PL 01/22/1975 - 31180�
�
PLANNING CUMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER:
CITY OF FRIDLEY
JANUARY 22, 1y75
Chairman Fitzpatrick called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.iN.
ROLL CALL:
PAGE 1
Members Present: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Blair, Drigans, �angenfeld
Members Absent: Lindblad
Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, Planning Assistant
Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 18, 1974
MOTION by Nairis, seconded by Bl:air, that the PZanning Commission minutes of
December 18, 1974 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: DECEMBER'19, 1974
MOTION b�.Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the PZanning Commission receive
the minutes of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of December
19, 1974. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried.unanimously.
RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION CONNIISSION SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: DECEMBER 23, 1974
MOTION by B1air, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Parks & Recreation Corr¢rtission Subcommittee meeting of December
23, 1974. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the rreotion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BUILDING STANUARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JANUARY 9, 1975
MOTION by Harris, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission receive
the minutes of the Building 5tandards-Design Control 5ubcommittee rneeting of January
9, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES: JANUARY 14, 1975
MOTION by Drigans, secondea b� Blair, that the Planning Commission receive the
minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of January 14, Z975. Upon a
voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimous.Iy.
RECEIVE PLATS & SUBDIVISIONS-STREETS & UTILITIES SUBCUMMITTEE MINUTES: JANUARY 15
MO1'ION by Harris, seconded by Driqans, that the PZanning Commission receive the
minutes of the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities 5ubcommittee of January 15,
1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
�� 1. CONIINUED• PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #74-17, BY
' GEORGE WALQOIST: To permit the construction of a building for rust-proof�.ng of
automobiles, etc., per Fridley City Code, Section ZU5.131, (A,10) in an M-1 zone
(light industrial areas) to be located on prnposed Lot 5 of a proposed p1at, P.S.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 2 _
#14-U8, Herwal Rice Creek Terrace, the same being 1271 Rice Creek Road N.E.
n Public Hearing open.
-- Mr. Boardman said the petitioner had notified the staff that the developer
of this property lived in Detroit, and would not be present for this meeting. He
requested that this request be continued until such time as the developer would be
available to answer questions regarding the operation of this business.
MOTIDN by Drigans, seconded by B1air, that the Planning Commission r_ontinue the
request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-17, by George Walquist, to permit �e con-
struction of a building for rust proofing of automobiles, etc., per FridZey City Code,
Section 205.131 (A,10) in an M-1 zone (light industrial areas) to be located on Lot 5,
of a proposed plat, P.S. #74=08, Nerwal Rice Creek Terrace, the same being 1271 Rice
Creek Road N.E., until the petitioner can have the developer of this property appear
before the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONI:�'G RE UES?, ZOA #74-Q5, BY RAO MANUFAC=
TUKING COMPANY: To rezone from C-2S general shopping areas to M-1 light indus-
_' tria�l areas), Lots 3-15, Lots 27-32, and part of Lots 2 and 16, all in Block 9;
vacated alleys in Block 9, and the East half of vacated Main Street, lying adjacent
to Block y, all being in Lowell Addition to Fridlex Park, the same being 2U0
Mississippi.Street N.E.
Chairman Fitzpatrick read the Public Hearing notice, for the rezoning request,
ZOA #74-05, by RAO Manufacturing Eompany. -
n Mr. Robert A. O1son, Sr., Chairman of the Board, Mr. Robert A. Olson, Jr�,
President, and Richard A. Olson, Jr., Vice President, all of RAO Manufact�ring Company
were present.
