placing the Chairman of the Environmental Quality ^ Commission on the Planning Commission either as a fu11 member or an � ex-ot'ficio member. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting a�e, the minutes were approved as amended. RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: NOVENIBER 19, 1974 MOTIOld by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the.Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Street & Utilities 5ubcommittee meeting of November 19, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECFIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: NOV- EMBER 21, 1974 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, tii4t the P.Zanninq Commission receive the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of November 21, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voiing aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERAT�ON OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #74-08, HER[�7AL RICE CREEK TERRACE, BY GEORGE L. WALQUiST: A�eplat of Lot 1 and Outlot l, Block 1, Don's Addition, located at the Northwest quadrant of Rice Creek Roa.d and Central Avenue N.E, Mr. Rich�rd Walquist was present to represent tYie petitioner. �� Chairman r^itzpatrick read the Public Hearing notice. Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 2 Mr. Clark said that the land in this plat is between Rice Creek r"''� Road and the Westerly extension of 64th Avenue. East of this plat there are a series of double bungalows that face Pierce Street and are adjacent to Central Avenue on the Wast. He said the property was all zoned M-1 (light industrial) and will be platted into five lo�s. The first lot is occupied by a moving van companyo There are no plans for Lots 2, 3, and 4, however, on Lot 5, there is a tentative purchase agreement by a company that does rust -proofing of automobileso etc. He cc�ritinued that the building that was drawn in on Lot 5 was not necessarily the building that would be built on this lot, but was the largest building that could be built and meet the setback requirements and yet stay far enough away from the sanitary sewer so that it cou.ld be maintained. He said that 15 feet was as close as we would want the building to be to this sanitary sewer, providing that the footing elevation was 87705 above sea level. That is on the basis of a slope of 1 to 1 ratio to the pipe. If the footing was deeper the easement could be smaller, and if tYa.e footing was less, it would be la�'ger. The elevation of 877.5 would be 6 feet below the present grade of Rice Creek Road. Mr. Clark said there was a memo from iche Engineering Department showing the different elevations and what the easement would have to be for each one, and the petitioner could have a cony of this so it would give him an option as to what elevation he would want to use. He said the property was about three feet below the grade of Rice Creek Road at the present timeo Mr. Clark said there was a sewer line that runs along the West ^ boundary of this plat and this does sever Lo�t 5 about 1/3 of the - way from the West boundary line. There was also a drainage ditch along�Rice Creek Road which is on both Lots � and 5, and there was another drainage ditch running along the Westerly boundary of this plat, which was not shown on the preliminary plat, and this ditch was between 10 and 15 feet from the boundary line. '1 Mr. Clark said that all lots in M-1 zoning have to be at least 3/4 acre. Lot 2 is about 400 square feet shor�. He said that two feet could be taken from Lot 3, so Lot 2 could be 115 feet which would make Lot 2 3/4 acre. Lot 3 is deeper than Lot 2, so this lot would still meet the area requirement. Mr. Harris said that at the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilitues Subcommittee meeting, they were told that the owner of Lot 1 wanted to acquire some additional 1and. Mx. Clark said the preliminary plat reflects this now. Mr. Clark said the moving company wants to use this land for storage and they didn't know if they could get a permit to build these storage facilities. Lot 1, as shown on the plat, includes land that is not presently owned by the occupant of Lot 1. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this really doesn't enter into the consideration of the plat, however. Mr. Harris said that the petitioner has met all the stipu1����ns of the Plats & Subs Subcommittee except the stipulation for a drainage and utility easement alont� the Westerl� property line for the drainage diicch and sanitary sewer line. Mr. Drigans said that he felt that by taking two feet off Lot 3 and adding in on to Lot 2, this would make Lot 3 a narrow lot. Mr. Plann.ing Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 3 �, Clark said the stipulation could be that all lots me�t the 3/4 acre requirement and leave it to the petiti�oner to shift the lot lines. �. r"� Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark if it was the City's ii'r.tent to go along with these drainage ditches instead of storm sewers? Mr. Clark said the Rice Creek Watershed District either has a policy or a law in which they will not