Loading...
PL 08/20/1975 - 7518� � � � � � AGENDA CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSIQN MEETING AUGUST 20, 1975 CALL TO ORDER: . ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTfS: AUGUST 6, 1975 RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSTON MINUTES: AUGUST 7, 1�'75 RECEIVE B EALS MINUTES: AUGUST 12, 1975 RECEIVE ENVIRONMEN�AL COMMISSiON P�1T(VUTES: � 1GUST 13, 1975 P,ECEIVE COMMUNT7Y DE1lELOPMENT COMMISSION h1iNUTES: • AUGUST 13, 1975 . � , f2ECEIVE ADMINISTRA7IVE STAFF REPORT: Building permit for a plant addi:tion for Minco Pr�oducts - 7300 Commerce Lane N.E. by .Karl Schurr • RECEIVE AD��INISTRATIVE STA�F REPORT: Building permit for an office building � to be 1 ocated at 1040 52r�,�1 Avenue North East Req�est by: Bergstedt .Realty • . 7:30 P.M. PAGE5. � 1 - 30 31 - 36 37 - '�41 I-� -t �? � �--�-�- /.-� -�N�4E€fi�'fVG ..�-��- A'� ��rr�-TS�n 1. LOT SPLIT RE �EST, L.�. #75-06, BY BERGST DT-ANDERSON 42 '- 44 � REALTY COMPANY: To split -�f Parcel 540 �f Lot 7'; Auditory's Subdivision No. 153, to allow e consiructi�n of a commercial building, to have joini parkir�g with the adjacent apartment complex. . . 2. CONTINUED: PULLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, August 6th SP #75-08, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COh7PANY: To allow Agenda the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 7, Block I, 60 - 63 Riverview Heights, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, - the same beinq 8i50 tast River Road N.E. Public Hearing closed. . 3. CONTINUED: �'UBLIC NEARING:. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT,6� - 67 SP #75-09, BY NAEGELE OU7DOOR AU��ERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuati6n of an existing billboard on the Westerly 500 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivisiori No. 89, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being�7201 Highway #65 � .N.E. . � Public Hearing closed. � . \ Planning Commission Agenda August 20, 1975 Page 2 � I� - 4. CONTI�IU�D: PUBLIC I-IEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, � SP #75-10, BY�NAEGELE QUTDOOR ADVERTISING: To allow the , . continuation of an �xisting billboard between Lots 20 and 21, �. Block 4, Hyde Park Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section . 214.042, the same being 6029 University Avenue N.E. � 1"\ Public Hearing closed - 5. CONTINUED: PUaLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL llSE PERMIT, SP #75-11, BY NREGELE OUTDOOR ADVf RTISING: To allow.the continuation af an existing bi�lboard on Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, ` the same being 51 - I.694. PAGES .: . 73 - 76 Public he�°ing closed 6. CONTINUED: PUBLTC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMTT, 77 - 80 SR # 75-12, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISI�G: i'o allow the . continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 2, Auditor's � Subdivision No. 78, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same� bei ng 93 - I694.. � � Public Hearing_cl:osed 7. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT: SP # 75-13, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING: To allow the. ,: continuation: of an exTSting billboard on Parcel 3000, i�n,the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter, except the North 16.6 acres, of Section 2, T-30, R-24, per Fridley City Code, Section. 214.042, the same being 8410 University Avenue N.�: Public Hearing closed ' � 8. CONTINUED: PUBLIG HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP # 75-14, BY`NA G�.LE OUTDOOR ADVERT�SING COMPANY: To a�low the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 18, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, per Fridley City Code, Section � 214.042, the same being 7357 East River Road N.E. Public Hearing closed 9. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-15; BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billb.oard on Lots l-3, Block 9, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanic5ville, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5452 7th Street N.E. Public Nea.ring closed 4 : :� . .. . .. - 89 - 92 . \ � I� ' � Planning Commiss.ion Agenda �August 20, 1975 Page 3 PAGES 93 �- 96 l0. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: ROUTDOORFADVERTISINGLCOMPANY: PERMIT, SP #75-16, BY NAEGELE To.permit the continuation of an exist�e9 FridbeyrCity Lot 4�, Auditor s Sukidivision No. 155, p � Code, Section 214.0�2, the same being 5501 7th Street N.E. � �. Rublic hearing closed � ` �� 11. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOReAc�ntinuatUon. ofRanT� 97 101 . � SP #75-17, 6Y BREDE, INC.. To permit th _ -- existing billboard on part of Lot 810 u214 042,Sthelsame�n No. 94, per FPidley City Code, Sect being 5�01 Central Avenue N.E. . . PublZC }iearing open 12. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPfCIAL �on ofRanT} 102 - 106 SP # 75-18, BY BREDE, INC.: To.permit the continuat existing billboard part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, .. _� the same being 5403 Central Avenue N.E. � Public Hearing apen CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIALionEafEanlT' 107 - 110 13. � SP #75-19, BY BREDE, INC.: To.permit the co.ntinuat existing billboard on Lot 1,;B1ock 1, Harstad Addition, per ,R Fridley City Code, Secti.on 214.042, the same being 6801 Highway #65 � . . Public Hearing open � . � . 4. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING:� RE ��ST FOR A SPECIAatUon ofRanT� 111 - ll4 . 1 SP # 75-20, BY BREDE, INC.: To permit.the continu existing billboard on Lots 29 and 20, Block 11; Hamilton's . Addition to Mechanicsville, per. Fridley City Code, Section . � 214.042, the same bein.g 5457 4th Street N.E. , � Public Hearing open " ' ' � . CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIALX�stinERMIT, 115 - 118 15 BY BREDE, INC.: To permit the continuat�on of an e Code, � billboard on Parcel 3620,'Section 12, per Fridley City � Section 214.042, the same being 7568 Highway 65 N.E. Public.Hearing open This �genda 16. PUaLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECCodeUSSectionT205P1015-23,ry) 45 - 48 BY STEVEN HENDEL: Per Fr�dley City , ' roximateT the South � � � for the location of mobile home sales on aPP Y :� .T00 feet of Parcel 2550 and approximately the North 210 feet � of Parcel 2600 in Section 12, generally located between 7625 and 7699 Highway #65 N.E. , � . .. � � . .� � ^ • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: � GITY OF FRIDLEY AUGUST 6, 1975 � Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:50 P.M�• ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Tardy: Others Present: �AGE 1 Richard Harris, William Drigans, James Langenfeld,� Hubert Lindblad, Vice Chairman sitting in for Bergman, David Harris, Vice Chairman sitting in for Peterson. William Scott Darrel Clark, Covm�onmen�tale0ffmcer Administrator Steven Olson, En APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 23, '975 MOTION by,Drigans, secondsd by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission minutes of Jul� 23, 1975 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all.voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. - RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 24, 1975 MOTIQN by David Harris, seconded by LiridbZad, that the Planning CommissionUPon receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of the July 24, 1975 meeting. a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion caxried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 28, 1975 Mr. David Harris said that a motion he i�adeh�s ongthis�itemese minutes was not correct and he.wanted to make notation of t MOTION by Harris, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planof July�8ss1975ren°ting the minutes of the ParksaanrdSRe�nrPage 3 of the5minut�stwi�l be corrected at their that the motion made by H - next meeting. • � Dri ans said that on page 3, Mr. Harris suggested that the girls, softbal�l Mr. 9 laws. �He asked if they weren't program formulate an organization and �velop some by- presently part of a spart association? �or•u�rsuea andrif nota then werwere going to indicated that thiS might be a vehicle p develop some by-laws as far as the Parks and Recreaoals andmguidelines forCeachdand that we wouldn't have any problems. If we set up g euery sport, there won't be any problems in the middle of the season. Mr. Lan enfeld asked if the Parks & Recreation CommisStan enfeldmsaidnthat theth 9 under�the reorganization? Mr. Harris said they d�d. Mr. g date of the next meeting on page 4 of the minutes was�given as September 25, 1975 Mr. Harris said that should be August 25, 1975: _ , UPON a voi.ce'vote, a11 voting aye, 'the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Scott arrived at the meeting and apologized for being late. He s% had been at a Chamber of Commerce meeting getting input on the billboard ' � - \ � Plannin Commission Meetin - Au ust 6, 1975� . . . . , Page 2 . would be coming up later in the meeting. �- RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 29, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the. ' Appeals Commission minutes of the July 29, I975 rrceeting. Upon a voice vote, a11 � voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MINIlTES: JULY 30, 1975 _ MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes of. the Ju1y 30, 1975 meeting. Mr. Langenfeld said that in reviewing some of the Commission's minutes, although he couldn't pinpoint it, he thought that some Subcommittees of the . Commissions were formed without a Chairperson from that Subcommittee. He thaught it was in the Hu!��an Resource Commission minutes. Mr. Scott said that was because � these were Subcommittees of Subcommittees. He said they had Commiss.ion members on the Project Committees but not on the Subcommittees. He said that on Page 6 of their minutes it was resoTved that he would be the Chairperson of the Communications Project Committee and all the Subcommittees of this Committee. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1I vot.ing aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1.. BUILDING PERMITS A. R�model Phillips "66" Service Station, 6500 University Avenue N.E., by Construction 70,� I�nc., for Phillips Petroleum Campany. � Mr. Clark said the petitioner had withdrawn his request so there was no action needed. He said the staff was sorry thi�s had been withdrawn because the proposaT would have.been a great improvement. B. Construct an 8 Unit� Apartment Building, 8201 East River Road N.E., by Don Sexter. � ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT General Description: e 7his permit.is for an 8 unit apartment camplex ai 8201 East River Road N.E. (Northeasi cqrner of_ East River Road and Ironton). The building is a frame construction brick with wood trim and a cedar shake mansard roof. The property is presently zoned R-3 (multiple family) and the. structure conforms to present code requiremen�s. Engineering: � � � There is a potential for a drainage problEm in this area due to a low spot North of thi�s property�. She maximum amount of storm�water will have to be directed toward I'ronton. All.roof and parking lot �ater will be directed to the street for proper disposal. If this is accomplished, the new development will tend to decrea� 1 water flow into the low area. Any granding plans wi11 have to be reviewed by the Engineering Department before the permit can be issued, � . \ n Plannin Commission Meetin - Au ust 6, 1975 Page 3 Environmenta1: The only environmental problem that we see at this time is the apartment parking lot abutting an R-1 property. A six foot wood screening fence shall be provided alang the East property line to act as a buffer to the existing R-1 property and the apartment parking lot. 7he parking lot woulci need to be shifted 2 feet to the West in order•to provide needed area for landscaping in conjunctian with the fence. There may be a need for add�itional 1andscaping �:o the North for visua1 protection of apartment residents and the exisi�ing cammercial development. Building Permit Stipulat�ons: 1. Provide screening fence along East property line. 2. Move parking facilities 2 feet to the West: 3. Provide landscaping (as per approved p1an)� 4. Building and parking lot drainage to be direc�:ed to Ironton( Grading plan be approved by Engineering Department): . Mr..Clark said that Jerrold Bo�rdr�an r�et with Mr. Sexter earlier in the week, and he was presenting to the Planning Commission, the plot plan that had been agreed upon at that �eeting. Mr. Clark reviewed the building permit stipulations. He said - there might be some slight changes in the grading because one of these units will have to meet the handicap requi•rements, and will have to have a ramp. He said that staff recommended that the Planning Commission and Council-approve the plan as revised. Mr. Drigans asked if there.was more detail on what the complex would look like. � Mr. Sexter said he thought this would be a.nice addition to Fridley and that he had given Mr. Clark a copy of the exterior-development of this property. Mr. Clark produced the copy and this was shown to the Planning Gommission. Mr. Sexter said he did not have the elevations as yet, because in order to meet the handicap requirements, he would either make a walk out unit at ground level or have a ramp. He said this was a provision that would have to be met�before the building permit would be issued. Mr. Sexter continued that he woul'd place a redwood fence on the East side which would act as a buf-Ferr to the adjacent R-1 property. Mr. David Harris asked Mr. Sexter if this was a center hall t�pe building. Mr. Sexter said it was with a front and rear entry. There wouTd be two floors with four units on each floor. The lower floor on the rear of the building would be one bedroom units. He said there would be an engineering room and a laundry room. Mr. Harris said with the type of building he was proposing, would he agree to have this a s�ecurity type building. Mr. Sexter said he had planned to have this. Mr..'Harris said that he would then have no o6jection, to this being a stipulation. Mr. Sexter� said he did not. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Sexter if he was a member of the Minnesota Apartment Owners Association. Mr. Sexter said he was not. He said he had owned this lot in Fridley for- �ive years, and that he had done a lot of building in Fridley. He said that he had put.in Polk Street; and he h'ad built apartments in other communities. He said h tliou9ht he would be going into semi=retirement and he would keep this building for hi.mself. He said he on]y had about three sites left to build on, and he was anx'' to complete this building, as he already had a mortage cor�nitment so he didn't ' � � ' \ � . \ 'Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 . Page 4 � pate any problems. ' � . Mr. Scott said the reason he had asked the question was because the Minneapolis Tenants Union had asked ihe City for some money as an arbitrator between tenants and landlords, and the Minnesota Apartment Owners.Association felt they provided a simi- lar service. Mr. Sexter said he didn't have a lot of rental property, other.than some small units. Mr. Scott asked him if he had any feelings about this Association. Mr. -� Sexter said he hadn't been too involved in this aspect because up to this time he .' had just been involved�in the construction of rental units. � � ^ •Mr. Langenfeld asked if the storm sewer system on Ironton would be able to handle the drainage of this property. Mr.�Clark said it couTd as there was a catch basin down by the Creek. There wouldn't be that much drainage from this property anyway. �' Mr. Drigans asked if the parking spaces were adequate. Mr. Clark said this proposal met the code requirements as to size of lot, parking spaces, size of units and all the zoning requirements. Mr. Sexter said the plans would be drawn up�by a certified registered architect. MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindb.Zad, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the bui�ding permit for an 8 unit apartment buiZd.ing at 8201 East River Road, by Donald Sexter, with the four stipu3ations on the staff report, plus a fifth stipulation that this be a security building. Upon a voice�vote, a11- voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. , C. Plant Addition, 500 73rd Avenue N.E., by Carter Day ADMINISTRATI.VE STAFF REPORT General Description: This permit is for an addition to an existing manufacturing plant located at 500 73rd Avenue N.E. The addition is precast concrete panels to match the existing plant. With the plant addition, there will be an additian 127 parking sta.11s which will tie into the existing parking for the office facilities. This will still provide for additi�onal parking to ihe northeast if it is deemed necessary. This addition is going to be used strictly for manufacuring and wi11 not provide for additional storage facilities.inside the structure. Engineering: The drainage on the site is pretty much an internal storm adequate drainage for the total land development. Carter Day with some area.of trapped water and take steps to try to solve Environment: system which provides should be concerned this situation. If the site of this operation had a different character to. it, it may have drasti.c environmental effects to the e�cisting r�sidential areas North of the property. However, due to the dense undergt°owth that exists all along the North property line, the environmental effects that would normally come from this ty�e of operatiar� will b� minimal. It is, however, appropriate to preserve this buf'fer area by not allowing any developmen�t any closer than the existing office setback frrom 73rd Avenue N.E. and keep any material storage no closer than the South edyF the parking facili�ies. The plant site also abuts Locke Park on the South. � SO' � A Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 ' Page 5. � attempts have been taken by Carter Day to screen the park property from material - storage and general plant operation. To this point, this attempt has been s�rictly through the provision of planting. This planting was approved by the City at that time and will monitor the progress of the landsczpiny as a feasible screening barrie��. .', We may have to make further recommendations to Carter Day, if after three years from . the date of this permit, the landscaping is not developing into the type of screening _ �hat wauld be desirable to protect the visual asethics of Locke Park. If any develop-- ment is built on either side of Carter Day, Inc., provisions must be made to provide adequate material storage areas with essential screening. Building Permit Stipulations: 1. 2. There will be no development within the existing setback from 73rd Avenue N.E. and the office 6uilding. 7here will be no storage of materials North of the South edge of the office and proposed p�i�nt parking. �3. The curbing as requit�ed, under the building permit for the office building, must be completed under this contract. Also,.all new blacktop areas will be curbed. with 6"x�8" poured concrete curbing. 4. The landscaping along the South property line wi11 be reviewed in three years from the issuance of the permit for th�is addii;ion. If at this time, the City feels that the lands�aping will not provide the appropriate screening, then � adc�itiona7 treatmentwill be required. i'1 5. When �evelopment � must be taken to with appropriate occurs on either side of this property, positive steps establish planned stqrage areas that are to be screened screening. Mr. Clark said that the office. building was closest to 73rd Avenue, then they have a Research and Development building, and then their industrial plant. This addition will be to the industrial plat, adjacent to and north of the present structure. Along with this addition, they are going to provide a_ parking lot east of, and includ- ing the R& D building and manufacturing plant. This was an extension of their present parking. He said that in their discussions with Carter Day, they brought up some things that the City had been questioning for a couple of years, one question.being the storage of material on property they do not own. Carter Day has said tha� they have an agreement with the Minnesota Transfer Railroad to store that material on their propertyon a�30 day rental basis. We also pointed out that we weren't too happy with the way the trees looked that had been planted as a buffer to Lo�ke Park on the south property line. Upon inspection, it was found that these trees were still living, and one of thestipulations was that these trees be reviewed for their • growth in three years. Mr. Clark reviewed the'6uilding permit stipulations. He said the first stipulation meant that they didn't want the natural screening removed to make a storage area. Mr. Clark said that on the third stipulation, there was no problem with the second 'part of this stipulation, but 'they have asked the.staff to waive the stipulation for curbing along the existing parking lot, along the south side of the structure. The reason for this was that the person who either built the building or pu� in the blacktop, has them at about the same grade, so if a curb was placed in this area, it could cause drainage problems back and into the building. It was obvious that this could be a problem. The staff did not feel that they could waive this�requirement, and told the petitioner that in order to have it waived they Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1;975 . :: P�d� 6 � waujd have ta appear befor.e the Appeals Commission reque6thn9ta ulataonewhichtwag to �.; •why this was a har d s h i p. H e s a i d t h e s t a f f h a d a d d e d a p ; T1 provide the City with the agreement with Minnesota Transfer showing us the authority . .:; ' they have to use this land for monthly storage. � � � Mr. Clark said the plant addition would be an extension of the same architectural � work that was on the existing building. He said he had almost fTnished the plan � check, and they do meet the state building code with a few minor changes. Mr.. Langenfeld said that it stated in the Administrative Staff Report that with the plant addition, there will be an additional 127 parking stalls which will tie into the existing parking for the office facilities. Are you saying that the old � parking area would be used by employees and the additional T27 parking stalls would be used for the office facilities? Mr. Clark said��rio and at the present time they are using what was their first parking lot as a storage area, which lies west of the structurP. They are presently parking any place they can find, which was most in a field-like area. This additional parking area wi1T give them a hard surface parking lo� and will be in excess of what they will need for the manufacturing - plant, so it can be used by the office too. Mr. Langenfeld asked the square footage of the property where they would have the 127 stal1s. P�r. Clark said it was 150 feet � by,250 feet, which would be 36,000 square feet, give or take a little. Mr. Langenfeld ' said this was the area which was just sand and weeds now. He said that there seemed � to be some w6rk going on at this site right now. Mr. Clark said they were just doing ; • some grading. � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if the raw materaals and finished products bei�g . stored on this property caused any type of hazard. Mr. Clark asked if he meant if ^ � the children climbed on them, then they could be a hazard because the material was • • about 15 feet high. Mr. Drigans asked if when the first building permit was issued if outside storage was allowed.. Mr. Lindblad said he remembers handling this at Building Standards and because of the size and.weight of the storage, this was al�owed, with screening. Mr. Drigans said that .because of the proximity to the park and a residential area was the reason for his question. Mr. Clark said.he hadn't � discussed this with Carter-Day, but he had discussed vandalism. He said they stated that they didn't have much vandalist� and�he ass�umed.that this was because of the . si'ze and weight of the material being stored, also. Mr. David Harris said he wasn't advocating another roadway in this area, but he was. wondering if the Engineering Department had given any thought to the area between University and Highway #65 for access, if necessary, to the park. He said he was bringing�this up at this time was because.ther� was only on� develop'emnt in this area�, and there was a lot of empty space between Carter Day and the Target Warehouse. � Mr. Clark.said the way the parking was laid out for Locke Park, there was a parking lot on either end and there was public right of way to both parking lots. He�didn't think they intended to expand the parking area, so there wouldn't be any need for mare access. ' ' Mr. David' Marris said there were people in the Melody Manor area who had no difficulty walking to the park at this time, but �'vhen'there was further development in this area, at some point in time, they would be cut off from this access.