Mr. Richard Olson said that.RAO Manufacturing Company was a corporation engaged
mainly in the manufacture of sheet metal stampings, deep drawings, stamp and assemblies,
along with tool and die making, engineering and related items to this process. In
1970 we purchased approximately 5 acres at 200 Mississippi Street N.E. We went ahead
with preliminary soil samples, etc., and also approached the Fridley City Council for
land use approval, which was granted. At that time we mentioned that approximately half
this property was zoned commercial and that it would have to be rezoned industrial for
our use. The Council had no objection to this rezoning. He said they had been trying
to demolish the old buildings on this land and they have run into some problems with
this, but we hope to have it completed very shortly. We are planning to start construc-
tion on this property this spring with completion within six months. We also have a
purchase agreement of a pie shaped wedge of approximately 68 feet that was west of
their property, along the railroad right-of-way. He said this was part of Block 7,
Lowell Addition to Fridley Park and was about 3/4 of an acre that is zoned M-1. He
said they were proposing to construct a building of about 50,000 square feet which is
200 feet by 240 feet by 20 feet high. It would be built basically in the center of
the property, 220 feet from the Easterly boundarY of the property. The reason for
building at this location was because of the underpass project on Mississippi Street,
which will limit our access to the building to the Easterly portion gf the property.
Any future expansion of this building would be to the West. He presented a colored
rendering of the proposed metal building which he said would have earthy colors.
�� Mr. Boardman said they did'have an option on the location of the building. r�f
for some reason, the rezoning was denied, they could locate the building on property.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 3
that was already zoned M-1 and use the C-2S zoned property for parking. He said
it would be better to have the property all under one zoning, for resale purposes
� and because it would also be easier to administer.
�
Mr. Robert A. Olson, Jr., said the only way they would want to use this property
was if it all had the same zoning. The property wouldn't have the same potential
otherwise. He said the proposed 50,000 square foot building could be expanded to
100,000 square feet if this property was all M-1. If they could only build on the
property that was presently zoned M-1, they could only expand their building to 75,000
square feet. He said the main reason for moving their business from Minneapolis
to this location was so that they would have room for expansion.
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Boardman that if this property was expanded to its maximum,
would there be enough room for parking?
Mr. Richard Olson answered Mr. Harris. He said their present plan called for
57 stalls. Under the City Code we would need 52 stalls, and if this 50,000 square
foot building was used to the maximum, we would need 63 stalls. On this same �Jrawing,
we have provision for up to 100 stalls. If we went to the maximum of 100,000 square
feet, we would need 165 stalls. This would all be on the Easterly portion of the lot.
We do have room on the West for additional parking. He said they knew they had to
provide additional parking as they expanded the building, so their expansion would be
somewhat determined by this factor. He said he couldn't foresee expanding this property
to its maximum in his lifetime, and who knew what mass transit there could be at that
time, which could change parking requirements.
Mr. Harris asked what the setback requirements would be from adjoining properties?
n Mr. Boardman said the property to the West was industrial (M-1) and the building m et
.�_ the requirement there. South of the property was zoned R-3, and it meets the setback
requirement for that zoning. East of the property the zoning was C-2S, and it met the
setback requirements. He said there was some R-1 property across from part of the front
of the building, so the entire setback for the front of the building should be 100 feet.
RAO Manufacturing Company will be going to the Board of Appeals for a front yard variance
from l0� feet to 70 feet. Mr. Boardman said it was felt that Mississippi Street was a
natural barrier between this property and the R-1 and would act as a buffer. If the
variance was granted, we felt it was better to have this variance on the front setback
. rather than the rear yard so the building wouldn't infringe on the R-3 zoning. Mr.
Boardman continued that RAO would be using berming and landscaping across from th.e R-1
zoning which would be an additional buffer.
Mr. Robert A. Olson, Sr. said he felt this was a very unique piece of 'land. In
view of the fact that Mississippi Street was going into an underpass situation, the
only access to all this property was on the Eastern end. It was a gaod thing for the
City to have this property under one ownership because of this one access. He said there
wasn't even access to service the sanitary sewer Tine on this property from the street.
He said RAO would provide access for t�tis purpose. He said that no way would RAO want'
go ahead with the development of this property, with all the money it would cost for its
development, and take a chance on getting.it all the same zoning at a future date. He
said that at the time they acquired this property, there weren't any plans to upgrade
Mississippi Street. .