allow us to put open drainage ditches into pipe, because they want them to act as sediment basins, for salt, fertilizers and such, that would be running off the streets, to keep these things from going into Moore Lake or Rice Creek. He said that if they did pipe part of the ditches that were c�oing over to Harris Lake Estates, for instance, they would have to put in sump pumps intermittently along it to allow for sedimentation. Mr. Harris said then this was basically the system that would remain in this area. He asked how the drainage would be handled on this plat. Mr. Clark said he thought the lots that were facing Central Avenue wculd drain the front part of the lot towards Central Avenue, and the rear of the lots would drain to the ditch on the Westerly boundary, and then down to Rice Creek Road. Mr. Harris said there would have to be a culvert for Lot 5, so they could have a driveway. Mr. Clark said �hat Mr. Walquist had gotten permission from the Coun ty to put a pipe under the drive- way. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it seemed that there was provision for drainage on the plat., and the rest would be handled in the grading of the property. Mr. Clark said the occ�xpancy for Lot 5 was advertised for a Special Use Permit for. the next Planning Commission meeting, so they would get a chance to discuss the size and location�of the building on this lot at that time. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the approval of the Special Use Permit doesn't have any bearing on the approval of the plat, did it? Mr. Clark said no. Mr. Walquist said that this plat started with the discussion by the owner of Lot 1, who wanted to pick up additional frontage along Central Avenue, and during those discussions on how to break up this property into additional lots, the other party came in and asked about developing Lot 5. Mr. Clark said Mr. Walquist did inquire about a lot split so this property could be developed, but he recommended that Mr. Walquist plat the property as-a better solution. � Mr. Fitzpatrick asked about the ownership of the entire plat. Mr. Walquist said there were two ownerships of Lots 2 through 5, and Lot 1 is owned by someone else. He said one owner owns 50 feet of Lot 1, as it is now platted, along with Lots 2 and 3. The other owner owns Lots 4 and 5. Mr. Drigans asked f irst place. Mr. Clark petitioner has property of the plat, so he sets ment. why this was designated as an outlot in the said it is a tool of platting when the that he isn't ready to develop with the rest aside part of the property for future develop- Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Paqe 4 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Narris, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the consideration of a ^ pre�iminary p1at, P,S. #74-08, Herwal Rice Creek Terrace,,by George L. Walquist. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � _ � Mr. Clark said he would like thE memo from the Engineering Department as part of the motion. They could probably call it Exhibit "A", and also the drainage easement for the ditch along the Westerly boundary should be wide enough so we could maintain a three to one slope on its banks. He said he couldn!t tell the Planning Commission how wide it should be, because he didn't know how much fill it would take to make the property high�r than the ditche He said that maybe Mr. Walquist would go along with a 30 to 40 foot easement for both a drainage and utility easement in this area. He said this property line is adjacent to R-2 property and they will have to maintain a 50 foot setback from this zoning in a M-1 District. Mr. Clark said this setback could be used for storage and parking areas. If the Planning Commission stipulated that anything 15 feet from the East side of the sanitary sewer line to the west property line "�e dedicated for drainage and utility easement, this would take care of it. MOTION b� Harris, seconded by LindbZad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the preliminary p1at, P.S. #74-08, Herwal Rice Creek Terrace, by George L. Walquist, a replat of Lot 1 and Outlot 1, BZook.1, Don's Addition, Iocated r,..� at the Northwest quadrant of Rice Creek Road and Central Avenue N.E., ; with the foZlowing stipulations: • 1. AZ1 the 1ot sizes meet the requirement of 3/4 acre. 2. A drainage and utility easement be establi'shed from Z5 feet East of the Sanitary Sewer pipe to the Westerly property 1ine. 3. Dedicate a 30 foot drainage ditch easement on the 5outh property 1ine. 4. Footing elevations to be adjusted as per memo from the Engineering Department, dated December 4, 1974 and designated as Exhibi t "A". Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-15, FRZ�NK'S NURSERY: Per Fridley City Code, 5ection 205.101, 3,N, to allow the outside storage of inerchandise behind an unscreened chain link fence, to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch � Estates lst Addition, together with the Easterly 120 feet of that part of the NW� of the NW4 of Section 11, T-30, R-24, lying North of Osbor.ne Road and West and adjacent to Lot l, Block l, East Ranch Estates lst Addition, the same being 7620 University � Avenue N.E. Mr. Jerry Schroer was present to represent the petitioner. �-- ; Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 5 � MOTION by Driqans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the reguest for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-15, by Frank`s Nurser�. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � ;� Mr. Clark said the main reason for this request was that they want to put in an outside display west of the present structure, and they do not want to put up a screening fence. He said this was before Building Standards a couple of weeks ago and the plan was approved with the stipulation that if the petitioner did not put up a screening fence, he had to have a Special Use Permit granted by Council to put up an unscreened chain link fence. Mr. Lindblad said that normally Building Standards ask for a wood fence o� a chain link fence that was slatted. Mr. Clark said the area we are taking about is about 100 feet from Osborne Road, and was an area used mostly for sales and storage. Mr. Schroer said it would be used mostly for retail sales. He said that Frank's Nursery takes a little different view of a close out sale in the fall, so to speak, and they basically sell down to nothing. He continued that this area would be used to sell nursery stock and bag goods in the spring of the year. The bag goods would be kept along the West fence line. ` Mr. Fitzpatrick said the fence we are discussing will be between the�blacktop area and the new nursery bed, then. Mr. Harris asked about the zoning of this property. Mr. Clark said it was C-2S (general shopping areas). Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Special Use is for sales of m�rchandise in the open then. Mr. Clark said this was correct. Mr. Harris said he felt this should have gone for a variance rather than a Special Use because it was just a change in the fence. Mr. Clark said that in a commercial area, if there was outdoor storage of inerchandise in the open, it requires a Special Use Permit, and this was basically what it was. Mr. Lindblad said this area was no longer the way it had been in the past. A lot of changes have been made. They are not going to have concrete blocks, etc. towards Osborne Road. The frontage that faces Osborne Road was shrubs from Osborne Road to the parking area. There will be no storage in the front, it will all be in the rear. Mr. Harris asked what section of the code was being used so that this required a Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark said it was 205.101, 3, N. Mr. Drigans said he thought it should be 205.1�1, 3, 0. Mr. Clark said the section of the code quoted says "trailers, campers, mobile homes, boats, machinery, sporting equipment and like enterprises having its merchandise in the open and not under cover of a display room." �T � Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 6 Mr. Harris said as he reads the Public Hearing notice, this was a special use to take out the screening fence. Mr. Clark said he either had to put up a screening fence, or get a special use to store the merchandise in the open. Mr. Drigans said then the code says you have to have a screening fence to have outdoor sales. Mr. Clark said no, you do not. Mr. Harris said the code says you have to have a special use permit. Mr. Drigans said they must have a special use permit for outdoor sales, because they have been selling out there for years. Mr. Lindblad said the basic reason they had been asked to put up a wooden fence in the first place, was not that this was a sales area, but because this was a storage area. He said the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee always recommends a screening fence when outside storage was visib]_e from the street. Mr. Harris asked what section of the code was being used as the basis for a screening fence? Mr. Clark said that our interpretation was that if you want to have display merchandise, whether it be boats, snowmobiles or nursey stock, in the open, why would you want to screen it? Mr. Harris said that was not what the ordinance said. Mr. Clark said it doesn't say anything, it says out in the open, not under cover of a display salesroom. • Mr. Fitzpatrick said then what you are saying is that this would %�, be allowed with a Special Use Permit, if there was screening. He, said he thought outdoor sales required a Special Use Permit whether it was screened or not. Mr. Harris said this is what he thoug�t also. Mr. Harris said he still wondered where the screening fence came from. � Mr. Clark said this came up at Building told him to either put up a screening fence, Permit. Mr. Drigans said then the screening and is not a violation of the code. Standards where they or get a Special Use is merely a stipulation, Mr. Lindblad said this has been a recommended policy for some time. Mr. Harris said it has been arbitrari ly recommended, let's put it that way. He said he could take someone all over the community, and some places we do, and some places we don't. Mr. Lindblad said he didn't think Mr. Harris would find that in the last two or three years. Mr. Harris said he could show where it happened last year. Mr. Lindblad asked where this was. Mr. Harris said the Building Standards probably didn't even see it, and it was arbitrarily done. Mr. Harris said the code has been arbitrarily administrated ever since it was adopted. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Schroer if Frank's Nursery already had a Special Use Permit to sell nursery stock? Mr. Schroer said they did. Mr. Drigans said that he felt that was all they needed. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that there was a stipulation on that Special Use Permit that they have a screening fence. Mr. Drigans said this was just a stipulation, and not a violation of the code. Chairman Fitz- �3 � t � �, Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 7 patrick said this was a stipulation of the Special Use Permit, so where we are now, was that they wan�ed to continue to do a� they have always done, but without the screening fence. Mr. Clark said that Frank's Nursery was doing things a lot different than the way things were done before. He said the merchandise area had been moved way back on the lot, that they had put in berms . and shrubbery in front of the parking area, and the entire area was very much improved. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it was a much improved business, and yet he felt the.y were still operating within the Special Use Permit they already have, with the exception of the screening fence. � Mr. Harris asked Mr. Schroer how tall,the nursery stock was. Mr. Schroer held out his hand and showed how high the shrubbery was, and he said the trees were taller. Mr. Harris said he would have to cut all the trees off at six feet, because this is what the code sayso It says you can't have a screening fence over eight feet high , and anything behind the screening fence has to be two feet shorter. Chairman Fitzpatrick said they weren't thinking about nursery stock :. when they wrote the ordinance. Mr. Harris said they weren't thinking about anything. Obviously, the person who wrote this didn't know what he was writing. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this was written for the s.tacking of inerchandise behind a fence. He said this wouldn't pre- clude acting on this petition. Mr. Drigans said he didn't see how they could act on this petition. He was afraid that if we did this, he could �ust see this compounding. Every time someone wanted to put up a fence, Building Standards were going to tell..people to get a. _ 5pecial Use Permit, and he didn't feel this was required. He said that the section of the code that this business was operating under, doesn't require a sc�eening fence. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Special Use that he was operating under had a stipulation that there must be a wooden scr�ening fence, and that's what the petitioner wants to change. - Mr. Drigans said he thought what the petitioner should do was just go to the City Council and say he wants this fence, and ask them to waive this �.tipulation on the Special Use Permit. Mr. Lindblad said then Mr. D.rigans would be fighting everything that the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee had been suggesting and enforcing. Mr. Drigans said that these were only stipulations. Mr. Lindblad said that was right, but the object of Building Standards was to make some of these places a little more attractive to the people who.have to look at them. If Mr. Drigans was going to take that point of view, then there was no point in Building Standards requesting or suggesting anything. He said it was just like pre cast curbing, which we really don't approve of, but he said he didn't know if there was anything in the code that said �they couldn't be used. . Mr. Harris said just a minute. He told Chairman Fitzpatrick that he wished to step down from his position on the Planning Commission ^ and take issue with the City administration and the ?3uilding Standards Chairman. In his own personal dealing with them, we have been forced to put in concrete curbs on a particular project of ours, when we -��. Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 8 had requested to put in pre cast curbing for drainage purposes. He said he thought the code had been arbitrarily and capriciously ,� administrated since 1969. He said he wasn't saying it was all the administration's fault. The ordinance, in many cases, was lacking in candor and knowledge of the situation as it exists in the City of Fridley. He said that he personally felt that the person who wrote the ordinance hasn't the faintest idea of what's going on, has never driven anything larger than a half ton pick-up truck, and sits in an ivory tower someplace and doesn't know anything about business, building or anything else. He thanked the Planning Commission and said that was all he had to say on the subject. Mr. Drigans said he understood what the Building Standards- Design Control Subcommittee was trying to do when they try to enhance the surrounding property, but he thought they extended themselves a little too far when they direct a petitioner that they must have a. Special Use Permit, or get a variance, when in essence they were not violating any codes. They are only attaching a recommendation or a stipulation, and he thought that if the petitioner wanted to take issue with a stipulation, that it should go directly to Council. He said he could see nothing in the code that says the petitioner must have a screening fence. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there was a stipulation on the existing Special Use Permit that says they must have a wooden screening fence. Mr. Drigans said then they are being asked to get a Special Use Permit on a Special Use Permit. � Mr. Clark said that when this Special Use Permi� was issued n there were certain stipulations put on this Speci�l Use Permit. Now the petitioner has come up with a new plan, and he doesn't want the , wooden screening fence. It was the Planning Commission and the Council who originally approved this Special U�� Perm�� with this stipulation. Now the petitioner was back before the same body asking to have the stipulation for the screening fence removed. Mr.�Drigans and Mr. Harris said they did not get this informatio� from the hearing notice for this request. Mr. Clark said the reason this was brought to the Planning Commission`s attention was because the petitioner was no longer providing a screening fence to keep this area from being out in the open. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the reason this stipulation was put on the other Special Use Permit was because we were screening something that was much closer to Osborne Road, and his interpretation of •the present petition was simply to have a Special Use Permit without that stipu- lation. Mr. Harris said that the petitioner was in essence asking that the screening fence be removed. Mr. Clark said the present location of the nursery stock would make this screening fence unnecessar.y. Mr. Lindblad said he thought that he was under a misunderstanding as far as the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee was concerned. It was his understanding that this Subcommittee was a recommending and advisory _ group set up by Council to give recommenda- i"'1 tions and advic e to the Council. He said they didn't have any say on whether this or that was done, we just make suggestions on how we think something could be done better, whether this is code or not �� Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 9 code,.it's still strictly up to the Council. For instance, the code � says a building has to be painted. If they really want to get nit- picking, they can just paint it one solid color, but we suggest maybe breaking this up into different colors, using some break-off block, or other means, so that when this building is constructed, the're is •some type of break in a long wall. As far as this screening is con- cerned, he said he didn't care if it was code, law or what have you, he didn't care at his point. We recommend that some things have to be screened, and why it has t� come to a Special Use Permit, we don't care about that either. It's just that he thought the Subcommittee was supposed to be doing a job of making recommendations to the Council, who can over-rule us whether we like it or not. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that in this instance, he thought the Building Standards-Design Control S u�ommittee had a good reason for stipulating the wooden fence at the time.that they did,�but now that the plans have changed, he didn't think they would make the same stipulation now. Mr. Lindblad said he thought when it got right down �o i�, they were saying the Building Standards-Design Control 5ubcommittee wasn't necessary and everyone should just interpret the code any.�ay::they want to. That's what seems to be being said here, if we recommend any�hing that's not specifically in the code, we are wasting ou'r. time. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that stipulations can be recommendeda n Mr. Lindblad said that is what happened on this. We made the recom- mendatian that the screening fence remain, and the.petitioner did not want this because he wanted his display visable and open. Mr. Lindblad said why this recommendation for a Special Use Permit didn't go directly to Council, instead of being routed to the Planning Commission, he really didn`t know. . Mr. Harris said he thought the basic fault lies with the ordinance. He said that he didn't think the ordinance even comes close to being able to handle the situations we get into. If you go through.the screening sec�ion, it was obvious that it was inadequate and just won't fit any of the problems. He said that as he read the petitioner's request, the basic reason for this fence was for security. He said that maybe this wasn't the time to discuss this, but maybe we should get down to the problem of why we have fence5. If it is for security reasons, then obviously a wooden fence or a slatted chain link fence wouldn't be for security. The police couldn't see through a solid fence, and anyone could hide behind such a fence. If it's a fence between residential and commerical or industrial property, then you need a,screening fence. There is no place in the ordinance where these different situations are taken into account. He said the Planning Commission would really have to make a greater effort to ge� through these ordinances so we can make some recommendations to the Council.