� They : will then have to go all the way down the service d�ive and get access in the area of the.City garage, or all the way down to the east end of the parcel to get access. Mr. Clark said this was a very good thought, but any access should probably be more centrally located and would be east of� the Carter Day property. Mr. Harris said he thought some thought should bQ given to this now, so that thTS area doesn't become �� . Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 1975 �-� _ Page 7 , isolated. He said that if it was not out of order, he would ask the Engineering � Department �o make a report to the Parks & Recreation Commission on their suggestions as to where a walkway or pathway could be located through the industrial area bordered by University Avenue and Highway #65 for access to Locke Park. � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Scott, that the P�anning Commission recommend ' that a building permit be issued to Carter Day, 500 73rd Avenue N,E., for a plant • addition, with the five�stipulations of the administrative staff report, with the � change in the 4th stipulation, that the plantings that were a buffer to Locke Park be rev.iewed a�nualy, and a 6th stipulation be added requesti�g a copy of the rental agreement between Carter Day and the Minnesota Transfer Railroad on the storage of material be given to admini.stration. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' � . D. Plant Addition, Machining, Inc., 140 Liberty Street N.E. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT General Descriptio�: , . � This perm.it is for an ad�ition to an existing manufacturing establishment located at 140 Liberty Street N.E. The propErty is present zoned M-1 (light - industry) and meets the present code requirements. ' � � The building is a combination of brick'and concrete block structure designed �'� to match both existing structur.es. Expansian in the past involved the taking over �^ an-existi�g.structur� so��th of th� alley. � vacatio�� of that alley has been approve� - by the City Councii and now the pet�itione� wili tie both buildings together with . the addition applied for under this permit. �. � , � En:gineering: We don't foresee. any p�oble�ns v�i,th grading or dra�nage an ti�is site. Tfi has not been determined as yet how the completion of Liberty Street will be hanclled and wi11 ho7d up,the finishing tauches of .the fron pa.r�ing area on the existing buildii�g. (see stipulation). . Environmental: . . There is residential development on th� W�si; and South sides of the property which should be protected by visual improvemEnts �:o the property. It is suggested that the screening, which.as been provided alang the West side of the exist:ing property be continued to the South along the West property line, and partially East along Longfellow Street. Vines must alsa be p1antecl along this fence �or eventual covering for the slatted chain link fence. Soil berming and iandscaping must also be provided along Longfellow Street for the purpos� of screening the parking facilities. Building Permit Stipulations` � 1. Front landscaping along Liberty wi11 be completed with this permit except that portion which is undetermined due to the unfinished section n � � of street and John Hayes access through this property. All unfinished landscaping in designated area must be completed with road improvements. - . (see approved plan). � . n Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 1975 " Page 8 2. The curbing as designated on pl.an by 6"x18" poured concrete. 3: Solid screening be provided along West property line and East along Longfellow Street to screen possible storage area. 4. Extensive landscaping be provided in conjunction with soil berming to -provide visual protection and screening for existing residential areas. (As per approved plan). � Mr. Clark said the petitioner was before the Planning Commission and Council a couple of months ago asking for an alley vacation so this addition could be built. He pointed out on the plot plan where there will be berming, landscaping and a , blacktop area that will provide access across the tracks to John Hayes' property. Mr. Clark reviewed the building permit stipulations and said they were basically about the screening as shown on the plot plan. Mr. Langenfeld said he would appreciate a better definition of solid screening. Mr. Clark said that in this instance it was a slatted chain link fence.. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the administrative staff report to state what type of solid screening they �aere recommending. . � Mr. Lindblad said that he was never very happy with slats in a chain link fence. He said they looked good when they were first slatted,�but in a short time they were in poor repair and didn't seem to be maintained. Mr. Clark said there was a section in the City Code on the maintenance of blacktop, landscaping and fences. Mr. Lindblad asked how this was policed, was it mostly by citizen complaints? Mr. Clark said that this was basically true at the present time, because the staff didn't have the time to go around looking for code violations, but that they hoped to be using some CETA people to start setting up programs so that we car� visit facilities in the City periodically, at least once a year, to remind them of things that need to be repaired or maintained. � � Mr. Drigans asked what this company manufactured. Mr. Lindblad said it was small metal parts. . ` � Chairman Harris asked if the situation with John Hayes had been taken care of. Mr. Clark said he didn't know if Mr. Hayes had been confronted with �the plans for this addition or not. He said that Mr. Schaul had been requested to talk to.Mr. Hayes and inform him that his access to Longfellow would be cut off with this addition. Mr. Hayes will still have access to Liberty_Street. Mr. David Harris said he thought the administrative staff report should state the size of the existing building and the size of the addition. Mr. Clark said they were working on preparing a form which would have a place for this, and would also include the valution of the construction covered under the building permit request. . MOTION by Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend ' approval�of a building permit for a plant addition to Machining, Inc., 140 Liberty Street, with the faur'stipulations of the administra•tive staff report. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. : � E. Church Addition and New Gymnasium, Fridley Assembly of God Church, 472 Osborne Road N.E. �1 Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 1975 _ Page 9 . ADMINISTRRTIVE STAFF REPQRT � General Description: This permit is for a building addition to the Assembly of God Church at 472 Osborne Road N.E. The addition will provi�e for an extension of the existing sanctuary and a gymnasium. An extension of parking facilities wi11 be provided to allow for �pproximately 128 stalls. They are also working on a joint parking facility agreemen� with the hospital �o the South. The addition to the sanctuary wi11 be constructed of brick and will match the existing sanctuary, the gymnasium wi11 be attached to the existing Sunday School unit,; and will coincide with the overall design scheme of the existing facility and ��iiTl be constructed of concrete block which will tie into the block construction af the Sunday Scr�aol unit. Engineering: We don'.t foresee any Engineering prablems� The grade is enough to drain the parking lot to the s�reE�. The extension faci 1 i ty wi 11 al so al l o�,� for drai nage to the 'sQUth thraugh th�e facilities, if joint agreements are drawn. Environment: sc�fficient of th� parking hospital We don't�foresee any major environmcnta� �npaci: on the•surraunding area with the proposed construction: The residen��ial.property to the west of the ^ church abuts the large parking facility and should be pro�ected by closely � grown landscaping or a solid screen fence. , r'1 Building Permit Stipulation: 1. The curbing and landscaping related to the.gymnasium be completed with �. the addition. The west parking lot and all of the related landscaping , will be completed by June l, 19�77, and the east parking lot and a11. related landscaping will be completed 6y June 1, 1978. (as per approved plan). 2. Niaintain planting area between churcM parking and Unity Hospital parking. 3. Provide screening for residential area along West property line. Mr. Clark said this item appears three times on the agenda because it requires three different�actions by the City. One is the building permit, one i§'�a 1ot split, which will move the lot line to a more southerly location, and the other was a request to vacate the exising drainage and utility �asement that exists on the present property line. � � Mr. Clark said the stipulations related more to updating the present facilities as far as curbing on the existing parking lots: He said the new addition wiil be just.a little higher than the existing structure. Mr. Clark said the petitioner was ab�e to purchase some property from the North Suburban Hospital District which will make their lot more rectangular and will allow them to meet all the code requirements for tF�e addition. He said the N.S.H.D.. was in favor of the lot split and vacation request and had signed the application, so they must be in favor of the proposal. "�", Planning Commission Meeting - Auqust 6, 1975 __ Page 10 � Mr. Langenfeld said ihat in the Engirreering section of the administrative staff. ^ �report, it states that the extension of the parking facility will allow for drainage - to the south through the hospital facilTties, if joint agreements are drawn. It then mentions in the se�ond building permit stipul�ation to maintain planting area between church parking and.Unity Hospital parking. Mr.'Langenfeld asked if this would be a stipulation if a joint agreement was drawn. Mr. Clark said there would be driveways: between the two properties� and this would allow the drainage to ga from the church parking lot to the hospital parking 1ot and from there to the storm sewer system. Mr. Langenfeld said that in the environmental section of the administrative staff report, it states ihat the residential property to the west of the church abuts the large parking facility and should be protected by a closely grown landscaping or a solid screen fence. He said he would pr.efer the word must to should, Mr. C1ark said the third stipulation takes care of this. . Chairman Harris asked what rear yard setback requirement they were following on this property, residei�tial or commercial? Mr� Clark said the setback was 30 fe.e�, which would meet either requirement. , � Mr. David Harris asked what the significance��vas of'the dates mentior�ed on the � completion of certain items in the first buil-ding permit stipulation. Mr. Glark said ' � this was a large budget item, curbing, and this was fior the existing parking lot.. � The dates mentioned was the program the�churct� felt they could me�to Mr. Harris said - he had brought this up because while he did understand the problems;of�:�hurche� an� . other non-profit organ�zations,who were dependent upan-.�ree�will gif�s or offerings -�,.� to maintain their entitiy, and rve have had some cases whe�e•work, has been done very -� n � nicely by various people, but some of the work neVer seems�to get done. �He said tf�ere` .� were a couple that weren't done that were started in the ea�ly '70's. Mr. Clark said the City had had experience with this church before, when the sidewalk was put in along Osborne Road: He said.this was completed by the agreed date, and they had done an adequate job. He said our experience with this chu.rch was pretty good as to volunteer work. Mr. Harris said he knew �hey had done a good job, but he thought for over-all planning City-wide, when w� get these requests that ask for a deTay because.they were too large of a committment to meet on a yearly budget, we should have some control. Mr. Clark said that when someone comes in for an addition, we try to sit down �rith the developer or owner of the property and be as harsh as we think we can be, and Yet be as lenient as we fee] we can be, without jeapardizing the City's�thoughts and goaTs in getting all these things done,and quite often the petitioner will agree to do what the City requests if we will agree to certain.dates. Ne said that if Mr. Harris was asking what would happen if these dates were not met; he thought they would have to cross that bridge at that �ime. He said there should be some goals and objectives set.up so we could.handle this. He said that when the City sets up certain completion da�es for improvements, and these weren't met, but would be in a reasonable time, he thought the staff could handle this, but if they need an extension of months or a year, the•a p:erhaps they should have to appear before the Counci7 and state publicly why they couldn't meet the schedule and get Council approval�of the �ime extension. Mr. Harris said he thought this could be a solution. Mr. Clark said this shquld apply to all properties, both non-profit and commercial property.' j� MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the building permit for a church addition and new gymnasium for tl�e Fridley • Assembly oF God Church; 472 Osborne Road N.E. with the three building permit stipulations _�` � ' � Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 1975 � Page 11 of the Administrative Staff Report. Upon a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion . carried unanimously. 2. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-05, FRIDLEY ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH: Split off that part of Lots 8- 12, Block l, Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, that lies Nor�h af the following described line: Beginning at a point in the West line of Lot 8, located 5 feet South of the Northwest corner, thence E'asterly to a point in the East line of Lot 12, being 75 feet South of the Northeast corner and there terminating, the same being 472 Osborne Road N.E. Rev. G. Mark Denyes was present. Mr. Clark said the present lot line would sever what they want to add on to the church. They have purchased this property from the North Suburban Hospital District, who had picked up these lots from the tax forfeit rolls. The Hospital Board will use this p.roperty for a parking lot and evidently, this part of the property was.in excess of what they will need. � He said the staff recommendation was that this request for a lot split be approved so the church can proceed with its expansion. MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindbald, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council appraval of the Zot split request, L.S. #75-05, by the Fridley AssembZy of God Church, to split off that part of Lots 8- 12, Block 1, Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, that lies North of the following described line: Beginning at a point in the West line of Lot 8, loceted 5 feet South of the Northwest corner, thence �Easterly to a point in the East line of Lot 12, being 75 feet 5outh of the Northeast corner and there terminating, the same being 472 Osborne Road N.E. Upon a voice vete, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimouslg. ' 3. VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-09, FR'IDLEY ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH: Vacate the 12.fobt drainage and utility easement that lies between Lots 1 and 5, and Lots 8 and 12, Block l, Osborne Manor 2nd Addition and move it to the center line of the new property line, the same being 472 Osborne Road N.E.� Rev. G. Mark Denyes was present � � Mr. Drigans asked if 76th Avenue N.E. hadri't just been vacated recently. Mr. Clark said it had. Mr. Drigans asked if the entire street'had been vacated. Mr. Clark said yes, but we did keep the utlity easement because we have sewer and water in this easement. - Chairman Harris said there was a letter in.the agenda from Northe�rn States Power Company asking for written permission from the petitioner to retain and have access to iheTr existing facilities off the new location of the easement. He asked Rev. Denyes if he was in agreement with.this-•request. Rev. Denyes said he had:�.copy of the letter they had written to Northern States Power Company giving them thns permiss.ion. MOTTON by I.angenfe.Zd> seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive a copy of the Ietter written by G. Mark Denyes, pastor of Fridley Assembly of God Church to Northern States Power Company, dated Auqust 5, 1975, giving them access to to their existing facilities off the new location of the easement. Upon a voice vote, � a1l.voting aye; the motion carried unanimously. , '�"' Planning Commissian Meeting - August 6, 1975 Page 12 � •� MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recommend � � to Council, approval of the vacation request, SAV #75-09, by the Fridley Assembly - �� of God Church, to vacate the 12 foot drainage and utility easement that lies between Lots 1 through 5, and Lots 8 through I2, Block I,,Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, and move it to the center Iine of the new property 1ine. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting � aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 4. CONTINUED: VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-05, BY RICHARD drainage and utility easement on the South side of L Additi�n, the same being 6517 McKinley Street N.E. Mr. Richard Kok was present. KOK: Vacate the 6 foot t 6, Block 1, Clark's Mr. Clark said this item had been continu�d a couple of times, once because the petitioner was not present and anothe� time to allow the Engineering staff to determine the utility patterns in this particular block. He said there was a memo and a map in the agenda explaining the part of this easement that had to be r�tained. Mr. Clark continued that the Engineering Department had no objection to 85.3i of this easement being vacated on Lot 6, Block l, Clark's Addition, but they would need the balance of this easement to line up with an easement they would need to follow the North-South boundaries of Lot 7, Block 1, Clark's Addition, and Lot 8, Block 3, �oore Lake Park lst Addition. He said the map showed that the-existing �a�age did encroach into the 6 foot easement. By retaining part of this easement, a very small portion of the garage was still in the easement, but the recommendation was to allow this very small portion to encroach into the easement. Chairman Harris asked if the Engineering staff was recommending that the 6 foot ' easement on the North boundary of Lot 7 be vacated also. Mr. Clark said there wasn't any recommendation, just that i.f it was vacated,.to be sure the same part of•this easement was retained as on the South side.of Lot 6. Mr. Clark said there were no utilities in this easement, they wanted to retai.n, but if �hey have looked at the . area, they would be aware that there was a loW spot N�rth of Lot 8, and.East of Lot 6, and it must trap water. If the people in the ar.ea should ever petition the City tq drain that low area, we would have to�have an easement to get a storm sewer 6ack into this area, and feel that the logical alignment would be between Lots 7 and 8. Mr. Drigans said he could see no purpose to keep the 6 foot easement on the North �side of Lot 7, if the easement was vacated on Lot 6, except for the part needed for a potential storm sewer easement. A half of an easement wasn't good for anything. Mr. David Harris said he agreed with Mr. Drig'ans. � � Mr..Kok asked if this small amount of his garage that would be allowed to encroach in this easement would cause him problems if he wanted to sell this property. He thought he should get something i"n writing that the City would allow this encroachment. Mr. Da�vid Harris said what Mr. Kok was was done onsthis property, prior to selling said this could be handled by a letter or a were many ways of handling this. questioning was that if a title search it, he might have a problem. Mr. C1ark Council r:esolution, or by a motion. There - Mr.. Clark said this could be put in the staff report. � MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recorrunend to Council approval of the vacation request, SAV #75-05, by.Richard Kok, to vacate the Westerly 85.31 feet o� the 1? foot drainage and utility easement on the South Planning Comm•ission Meetinq - August 6, 1975 Pa,qe 13 � side of Lot 6, and the Noxth side of Lot 7, B1ock 1, C1ark's Addition, with the stipulation that the City a11ow the encroachment of the small part of the garage � ' on Lot 6, into the retained easement. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � 5. PU�LIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PLAT, P.S. #75-02, HENRTKSEN ADDITION, BY LEIF HENRIKSEN: Being a replat of parts of Lots 33 and 35, Auditor's Sub- division No. 77, generally located West of East River Road and South of Logan Parkway. �Mr. Lei`f Henriksen was present. ' MOTION by Drigans, seconded b� Scott, to open the Public Hearing.e Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:07 on a proposed p1at, P.S. #75-02, Henriksen Addition, by Leif Henriksen. Mr. Clark said this p1at, under two differen.t names, had been processed three different tim�s, prior to this request. Each ti�;ie it had been approved by the Planning Com�ission and the Council. � _ - Mr. Clark-continued that in 1964, the then owner o.f the property, Mr: Harold Lorenz and the adjacent praperty owner, Mrs. Hale, presented a plat which� was appraved but never recorded. In 1969, a developer presented the.same p1at, which was approved but never recorded, and in 1970, it was again brought in and approved, and for some reason was never recorded again. Now s�ince 5 years have passed, we told the petitioner that he would have to start all•over again going through the Public Hearing process. Mr. Clark said there were 8 lot's in the proposed plat, and they all meet all the requirements as to total area and front footage. He said the same stipulations that were necessary at the time of the other requests for this plat still exist. An easement must be granted betweQn Lots 4 and 5 of the proposed plat, to allow the sewer to be brought out to serve the iwo houses that face East River Road, and also allow the water main to be looped out to the main on East River Road, to ensure proper water circulation of the water system. Back in the previaus approvals, it was noted, � and it was still true, that other .right of ways are necessary to get access to this plat. We now have on file, a 25 foot easement on Lot 31 for street right of way, but we have nothing on file on Lot 34 to give the other hal�f of the dedication, or to � provide adequate right of way to bring the street•in from Riverview Ter.race for public access to another public street. The Council had previously authorized the negotiations for these right of ways, but until we have a plat probably on file, the City, if it spent any money, wouldn't have a proj�c� to assess it to, and that was one of the reasons these right of ways hadn't been acquired. Mr. Clark said that the Engineering Department had looked at this plat, and has said that it was feasible to serve it with sewer and water, providing the right of ways were acquired. He said that James Hedren, was present, representing Riv.erwood School, and he had recalled some of the original conversations, and there was some dilemma back in previous approvals as. to whether the access should go out to East River Road, or out to Riverview Terrace, or both.� It was the consensus af the staff, Planning Commission, Streets & Utilities, and Council, that the access should be to Riverview Terrace, and not ga out to East River Road, because this was a blind inter- section. � Ghairman Harris asked if Lots 4 and 5.would b� large enough to handle the sewer easement and stiil be buildable. Mr. Clark said they were. . � 0 . � 1975 � Page 14 Planning Commission Meetin� Au9ust 6, -- Mr. Clark said the petitioner had been discussing the program as to when the � utilities and streets, etc., could be put in, and the Engineering Department told him quite honestly and frankly that they probably wouldn't be put in un�il next spring, because there are hearings on the plat still necessary, and after that there will be hearings on tlie improvements and the acquisition of the right of ways. He said it may be well for the petitioner to try and acquire some of these right of ways.because he could negotiate, because the City was now put in the position by a new State law where they have to offer what the land was worth by the square foot. He said he didn't think there would be too much trouble gaining some of these right of ways because there were houses located on unimproved streets. The exception would be the two houses facing Riverview Terrace, because they would gain very little benefit from the street. He said that Mr. James Hedrerr i�ad recalled some new laws where street right of ways that conflict with recreational property,.had to be dealt with rather delicatel.y. Mr. Mike Hagen, 7170 East River Road, said that�he had no sewer service and wondered if when ihis plat was developed, if the sewer would be put in for his lot. Mr. Clark said to serve the plat, sewer service would not necessarily be put in for his property, but if he desired a feasibility study or a preliminary report be made to serve his property, he would suggest that he petition the City for sewEr service, so it could be done in conjunction with this nlat.. Mr. Clark said there would be a hearing held in which Mr: Hagen would be told the estimated cost. and if there were other right of ways necessary, this would also come up at the �earing. Mr. Clark told Mr. Hagen that this would not come up without a petition, and Council liked to have 50% of the people affected by this request, sign the petition. ^ Mr. �Nagen said that both Mr. Nielsen, i15 71 1/2 Way N.E., and himself, who. own the two houses at the end of 71 1/2 Way, wanted to see the access to East River . Road closed, because this was a blind corner. � Mr. Kenneth Johnson, 80 Logan Parkway, said he�was interested in the type of construction that would be going in on this plat. He asked if there were any limitations on what could be built on this plat. Mr. Clark said the only limitations were that - they be single family homes �nd o�f a certain square footage. There were no limitations as to one story, two story, or split foyer, and they must have garages. Mr. Clark said the petitioner was present, and as he was a home builder, he would probably be building all the homes on this plat. Mr. Johnson s�aid there wou.ldn't be any apartment buildings going in then. Mr.. Clark said the property wasn't zoned for apartmen�s and the petitioner wasn't asking for rezoning. Mr. Johnson said he thought�the value of their property would go up if this was developed into a n�ce area. . Mr. James Hedren , business administrator for School District #14, said that he _ thought it was premature to be talking about right of ways or possible right of ways. Mr. Clark said he didn:t �fiink it was premature, but he thought it would be premature for the City to negotiate for right of ways until this plat was acceptable. He said that negotiations would have to start before.ihe final plat was approved.. Mr.� Hedren said there would allow it to drain said the other problem would be drainage for this plat. Mr. Clark have.to be a storm drainage plan for this plat, and they wouldn't onto school property. • �..` Mr. Gordon Sang�ter, 7T69 Riverview Terrace N.E., said he would like to review some of the things that have happened before this request. .He said he purchased his property in 1964, after the first plat had been proposed. He said he applied for a building permit in June of 1966 and at that time there was some discussion about the road going through and that.they desired 25 feet from his lot for right of way. Plannin Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 _ Pa�e 15 � ; Du�ing that time, it was determined tha� we coul�d not build the type of home we •wanted if this 25 feet was given up, and subsequently the building permit was � � issued without the right of way being given. At that time there were no homes � built south of Riverview Terrace, although the property had been platted. He said he believed there was 30 feet between his lot line and the l.ot South of � his property. Mr. Clark said this was correct. Mr. �angster said that he would � suspect that this would not be enough, as it was not enough for street right of way the last time th�r•e was a proposal for a plat in this area. Mr. Clark said� Zt was state�lby both•the Planning Commission and Council th�t a minimum of 40 feet would be required for the right of way. !`� 1"� Mr. Sangster said he would submit that any property necessary for the right of way be obtained from the lot South of his property. He said that in 1969, when this same'plat was considered, the plan was that access for this plat could be either East River Road or Riverview Terrace, or both. He said East River Road was felt to be undesirable at that time, because of the curve in the road. Ne said that since that time there has been development along East River Road, and he . questioned if this would be a blind corner, if some brushing back were done. Mr. Clark said he thought Mr. Sangster had given a pretty accurate description of.the history of this ar�a. He said he recalled it the same way. He said the Planning Commission could ask the Engineering Department to study the feasibility of using .East River Road, but he would doubt that they would change their mind. This was because of the curve in the road, an� because that sometime in the future, there would be a median placed in the center of the road which would make this a difficult access for anyone who want�d to go�South. He said there would be 8 or 10 homes who would have to use �this access. Chairman Harris asked Mr. Sangster how close his hous� was to the proposed road. Mr. Sangster said it was.20 feet. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Clark if they would �ake_ 5 feet from each property. Mr. Clark said there was no set rule, it would depend upon the street alignment, but the total.would be 10 feet. � Mr. David Harr:is said that at the time'this was considered befor.e, he-�houg{�t were comments from the County asking the•City t"o limit the access to East River oad. It was determined at that time that they would try to work out an agreeable solution to route the traffic to Riverview Terrace, try7ng to take into cbnsideration the opposition to this solution. He said this concept had already been��approved .by the Counci.l at least twice, and he didn't see any other way this property could be deveioped in relation to the lot size and access to these lots. He thought what had to be determined was whether the plat traffic flow goes to Riverview Ter.race or East River Road. He said he thought a motion should be made to approve the plat, �stipulating that the Engineering Department try to�find an agreeable way to find access to Riverview Terrace, with the second option being that if this could not be achieved, to report back to th'e Planning Cammission some indication on how the County feels about access to East River Road. � Mr. Leif Henriksen said he was the developer of this property and if the access was going to East River Road, he wouldn't be interested in this property. He felt that having access to East River Road would be too dangerous, and he wanted no part of it. If that was the only option, he �aould sell this property. He said the homes he-intended to build on this plat would be in the $50,OOp to $60,000 bracket. Ne said he.would like to build two model homes right away, even without sewer and water available and would agree in writing that these homes would not be sold until they had been hooked up to sewer and water. He said he would grade the street and cul-de- sac up to the City code, and let the City take over.in the spring. Plannin� Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 _ �� Paqe 16 Mr. Scott asked Mr. Sangster how he would feel if the City had to �ake part, � of his property for street right of way.� Mr. Sangster said he would be most unhappy. � Mr. Scott asked how Mr. Dahlquist, 7161 Riverview Terrace, felt abb�t thTS. Mr. Sangster said that Mr. Dahlquist felt the same way. � Mr. Clark said that when the area South of Mr. Sangster's property was platted, we asked for a 30 foot street dedication. He said that �o be frank with Mr. Sangster and the Planning Commission, if more right of way was needed, we would try more strenuously to get it from Mr. Sangster's property rather than from Mr. Dahlquist, because 30 fee� had already been taken from_Mr. Dahlquist's property, not directly, but indirectly when the land was platted. He said it was'not definite on ho� this would go, but it was astrong possibility, which�would depend upon the street alignment. Mr. Clark said it could even be pos.sible for the City to decide that they could go with a narrower street, and not ask for additional right of way, if it seemed that there was no property available without changing the character of someane's property. Chairman Harris said as there would probably be only about 14 houses using this street, it mzght be a strong possibility that they could get by with a narrower � street, because this had happened in other areas. He said that if parking was restricted on both sides of the street, 30 feet might be enough. He said the Engineering Department shou�d consider this possibility also. � . Mr. Clark said he was sure that a representative from the City would be calling on Mr. Sangster and Mr. Dahlquist and the school board., to see what could be worked out.� � MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Scott,.to close the Public Hear.zng. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared ihe Public Hearing closed at 9:36 P.M. on the proposed p1at, P.S. #75-02, Henriksen Addition, by Leif Henriksen. /"� •. MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planninq Commission recommend to Council approval of.the.proposed p1at,'_P.S. #%5-02, Henriksen Addition, by Leif Henrikseri, being,a repZat of-part of Lots 33 and 35, Auditor's Subdivision No. 77,.Iocated West of East River Road and.South of Logan Parkway, sub�ect to the Engineering Department finding an agreeable way to get access to Riverview Terrace, the section option being to report back.to the Planning Commission some indication from the County on how they would view access to East River Road. Upon a voice vote, � a1I voting aye, t.he motion carried unanimously. _ � Mr. David Harris said that the first option, of access to Riverview Terrace would include having a narrower street, if this was the only way agreement could be obtained. Mr. Henriksen asked if the Planning Commission would give him approval to build two model ho'mes immediately. Chairman Harris said he couldn't get that approval from the Planning Commission. This was a Council decision. Mr. F{enriksen asked how long- this was going to drag out. He needed land to build on now. Mr. Hedron said the right of way that was needed from school property alone�, was going to take some time, because this would take action by the Board. He said the eariiest th,is could be actet# on wauld be their S�ptember meeting. He said he also wanted to point out that if Mr. Henriksen wanted to �have model homes for viewing, that the City does not plow undeveloped streets,.so no one would be able to get ii�'�there n � � Planning Com�nission Meeting - August 6, 1975 Page 17 . �„� in the winter to see these mod�l homes. � ' Mr. Clark said the Council would receive these minutes the 18th of August, but he couldn't say when they would be setting the Public Hearing on the final plat. � Mr. Henriksen said he knew he had to pay it, but the park fee made him a little uncomforiable. Mr. Clark said the platting ordinance states that 10% of the land must�be dedicated for park purposes, or else the park fee was $300 per lot, which in this case was $2,400. Mr. Henriksen said that it seemed to him that every time he turned around he got a bill for $2,000. � Chairman Harris said that these.were things that he would have to discuss with the City Council. ' 6. 11ACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-10, BY ROBERT HINRICHS: Vacate the 10 foot drainage � and utility easement that 1ies on Lots 5 and 6, Block l, Brookview Terrace 2nd Addit.ion, the same being 981 and 1001 Rice Creek Terrace N.E. � Mr. Robert Hinrichs was present. Mr: Clark said that f�ir. Hinrichs wanted to make a double car garage out of a � single car garage, and he was limited by the space he has betr�een his house and the lot line, and also by a 5 foot easement that ru.ns along the East side of his � property. The staff advised him what he needed to complete his project. One being io request a vacation of the easement and a positive attitude by the Council. The' other thing he had to do was to request and have approved, a variance to go within � three fee� of the lot line. He subsequently made both requests, The Planning Commission � was hearing the vaca�ion request at this meetir�g, and the variance will go before the � Appeals Commission on August 12, 1975. Mr. Clark said that all the utility comp�nies ; had been contacted, and none of them have any facilities in these easements, and have ! .f all stated that they have no objection to Mr. Hinrichs §tart'ing construction duri��,g thP .`_-; time that it takes to go through the vacation process. He said the reason he wat�`�.s - to start ahead of the vacation process was because by the time this was compl�ta, w�� � will be into late fall or winter. � . . `k�` '� r � `� 4 Mr. Clark said the staff recommendation was that the easement be vaca�ed, and ` � the Planning Commission also recommend to Council that the petitioner be allowed to encroach in this easement during the time it takes.to process the vacation request. Mr. David Harris asked how far the house on Lot 5 was away from the property 1ine. Mr. Clark said it was about 3 0 feet, and.there was a huge oak tree about half way to the property line: Mr. Harris said then we would have no problem of this garage being too close to 'the structure on the adjacent property. Mr. Clark said no, in fact the adjacent property owne r, Mr. Harding, had signed both the vacation and variance requests. Mr. Hinrich said he tried to buy some land from Mr. Harding and Mr. Harding said he would rather join in this request than sell any of his land. . • Mr. Clark said he was going to construct an 11 foot addition to his garage and � behind that he was going to have a�storage building with a deck on top. Mr. Clark said as this was a two part request, part of which had to go to the � Appeals Commission, he felt that the Planning Commission could give some direction as to how they felt about the variance. n [. .:_'.�".. � Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 � Paqe 18 ' � MOTION by David Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission recommend • to Council approval of the vacation request, SA V#75-I0, by Ro�ert Hinrichs, to vacate the 10 foot drainage and utility easement on Lots 5 and 6, B1ock�Z, Brookview Terrace 2nd Addition, the same being 981 and 1001 Rice Creek Terrace N.E., because there seeras . to be no conflict with the adjoining property and we have the concurrenoe of the , ut�lity�companies and the adjoining neighbor, t1�e City a11o,w the encroachment into � , the easement while the vacation.request was being processed. Upon a voice vote, all . voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 'Chairman Harris told the petitioner. that it wouid be up to the Appeals Commission to act on the variance request to have the structure three feet from the lot line, although the Planning Commission felt that this would not be a problem because of the location of the structure on the next lot. � 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-08, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADUERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 7, Block I, Riverview Heights, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same . being 8150 East River Road. �Mr. Davi� Harris said he-couldn't see opening the Public Hearing on,each`of these requests, even if they were going to be considered individually. He thought all the requests for Naegele could be opened at once. The.other members agreed. - 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SP�CIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-09, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To al.low the continuation�of an existing billboard on the � Westerly 500 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, per Fridley City Code � Section 214.042, the same being 7201 Highway #65 N.E. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST �OR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-10, BY NREGELE OUTDOOR ADUERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard between Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, Hyde Park Addition, per Fridley City Code, Sectaon 214.042, the same being 6029 Universi.ty Avenue N.E. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-1�, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPRNY: To allow the.continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 2, �Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 52 - I.694. . 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-12, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, per Fridley City Code, Section 204.042, the same being 93 - T.694. � : 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A'SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-13, BY NAEGELE � OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard located on Parcel 3000, in the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter, except the North 16.6 Acres, of Section 2, T-30, R-24, per Fridley City Code, �ection 214:842, the same being 8410 University�Avenue N.E. � 13. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-14, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit the continuati-on of an existing billboard on Lot 18, /'� Revised Auditor's Subdivision No, 77, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same bring 7357 East River Road N.E. Planninq Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 . Page 19 � 14. PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-15, BY � ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit the cont�nuation of an existing b � 1-3, Block 9, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fridley Section 214.042, the same being 5�52 7th Street N.E. � � � !''