Mr. Drigans asked how the access to this property was laid out in relationship
� to the underpass? Mr. Boardman said he thought there was about a four foot drop over
the entire parking lot, and about a 2 foot drop from the parking lot to the street. The
grade starts to drop on Mississippi Street in the vacinity of 2nd Street. Mr. Clark
said there would be about a 1% grade from the street into the parking lot of RAO. He
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 4
said the"grade on mississippi Street would be�about 5%.
n Mr. Langenfeld said that he had noticed in the Council minutes of January 18,
� 1971 that Mr.. Olson, Sr. had said that they wanted to be good neighbors, that they
would save all the trees they could in the development of this pro.perty, and that
truck traffic would be kept toward the railroad right-of-way, and that they did not
intend their building to be an eyesore.
Mr. Dick Olson said they had gone with the earthy colors for this building
because that seems to be the most popular concept at this time:
Mr. Langenfeld asked if they had a night shift. Mr. Dick Olson said they did.
They were in operation from 6 A.M. to 11 P.M. He said they have worked on the noise
levels for both their employees and noise coming from the building itself. He said
it was a quiet operation, and the design of the new building would have the production
end of the business in the center of the building. He said he didn't •think noise would
ever be a problem and they had to meet the OSHA standards. .
Mr. Robert Olson, Sr. said he would answer the question on the truck traffic.
He said it had heen their intention of having the trucks use an access near the
railroad right-of-way, but due to the underpass, this was now impossible. -
Mr. Harris asked if at any future date they were planning on a railroad spur.
Mr. Dick Olson said they had no desire for one at this time, and doubted if .they would
ever need one. J
MOTION by Blair, seconded by Harris, fhat the Planning Commission close the
n Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #74-05, by RAO Manufacturing Company.
:, Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Drigans questioned if this type of manufacturing was allowed in M-1 zoning,
which was the zoning the petitioner was requesti�g. He said the Code says that foundaries
or metal fabrication plants are an excluded use in an M-1 district. .
Mr. Harris said he thought this was a problem of technology again. He said that
what the intention of the Code meant to exlude was forged steel metal fabrication, but
just plain metal fabrication was something much different, such as just making metal
frames for windows, for instance. Mr. Dick Olson said that because of the quietness of
their operation, he thought they would conform to the requirements of M-1 zoning. Mr.
Clark said they did appear before the City Council in 1971 and got land use approval
�for this business, and.were only told to get their entire property under the same
zoning, which was M-1.
Chairman Fitzpatrick said that if there was a serious question on whether this
was a permitted use in M-1 zoning, this should probably be continued until we get
clarification.
Mr. Drigans said on one hand we have an operation with a low noise lev�l and they
are in light metal fabrication, and on the other harid the Code says that metal fabrication
plants are an excluded use in M-1 zoning, which probably means pounding and forging out
of heavy metal products. He said he would like an interpretation of the language of
the Code. -
�` Mr. Robert A. Olson, Sr. said that four years ago when they appeared before the
Council, We were assured that we did comply with the regulations of M-1 zoning. He said
�'
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 5 __
Nasim Qureshi, who was City Engineer at the time, and the members of the City Council
^ did visit our' plant, and they were satisfied at that time that this would be the proper
� zoning. Whether the present Council would agree with that would be something else.
�
Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark to get an opinion from the City Attorney on this
question, and get the answer in writing. Mr. Clark said that he would.
MOTION by Driqans, seconded by Harris, that the,Planning Commission continue
until February 5, I975, the consideration of a rezoninc}'equest, ZOA #74-05, by RAO
Manufacturinq Company, to rezone from C-2S (general shopping areas) to M-1 (light
industrial areas) Lots 3-15, Lots 27-32, and part of Lots 2 and 16, a1I in BZock 9,
along with vacated alleys in Block 9, and the East half of vacated Main 5treet Zying
adjacenfi to Block 9, a11 being in Lowe11 Addition to FridZey Park, the same being 200 .
Mississippi 5treet Northeast, to provide the administration time to research the �
interpretation of the language of the Code. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the
�tion carried unanimously.