� Chairman Fitzpatrick said he agreed that there were many sections of the code that needed recommendations for change, but he didn't ^ think the present petitioner should be held up on his request. He has a legitimate request, and a recommendation should be made one way or the other. ��1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 10 Mr. Drxgans said that what he thought was required by the � Planning Commission was a motion to Council recommending that they modify the existing Special Use Permit stipulation for a wooden screen- ing fence to an unscreened `chain link fence for security. He said he thought this was the motion to be made for two reasons, one being that he didn't think a Special Use Permit was necessary for a fence, and the other reason was because he thought the wrong section of the code was used in the Public Hearing notice. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-15, Frank's Nursery. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council �hat the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-15, by Frank's Nursery, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to a11ow the outside storage of inerchandise behind an unscreened chain link fence, to be located on Loi 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Ist Addition, together with the Easterly I20 feet of that part of the NW� of the NW� of Section I1, T-30, R-24, Iying North of Osborne Road and West and adjacent to Lot 1, Block Z, East Ranch Estates 1st Addition, the same being 7620 University Avenue N.E., is not necessary, and recommend that Council modify the existing Special Use Permit, SP #71-07, to change:the stipulation of a wooden screening fence to . a chain link fence for security purposes. n Mr. Langenfeld said that if the merchandise on�display should becgme a visual hazard, he felt that at that time, this request should be reconsidered as to whether this area should be screened or not, or else they should move the display under cover. Mr. D�igans asked Mr. Langenfeld what he meant by a visual hazard? Mr. Langenfeld said it would be something that was unpleasing to the eye. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that originally when the fence was required, this business was 30 feet from the road, and now we are talking about it being setback almost 150 feet from Osborne Road. Mr. Drigans said he aidn't see that this would ever create a visual hazard. Mr. Schroer said that no one has asked for it, but he was willing to take a portion of the wooden fence, that has been taken down, and put it up from the�building and on out about 30 feet. Al1 the tools and nursery stock that has to be brought back to look good aga��n, would be stored behind this wooden fence. Mr. Langenfeld asked where they kept their bales of hay at �his time? Mr. Schroer said they kept them under.neath.the roof. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A 5PECIAL USE PERMI�, SP #74-16, BY REYNOLD E. SWANSON: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, N,t� � permit the extension of the present Special Use Permit for a �obileHome Sales Lot, located on the West 375' of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, subject to a street and utility easement over the Westerly 40' thereof, the same being 7151 Highway #65 N.E. �'� �� �, Planning Commission Meeting - De�ember 4, 1974 Page 11 Mr. Reynold Swanson was present. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Nearing notice on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-16, b� Reynold Swanson. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Swanson said he was the sole owner and operator of this mobile home saleslot and had been since July of 1972. Mr. Clark said the original agreement was in the agenda, and this was a three year Special Use Permit, that was not renewable, and will run out in July, 1975. When Mr. Swanson called and asked us how he could renew this Special Use Permit, and the agreement stated that it was unrenewable, he was told that he had to start all over aga�n with a new Special Use Permit request. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked why the Public Hearing notice states that this is an extension of a Special Use Permit, then. Mr. Clark said that was because the property was presently being used for this purpose. Mr. Harris said?:the Planning Commission had another reguest for a Special Use Permit for the same purpose just a short time ago, and had used this agreement as a model for that request, and he couldn't remember if we had stipulated that Special Use Permit wasn't renew- able or not. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that he remembered that they didn't. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he was on the Planning Commission at the ti�e this Special Use Permit was �ranted, but he couldn't remember why they had stipulated it wasn't renewable. .Mre Swanson said that at that time, the owner of the property, Mr. Donald Harstad, was contemplating building at this location. At the present time, because of inflation and costs, etc., he has no plans for utilizing this property. He said there was also some problems_ with the previaus operators of the lot, when the first request was considered. Mr. Harris asked if this permit had had a yearly reviewal. Mr. Clark said the staff had reviewed it annually, but not �y-the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark said the lot had just been inspected, praor to this meeting, and it does meet all the stipulations that were in the agreement. It is clean and in good condition. MOTION by Driqans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission receive the Zetter from the owner of the property, Don Harstad, dated November 13, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous2y. Mr. Drigans said that in reading this letter, he didn't see any reference as to how long Mr. Swanson would be able to have this lot, or to lease it. Mr. Swanson said he was going to have a five year n lease, if this Special Use Permit was granted. `�^"�`� Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 12 Mr. Drigans said that if the recommendation was to grant this permit, he thought it should be tied to the termination of the lease � the same as they did on the last request for a Special Use Permit fox the same use. Mr. Drigans said we did ask for additional black- top on the other request aiso. Mr. Harris asked if the lot was all crushed rock? Mr. Swanson said he'had an area 30' x 30' blacktopped that was the entrance to the lot. The balance of the lot was class V with an oil base that has been on the lot since it was started and this has held up very well. He said that if this new Special Use Permit was approved, he would be willing to blacktop the entire lot. He said � fence had been put up on the back of the lot to screen Mr. Harstad's operation away from this lot, and they had put in more sodding. ' Mr. Drigans said that another stipulation that they had put on the other request was that the petitioner keep majority ownership of this business, and it not be transferable to someone else. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if there had been any complaints on this lot. Mr. Clark said they didn't have any on this operator, but they had had som� on the previous owner. . Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Swanson if he had a five year lease at this time. Mr. Swanson said his present lease ran until July, 1975, and ha� talked to Mr. Harstad, and he has agreed to a five year lease. n MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission close ihe Public Hearing on the request.for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-16, by Reynold 5wanson. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. MOTION �y Drigans, s�conded by Lindblad, tha� the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-16, b� Reynold E. Swanson, per Fridley Cify Code, Section 205.101, 3, N, to permit the extension of the present Spe�ial Use Permit for a Mobile Home Sa1es Lot, Iocated on the West 375 feet of Lof 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, subject to a street and utility easement over the Westerly �0 feet thereof, the same being 715Z Highway #65 N.E. with the following stipulations: OPERA TOR 1. A Special Use Permit to operate a mo�ile home sales 1ot is given only to Reynold E. Swanson as an individual and he wi11 be the operator of the business. If the business changes . hands or he-no longer is the majority owner and operator of the business, the permit wi11 be nu11 and void, and would have to be reviewed by the City Council before transfer. OFFICE 1. The office trailer will be blocked on concrete blocks and the � base wi11 be skirted with a�uminum. The office will be connected to utilities; such as water, sewer, gas and , electricity. � -, Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 13 2. Two restrooms will be installed in the office for the public's use. � �� 3. The office trailer wi11 be taxed as a permanent structure. MOBILE HOMES LOT 1. There will be no permanent residents in the mobile homes and no repairing or storage of damaged trailers. 2. There wi11 be a minimum of 10 feet of space between trailers. I. The public and emplo�ee parking 1ot areas to be blacktopped by October 1, 1975. 2. The area on the West side of the 1ot wi11 have more rock and additional planting and no existing trees wi11 be removed. Precast curb will be put along the entrance and along the parking area for the customers. � . 3. The �and wi11 be kept clean and free of a11 debris, junk, and unsightly materiaZ and a11 green areas wi11 be kept free of wee8s, cutand we11 groomed. 4. There wi11 be no washouts on the property due to surface drainage and if there are any, these will be�filled in and faken care of immediately. LIGHTING SIGNS 1,. Adequate security lighting (a minimum o��two lights at the East end of the 1ot) wi11 be installed for better observation b� the police. � 1. The existing sign wi11 be used, but fhere wi11 be no flashing or feeZing of motion in the Zight. 