� NREGELE OUTDOOR illboard on Lots City Code, 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-16, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To permit the.continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, per Fridley City Cade, �Section 214.042, the same �eing 5501 7th Street N.E. • �MOTION'by Scott, secondPd by David.Harris, that the Planninq Commission open the Public Hearings on tt3� requests for Special Use Permits, SP #75-08, SP #75-09, SP #75-Z0, SP #75-1�, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP #75-14, SP #75-15, SP #75-I6, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upan a voice vote, aZI voting aye, Chairman Harris . declared the Public Hearing open at 9:59 P.M. � Chairman Harris declared a 1� minute recess at lO:OQ P.M. and reconve�ed.the Planning Commission meeting at 10:10 P.M. � Mr. Clark said that Mr. Steven Olson was present, and he was the staff person who has been working with the-sign companies and when they started the discussion on the individual signs, he would answer for the staff�. Mr. Clark said the Special Use Permit requirement for billboards started back in 1969 when the present sign ordinance was adopted. This ordinance gave them until September 15; 1974 to either remove .the billboards or get approval for a Special Use Permit. This has been discussed many times, and the last discussion was at a full study session of the City Council about six weeks ago. At that time, the discussi�n was with the sign compa�y representatives and the City Council. At �his meeting they discussed the various ways that the City could handle these requests for Special Use Permits. With legal counsel present, it was decided that they would not have to get variances for example, where the sign did not meet the criteria as set forth in the ordinance, and they would not have to ask for rezoning, if the zoning as it exists, did not meet the zoning requirements of the ordinance. it was felt that they were legal non-conforming uses, in the fact that they exist where they are now l.ocated on land as it was now zoned. He said he d�dn't believe the Council stated what recommendation th�y, wou�d make on these Sp�cial Us.e Permits, because that would have been oat of order, but they did direct the sign .companies to make application for Special Use Permits. They also directed the City staff to discuss with the sign companies, the structure of the signs, the location of the signs and which ones they would want to make requests for and which ones they would be willing to take down at : this time. There were 17 billboards six weeks ago. �ince that time one has been taken down by George Is In Fridley. There are two other billboards that have either been taken down or will be taken down. We have heard from staff peopl�eand�other Commit�ee people, lots of pros and cons on these billboards. These types of comments should be continued in the proce'ssing of the Specia:l. Use Permits for billboards. The Planning Commission has copies of a staff report from Mr. Dick Sobiech, Public Works Director, which includes comments on eliminating some of the billboards, extending some af them for a certain length of time, ta be looked at and studied again. It also mentions that if the land they stand on was developed, the billboards would have to come down. Mr. Clark said it was his abservation in�checking the location of the existing billboards, that all Uut five or six of -these billboards will eventually come down due to development in the coming years. If the Special Use Permits are approved with this stipulation', he thought that over a period of time, say ten years, there would only be fTVe billboards left in tlie City, and these could be there indefinitely. He said that Steve.Olson was ready to discuss any pertinent data that� the Planning Planning Commission Meeting - August 6, 1975 � Page 20 � . Commission� may wish to have. Mr. Drigans said that on March 13, 1974 when the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals had a joint meeting, we also had in attendance legal counsel. It was stated then that there was going to be a need for variances, along with the Special � Use Permit. He asked Mr. Clark haw the Council determined 'that these requests for Specia.l Use Permits no longer needed variances and wondered if this was input from the petitioners. Mr. Clark said he wasn't at that meeting, but he would guess that when•the City Attorney made that determination, he must have changed his mind, or received new data, that altered his opinion. Mr. Drigans said the Planning Commission had been going along for almost a year and a half asking how w� were going to handle the rezoning and variances when the requests for Special Use Permits.came in, and had we known then, that all they required was a Special Use P�f^�nit, we could have disposed of these requests last year. Mr. Clark said that a decision would not h�ve to be made on the Special Use Permits at this meeting. These billboards are already existing, so by continuing these requests they would not be delaying the petitioner. This would give t�e Planning Commission time to get more iqput from staff or legal�counsel, or whatever the Planning Commission would want. � � Mr. Steven Olson said this matter was put at his disposal sometime in March, �so he u!as not familiar with pr.ior discussions, but in answer to Mr. Drig�ns question, he said he had contacted the sign com.panies by letter and told them they had to make applicati.on for Special Use Permits, and this started them on-the way. He said_that Mr. Craig Lofquist, a representative of Naegele 0utdoor Advertising Company was apprehensive about the variances and rezoning that would be necessary before � Special Use Permit could be considered, and he was the on�e who requested a meeting with the City Council. Mr. Olson said he had attended this Council workshop meeting, along with Dick Sobiech and Virgil Herrick,' the.City Attorney. He said that at that time, a determination was made that the existing billboards were a non-conformin� use and would only need the_Special Use Permit. Mr. Drigans said this did not answer his question on what made the City Attorney change �hi s mi nd. � , � Mr. Clark said he did not know why he changed his mind, but he knew that attorneys could find several ways to interpret a law, and to be honest if every billboard had to have a variance and request rezoning on just the property where the bil1board was located, this would have been very unwieldy. He said he was sure that the Council would not want to be put in the position of rezoning small pieces of land for these billboards, so this could have been part of the determination. The attorney may have felt that as long as the billboards already exist, and existed before the or-dinance was passed, this would make.them a legal non-conforming us.es but they would stil.l have to apply for a Special Use Permit, because this was.what the Code said. Mr. Drigans said the point was that these were non-conforming., and we have just gone through this with the Frontier Club, on how long a non-conforming use should be in existence, and the courts have ruled how long a non-conforming use could be in exist�nce. The courts have ruled that the intent_of a non-conforming use should expire � at some point in ti�me. Mr. Clark said he thought that was in Dick Sobiech's memo on the.Frontier Club and was not a court decision. Mr. Drigans said they did receive material fram the City Attorney,�and the�re were rulings by the courts not to st.ring this � out for an indefinite period of time. � . �s� _ Planning Comm7ssion Meeting - Auc�ust 6, 1975 � ' Page 21 Mr. Clark said he probably agreed with the.�tatement, but he felt the way Mr. Drigans was interpreting it was not correct. When you zone something different n , from what it was being used for it was because you feel that over a reasonable period of time, either by casualty it would disap�e�r, or the surrounding area changes its use, making the other use unfeasible. He did not believe there was a law�that said a . legal non-conforming use must comply within a specific 1"ength of time. He said it was reasonable to assume that sooner or later it would, just through natural causes. ' He said that in our own Code, it says that a legal non-conforming use cannot change • its size or its use, but it can exist as long as it was there. .Mr. Dayid Harris said that he was on the Council at the time the Sign Ordina�ce ` was passed covering the public hearing requirements for this ordinance. �At that time the Subcommittees of the Planning Gommission were Streets and Utilities, Parks & Recreation, Plats & Subdivisions, and Board of Appeals. It was not felt that any of these subcommittees were related in anyway to the billhoards, so that was why the Planning Commission was chose� to hold the Public Hearings. He said that in reviewTng � the history of the sign ordinance and seeing that we now have a restructure of the Planning Cammision, which does empower certain Commissions to report to the Planning Commission relative to aesthetics and relative �o eommunity d���elopment. He thougV�t the ordinance should be changed because it was not comp.atible with the.development , process now assigned to the individual members of the•Planning Commission. He thought the Council should consider an ordinance change that would bring this item to the Community Development Commission prior to coming to the Planning Commission. The � Planning Commission would probably not have to hold a public hearing, but just review the recommendation of the Community Development Commission, for approval. Cha�rman Harris said that�Mr. David Harris may be right under the present structure, � but as it was now over 10 months since these Special Use Permits should have been heard, the Planning Commission should have been holding Public Hearings over a year ago. Ne said it was probably true that the sign�ordinance should be rewritten, and -� in time the Planning Commission would have�some recommendations to pass on to the City Council, but we now have to enforce the ordinance as it was at the present tim�. He said that because these hearings were now a year late, it was time for the Planning Commission and Council to quit stalling and get moving on these requests. We should either enforce the ordinance or repeal it. _ Mr. David Narris said it wasn't that he didn't feel we should carry our responsi- bility, but that he felt the Planning Commission was•being. asked to review something that the Community Development Commission should have been charged with in regard to aesthetics. He said that the billboard companies weren't•waiting to construct these billboards, they were already in existence. He said we knew that they were well enough constructed so the�� v�eren't going �to fall down. He said that if a Special Use Permit was granted, these:billboards would continue to exist, and he thought the . thing to do would be to ask the Council ta review the ordinance to see how this thing was passed to th�e Planning Commission, yP said they were virtually askin� the Planning Commission to take care of varianees here, before it appears before the Appeals Commission. . Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission wasn't being asked for a recommendation on any variances. • Mr. Clark said that if the Planning Commission wanted to send this down to any of the Commissions.for review, it was certainly in, thei� jurisdiction to do.so. � .� . . . _ � � � Pa e 22 Planning Commission Meeting -�Au�ust 6, 1975 9_.___ ' Chairman Harris said that if this was going to the Planning Commission, it would probably have to go � , be.Community Development, Environmental Commission, Commission. be sent to any Commissions under to two or three. These would and maybe the Human Resources Mr. Langenfeld said the Environmental Quality Commission, sometime in the past, he couldn't remember the specific date, had been asked by him to review the sign ordinance in relation to billboards. He had suggested that the billboards then in existence should be spr•ead out among the membership, with each member checking on three or four billboards and each making their own environmental assessment. He said•that this idea was not welcomed, and he would say� that as far as the Commission at that time, the sign ardinance just faded away. Mr. Lindblad said that he was on the Community Development Commission, and this Commission had only met twice. He said they had considered their goals and objectives at just one meeting, and the sign ordinance did come up.• The consensus was that they were going to have recommendations on all signs in general, not just billboards, and there were some strong feelings on this mat�er. � Mr. David Harris said this was part and parcel of his thinking. When he referred to bi�llboards, he wasn't only_referring to this type of sign, but other signs as well. He said that you just had to look at particular shopping centers to see how much had to be done on the sign ordinance. He said they all fall into the sign o�rdinance . requirements as far as square footage, but no recommendation was made as to the appearance of these signs or how they would blend in with existing signs. He sa�rd standards should be set for appearances as well as square footage. � � Mr. �DaVid Harris said he would suggest that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearings and refer this matter to the Communfity Development Commission. He would also request that the staff ask the Council�to review the provisions of the � sign ordinance, so that it was not operating under the same conditions we had when it was enacted in 1969. He said the nrdinance should be brought up to date to meet � the charge of the new Planning Commission. Mr. Clark said he didn`t think we had to change the process of the Special Use Permit on billboards, because what the ordinance said was alright. If the Planning Commission wanted to adop� a policy that these or any other Special Use Permits having to do with 'billboards' go to other Commissions that was fine. He said it was possible that these various subcommissions would set up policies that could be.used by the Planning Commission at a later date, so it may be unnecessary for these to go back�to a Subcommission. This may be a little premature to think about changing the sign ordinance until we have experienced what we were going to experience under the new program. ` � _ Mr. Drigans�said it would be a long process to change the sign ordinance, and he didn't know if they would be changing the section that relates to biliboards or advertising signs. We have recom�nended a criteria which we would use in judging the existing billboards. There were certain things in the sign ordinance which do need changing. He said that there had been input from the Subcommittees and from the Council; and he couldn't see any reason for delaying at this time. We should,dispose of them and send them along to Council. Mr. Scott said•he thought it was the pur.pose of reorganizati.ng the Planning �1 Commission to facilitate the process,�and this he has done. He said this had already been discussed at their Commission meeting, and the rea�on he was late for this meeting � was because he stopped to get input from the Chamber of�Commerce, who.were having a �^� Planning Commission Meetinq August 6, 1975 Page 23 _. meeting earlier this evening, and he was ready to pass on his input and was prepared to act on these requests. � � � Mr. Lang.enfeld said he didn't think the Environmental Commission would object to reviewing the billboards, but he was fearful that this would turn into a"�ping- , pong ball� type of situation, and the Planning.Commission would still have to make • the fTnal recommendation to the Council.anyway, so we might just as well keep it at the Planning Commission level or we would still be at this next year. . Chairman Harris said there was another point in which lack of actian by the City, where a stipulation could have been put on a Special Use Permit about damaged signs not being allowed to be rebuilt, could have eliminated one bilfi board, which had just been rebuilt. Mr. Olson said that if Mr. Richard Harris wa� referring to a sign which had been blown down, this was a two faced sign, as anly part o.f it blew down, it was determined that it wasn't over 50% destroyed. He said that �t the time this sign was repaired, he cautioned the sign company that if the request for a Special Use Permit was denied this sign would huve to come down. Mr. Clark said he thought that what we needed was some clarification on when a sign could be repaired and when it could not. We would have to know what constituted enough damage so the sign could not be rebuilt. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought they would be�cons�idering each sign to see how they met the requirements of the sign ordinance. � Mr. Craig Lofquist said that he didn't think any of these billboards met all. the requirements of the sign.ordinance. Mr. Olson said he would verify th�t not one of the 14 billboards requesting a Special Use Permit met all the reguirements of the Code . �. Mr. David Harris said that it was because of all the questions raised at this meeting that he suggested passing this on �to the Community Development Commission, , and the statement that was just made that none of these billboards met all of the Code requirements indicated to him that these request should be reviewed. � Mr. Clark said that one observation should be made and that was that slowly these billboards were being moved out of the City. - As he had stated earlier, at some point in time, we shoul� only'have 5 billboards left in the City. He said that if the Planning Commission and the Council recommended approval of these Special Use Permits with the stipulation that when the property around them was developed, they would have to be removed. You ca��deny them all, you�can appnave them all, you can deny. some, and approve some, with stipulations, or you could wait until they continue to dissolve themselves out of the City, and then take the bull by the horns so to speak, when there are only 5 or 6 billboards left in the City, and �liminate these, instead of where there were 14. We know that if we deny all these Special Use Permits, we have heard that we would be in court. We don't know this, but this was what we have heard. ' Chairman Harris said that in deference to Mr. David Harris, the Council in their wisdom in 1969, passed an ordinance that said that by Septenlber 1�, 1974, a billboard shall either be removed or have a Special Use Permit, and his position �"t on this, for over two years, has been that we either enforce this ordinance or repeal it. He said that he was against putting laws on the books and just letting them sit there,�or use them indiscriminately. � , . Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 1975 Page 24 ' Mr. Scott said � �which says that the , Permits be granted. the Planning Commissian did have a memorandum from Mr. Sobiech City administration was recommending that these Special Use Mr.-Drigans said he wanted to refer to a statement in this menarandum which states, "After discussion with the City Attorney, it was determined the zoning and variances from Section 214.042 which exist with the existing advertising signs, would �lso be legal non-conforming since they were in�existence prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance." He said that he interprets this statement to mean that any existing sign does not have to conform to that section. He said that if you look at that section of the code, it was a very important section. It covers the maximum height, the sign area, the distance between signs, the setbacks, and covers the distance from street intersections. Ne said the sign companies were coming up with innovations all the time, and without c�ntrol of any of these things on these billboards, we don't know what we will have. Ne thought the City Attorney should do a little more research on that one section to determine.if this was a grandfather clause or no t. He repeated that this.was a very important section. There was nothing there to stop an advertising company from enlarging.the sign area. The sign was already there,�but if they don't have to comply to that section of the ordinance, the panels put on these billboards could b.e any size. • Mr. Olson said that except for the billboards that 1970, a1T the other billboards were built before 1969, could go back to the original sign permit to determine at the time the sign permit was issued. � got special Use so it would seem the specification Permits that you on the in sign �,..` Mr. David Harris said that in looking over the ordinance, it would seem that � the Planning Commissian had no other choice �but to approve�them all, or deny them all�. � How are you going to say that you are going to approve one that was 497 feet away from a residential area, which was non-conforming according to the ordinance, and then deny one that was 483 feet away from a residential area. Where would you make the judgement. If you approve or�e of the signs.that doesn't meet the code, he didn't see how you could deny another one, because it doesn't meet the code. -There has to be some consist ency in the administration. We.cannot be capricious. If we approve o�e, we approve them all, if we deny one', we deny them all. � Mr. Langenfeld said then the decision before the Planning Commission was to grant or not to grant these Special Use Permits. Chairman Harris said he thought it was a little more than that. He said he could see Mr..David Harris' point. We can grant a Special Use Permit, bu�t along with this we can attach stipulations, and he didn't think there was anyway that the Planning Commission could eliminate 14 signs tomorrow. This was unrealistic. However, the Planning Commission can stipulate on the Special Use Permit such things as maintenance, rebuilding in case of damage, putting in a percentage figure. Mr. Langenfeld said he fe1� the Special Use Permit was a powerful permit, and if we followed the things necessary to have one approved, this would help in making our determination. He said that inconsistency would not be grounds for denying a Special Use Permit, but by pinpointing the defects of each sign with the st�pulations, we would have consistency. Chairman Narris said thi,s was why he fel� each sign had to be"considered individually. , Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't feel that this would conflict with any other ardinance because if the stipulations of a Special Use Permit were violated, then � Planninq Commission Meeting August 6, 1975 Page 25 � this would be part of the process of eliminating the billboards. � Mr. David Harris said that in the Public Works Director's memo he mentions two stipulations: (1) Whenever a lot.is developed and an advertising•sign is located upon it, that sign will be removed. (2) Whenever an advertising sign is destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism or other means, this sign cannot be repaired , or rebu�lt and will have to be removed. Mr. Harris said he didn't know what other basis you would have for removal, because you certainly cou�ldn't base the removal on the ordinance, because we are inconsistent with the ordinance right now, in that none of the billboards meet all the requirements of the Code. /'\ '� Mr. Langenfeld said he didn't think there were enough facts here to�base a denial on, so the stipulations would be sub-articles of.the �rd�n�nce. Mr. Drigans ask�d Mr David Harris what the intent of the Council had been when they gave the sign companies five years to apply for a Special Use Permit. He wondered why they just didn't make them non-conforming when the sign ordinance went into effect, so they had to apply for Special Use Permits ric.ht away. Mr. Drigans said he felt the intent of the Council was to allow them time to'amortize the existing signs. 'Mr. David Harris said he-thought that was a reasonable assumption. Mr. Drigans sai d that if this was the intent, then he didn't see how the City Attorney could say they were grandfathered in,�when they were given five years to amortize�thes��signs. Mr. Clark said the Council felt that if the sign companies wanted to continue their signs after five years, they wo.uld have to obtain a Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark sald we had' anticipated�that they would need variances and rezoning. The City Attorney, in researching this, has.said that they are legal non-conforming uses and only need a Special Use Permit. Mr. Drigans said. we only have Mr. Sobiech's word, because there was no communication directly from the City Attorney, so we really don't have a legal opinion., Mr. Olson said that Mr. Sobiechsent a eopy of this memorandum to Mr. Herrick. Chairman Harris said that without a response, this was not a legal opinion. Mr. Scott said that his Commission felt that people do change their minds. Ne said that although these billboards have been Tn Fridley for a long time, the people he had input from, feel that they were no longer desi�rable, and it was felt that the option should be there to improve our environment. We should not be blocked into laws that were there,-for eternity. Mr. Lindblad said he had been involved in hashing��this thing out for over a year and he agreed with Mr. Scott. He said that it was his feeling that when the ordinance was written, it was to give the sign companies five years to remove their billboards, and he didn't know why a Special Use Permit clause was written into this ordinance. He said that for the past year, this has been a`hot potato'. The Council say� the Planning Co�nission, and the Planning Commission says legal counsel. We are back where we were a year ago, still putting off a decision_ Ne said he couldn't speak for the Community Development Commission, because they had only had one meeting which was � relative to the goals and objectives as a whole, but the general consensus was that they were not in favor of the billboards continuing in Fridley. In fact, he had talked to many people, and he didn't know anyone who was. in favor of these billboards, except the sign companies: He said he had written down a few comments he had gotten from. peaple he had discussed this with.which were, they were unsightly, and the message was not pertinent to Fridley, and the profits made on these billboards were at the expense � of the Fridley residents. These signs were there to attract attention, which was a �. Planning Commission Meetinq - Au�ust 6, 1975 Page 26 � which made them a d�straction to motorists. He�said the Federal government has ,passed a law that these billboards have to be so far f rom the highways, and he felt � n they,were trying to discourage them also. Mr. Lindblad said he felt that billboards - were from the horse and buggy days when people had time to sit and look around as they went down the road. He said that it was his personal opinion that he couldn�t find � any reason to support the continuation of billboards in Fridley. Mr. Scott said he did attend the Chamber of Commerce meeting, and he couldn't find any support for billboards from this organization. ' Mr. Lofquist said he would like to respond to the statements just made. He ! said the statement was made that no one in �he City liked billboards, but this was . a Public Hearing and he didn't see any citizens present objecting to these billboards. He said he was aware that there were some people who did not appreciate billboards, but he didn't think it was a valid point to say that because one person talked to people who didn't like billboards to say that no one liked billboards. He said it wasn't the billboard companies who put billboards in certain places, it was the businessmen, advert��ers, who asked that their message be put on the board, in a certain place. He said that this was a legitimate business and it was the advertisers who were asking for the �Lssage on the board. He said it �asn't the sign companies who were making the money, it was the advertisers. Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Lofquis* if they would do it for free? Mr. �Lofquast said that 15% of their business was public service. Mr. Lindblad said th�t was a�tax write-off,.and the advertisers used it as_ . a tax wri�te-off also. Mr. Lofqu•ist said he would also like to clarify the Federal Beautification Pgct, because this was not for the pu.rpose of eliminating billboards. What the Beautification Act said was that the outdoor advertising business was a legitimate business and - . had a right to exist, but as a business�it only had the right to exist in commercial� and industrial areas, and they should be removed from residential and rural arease He said the 660' requirement was eliminated with the last amendment. The reason for this was that they wanted to keep the :�illboards out of residential areas, so t.hey put a distance on them. The State Compliance Act said there was no distance, it was meant to be viewed from the highway,,.but you couldn'�t have them in a residential area. As far as commercial property, the .billbaards could go right up to the highway as long as' they weren't on public property. Mr. Lofquist said he didn't think the Federal. Beautification Act ever meant to eliminate billboards, and in all the laws governing billboards, amortization was never mentioned. It states that if a man legally builds a billboard, and we are going to take it away from him, the only way it could be taken would be like anything else, we are going to have to pay cash for it. They do not recognize amortizat�on. Mr. Lofquist said that at the present time, we hav�e won a number of court cases on that point,.prohi6itian and amortization. He said that .the feeling he got when he met with the Council and the City Attorney was that they were trying to.resolve this question on a basis where it would be palatable for everyone concerned, because this wvas a touchy question. He said he really couldn't bel.ieve that the only people interested in outdoor advertising were the billboard companies. . � • Mr. Scott'said that he would call attention to the fact that the Human Resour.ces Commission made a statement that they felt very negatively about billboards. At that meeting, there were several citizens, and it was his impression that the Commission members were here to represent people. So these people didn't have to be at the meeting to speak; the Commissioner`s could speak far them, and they told him loud and � clear that they don't want bil�boards in the City of Fridley. He said that if the citizens of Fridley didn't want billboards, was it the policy of Naegele or any other � outdoo� advertising company to jam them down their throats,.or take them to court? . Planning Com�nission Meetin9 - Auqust 6, 1975 Paqe 27 That just didn't seem to him to be the proper business attitude. �, Mr. Lofquist said that i,f the City of Fridley didn't want outdoor advertising, Naegele didn't want to cram it down their throats either. Mr. Scott said he was � threatening to go to �ourt. Mr. Lofquist said he�had merely pointed out the legal aspects o.f what has happened, because,what you are trying to say to my company was � that we cannot conduct bus.iness in your cammunity, and this was a legitimate business. Chairman Harris said they had a letter from Mel Jacobson in their agenda stating that he wouldn't sign the request for a Special Use Permit for a sign on his property, and he would like this clarified. Mr. Lofquist said this was a misunderstanding. On our lease agreement with him, it was stated that no beer or cigarette advertising would appear on this billboard. Because the people who arranqe for the message do not always know the terms of the lease, these have appeared on his board. Mr. Jacobson wanted this c�arified., and after we talked wit� him, he no langer had any objection to the Special Use Permit. Mr: Olson said there was further con,fusion on this, because the lease st�ll had three years to run, and yet Mr. Jacobson said he no longer aanted the,sign on hi.s _ property. Mr. Lofquist said they had an agree.ment with him now. Chairman Harris said the Planning Commission did not have a copy of this letter, and they could not approve a Special Use Permit on property without the owners con�ent, so someone:.would have to be responsible to get a copy of the agreement to the Planning Commission. MOTION by.David Harris, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the requests for Specia� Use Permits, SP #75-08, SP #75-09, SP #75- ^ 10, SP #75-11, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP #75-14, SP #75-15, SP #75-I6, by Naeqele Outdo,or � Advertising Company. � Mr. Drigans said he was going to vote against this motion until we resolve some of the problems on what course of action we were going to take. He felt there wer.e still legal problems and �e haven't discussed the traffic problems that there might. be from the advertising signs on our highways. � Mr. David Harris said that by closing the Public Hearing, it would give someone the opportunity of making a motion to dispose of this matter. He said the Planning Commission couldn't base their decisions on what we would like to read into the ordinance. The ordinance didn't say that we could disallow signs for any other reason than that they were non-conforming by not meeting the setback and other requirements of the ordinance. The ordinance doesn't say we can deny the ,Special Use Permits on "the basis that we don't like billboards, our commission d�esn't like billboards, or someone personally doesn't like billboards. He said he didn't see this in the ordinance. � �Whether we have too many signs or that they create a traffic hazard, he didn't see that � in the ordinance either. Mr. Harr.is said that he saw only one premise for denying a billboard based on the ordinance and that was that they were non-conforming and did not mee� the criteria set up in the ordinance. He said that with this thought, and the , gentleman from Naegele had voluntariiy stated that none of the billboards meet all' the requirements of the ordinance, we only have one decis.ion to make, either �e approve � them all, or deny them all. This was the only �udgement they could make, based on the � ordinance. . � " Mr. Drigans said they would have to have very strong reasons for denying the n Special�Use Permits th at would be defendable in court. Mr. Scott_said the people he represents were willing to pay the price of going to court. �� ^ � � Planni t�r,mmission Meetin UPON A VOIC� VOTE, "Harris and Drigans t I1•20 P M. s t 6_____, 19! 5 Pa4e 28 David is, Lindblad, Langenfeld, Scott voting aye, Richard voting nay, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed a Mr. Davis Harris said he was going to make a motion becaase he firmly believed, and unless someone could convince his differenhem�allat Hees�Wduthatlifewehwereto approve all the Special Use Permits, ��edwou1d say that the only way would be to going to follow Mr. Scott's thinking� eo le favored billboards and how have a City-wide vote to determine how many p p many were ag�inst. He didn't think any Comm�and while�someSOf usamightrfeelSthatd all the people, which Mr.. Scott d�d not say, billboards were undesirable, others may say that they were a vehicle where they He got information and that they were �SpWerennont�onforminglfand bydtakingbthegpositian_ felt that as long as these b�llboard roved one, he approved them all, if he rejected one, he rejected all, and if he app but they al so . becaase they are all existing within the framework of the ordinance, exist in deference of the o.rdinance• andyha�enb�ttertprocedures�tomallow4betternts. The�s�gn ordinance should be reviewed controls, not only in regard tolbilan�a�hat bheselthingsfshound,bedbrought�tosses, so that they conform esthetica� y, .. whatever Subcommission felt they had the responsibility in this area. MOTION b�, David Harris, that the Planning Commissian recommend to Council approval of the reques:Gs for Special Use PSPm�75'15P SP5#�5'�6P by5Naoege.Ze Outdoor Advertising SP #75-12., SP #75-13, SP #75-14,, er Fri'dley City Code, Compan�, to.alZow the continuation of existing billboards, p Section 214.042, w�th the following,st�pulations: Whenever a 1ot is developed and an advertising sign is Iocated upon it, that sign wi11 be removed. Whenever an advertising si.gn is destro�ed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and will have to be removed. ' . The following signs wi1.Z be removed: 3740 Easi River Road, 8120 University Avenue N.E., and 7355 East River Road. 1. 2. 3. 4. A31 the Special Use Permits come back one year from passage for review. • �fiairman Harris said there would have to be a seeond to the motion before this could be discussed. � THE MOTION.DIED FOR I.ACK OF A SECOND. Mr. Olson said thatany motion for aPprmount�oftdamageCnecessaryeforta sign to should mention a percentage figure��on the a be removed. � � Mr. David Harris said that if. there had been a second to the motion, thTS could have been open for discussion. � `^ Mr. Drigans said he felt there were several reasons for continuing these requests to the next meeting. He felt the Planning Commission needed some legal interpretations on whether the specification as stated in the Administrafrom the�CityrAttorney abeto upheld in a court of law, obtain a legal interpretation r--- �-� Planning Cor�nission Meeting - Auqust 6, 1�75 _ Paqe 29 __ � Why rezoning and variances are not requir.ed, and a legal briefing on what position � �the City of Minnetonka taok in giving total denial of billboards in their community and how it was up�eld in court.. Mr. Drigans thought there were enough unanswered questions to justify continuing these requests. He would also like to ask the two Vice Chairmen present, Mr. Lindblad and Mr. David Harris, if they would attend the •� next meeting of ihe Planning Commission, if not on the Planning Commission then to be available in the audience. The both agreed. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by David Harris, that the Planning.Commission continue the request for Special Use Permits, SP #75=08, SP #75-09, SP #75-10, SP #75-11, SP #75-12, 5P #75-13, 5P #75-14, SP #75-15, SP #75-16, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, for the continuation of existing billboards, per Fridley City Code, 214.042, until August 20, 1975. , � Mr. Clark asked Mr. Drigans if he wanted the City Attorney present of if the answers could be in writing. Mr. Drigans said it c�uid be handled either way. Chairman Har���s said he would also want written clarification of the Melvin Jacobson letter before this meeting also. Mr. Scott said that no matter what the attorney says, we will still be faced with the same problem, whether we are going to approve them all or deny them all, and no matter what grounds we use to deny them, we would still have a problem. As far as what �ther communities do, he could care less, if was what Fridley did that concerned him, although it might be nice to see how Minnetonka got away with it. Mr. Drigans said this was his point, because he knew they were going to have to hav.e � very solid reasons for denial. Mr. Lindblad said the fact that they were all non- '� conforming� seemed like a gopd reason to him. Mr. Davis Harris said they had to realize that these were �xisting structures, and put them in the same perspective as•Special Use.Permits for oil stations. These have not always conformed to the Code either. He said the one station in particular was the one by St. Ailliams Church. In this case, we couldn't deny them a Special Use Permit because they don't conform when it was the City that put the road.in to make it non-conforming. He said �that when a Special Use Permit was requested for a new propasal, then they have to convince the City that this was good, but when it was already existing, then the City has ta have valid reasons for saying this was not good. Mr. Scott said he agreed with Mr. Lofquist that there wauld have to be compensation, but the people he had talked to were willing to have this compensation paid. He said that if people change their minds after a company has �ade an investment, they have to be prepared to pay. •� . � Mr. Drigans said the burden of proof to deny any Special Use Permit was with the City. Mr. Langenfeld asked if a Special Use superceded variances and rezoning? Chairman Harris said it was not a vehicle to get�around variances and rezoning. Mr. Olson said he thought that Mr. Drigans motion to get a legal interpretation from the City Attorney was a good one. He.said he also. had a few legal� briefs on this matter, and he would have copies made and sent to �the Planning Commission.• � UPON A SHOW OF HANDS, Dick Harris, David Harris, Drigans, Langenfeld voting aye, L�ndblad and 5cott voting nay, the motion carried. � �.. ,�. Planninq Comrnission Meeting- August 6, 1975 - Paqe 30 Chairman Harris said the hour was getting late, but because ail the Special Use Permits had been advertised for this date, he thought the Public Hearing would have be to opened for Brede, Inc., also. h � 16. PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-17, BY BREDE, INC.: . To permit the continuation of an existing bill.board on part o Lot 8, uditor's Subdivision No. 94, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5401 � Ce��ral Avenue N.E. . � r'1 17. PUBLIC"HEARING: REQOEST To permit the continua� Subdivision No. 94, per Central Avenue N.E. FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP#75-18, QY BREDE, INC.: �n�of an existing billboard on part of Lot 8, Auditor's Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5403 18. PUBLIC HEARING; REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-19, BY,BRfDE, INC.: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 1, B16ck 1, Harstad Addition, per Fridl�y City Code, Section 214.042, the same 6801 Highway #65 N.E. 19. �PUBLTC HEARING: REQUEST FQR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-20, BY BREDE, ?NC.: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard on Lots 29 and 20, Biock 11, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per F'ridley City Code, Section 214.042, � the same being 5457 4th Street N.E. ' 20. PU6LI� HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-21, BY BREDE, INC.: To permit the continuation of an existing billboard on Parcel 3620, Section 12, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 7568 Highway #65 N.E. Mr. James Bratland, repres�nting Brede, Inc., was present. MOTION by David Harxis, secollded by Lindblad, tha� the Planning Commission open the Public Hearings for requests for 5pec?al Use Permits, SP #75-17, SP #75-1�3, SP #75-19, SP #75-20, SP #75-21, by Brede, Iric. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Har'ris declared the Pub_Zic Hearing open at 11:55 .P.M. � MOTION by�H-rc1� Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the P.Zanning Commission continue th� requests for.5pecial Use Permits, SP #75-17, SP �75-18, SP #75-19, SP #75-20, � SP #75--2Z, by Brede, Inc. Upon a show of hands, Dick Harris, David Harris, Drigan�� Langenfeld voting aye, Lindblad and Scott voting nay, the motion carried. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Drigans, seconded by David Haxris, to adjourn. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of August 6, 1975 adjorned at 11:59 P.M. Respectfully submitted, � .—'` r./ e� rt-C` ��.ti.�Z�cQC`�-�.� � Dorothy Evens , Secret�ry � � � I�IETiBERS PRESENT : MEMBERS ABSENT: ..�.� .' �� n HUMAN R,�SOURCES CCMMISS��N AUGUST 7, 1975 Harold Bel_gum, WiTliam Scott, Grace Lynch, Nan.cy Lambert Bar?�a.ra Shea GTH�ERS PRESEPIT: Don Harstad - Pres. Chambei� of Commerce Peter Treu,�.nfels Jane Simoneau � Wallace.C. Olson - Senior. Citiz°ns Frank Novak Doug Hovelson - Mpls. Daily American Lee Pa.n - Anoka County Health Department Andrea Rubenstein - I�1N Tenants Union Bob Kr.ebs Agnes Wo1f Edna Ga.raf f a Nick Garaff.a ' Ho�aard Mattson - City of Fridley Byron Zaher - Anoka County Health Department Ghairman Scott opened the meeting at 7:35 P.i1. MOTIdN by Nancy Lambert to renumber the agerida so that items f ive and six follow item number two. Seconded by Grace Lynch. Upor� a voice vote, �; all vo�tir�g �ye., the motion carried unar.iniously. MINNESOTI� TENANTS UNION , r� M�TION i�y.H�rold Belgum Seconded by Grace Lynch. carried unanimously.° to recei�te the letter from the MI�� Tenants Union . Upon a voice vote, all voting a.ye, the motion ri0TI0N by Grace Lynch to r�cei��e the le�ter from the MN Apartment Association. Seconded by Nancy Lambert. Upon a voice vc�te, all votir.g aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Scott explained that the MN Tenants Union has requested that Fridley make a contribution to its organization for services they wi11 render in the future. He added th�t the Council has asiced for the Commi.ssion's recommendat�.on as to this matter-: Mr. H�ward Mattsc�n, Community Deveiopment Ufficer, explained �cha.t at the present time, there is no money being spen�t on this. He added the Commissi.on should discuss which kinds of things they would like to see the money go towards. This will go to the Planning Commissi'on and then it will be de�yt with by the Council. Mr. Belgum aslced whether• any�other commur.it�es were spending any money for human resources development. Mr. Mattsan explained that the staff is presently investigat�.ng that. Howev�r, he said he did not believe they�were. u 0 � Hu�an Re.sources Go?nriission, ,�ugust 7 , �.g75 • Pag� 1 ��� ,Andre� Rebenstein of the MN Tenants Union explained that presently, . Minneapolis is funding services of non-city residents. The Union is asking that each corn�:uni�ty coiitz�ibute a certain amount of funds in order �to serve that particular conununi-ty.. Th�y are asking that Fridley con- tribute $2,100. The Union needs more furi�ing in order to continue the service�s that it has been rendering. T�ey have been receiving about 20 calls a month from �Y��_�ilev residents. Mrs. Lambert asked why the apartment dwellers can't put in a �ee to fund this union. Ms. Rubenstein explained tha�� they do re�eive some funds from them. However, it is not enough. - Mr. Krebs explained that he was once in a situation in which the MP1 Tenants Union had helped him greatly. His apartment had flooded many times, and his landlord said that ne �,Tc�uldn`t receive his $100' deposit if he moved ou � be� ore th� lease Vaas up . With help fro�r� the MN Tenants Union, he received r.