2. The Operator wi11 comply with the requirements of the Sign Ordiaa�ce regarding banners, pennants, etc. PERMIT I�. This Special Use Permit be issued for a maximum of five years or to run concurrently with the Zease, which ever is 1ess. UPO�V A VOICE VOTE, aZZ voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 4. EREL�MINARY PLAT, P.S. #74-07, REAL ESTATE TO ADDITION, BY �� FRANCIS J. �IRDLER: Tabled. No action taken. - �� , �'!1 � /"", Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 14 5. DIS�USSION Mr. Harris said he had attended the seminar at Normandale Junior College on November 21, 1974. Unfortunately their printed schedule didn't mesh with the topic of discussion, he said, so they didn't talk about the particular topic he was interested in which was federal funding for housing for the elderly. Mr. Harris said they did discuss the zoning code, which was very interesting also. They used Robbinsdale as a model, because that was where the instructor was°from. There were some interesting comments and it was well wor`th the $5.00, he said. One thing that was brought up was that we probably should area plan instead of saying an area was, for instance, all M-2. If its all M-2, which is all industry, in an area like this we cannot provide other services, such as a restaurant. Mr. Harris said they seem to be doing something like this in the Georgetown complex, and he didn't know if this was code or not. He said Mr. Filister was providing a beauty shop, other small shops and even a nursery school. He said he though�t this was a good thing. Mr. Clark said this was allowed as an accessory i�se in R-3 zoning. These �ervices are just for the people living iri�George- town and l0a of the area can be used for such �purposes. Mr. Harris said the instructor also mentioned that there was a building in Robbinsdale where they have parking on� three floors, and then some floors �or businesses, and the top f loors are apar�ments, which he thought was an exc�llent idea. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that it was true that you could find your- self in an industrial area, and not find a coffee shop for a long ways. Mr. Harris said there was an exchange of ideas on the zoning codes, and we found that we all had basically the same problems. Mr. Clark said the question of having an ordinance outlawing campaign signs came up at the last meeting. He said Maplewood had passed such an ordinance, but it was taken to court, and the court ruled against it. He said they had checked other cities in the metropolitan area, and no one else has such an ordinance. Chairman Fitzpatrick said our ordinance controlling c�mpaign signs seems to work quite well. Chairman Fitzpatrick said it was a little late in the meeting but he did want to welcome Mr. Langenfeld as an ex-officio member of the Planning Commission. The other members joined in this welcome. Mr. Langenfeld asked if he could vote on the�•rece�ving of minutes or on any motions. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't think he cou}d, but he should enter into all the discussions, and his comments would be taken into consideration when the motions were made. 6. WORKSHOP MEETINGS Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission would have their t rectular workshop meeting on December 9, 1974. This was tentativelj� ��--� Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 15 set to be held at the General Television offices. The regularly � scheduled meeting of December 18th would be a workshop meeting, also, because there was only one scheduled item for this meeting. Mr. Harris asked Mr. C�ark i€ he had gotten a clarification of the open meeting law. N1r. Clark said there would be a policy established by the Council after the first of the year. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION b� Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that they ad,journe Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Fitzpatrick decZared the Planning Commission meeting of December 4, I974 adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Resp�ctfully submitted, ,l�� 2����1 Dorothy Ev son, Secretary � /"'1 -,�:< �, >;, � . _� �_� _ _____ _ ____--------- : _ _ --- -- --_ ---- - --- -- - , - -- - -- I __ ____ --- --- __ --- -- - - - --- - -- - -- -- ---_ _ __ -------------- --- l-- --------- --- ____ -- --- - - - . _ �--� 7 - _ _--.. ---- -------- -- - - - -- --- -- ---------�I ---- -- _-__ - ---- --- -. __ _- __ -- -- - ---- - -- - . _ ss�'�- ��.�� � _ - -----------� ---- - -- - -- -- ---- - - ----- _ _ _ _. _ . 5� . --- —??�3 �--- _ _ -- - --- -- � -_----- ---- - - - -- %�� �.-- �'' �" ,�'5�3� _�?�-. �r�� _ c , � 1`�-.-- ---- ----- ----- - - � -- - --- -�- - -- -r- --- ----- ''� - , . �, � _ � ���_ -- _ ---- ------ _--------- _ -- -- -- -- -- - - _ ----_ ._- - _���-- _ _ _ -- _ _ _ __ __ __ -�' � � � _ __ _�� ---�z`-��Z _- -------- _ _-_ � ,��,�,,� _ __ �,Q �, -- -s��_--------- ---- --- --�`� -- --_ K�_ _c�_� _------------- � -------- ----- ---------------- ,