�._s $100 �ieposit and was able to move out. He strongly recommPnded the Tenants Ur�ion. ' Mr. Krebs added that he had �alled th� Fridle.y Building Inspector who said that all he could do would be io come out and s�e the place.� Then, he never arrived. � Mr. Mattson explained that there are many areas such as this in which � the City cannot get ir�volved. It is very diff icult for the City to . get into �roblems such as this and get results.. ' Mr. Scott explained that the P�IN Apar-�ment Association was another organizatinn from whicn serv�ces such us this are rendered. Also, there is :zo charge . He had co;�tacted t�r� TT -�• Department of Housing . and Urban Development and they had pra�se for both agencies�. M�: Garaffa said that �the renter is payin� more taxes than -the home- owner of Fridley. This would equal about $10� per phone call. Nancy Lambert explai.ned. th�t since many of Fridley's residents live in apartme:nts, apar-tments �.hich wi11 be soon reaching 20 years old, its percentag� of cc�mplaints will go up.. Therefore, Fridley will probably be charged mo.re than 2 thousand dcllars in the long run. She felt that apartment dwe.11ers would be willing to pay the $10 service fee .iri pl�.ce of the .funding. MOTION by Harold Belgum.to recommend to the Council approval of the requesfi by the MN Tenan�s Union. The Commission discu�sed the fact that nobody has any idea how much money is available for anythin�;4 Mr. Mattson said that the Commission Snouia view this in a sense that they rnust have a set of priori�ties . � Mr. Harst�d said tha�: he fel�r that most people would be willing to pay $1Q fo� sozne service if they di_d not w�.sl-� to use free service of +he Iiuman Resources Commi���on, August "7,,,7.`��� �'ag �3 Minneapolis Apartment Assoei�tion� H� ��lso felt the community shoul�l � solve its problems wi.thi.n the.community if �ossible. Mr.�Belgum WITHDREW HIS MOTION, �. MOTION by Grace Lynch that the Human Resources Commission recommend to the City Council disapproval of the request by the MN Tenants. Union. Seconded by Nancy Lambert. UUon a roll call vote, Mr. Belgum votin� nay, the motion ca��ried unanimously. ANOKA COUNTY Mr. Byron Laher of the Anoka�County Health Department explaine� that the department is doing a ycar long process to determine human service needs within Anoka County. It started about March. � He added that it is their in�ention to go to each of the 21 political subdivisions ir� Anoka County and ask them to determine their own needs. He said that they are appr�oaching each of the police units; care agencies, school districts, etc. He explained that they are asking each of these groups four major questions. , 1. �List of human service needs that you fee� you have. � 2. Whose responsibility is it to respor�d to those needs? 3. What a�encies are now responding ta those needs? 4: Which of these agencies could• better respond if they had more money, more staf f , et.c . ? These r�sponses are being compiled in order to determine these human service needs. ` He also explained that the Health Department is trying to break down these needs into �en.eral kinds of. counciling. Presently, six diffcrent agencies are working on�this. � He asked the Commission to respond to each of the four questions . abcve and get back to him. • - PLANNING C:�OMMISSION STRUCTURE . Mr. Scott exp�ained the new structure of the �'lanning Commission. He , explained that through this new structure, there will be a g'reater a�oun� o� comJnun�ca`�ion s�'nce the chairmen of the member commissions serve on the Planning Commission. . Human Resources Corr�mission, �A,u�us�: 7, 197 5 0 COMMISSION COMMUNZCATIOPdS � �� ,Page 4 � - .. Mr. Scott explained to the Comr:iissiori and Project Committees that the staff has set up files for the Human Resources Commission in which all � correspondence and records will be kept.� In tris way, the persons on the cominission and pro�ect eommittees will have a greater access to material which otherwise, they may neve� see. APPOINTMENT PROCESS MOTION by Harold Belgum. Seconded by Nancy Lambert that: Whereas the Human Resources Commission seeks to fulfill its responsibilities with the greatest amount of citi�en participation and input possible to the City Planning process, thErfore, Be.it resolved Peter Truenfels, 5460 7th Street N.E., Apt. #22'3, Fridley, MN 55432, 501-8318, is assigned to the Citizen Grievance- Ombudsman project committee for the purpose of developing go�ls and objectiv�s for the Commission and to�inform th�e Commission, at regular and special meetings, the activiti,es-and efforts of the committee. Upon a voice vote, all VUt1I1�,T aye, the motion carried unanimously�. MOTION by Nancy Lambert. Seconded by Grace Lyneh that: � Whereas the Human Resources Commission seeks to fulfill its �• . responsibilities with the greatest amount of citizen participation and input possible to the C�ty Planning process, therefore, , Be it resolved Jane Simoneau, 465 57t1i Place N.E., Fridley, MN 55432, 571-5268, is assigned to the Recreation project committee �, for the purpose of developing goals and obj�eciives for the�Commission and to inform the Commission,. at regul�r and special meetings, the aetivities and efforts of the committee.. Upon a voice vote, a.11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Nancy Lambert. Seconded by Grace Lynch that: Whereas the Hwnan Resources Commission seeks to fulf ill its .responsibilities with th� grea�cst amoun�L- of citizen participation � and input po.ssibla to the City Planning process, thereiore, � Be it resolved Ba.rbara Lind, 'L25 49th AvenuP N.E., F��idley, MN � 55432, 56.0-9589, a.s assigneci to the Fine Art proj�ct committee , � for tne purpose of developing goals and �bjectives for trie Commsssion a�d to inform the Conunissicn, at regular anci special meetings, the � activities and efforts of the conunittee. . Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, ilze motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Grace Lynch. Seconded by Nancy Lambert that: Human Resourc�s Commission, Augusi= i, 1°75-• � �� ° Page 5 � Whereas the Human R��ources Commissiori s��ks to fulfill its • responsibilities with the greatest amount of citizen participation and input possible to the City Planning pracess, therefor•e, Be it resolved Agnes Wolf, 1451 Glacier Lane, Fridley, MN . , 55432,� 571-4069, is assigned to the Correction pxoject committee for the purpose of d�vel�ping goals and objectives for the Commission � and to inform the Commissian, at regular and special meetings, the activities and efforts of the commi_ttee. Upon a voice voie, all voting aye, the mation carried unanimously. � MOTION by Grace Lynch. S�conded by Nancy Lambert that: . Whereas the Human Resources Commission seeks to fulfill its responsibilities with the greatest amount o� citizen participation � and input�possible to the City Planning.process, therefores Be it resolved Dorothy Carlson, 633 Rice Creek Terrace, Fridley, MN �55432,.571-653�, is �ssigned to the Fine Arts project c�ommittee for the purpose of developing goals and objeetives for the Commission and to inform tYie Commissior_, at regul�r:and special meetings, the _ activities and efforts af the cammittee. Upon a voice vota, all voting aye, the motian carried unanimously. MOTION by H�.rold Belgum. Seconded b;; DTancy Lambert that: Whereas the Human Resources Conunission seeks to fulfil�l its responsibilities with the greatest amount of citizen participation and input possible to the Ci.ty'Planning process, therefore; . Be it resolved Cathy McConnen, 5620 East River Road, Apt. #105 Fridley, MN 55432, 566.�2185, is assigned to Library project committee for the purpose of developirig goals and objectives far the Commissinn and to inform the Commission, at regular and special meetings, the activities anc� efforts of the committee. Upon a voice vote, a11 votir�g aye, the motion carried unanimously. � SENIOR CITIZENS Frank Novak of the Fridl�y Senior Citi.zens Committee explained that at present, there are 1200 senior citizens in�fridley• This number i.s increasing very rapid"ly, at the rat� of 200 every year. The biggest problem is ta get them out of there homes to get to participate in some sort of �ctivity. Transportatir�n-is another problem of the senzor citizens. He explained that presently, the Committee is working on different � programs to do `this very thing.. .. �� � -Page 6 Human Re.source.s Cornmiss�.on, A,u�us�t 7,�1975 • � ,i.� They receive no funding from anyone. " - REPORTS FROM PROJECT COMMITTE�S , Nancy Lambert, Chairperson ot the Fine Arts Project Committee explained that she attended a Communi-ty Education Meeting last week. Sha said �' that there was an interest �n Community Theater. She added that work- shops in adult theater educztion i�echniques wi.11 be offered this year. She did not feel, however, that there was much of a possibility for a community theater irr ihe near future. Mr: Belgum Chairperson of the Humanities Project Commi�tee explained some of this ideas for the Projec-1 Committee. These included holding an American issue from each week in the Fridley Public Library, holding ethnic cuiture events, discovering special interest groups within the humanities, famous name nights, holding a book exhange, � and promoting interest in arid use of the Fridley Public Library. � Agnes Wolf of the Corrections�Project Comr.iittee explained that as far as.criminal justice, education of the public is the biggest need. Sne felt that common base facilities and zoning requirements were needed. MOTION by Nancy Lambert to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Grace Lynch. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye., the motion carried unanimously and the Human Resources Commission meeting of August 7, 1575 aduourned at 10;07 P.M. � �^`� Respectfully submitted, /"E \ /;�Q � � �-.r �-. - . ���� Holly T sager � t/ Recording Secretary . � �; �� APPEALS COMMTSSION ME6TING AUGUST 12, 1975 PAGE 1 Vice Chairperson Wahlberg.called the meet•ing to�ord4r at 7:40 P•M• ME�1BERS PRESENT: Wahlberg, Gabel, Kemper � MEMBERS ABSENT: Drigans, Plemel OTHERS PRESENT: Howard Mattson, Engineering Aide � � APPROVAL OF APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: JULY 29, 1975 MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Kemper, to approve the Appeals Comrnission minutes of July 29, 1975 as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. l. A RE UEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDIlCE THE SIDE YARQ RE UIREMENT FROM FIVc FEET 5') TO THREE FEET 3' , SECTION 205.053, 4B 4, TO ALLOW THE ENLARGEMENT OF A SINGLE CAR GARAGE INTO A DOUBLE CAR GARAGE, TO BE LOCATED ON Lot 6,_BLOCK 1, BROOKVIEW TERRACE 2ND A�DITION, THE SAME BEING 981 RICE CREEK TERRACE, FRIDIEY, MINNESOTA. REQUEST BY ROQERT AND BARBARA HINRICHS . • MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Kemper, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice Chairperson Wahlberg declared the Public Hearing open at 7:41 P.Ni. . � t�rs. Barbara Hinrichs was.present. Mrs. Wahlberg said this request was to expand a single garage into a double garage. � Mrs. Hinrich said they only had nine feet in which to expand if they were going to stay wi�hin the code, and they•needed 11 feet. She said the way the lot was shaped, this.addition was placed on a curve in the lot. At the back of the garage addition, they were going to build �a deck. , - Mrs. Gabel asked Mrs. Hinrich's how many automobiles they nad. Mrs. Hinrich replied that they had two. Mrs. Hinrichs said they tried to buy additiondl- property from Lot 5, which.was owned by a Mr. John Harding.� He said that his mortgage company advised him not to sell any of his property because they were carrying a large mortgage on this property and thought this would depreciate his property. Mr. Kemp�r asked how far away from the property line the house to the east was - located. Mr. Mattson said it was 30 feet. . Mrs. Wahlberg said it seemed that the ha�dship was that this was a pie shaped lot and the structures.were built on an angle to the side yard property line. Mrs.�Gabel asked if a contractor was going to construct the addition or if they were going to do the work themselves. Mrs. Hinrich •said they had a contractor �11 ready to go if they got approval of their request for a variance and a�vacation. M►�s. Wahlberg asked where they were going to keep the trailer on this lot. Mrs. Ninrich said they kept iic in Wisconsin in the winter, and would add an apron to park it on dur�ing the summer months. Aaoeals Commission Meeting - Au uc,�st 12, 1975 � Pa.�e 2 � into the existing garage. Mrs. if they would have two doors on Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the addition would ,,.� Ninrich said that it would be, but they hadn't ' the garage or change it to one garage door. � be tied decided � Mrs. 4�ahlberg said that the vacation request had been considered by the Planning Commission at their August 6th meeting. There was a 10 foot easement that was on LQts 5 and 6. The Pianning Commission recommended approval of the vacation request because this represented no conflict with the adjacent p�operty owner, and was agreed to by all the ut�ility companies, and recommended that the encroachment be allowed into this easement while the vacation process was in progress. Mr. Mattson said that this easement had no utilities in it. At the time this property was platted, an easement was put at this location in case the City would need it in the general scheme for storm drainage. After this was platted, this was handled in another fashion so this easement no longer serves any purpose. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Kemper, to close the public hearing. Upori a voice vote, ali voting aye, Vice Chairperson Wahlberg �ecla�°ed the f�earing closed at 7:50 P.M.' - Mrs. Wahlberg said that t�ie shape of the �ot prohibits any expanding.of the garage vrithout encroachment into the normal side yard setback. Mr. Kemper said this house was placed square to the st.reet, so this garage location couldn't have been changed. • Mrs.�Gabel said she saw no pr�oblems with t�is request. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Kemper, to recommend t� the City Council approval of the variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet to ailow the enlargement of a single yarage to a double garage on Lot 6> Block 1, Brookview Terrace 2nd Addition, the same beiny 981 Rice Creek Terrace. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM EIGHTY F.EET (80') TO THIRTY-FIVE FEET �5' , SEC7ION 205.103, 4A 2 AND TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD 'SETBACK FROh1 FIFTEEN FEET 15' TO FIVE FE�T 5' ., SECTION 205.103, 4S, TO ALLOW . CONS7RUCTION OF AN QFrICE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON PARCEL #540, PART OF LOT 74 AUDITOR'S SUBDIUISIQN i�0. 153, TNE SAME BEING 1�40 52ND AVENUE N.E., �RIDLEY, MINNESOTA. REQUEST BY BERGSTEDT-ANDERSON REALTY, 5247 CENTRAL AVENUE N.E., FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA�. — � MOTION by f:emper, seconded by Gabel, to open the public hearing. Upon a voice vcte, all voting aye, Vice Ch�irperson Wahlberg declared the Public Hearing open at 7:59 P.M. Mr�. Bill �acobson, architect,.�representing 8ergstedt Realty was present. Mr.. Jacobson said they proposed to construct this office building on:-.property which was behind Robert Hall on 52nd Avenue N.E. He said this was an L' shaped parcel of land which was adjacent to apartments on 52nd Avenue also. He said that in conjunction with buiiding this office bui�lding, there would be shared parking with the apar�ment building.. ihis par�ing would be available to the apartments af�er 5:00 P.h1. and on week-ends. Ne said that the port�on of the property that f�ced 52nd Avenue was only s0 feet wide.. If they met the code requirements of having a 15 foot setback for each s�de yard, they would only � � �� Appeal s Commi ssi on 1�1eeti n� - August 12 1975 ! Pa e� 3, g_'- have 30 feet in which to construct this offir.e building, and the lanci was too •expensive to build that small oF an o#`fice building b�cause it would never pay for itself. He said the reason he was a'sking fo�° a variance from 80 feet to 35 feet " was because they thought this building would look better if it was lined up with the setback of the apartment buildings. He said this building would be 40 feet long on the north and south sides, if the s7deyard variance was approved. He said this would allow them to have 30 feet of office space inside the building. He said that if they had to meet the 8� foot setback, this would require the parking to be in front and would reduce the parking spaces by a great r�umber besides not being attractive. By having the park�ing at the back of the building, this would tie in with the parking lot of the apartments which would •be more convenient for shared parking. He said that Rober-t Hall owned the vacant parcel west of this locatation, and although Mr. Bergstedt has written to them repeatedly, ard tried in every way to communicate with Robert Hall, he has had absolutely no answer on this, so the assumption would hav�e to be made that Robert Ha�l may want th�is parce'i for their own expansion. . Mrs. Gabel ask�d how many offices would be in this building. Mr. Jacobson said that the proposal had changed from the plan presented. Orginally this �vas going to be a 10,000 square foot buiiding, but it has r�ow been reduced to 6,000 ' square feet. Instead of being 40' x 120' it wi11 be 40'�x 98'. At the present � time there are six tenants who will rent space in the building which will use � 5,000 square feet of the building. He said the type of businesses going in here � will be sales representatives and real estate companies. He said these 6 tenants have been sharing office space in Skywood Mall. y„� Mrs. Gabel said this shouldn't generate any addition traffic in the area then. � Mr. Jacobson said it shouldn t because they would still be.in th� same general area. Mr. Jacobson said that when. they reduce thel��l� °f but1ifbthe�Cigybwanted�thEm they intend to take this off the back of the bu 9� io� take it off the front of the building instead., they would do this. He said ane � of the considerations for having this line up with the apartment building was so ' that they could save a large oak tree with this location. � Mrs. Wahlberg said that would reduce the front yard variance fram'80 feet to 59 feet, which would be a little closer to the Code requirement. Mr.. Jacobson said this would be a full two s�tory building, a precast concrete structure. Mrs. Wahlberg said that this would be a little lower than the �partment buildings. � Mr. Kemper asked how many parking spaces the apartment residents would have to share. Mr. Mattson said the code requirement far parking spaces in 1963 was 64 stalls. ThEre were 73 stalls provided, whici�� exceeded the code requirement at that time. Sir�ce then our code has changed, and'they now need 116 stalls, so they were short the 43 stalls that would be provided with this plan. • � � Mrs. Wahlberg said she questioned the hardship in the request for a sideyard variance from 15 feet to five feet. Mr. Jacobson said the reason they wanted to have this variance was because the tenant of the office facing 52nd Avenue wanted 1200 square f�et of space, and this was haw they woUld meet that request. � . Mr. Jacobson said they could have cons�ructed this building further back on this property and met all the code requirements, but they couldn'.t provide the shared parking for the apartments then. �■!!'1 � Appeals Commission Meetin Au ust �2, 19i5 _ -- ----Pa-�-4 — _ �,��� Mr. Kemper asked Mr. Mattson if the �dministrati0r� had any negative co,�ments �` . on this proposal. . Mr. Mattson said the City has wanted a proposal for this property that would provide additional parking for the apartment comp�ex. He said that when Mr. Julkowski owned this property, he said it was too expensive just to make the entire parcel a parking lot, which was prob�:bly tru�, He said this parcel had been just sitting vacant �or a long time, arid this seemed like a good proposal. Mrs. Gabel said she had no objection to this building being lired up with the apartment complex, and she would like to see the large oak tree saved, if possible. MOTION by Ken�per, seconded by Gabe.l, to close the public hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Vice Chairpersan Wahlberg closeci the hearing at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Kemper said he thought this was a good plar. He couldn't see a better way of developing thi� property. Mrs. Wahlherg said this was an odd shaped lot, and this woul� seem like the best plan as thq�����as a need for the shared parking, but she still questioned the variance to the side yard setback, when this ten feet c�uld be used for landscaping. Mrs. Gabel said she thought they had a good landscaping plan, cor�sidering the land�they had to work with. Mrs. Gabel asked Mr. Jacobson to bring the landscape plan back up to the members for their review. � Mr. Jacobson flowering crabs. He said the front year around. He requirements. said�that an the west side of the buiiding th�re would be five On the north side of the building they wou�d have 3 Norway Mapies. of the building would have ground cover that would stay r�reen the said the consiruction of this building would meei� al'� the Code Mrs. Wahlberg said the Rppeals Commission had always been cautious about recommending approval of a varian.ce for archi.tectural des7gn. It was felt that there may be some alternative tha� could be warked ou�t. Mr. Jacobson said that if this variance wasn't gran�ed, it v�rould cut down on the number of terants they could have in this building. - � . Mr. Mattson said it was genQraily the p�licy�:of the Appeals Co►nm�ssion to �e quite har�h in granting this type of var�ance, but he said oc;d shaped lots �re uncoverable in the code. - Mrs. Wah�lberg said they had t� take into consideration tha� this building could have been i�cated on this property strictly to code, if the petitioner d�dn'i have to give consideraticrl to the shared parking for tt�e apar��►ent comp�ex. t�7r. Jacobson said there would be iegai agreements drawn up on the shared parking and the shared driveway. MOTIQN by Kemper,'seconded by Gabel, to recommend to Council approval of the front yard and side yard varianc�s on part of Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivisi�n No. 153, �.�, to allow 1:he construction of an o�fice buildir.c;, the same being 1040 52nd Avenu'e N.E. su4ject to the lot spTit beirig approved by�Cauncil: Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanim�usly. 3. CpMMISSION MEh16ERS AQSENTE�ISM . � � . Pae� �1 APPEALS COMMISS.ION MEETING - August 12, 1975 _ —�- --- MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Kemper, to receive the statement from Chairmar► � Harris of the Planning Commission on Commission.a�senteeism. Upon a voice vote, ' a11 voting a,ye, the motion carried unanimously. . . Mrs. Wahlberg said that the Appeals Commission didn't have too much of a problem with absenteeism. . ' � There was some discussion on Goals and Objectives, but Mr. Mattson said he hadn't heard anything about the Appeals �Commission preparing them. Upon�further checking, Mr. Mattson was.correct, and this was not necessary by this Commission, ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by Vice Chairperson 4Jahlberg at 8:59 P,M. Respectful7y submi�ted, _ ' r �.� ��„�� Dorothy Evenson, Acting Secretary • � �� 0 0 , _ ' ' CITY OF FRIDLEY. . . � ENVIRONMENTAL COh1MISSIOf� MEETING AUGUST 13, 1975 PAGE 1 Chairman Langenfeld called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M: . . Members Present: Langenfeld, Sporre, Martin, Erickson . � Members� Absent: Sullivan , : Others Present: Steven Olson, Environmental Ofificer JerroTd Boardman, Planning Assistant(after 10:00 P.M.) APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES: JUN� 10, 1975 Mrs. Sporre said she couldn't make the motion to approve these minutes because she hadn't attended t�is meeting. Mrs. Martin asked why their discussions weren't included in these minutes. She had understcod that their minutes were going to be more detailed. Mrs. Sporre sa�d she didn't think they sr�ould expect verbatim mir_�ates, but the sense of the di��ussion shou�d be included. P�rs. �1artin said these minutes just �ay a lengthy discussion was hel�d, but they don't say why we had the discussion. She thought there-was more value to the discussion, than that �e had one. Chairman Langenfeld asked Mrs. Martin which item she �aas referring�to. He � said that in regard to the Rice Creek Watershed, they didn't come up with anything �concr�te in their discussion except what was in the motion. He said they pr.obably had more discussion on the pools than, was indicated in the minutes. He said they tended to ramble in their discussions, so perhaps. the highlights of these discussions � �could be in the minutes. He said that if during their meeti�gs, they should want something detailed, they shauld indicate this to the �ecretary at the time, otherwise : he thought thE outline form would be suff.icient. � Mrs. Martin said that what she found.missing from the minutes was even the � illusion, with an strength to it at all, that we were not in total agreement with what was presented to us on the,Rice Creek Watershed District Management Plan. Mr. Langenfeld and Mr. Erickson said they thought the_motion summarized the entire discussion. Mr. Langenfeld said the minutes could have shown that it was difficult'. ' for.us to con�e up with recommendations on someth�ng that was so vague. � Mr. Erickson said he thought they had more-discussion on the tree problem in Innsbruck. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought they were going to get a staff report on this problem. He said the original complaint had been on trees that vaere marked in this area, and nothing had been donc�, and the people felt this was an injustice. Mr. 01son said that this problem was und�e W�ereCseveralutreestmarkedhisomedof stanc�ing of ti�e probl�m was that although the the markings were just that the trees had to be trimmed. He said he �hinks the marking process has been changed. Also, it would depend upon what made the tree die as to whether it had to be hauled away immediately, althought he could be corrected on thai. N1r. Olson said he was responsible for junk, refuse and .fill, which was another matter. He said he would check with Dr. Huff and get a report back to the Con�nission. . MOTION by Erickson to approve the mir.utes of the June 10, 1975 Environmental ='� Quality Commission as amended by the'previous commer�ts. The Motion died for lack of a second. y. Yr . . � Environmental Commission Meeting - August i.�, 1975 , _Pa�.e 2 Chairman Langenfeld said he would have voted in favor ofi approving the , ^ •minutes if�there had been a second. , . Mrs. Martin said she had to vote against approval of the minutes because she felt they were incomplete. Mrs. Sporre said she would vote no, also as � long as Mrs. Martin wasn't satisfied with the minutes. -� Mr.s. Martin said if there were notes or tapes of this meeting, she would � like them checked and have the minutes reflect their discussion. She said she had complained about the minutes before, and that was why she refused to accept these minutes. � MOTION by Martin, seconded by Sporre, that t�pes be made of the Enviror�mental Commission meetings, and that the tapes not be destroyed until the minutes have � been approved. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousl�. 1. ECECT VICE CHAIRMAN ��Chairman Langenfeld asked for noninations for a vice chairman of t�e Environmental Corr�n i s s i on . - . 'MOTION by Sporre, seconded by Martin, that.Brother Tom Sullivan be r�ominated � Vice Cha.i�rman of the Environmental Commis.sion. Chairman Langenfeld asked if there were any other nominations. There were non�. � �UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Brother Tom Su117van was named Vice Chairman of � the Environmental Commission. . 2. COP�IMITTEE ABSENTEEISM Chairman Langenfeld said this was not to pinpoint any one person, but the Chairman of the Planning Commission said that there was too much to be done on all the Commissions, and that everyone should try to attend every meeting. He said this Commissio� was already one meeting behind the other Commissions. �Mrs. Sporre to.ok exception to being included in ihis. behind. ' � 3. REVIEW OF JUNK VEHICLE ORDINAiVCE She said she was not l � Mr. Langenfeld referred to the last paragrap� of a►remo�rafndum:��rom James Hill dated April 17, 1975, in which he states that with the implementation of the Revised City Gode, this particular area became slightly vague as it pertains ta junked vehicles on,the property of the owner of said vehicle. Mr•. Langenfeld asked Mr. Olson if thns cou1d be said the ordinance they were reviewing. Mr. Olson said no. � Mr.. 0?son said the proposed ordinance spoke for itself. He�said that prior to the recadification of the current code, we had a code that was similar to the code he was proposing, which was called Chapter 39, Junk �iehicle Code, which was dropped in favor of the Abandoned Vehicle Code. 'f'hey thought this would meet the requirements of the junk vehicles in the City. He said that one of the problems he had with this Codes when he read it and tried to enforce it, was that it defines an abandaned motor vehicle as a vehicle which had r�mained-.for more than 48 hours on public property illegally, or lacking vi�al- component parts; or has� remained for more than 48 hours on private property without the consent of the person in cantro1 . � � Page 3 Environmen�al Commission Meeting - August 1�, 1975 � of such property. He said that as long as it was on your property, you have obviously had the consent to leave it there, so this wasn t a violation. Then this ordinance went into the penalty which states that any person who abandons a motor vehicle on any public or private property, without the consent of the person in'control of �such property, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Again, the problem with enforcement was that it was on your property, and you have your permission to leave that abandoned vehicle on your property. Mr. Olson said the new Junk Vehicle Ordinance had been drafted by him because he felt it met the needs expressed by citizens who have complained about unlicensed; junk vehicles on private property. - Mr. Langenfeld said he felt the proposed ordinance was a good ordinance, both environmentally, and to serv.e the needs of the City. He said a property owner could have several inoperable motor vehicles on their property,.and be using the parts of several vehicles to make one vehicle. Then there would be a different situation where a man was doind necessary repair work on on� car to make it operable. These would be two different situations. � Mr. Olson said this ordinance would not be used to stop anyone from making necessary repairs to their car, but it would be a tool to use for citizen complaints when someone was making a'junk_yard' on their property. He said when there was a complaint, the staff tends to be lenient with those people who make an effort to repair a car in a reasonable ]enth of time, and do not have other in6perable or unlicensed vehicles on their property. � Mrs. Sporre said there seemed to be a gap between someone violating the ordinance � and having.their car impounded. 'Mr. Ol�son said that it was implied in the ordinance that people would be notified that they had 96 hours to comply with the ordinance, and 1f they were tagged and it went to court, there wauld have to be proof that the � vehicle in question had been on the property.over 96 hours. ; Mrs. Sporre said she wasn't too happy with the 96 hour time limit. She thought � it should be a longer lengLhof time, up to 2 weeks. Mr. Olson said that the old ordinance, Chapter 39, had used 96 hours, and other c��+�nities used the 96 hour figure, so it was a pretty standard time limit. Mrs. Martin said that before anyone complained the�vehicle would have been on the property for some time. She asked Mr. ' Olson.what he meant when he said a reasonable length 6f time. Mr. Olson said this would depend upon the situation and ihe intention of th�e violator. � Mr. Erickson said this ordinance raised some que�tions'in his mind, because � just by removing a spark plug would make a vehicle inoperab�e. He said some people do a major overhaul on their own vehicles. � Mr. Olson said that if tMey were going to wri�e into the ordinance all the ways � a car could be inoperable, it would be a book. He said he was aware that sametimes people had to wait for ordered parts, or the parts were difficult to find. He said the City did not have the staff to go out looking for.violators. This ordinance would be a tool for flagrant violators which necessitated citizen complaints. Mrs.� Martin said she had had to live with such a situation in �her neighborhood, and felt this ordinance was needed. She said that when you had to look at a yard full of vehicles year after year, licensed or not, in various stages of repair, this was. � aesthetically unpleasing. Mr. Ericksan said that in Section 12Z.02 of this proposed code, he would like � to see a statement added to the exceptions. This ;�vould say that this o.rdinance would 0 � � August 1,�, � 1975 Page 4 . rh.�;rnnmpnt�l Commission Meeting ..,, . . . .,. •--- - not apply to a single vehicle in the reasonable process of restoration from an r'` • inoperable vehicle to an operable vehicle, provided such vehicle didn't constitute ,` a nuisance. He said he would make a motion to have the ordinance so_amended. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Sporre, that the Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance for junk vehicles, Section I22, to � the Planning Commission with the amendment added ta the except�ianSind1e inoperable � 122.2•which would state that this ordinance shall not apply g vehicle which was in the reasonable process of restoration to an operable vehicle prodided such vehicle did not constitute a nuisance. Upon a uoice vote, Erickson, Sporre, Langenfeld voting aye, Martin nay,.the motion carried. Mrs. Martin:said she could not accept the amendment, so she couldn't accept � the ordinance. � . Mrs. Sponre said she thought this was a good attempt to meet a problem in the City. . 5. ` PROPOSED AMEN'DMENTS FOR CFIAPTER 115,� SWIMMIN� POQLS,, OF THE CITY CADE MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Sporre, that the.proposed amend�nts for Chapter I15; Swimming Pools, ot fhe City Code be passed onto the Planning Commiss.ion without a recommendation. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Martin asked why they were.getting these ordinances. Mr. Olson said that when he started working for ttie City of Fridley it became his job to enforce these � � Codes. lie said he had updated the junk vehicle co�e, the swimming �ool code, and� the refuse code almost a year ago and they have sat in limbo since that time. Since � he was the Environmental Officer acting as liais�n to the Environmental Commission, he thought this was a good way to get these proposed changes moving. � Mr. Erickson said he thought that under the reorganization, the Environmenta� Corr�nission would receive a lot more material and it would be up to them to pass it on to the appropriate Commission. ' . Mr. Langenfeld said his vote at the Planning Commission level would be dictated by the feelings of the members of the Environmental Commission, even if this shouid conflict with his personal feelings on any matter. He wanted this to be a matter of . record. 6. STAFF RESPONSIBILITIES ... . •. ' Mr. Erickson said he had been receiving some vague answers in regard to dis�ased trees in Fridley. MOTION by Erickson, seconded by Sporre, that the Fridley Environmental Commission reqnest that a staff person appear at their meeting of September 17, 1975 to outline the policies and staff responsibli.ties regarding diseased tree control and that they receive a written po.iicy stat�ement before this meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting . aye, the motion carried unanimously. �. Mrs. Sporre s�aid it was very helpful to get the material they would be discussing �" at a meeting prior to the meeting because this made a much more meaningful meeting. She said she wanted to commend Jerry Boardman for havi�ng the outline for the goals � and objectives ready before this meeting. � � , . � .�.� � Environmental Commission Meeting - August�l�, 1975 . p�ge 5 � Mr: Olson asked if he cauld present the material on d�seased trees. Mrt Eri��s�n said he had just requested that it be presented by a staff person. Mr. Olson said h� would talk to Dr. Huff. Mr. Olson told the Environmental Commission that he would be � , attending�all their meetings, and that all material for these meetings would be sent , out the Friday befare the scheduled meeting. � • . 7. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MOTION by Sporre, seconded by Marti�,that the Environmental Commission receive the staff proposal for goals and objectives. Upon a voice vote., a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Sporre said she wanted to have a definition for environment made before they began their consideration of their goals and objectives. The definition she submitted was as follows: Environment: (1) The physical surroundings of man, both naturai and man made, including land, for example, the topography, geomorthology, � geology, and soil, water, for example, hydrology, water fall and pollution, air, for example,hydrolog�, water fall and pollution, air, for example, regional clima�e air quality, non-human biota, flora and fauna, and �"ysical structures, for example, buildings and transportatian facilities, (2) Hwnan beings, as physical entities „ including their transportation and relocation, (3) Factors of special-human significance including noise, aesthe�ic an� histo.ric site, and preservation af opportunities. � Mr. Langenfeld said they would �eep this definition in mind as they cansider�d their goals and objectives. � Mr. Boardman said a simple definit.ion for environment would be man and his surround- �„\ _ i n g s . The�Environmental Commission, along with Jerrold Boardman and Steven Olson, went through the staff pr.oposal on goals and objectives, making amendments, additions, and - deletions. Objectives H to Q were not discussed'at this meeting and are typed in � italic print, under Goal• #2. The goals and objectives are separ�te��from the minutes and are marked ATTACHMENT A, because�they.are still under study. ,. 7. GENERAL DISCUSSION. . Mr. Langenfeld said he wanted the Commission to consider at a later meeting, that they, could use their task force to ferret out environmental problems ex�siting °,irt the City of Fridley. � Mr. Erickson said it should be discussed at a later meeting if they were goin�g to face up to impact statement procedures or write up a comprehensive policy plan that covers environmental assessments. Mrs. Sporre said Mr. Erickson should write up a � proposal and submit it at" a meeting. Mr. Boardman said this would have �o come under the gaals and objectives when they have been finalized. Mrs. Sporre said Mr. Erickson was speakin� of a stop gap measure. � Mr: Boardman said the pro�lem was that we haven't any codes set up for this at this time. Mrs. Martin said that Mr. Erickson had a good point in havin�g some direction between the time of our abstract ramblings and it being official. Mrs. Sporre asked what items Mrs. Plartin thought should come to the Environmental Commission. Mrs. Martin answered, the environmental problems of Fridiey. � . . Mr. Boardman said they had to determine what constituted an environrnental problem �_ � Environ�ental Commission Meetin - Au ust..l�, 1975 �Pa e 6 first, which was the purpose of their goals and objssionewouldhestablish theirbcr�teria. �"� . a policy plan and from that the Environmenta1 Comm� Mr. Olson mentioned the aeration plan for Moore Lake which was being sponsored b� the Lions Club. He said he would like to deSeonisu testednthat�Mr�fOlsonlcontactore the aeration plan went into effect. The Comm�s 99 ' Brother Sullivan regarding his extensive study of Moore Lake. � � ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Langenfeld adjourned the meeting at 11:10 P.M. �. r� i�'� Respectfully submitted, _ f G�d,'c'�'�" - v�G:�'`2fl� . Dorothy Eve n, Acting Secretary 0 0 0 � STATEMENT OF PURPOSE: AT7ACHMENT A � n . ' The Fridley Environmental Commission recognize`� that man is.not separate €�om his environment, but a part of his environment, therefore wE must ac't accordingly recognizing we have finite limits and a need for stewardship, we therefore adopt these goals and objectives. •` Goal #1. ENCOURAGE PRODUCTIVE AND ENJOYABLE NARMONY BETWEEN MAN AND HI�:ENVIRONMENT. a. Assure for all people in the City of Fridley a safe, healthful, productive, aesthetically and �culturally• pleasing surrounding. � b. Encourage ecologically sound aspects of�population, economic and technological growth, so that it occurs in an environmentally acceptable manner. (As set . forth in standards and criteria which follow). � c. Preserve important, his�aric, cultural, and natural aspects of our heritage . and�maintain an environment that suppo:'ts diversity and variety of individual � choice, wherever practical. . • d. Preserve significant existing natural habitats. e. Promote wise use and establishment of areas of natural habitation for th� • betterment of our community. � f. Promote the effective�management ofi our resources. � . � Goal #2. PROP�IOTE EFFORTS THAT WIL� PREVENT OR ELIMINATE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT . AND BIOSPHERE AND STIMULATE THE HEALTH�AND WELFARE OF MAN. .�. a. Promote extensiori of product lifetime by reducing the number of unnecessary and wasteful practices and by recycling materials to conserve both materials and energy. b. Promote the reduction of unnecess�ary and wasteful practices in ihe utilization of our renewable and non-renewable resources and the generation of solid waste. � c. Provide for reclamation of our natural areas destroyed or damaged by acts of man of by natural disaster. d. Promote high quality sta��dards for the control of air, water, noise and visual pollution, including necessary protective measures. - e. Develop and implement land use standards which are compatible to the protection of our environmeni. , _ f. Encourage the developme�t of state-wide.environmentai information systems ..sufficient to .gauge environmental conditions. � g. Encourage coordinated planning management of the environment by all levels of government. � . . � h. Relate the use of land to its inherent characteristics and carrying capaci�ies. ° " Attachment A. . � •.. � � . , . •Page2 ,. � i. Yrotect private property rights and values in accordance with overal.Z. cansideration of the public health, safety and welfare. �""�, . - j. Maintain and improve the quality of life of the existing urban commun�ty. k. Ensure public access to.recreational areas, with due regard to carrying . � � � capacity and wise use af energy. , " Z. Foster innovative c�mmunity design. �m. Provide for Iand development of more than Ioca1 benefit recognizing , Fridley's role in the Metro Area., • n. Foster cooperation ainong Commissions and 1evels of government in establish2ng ' mechanisms that ensure considera�ion of a11 public and private righ.ts�:and �. interests affected by land use decisions. � 0. Minimize conflict of interest on the p:,rt of those who make decisions about � land resources. . �p. Ensure more effectiv� citizen particip�tion through such measures as adequate public notice anc� review. • q. Recognize areas impacted by Iarge scale public and private development ' as critical areas and activities and subject them to control. �oal 3. ENRICH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND NATURAL RESOURCES �'"� - �IMPORTANT TO THE CITY OF FRIDLEY. .. � � a. Encourage a better understanding.of n«tural resourse management principals � that will develop attitudes and styles of living that minimize environmental degradation. ' � b. Promote environmental awareness through the development of environmental interpretive programs. ' c. Encourage the development of citizen particapation in promoting environmental awareness. � /^� 4 m \ ., � COMMUI�T�'Y DEVL'LOPMENT MEi TING OF AUGUST 1..3? 197__5 �. �Chai;-man Bergman called the meetii.g �o order at 7:30 P.M. � MEM}3ERS PR�SENT: Bergmar., Stanley, Forester • MEMBERS ABS�NT: Lir�dblad, Oquist OTH.F.FS FP�ESENT: 3errold Boardman, P�anning Assi�iant MOTIQ�I by Forester, seconded �y Stanley ta ap�rove the minutes of the July 30, 1975 meeting as written. UFON A VOICE VOTE, all voLing.aye, the m�tion carried unari.mousiy. l. GO.ALS AND OBJECTIV�S Mr. Bergman voiced his cencern in readin� the 13_sting of CommLnii.y Deve�o��mt.nt _.eeds �hat was ciiscussed at tlie last meeting. He thought - that some of the meaning was lost in tY:e translation. H� £eIt Lhat the�r concerns �,�ere being watered down and �ut into general statements. He - didn' �t know ri��a other memvers of tY:e board ielt about nis concern, but felt like the pL.rpose af the last meeti.ng was somewhat di;ninished by reading the list. The other �nembers state thar they also felt �he s�ne �aay. Mr. Boar�.r.ian, said that. he *,z�s sorry that it came out that way, ho�aever, `� the real purpose of. the J_ast meei;ing was not jusc to list sgecific needs � but to group tnose neec��s into areas of cancern s�� t'r�at ��e can determine the scope of onr gaals for �ommunity D�ve7_opm.ent.. This is , t.ilE x•easar. they seem like genera_l. statemnnts �na wliy, k�hen i'.: saas discussed, I tri�d. to list it i.n more general terms. .�-� Mr. 8er.gman said t�at he still felt there wa� importanc� �n �h� need as � e�pressed by each mc:r.ber and tha.t is the way it should be recor:ied. MOTiON b;T Forester, seconded by Stanley, tha't each memt�er reviet�* the lists cn Fages 2,3, and 4 of the minutes of July 3?, �975 and submit their ti�ritten statements on those items they disctj.ssed, i� tk��ey £ee1 the li_st of item� c?id noL- enc�mpass tha�r original inter.t. UPON A tiYOI�E VGTF., all voting aye,. the motion carried unanir��o:zsl}�. rlr. Ber.g�an stig.g��sted that Lhis b� �one �er tlie ,iext meeting so that taey cai� all review the*.a. - Mr. Boardman said that lie had ;�anded out a 1�.:�t ef �auls tliat Yie f.elL �*ere important to (:ommunity Development keeping in mi.nd tlz:� axF�s ai conr..ern that were la�yed owt in the establishment af needs. u 0 L . � a . . � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION N�ETING OF AUGUST 13, 1975 Page 2 . Mr. Boardman layed out 5 goals for the purpose of discussion•for. the meeting. He felt that ttiere are possibly a couple of other goals that may be considered. The areas of discussion were Population, � Housing, Land Use, Commuaity Facilities and Access Goals. Mr. Boardman said that he would, for the next meeting, lay out the administration recommendatian for the goals and objectives for their 'review �and comments. In this way they may be able to h.ave more direction in organizing their own th�ughts, A discussion on the 5 goals followed in which several suggested changes in wording be incorporated in the next meetings staff recommendat?ons. Mr. Boardman said that he would incorporate their thoughts. Mr. Boazdman also stated that the Commissi�n should be concern�d c�*itt-i the affect of the Metro Council Development Framework will have on our goals and objectives. , � Ms. Stanley was nominated by the Commission to review the Metr.o Couricil Development Policies. � - MOTION by Forester, seconded by Stanley, that the meeting time of the Commission be limited to the hours of 7:30 tc no later than 10:00 P.M. ^ � UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � A discussion was led concerning the Land Use�Goal. Chai.rman Bergman requested that Mr, Boardman r.e-write the Land Use Goal. 2. COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENTEEISM Chairman Bergman stated that the Commission briefly reviewed and commented .on the statement made by Chairman Harris concerning member absenteeism and noted two members were absent from this meeting. Chairman Bergman adjourned the meeting at 10:04 P.M. � Re ectf y su m' ted, � � JERROLD BOARD:�SAN Planning Assistant e . �,+� F J. ::. � . � . . . �'{e..Y .. �.. �, . ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPOKT - 7300 COMMERCE LANE , BY: MINCO PRODIICTS, INC. GENERAL DESCRIPTION: .' This permit.is for a 120' plant addition which would add � 28,125 sq. ft. to an existinq manufacturing plant located at 7300 Commerce Lane. The expansion will take place to the west of the existing building and will be constructed to match the decorative � block pattern that is carried on the existing building. The addition would also include additional parking faciliti.es. to the west of the � addition which would allow for a total of 160 stalls. (155 required � by code). The addition to the facility will meet present codes and ' upgrade existing conditions. (See stipulation on concrete curbing). ENGI NEERIIQG : ^ ^ We don't foresee any engineering problems. ENVIRONMENT: We cion't foresee any major environmental effects on the surroundings with the construction of this addition. BUII,DING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: 1. That Minco Products, Inc. dedicate•an easement for a . bicycle-pedestrian trail over the 60' portion of property along th� west property line. 2. (a). That concrete curbing be placed along that portion of parking lot and driveway along 73rd Ave. -__ N.E. Also along the south side of the proposed � addition, allowing for service entrances in order � to provide a 5' planting area along the building. (b). That temporary blacktop curbing be placed ' . 5' off of the west wall of the proposed addition with a rock fill between the curb and the bui].ding in order to allow for further expansion of the facilities to the west at some future time. (c). That Minco will complete �concrete curbing on �'�' the parking facility at that time when they reach full potential use of their property. ' L � �1 0 . �`s��� . - .u,- ' ... ADMII�iISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 1040 - 52ND AVEPtTJE N.E. � BY: BERGSTEDT REALTY GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This permit is for the construction of a new two story, 98' x 37', office build�ng at 1040 - 52nd Avenue N.E. The building will be constructed of raked pre-cast concrete pan�ls with the entrance facing east along the east side of the property. They will be shar.ing the driveway to the west of the apartment complex to gain access to the property and will be providing 46 parking stalls which will be shared by the apartment complex. Landscaping is approved according to approved site plan. The building meets all code requirements �vith the exception of the side yard setbacK from 15' to 5' and the iront yard setback from 80' to 35', both of which have been recommended for approval by the Appeals Commission. ENGINEERING: There doesn't appear to be any engineering problems. Drainage off the site could be handled either by draining to 52nd Avenue N.E. or by �hooking to Columbia Heights Storm . Sewer to the back of their property. ENVIRON2�NTAL: <. There will be no detrimental environmental effect with the construction of this facility. The construction of the parking facility will provide needed additional parking for the apartment complex at nic�ht and on the weekends. The ' apar�tment complex is presently short about 40 parking stalls. This construction wi�l provide an additional 46 stalls. BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: 1. Draw up agree,�►ents ior �oint usage of parking and driveway facilities. 2. Submit copies of drainage and grading to the Engineering Depart�►ent for approval and appropriate direction. 3. That curbing be placed on the east side of the entrance driveway and along the north line of the apartment parking facility to a point . adjacent to the east property line of the office building property. {as shown on approved plan). ���1 ,.r� y'. -�,� . COT SPL:IT IIP('I_iCP;TI� : • �? � CITY OF FRIDL�."� - . � APPLI CAIZT : �z--���1� - /�ij���J �f„f� C_i�� �U .. ADDRESS : �Z�= ��_ �� _�r � ,� V . �J,�. . Stxe�t City � Zip Code TELEPH02dE �� �71 - % -4-�4 Home Buainet�a �0���2� o��r�.�( s ) ,�5.� n� c� Applicant's N�.me Loi; Split , . �a! �S �� :� Datc F'iled: . Pee: a�2o s-' Receipt -,�� % 7�� Council Action:Ilate R.L<`.�iARKS : ,ADI)RESS( ES � ( �j /�j�,� t=1 . . Strcet Citf Zip Code TELEPHOIv'� ��'�t S } Str_eet Home City :r3us ixie s s Lip C.ode . �I Property Locatiio� on Stre�t . � j or � �ct Street �ddress (I�� r�tY) j�q-U �2N1� �'� l�: (� , ! -� � Legal Deacripti�xi of PxoY:� rty: P�L��-�Z S�-U . �-1`T� i. ��J�- 5�E'�!%- � � Re�,son for Lot Split: , _A������- �� �c�� c���2- �vr�� ;������-- �'� f s H- -ro v! ��? �'1� �j1'}�5 -j��1�? C:�Z . Total �rea of �roY�erty �~ F'resent Zonin� Clasaiiication The undexsigned hereby- clecl�,res that representations stated in thia appli correct. ' , DRT�s^f ,I1U� ( �j7 � STGNATURE� BELO',�! FOR CITY ZTSE ONT,Y ...�.. 1 the ac and , �ion t e and � � � �` ,� . (Se� �evc:r�e rside �or �iditionsi.I inatruetione) � PLATS & SUBS: Date of Coneideration - Remarks: ' PLANNZNG COMMISSION: Date of Cox�c�ider�,tinn - ' Ramc�arka : CITY CUUNCIL: Date of Corieidc�ration - Remc�rkc� • � Lond Plannin� Lond Surveyrn9 SoilsTcstrn9 Civil b Alunicipal ( £n9rneerin� % � �rs-Nyh►,�y �cs ,v.E. � Minrx�o�olS 3 Z. � � � � � � � � L� i 1 �1 �" t � � �. � tilnnesofa SUntef.0-6066 i ,�n�r ineers E Sur vec�ors .� �� 3 � � L.�S #75-06 BERGSTEDT ANDERSON REACTY Company TRACT I That part of Lots 6 and 7 Auditorfs 5ubdi.vision 1`To. 153 � Anoka County, Minnesota desGribed as follows: Be�innin�; at the intersection of the Soutli line of said Lot 7 and a line which ia parallel with and 2S7 feet East af �he West line of Section 25, Township 30, Range 214; thence East a1on� said ' South line of Lot 7 a distance of 170 feet�, thence P�orth and para11e1 with said West line a distance of 120 feet; thence 'rlest and parallel with said South line of Lot 7 a distance of 110 feet; thence Pdorth and parallel �ith the West line of • �said section to the North line of Lot 6; thence �dest along said iiorth line to its intersection with aforesaid line which is 257 feet East of the k'est line of Seci;ion 25; thence Soutn to the p�int of be�innin�. Subject to all easer.:ents of record. � so�34 � ; � -.4-; . --------� 0 SHEET 2 OF 2 � � N.�r. c, oRtvER • � , . . . � ,��EC,: 5 . . ! . . ---_ _. — - �.�r..�.�. i.a � _____-- r:s. •r.i�1 ti},;.�/`f� _.__._rt::as_ -- ' �.+J 1. .� ; � .... _�l/,�vN. � '" -�-- ' _'3. , ,�'�� "_';"_, . S. #75-06 BERGS � L � az� - 7,� _ _--� : REALT � • �,) . •'��� � �B.7i 2 . . . a L.�i �xo) ---`�� . .------- — -- _ _. — .. �` . : '��-' (,� ' �. �, _�.�------•� ^ f .f,...s p? -.--._ .. -- J � �� � I �l _. . . . "' ' . - � . 1 { �'. { � . �' V /� /i7�1 � �/1G _: .,Y._ � �5..� -�,�,-,�:>_,.` 3 � �;� �- a� � , ; z-�;; � — � � �.'.�o . s,i:�f�c�!�z�----- —�- i �� .. ._ '.' __."'— ' f _.. � . .�b_�� -- --- � . �. I � I x t� t�°� t �; I. i" � N i.� !�.?_ 1 T �. �__� _--- r � ---------- _ l..d _3a.�T�,rea.� , ��„y . ' �' 1 �,,. - - - - �--'___._� � � � 6, ; �'7�oi . i ` � �' ', . E''; � . I� �i �.'.�,`� (�Co'S> � �,0 5 . I�.., +< ' _ I i • � - _ 266�G! � i � - , � � �, .e � �•s9 tJi) %ess itt,�/ —�.-_� _��4•JJ'' i 4 _ p��_ _ �,�( -------f-.. i v � -� i . r,=�.-_ _ — -'—�-__ / �°,-{ - - — . ' -�e' ,In7�� __ . —_ _._. -... �:�,Y��P.sS�BlCi � � • � �:., � ��-- - � � ; I �.�-R ', f ��b-a � � � .� ' � f !a0` �560� • (600) . �'� �Y \� I � �c/IlJ/c , ��. ✓v/�' ori n� o -� ,l. E"�'6�"i .O�V le , c�, s.;..�. � `-`. h� ��� „o• .a .. j,e.,�.. ��` 1 e.! _ � t , i � i� � � I � � �� � i. F� ' /�f( �rr I:,,.,7- `, ,�� � � ' . . , ,.. �� 1 � � I io w1 1 '.� �� , �f �, r , ����u�;�tv � . 2..j�.bs. _ :ra�___ - � _, �_ �i '. t-»—�� --"'' I . �r'a-��tt9C�'�. . ._. � - ' 1 �o 05 � . , S3� • . ...T�7•�- . . . . �, � - ia. �� 3 ; I't . ' � o , . � ... . � — �-- — -- . ' . - I _ � ' . I�-` _ ' � }I. � 4 � .�� . I . I �`6.. _ ±C � [_'.; i_i/ t .�e��tn! . - � x . �I �v �. �.�,5 �^ ,o � `�n ' M�e I �, ry�� ,�� /n �6 ��1� is 2d i� �!ti �3 ,M,� rz ?i� ir �:� . I � T `;9 �y �Z F.. /7 �:a 3_`e�a��P•a�-�v,,z'eait ' . �(`. �,.�°�h 2ih /5 ' � � � z� ��' e zpi5g0� �..�9 �o � � _ � i I . ' �. 6n � � ry l� �� C�f:� ' �,l �b .�;�1) �� 6� ,� i,1 0{ .�a I i, 3' ' , 'I ' ' . � �'�' / 9 � . . =�' .+. ., fc I . 1 y ��l x? 6�� �� 90 ��� I.t � , � i , ����J � �D .Y6 ° +i.�0� `L , C � . �: . �.o , ' � , c ) I , ' / � / HT � � � � � 4� •��' . . °�� � "9'rs= �• �{ �� . „� �I � ... ,3i_��_,.,i� �i:. o � �f aS!� /P'i c� , �tt 9`�.� 09! � A ' o < � /'�Ct O 9d.3i �k:-• . 7:.r - . �� ' ��� k � u= ��r'�� . , a '.^.� l/'�' - � �, u �' �o �C. w' � # � e -°' �I .. ( � � ''�; L,� , S �o � j :h r p • a � �. . • �� � � �. {F ' � Y e�r,; :. � . i .•� �C� '� e, ��1 � �r� 'a y 2`I � a d / oo tiM1 ` .��. . . � �I L ,� � I � � n a` ' �1 �% 4 1 . � � o� , �pv . .-C�� ' `o � � \ .A, s "�. �i9! �'/z�r�<:^�c .� .. Jses t (�(i. q • � � i 1 ', . . , j v ` '2 y ? � _ ` n' .S �� ai +; � `N � 3: � � o ` ,� : ' ,� � Z � � �; Z1 � a �t • �, �T�iv�.0 '.�, � � _ r . ,I ��''L� j � �r'�'�, � �I r �. a � �. �*';,�' ';� tio � ; +�,,� C, V � 4 k,. -�- i� w� r_ •'�,: 1 i /7 Z w /8 Q 1' a � \ � j ' . \ � Q� - PM'ir t °`� ` � � � ��' � �\�. i6 W k � . t ? t .: � t0 0��,. � w V!,. 1 . ��o- i �?C %'0^ -,�a�`i- . e �i.N � ` >is�:+ � � .v . � V � `�� � �f � �� � �° � ✓�,�� e � �tt�. S! � � q �, ��f . � 6�:L . . �" � � � .�� ' � 2i �. . -:�. ✓ � � �f :� t�cs vv � a�» ti • . , e a . .�. �; i � a � ti � • : � • ,; ? 1+' � .-� � 6 � J rf, 1� titin i �'' , . ��Ii ` - ' isi �an M; J �'+� /S 1 '.�`a��a.11 ,( . 1 � � �_-1 • �wiT "� ♦�; •� 7 �if� �+ \ n:no ` , / , �tli-" . N. . � . , � . . D� `, � � � � • �'a'" ♦ ° t. �',� v. °'�c.�. 4,,��� � ee o \ �i�Q' I � .t7 q �'r.�T �,V s.. �� � � t o y= e� . � a' �` ,f ,P•3 ` ., w: ''v �� . � �" � t .S ��.a9��y � ��s' ' � �I'., � , � z � v +�� � �/ }1 a ���.�� M � i�o�d:t� :H\y �`• . � R � � ; ,�� �� �•, $ ,." � :` ;i � tI ,43 G .� � � � � %� � � '^ � 7 �. � V '�f{.,1 F I Z,���� 4/'v � j, N!lVf�os?i-' A � t�.r . j . ��� ' t y � . (AC��� • � i�r pii� M•�. - �1.� ' ��,� . �,�`.. f�l "� ( � 1 ti� t� ��S � � r{"i � �. a, ` s;,.'� , I' j' ,� b � . • i � . �.3 � h . i ; w.lv�N=el'! `� 71�° � ��! , f . 1 II � '.IfII , 1� d ` fn � .�e �7l ` . � . O• --jjyl� ii� i � il � 4J! i 1 w Ie � 6o rn � �j � �� Ii • � ( , ` _�},.rs ��- N ?v . �I wye �'., � . ` : � z� • � -1-+ ' ,--� i ;;� "`^�1�•`;, ,Z � 1� V. ! � � ' _r� �s � '� 1 // /1 a � �:. w i � /D .,�iv ,ti, //*2 1�`` ' A � ` ' � � �I � i -Sa'3J'l�'� ;� �$ /0 �' 3 l.fi��` i�` . .�ei�,� ) z'•; � , r o t i i ce � � �„ v`y:i', t' ` W II ,` �1 4n.�, �7 � �o .I �, ` v• �°" . ' .>.. . i . j� i > , �,, � . . �' ::: „� ;: s. " � �" F� t E R C E ' • 1 1 /�r � '✓ 'o' .. ' t• 1 ' " • � . , � � Q -�, "'' _ � - � - - - �>. • .,.. ,,..' -, �.e . .,..';: : : � �. . t,s ?d ' 4 , , r. co �� � . � .... .. y _�'-- - �a,r, N.}-., Y , z .t� i , 1 ,.,r � � � � } y ' � , J: �. � a , . � i `�.� i �a�nl 9 �ii�o) „� � t ; O , `y `.' � ��` � ` �,� s �I .e � .� ` 2 , ,, � , , � 4� � .� ; �..{:. .. : 9 �,i, . �, .M,.:�; r �.+ _� �l �o � � ���,a.�� � y �� .. ..., � .: • ;.. . „� ,�t , . y . . ., � � l � , � '. �- � � N le ; . �, � r 1 .�.* M'M. n: + �,hr,�N=.?1 ,/^,� �p ,� A,W /i /J M /�....� J ; ' � . � d , rJ(�rtV ., �:• ] '° <„ ,l �; � e; + � I ;:� �- y ''.1• w , � o J. �� .. .. I _. e� - • t �: T I h rM ��� � (Y ,� (:,ii=�—""ii'"'^�-,-.� ' �, �__ f . __-___—_____--_ — ' � OFFICIAL NOTICE ^ ' CITY OF FRIDLEY PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Notice is hereby given that there will be a Pub1ic Hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of.Fridley in the City Hall at 6431 University Avenue Northeast on Wednesday,� August 20, 1975, �t 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber for the purpose of: , Consideration of a request for.a Special Use Permit, SP #75-22, by Steven Hendel, per Fridley City Code, . Section 205.101 (3N), for the locati•on of mobil�� home • � sales on Parcel 2550 and Parce1.2600 described as � follows: The Westerly 600 feet of the Northerly �300 feet of the NW 1/4 #2570, subject to road easement � over the Westerly 30 feet and that part of the Westerly One Ha1f of the NW 1/4, Section 12; T-30, R-24, lying East of Highway #65 and West of the South 97 feet of n � the North 330 feet of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, subject to road easement, and the Westerly 600 feet of the Northerly 530 feet thereof, ° except the Northerly 330 feet thereof of the NE l/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 12, T-30, R-24, and including :that part of the West 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Seetion 12, � T-30, R-24, lying Easterly of Highway #65 and Westerly � of the land herein adjacent the,reto, subject to roadway � ' easeme�t. Generally located between�7625 and 7699 on Highway � #65 N.E. . Anyone desiring to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at this meeting. . RICHARD H. NARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: August�6, 19Z5 � August 13, 1975 � � . /'1 • i �,!'L111vNII�C; AP1D ZO;�II�G I�ORM11 . � '� NUA;P,I:R • t� �� � . .� %� /1PP 1,1 C11N'i'' 5 S I GN�"1.'U l:ii� -L(-�` ��� �-- • n�i�r�ss / J..�� �,���,-- ,��r'/' :��c'� �'� "i ��,•��i Tcl c��lionc Numvcr `_ 1,-Z V' Z� 0�. . • ��� --�----,� �('��-^-�z.l%� I'li0Pr1:TY C191�r1:'S S7G;�1:�1'URI: yr.� _C�.i4`. ��i`s!�'�� , �U� �. �,��«�,�y �� A�dr es s 1�:.+f� �;� ��� 1 �. c. � ,� tv ,�c-� c: s c� �r_e��,s� �'� � � TYP� 0,l� RI:QUZ5T ` � Rezoni�t� s � Spccial Use Pcrmit Approval of Pr. c:ni�i- ii�a.ry ti l�inal i'l.at Si.rects �or Al.ley Vacsti.c?ns Other Tel eJ�Jlone Numb ex �� y � � _ � _ ; �� c_"; _ . �` ' . , ree�:�J Recei.pt No.%%!�G� : Str.eet Locata.a�i of �Prope��ty�� i° �x � a--f���,.. ) f _ �: Legal llescriptio�i of I'�-oper.ty Present �Zoning Glassificat.� on (.^ Z-..S _�xi.stin� Use of Pro�erty /(/o�,� .— . � �/��'L%� � .�%.-c'1. . Acreage ot Propert�r �'::�� Describe 'briefly c3�e �roposed zoning clussific�.tion or iype of use and improvemei�t z�roposed __ . - _/i/�E,%�/e /7���tr _.�cc./ f-' S }las the present applica»t previc�usly sough� to rezone, pla.i, ob��ain a Iot spI'i: or j'1 � variancc or special use permit an� the subj ect si:te_ or �a.r� �of it? ���no . - 11'hat ti•1as requ�sted anu �,hen? " . - The undersi�ned iindersrands that: (a) a list of all residents and owne.rs oi propert�� ' �ti�ithin 300 ieet (350 feet for rezoni�lg) must Ue attacl�ed to t}lis applica-ti.on. . -(l�), Tlzis a�plication r:�ust be signed by all o4�fr.e;'s of the property, or an explwnatio�i .� givei� �tli�� tliis 3.s 71Q% ��1G case. (c) � ResponsibiTity �or any defect in the �r�•oceeai�l�s � iesulting fro:n tlie faili�re t.o list the names and LLddresses of all residents and property o���ners of propcxty in quest�ion, belongs to the undersigned. .. A sketch �of: proposed property and str.tictuxc must Ue dra�vn a.nd �ttacl:ed, sho.lai_n, tlle ?' follo��ing: i. North Directi.o3i. 2. Locatie�l• of proposed structui�e on t}�e� lot. � 3. Di.mensions oi ��roperty, prcposccl structurc, and f:ront ancl side setblcks. � 4., Strcct I��ames. � 5. Location and �ise of a.djac:nt existing biii.lcting5 (wii.11�.�i 30U feet). � Tlie tindcrsi�ned hcreby d�cl�i-cs thzt all the f� cts a�ld xcprescn�ations stated in tl�is applicata.on arc.truc and corxcct. . . ' . pA 1'r �G - „r- / " ��S I G.R� 11'I'U 12Ii �------ � ./j '�-�'-----��{' . " • (A}'PLICAIM'C) . - Uate� 1?ilcd � Datc uf I�caring ' � '• , . •. - '. . Pl�nninr Commission A��l�roved - Cit•y Council. . _ � (dat:cs) l)cnicd ` (daL'cs) �. /1j�i�i�c�vc;c1 Dc�aiccl T � � •• ' . _ ' � • , • _ _�'t ,�•.. ., I , , � . : �. -•----- • • $' �� i i� 't r'1 � ��° rds»> ' C I i Y L I�i 1 T S ' � . I � .S%id/qf0/J/l0 { � � / S o 9 S � < o r,�/ L. N a n t ro n � 4�� R 1! 3 L E Y I ,, ��� NI i " �~ � � � I 230 II -' . �2SS0.� 1 ' , i�. ,y�;//oy G O�ri�,ctfe . � ` --._. ' �� __600 �- i� � - � I , : i + ; lu (�600) _ . ; . i` • , ��-: - - 600 _- --- - _ _--- -- -- *, i � � ' ��, � ; �� 2 � - . � , .° i �. �26sn� . � � /Y/i/toi+GOuiirrsttc�'N.O Goc�J i ' � � • � � � �Z ; � �j� j . ��" j Z�sOJ - , . D✓ Rta /ty CorP. �G 1 I ,o iY 3.ts. ' � '. 1 , • �' — ... _.—. __ _ -- u J o ____. _ _ _ , ' ^ s _ tL ----- -- - _ - _ -- — _.. fov � �.. � . O � � � � � � Z ; . . . � �II (GfJSn) � } ^ -- - ��'�I , Q : '°° . . ,� } _ . �Po - _ .,� ,:. _ � � ��c� . _ °, � � � � ° G�.o��r .-: . � � (? as � . : o6e%;�b.� �" : � . Z (L� . -- , - -- - . t (4.ifa� �, Y � ' IJ .r .: �r' . , � �� �~ � � ' �.L j C. J . ., �� �^�' .� � � � ��� . � _ ' . . • •�� �''�';;� w�,� �% . � . .,� � ��'y- 3'. ,, � °�Y G . /S�/ 4 G'O ' E ; ... . .,, . � S EC. / � r-�- ,�o :: • . . �v . � '��'��1 rra �. ^�y, 200 LJO 2<'�....') y~ .�,,,�: •� i 45.,, . � � i BB �i f I � .Ty ,�,. 1 �pe f.^•B �o ,�j3 i T = ='- ; ' � t .=) _�a.20 � <%ZiJ% . � rb�� ` �l✓J o � � �' � ° � � � � N ^ 3 I� 2 " � � I �. � �������� . : � 200_..-.-'-_.. . %-'--- 20G i -- '. e?0.2�� . _.._..--'-. ,q � ` a, �: z .n _"_ � .M � Y . � � `��� �� . L.S. #75-22 Steven Hendel(, 4 � ^: � � Mobi l e ome �al es �" � � � �� ��- o . ..r ` v5. � ��_ 2 0 �, .`_---- � ! � �� � . ^ , ��� � i : . �� ��1��������� � 3 � h ,y • � �w �� � M . yo ' ,�j - S o � 'O�� . . . � � 6��.�..e.0 �..,.20 . � 's' - �: " • g�.�y � "�_ -` ;y � ` . �: G. � Ai %7/f!� ,�^,�"'"'+* __ � i/irw7 Rttx%Y� int: • � � � � � � --. _____ � �--- ��� _ _�_ .. .._ : —. — ---�.' ': . __... . � - � . . . . � � �ri , , . . , - . . �t ' , (26Sp% � _� ----_---- ----�-f - ---�- . -f_ �. �� 4, • � M _ �` (4200) � : - ti �t1i//n� G' Gv�meffe �' f1 �Goo� t m�E i � � � �t�i � f . . r i) � + � iM � N . � i � ' =C0 �._./3Jvl --. ^_:" E - .T:.7'.'_ � �=F . ...I . .��. . F��� tr`v ��1 F� i,. ' � � . � � h-. � I • I 1 � Q �� I . � , � � i I Pc�ti A.f��vorf � � �4.SOO� � � ��, .Yf9.0o � ( �f��J . '� �� `� 1f.P.Je. �'I �( ' ' I � , - r ► __!___ __ f46AN� ! 9c�.G<. �` • , ., � a r. � � v ! . � , • , j • S < � . ._.__. f . � i � I 1 � •�...� . . . �i 1 . � �� z�7�o` _ j ' � . / I Z � , ti � . � , . . ! � / ' � � I�- - � C --- .. . _ _ . . ._ . .. ... ..... �... . . � `o � \ \� �., . / j' � . °�� • � /� . ,a � � �'°�� � . , " � %� W � � � �� � i � ` � � � � � ,'r�� � ' � � � �,.. � . - �6D l�r� . (l� . . I J . �' ! � ` . F i � . � ' � \ . \\ • " - � 'i/ � � � � . � � . � . j ` � ` ../' I / � � . . . . _ � ' � _ .. \ . . j �. � � � � � ,� . �� � \% J/ - / . . . . . . � � , ��� ' - : � � �� � . . . . i` ; ; �/ �, . _ . 1 � �, ' .. �, , , ,� o � ,,� �� i , r N 1, J , �. .�� . - � �� � � j ' � . I � i� ) . G' I I / i . , � �—�. � , , . .. � � 1 _ - � b � . .. . � � �.� O� `� � ; I �' \�..�� � � . . . . i � �'. I � . . i � . • ' � -4 �I . �U �. . . � . i at�, G �' +, S�o�e : %. � . r:, ;o„ � I � � �_ � � . ' +�a�t�w�-�: �', f ..; I _ � • � ? � rcui .. ' 1 . � � � .% � � ' � �i ' W ..�,'�': . .. .... . . . � . .. . . .... _ . � r .__ ... ... , . . .. . . . . ... . .. . . ..... ... .. _ ... ... . ... . . .. . . . . . . - $i�f�+*,t�Fr, /;y: ?��ryL!V �IS.iirr4. . �� �. ..�1 � / , , M , �� ._ i i�,E, . ,,; �t [ i' � . -1� SP N75 - 22 , . - i / � l-� ----�i. j:',n.. ,�. .:',.5,� a.,�% , �. . h'r>Ad . � t7,'na+R.�.,��, ln�.�,,. , �i�/mi.���°�. 1�:.�� -��i:�. .p�? �il i'�i4-1{oYi��;s� ��" . ,. . . . . . � . . -.... , .y..� ...