Mr. Robert A. Olson, Sr. said he thought it was in the best interest of RAO
Manufacturing Company to have this clarified also.
Mr. Clark said they could still go to the 8oard of Appeals and Building Standards-
Design Control meetings as scheduled. They could make their recommendations subject
to the rezoning being approved. �
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
��, ..� �y ..� � �
Central Avenue
CONSIDERATION
ION W. GUSTAVE
dley, Coun�y of
and Highway #65
OF A
N.E.,
PROPOSED PLAT, P.S. #75-01, CENTRAL VIEW
: Being a replat of Parcel 4780, Section
, Minnesota, generally located between
North of 73 lI2 Avenue N.E.
4. � PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING RE UEST, ZOA #75-01, CENTRAL
AUTO PARTS: 7o rezone from C-ZS general shopping areas to M-1 light industrial
areas all that part of Parcel 4780, Section 12, City of Fridley, that lies
between the Northerly extensions of the East and West lines of Lot 10, Block
1, Central View Manor,. generally located just North of 1201�73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIf, SP #75-01, CENTRAL AUTO PARTS:
Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.131, (A,8 to allow junk yards or baling of
junk or rags in a building enclosed on all sides or when completely enclosed
with a solid fence, to be located on that part of 4780, Section 12, City of
Fridley, that lies between the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot
10 and the East lin� of Lot 16, Block 1, Central View Manor, to allow expansion
of the boundaries of Central Auto Parts, 1201 73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
Mr, Gus Doty of Realco, Inc., and Mr. John Buzick of Central Auto Parts were
present.
Mr. C1ark said these three requests should be considered togetfier, because if
the rezoning and special use permit aren't approved, there would be no reason to
plat this property. "
Chairman Fitzpatrick read the Public Hearing notices on the proposed plat, -
� P,S, #75=01, Central View Manor 2nd Addition, by ReaYco, Inc., the rezoning reques'�,
ZOA #75-01, to rezone from C`-2S to M-1, and the request for a Special Use Permit, SP
#75-01, by Central Auto Parts, all pertaining to all or part of Section 4780, Section
� 12, City of Fridley, whichlies between Central Avenue �nd Highway #65 N.E., North of
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 6 �
73 1/2 Avenue N.E.
n Mr. Clark said the l�nd that was being platted was split in half a couple of
� years ago, at the zaning line by the now defunct American Auto LTStings. The East
portion of the property wa� occupied by Gustafson Grinding, and the balance of the
property was vacant. Parcel 4780 was only 140 feet deep and 1,33� feet lonq. Mr.
Doty Wanted to have another lot split Qn:�this,.pro�e��y'which would have di.vided this
parcel into three parts, but as you can tell from the Public Hearing notices, there
would have been lengthy legal descriptions. He said he advised the petitioner to plat
the property instead. This request was before the Plats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities
Subcommittee on January 15th and they recommended approval with three sti�ulations
which were (1) Provide a 15 foot drainage and utility easement along the Northerly
portion of Lot 2, and on the North-South line between Lots 2 and 3, and along the South
partion of Lot 3, (2) This approval subject to the rezoning request, ZOA #75-01, and
a request for a Special Ose Permit, SP #75-01, by Central Auto Parts, being approved, and
(3) A private covenant be put on Lot 2 so that this said Lot.2, Central V�ew Manor 2nd
Addition, could only be sold to adjacent property owners who already have street access.
Mr. Clark said this last stipulation was to prevent Lot 2 being sold as an isulated lot
that didn't have street access. The petitioner was agreeable to these stipulations.
Mr. Clark continued, saying that Central Autv Parts, the tentative purchaser
of Lot 2 of the proposed plat, has requested that the Westerly 60 feet of this lot
be rezoned the same as the balance of Lot 2, which was�'M-1, and that a Special�Use
Permit be granted for all of the new Lot 2, so they can expand their salvage yard,
He said that the City has had some problems with Central Auto Parts, most of them due
to the fact that they didn''t have enough space for their operation. Their business has
^ their problemshanTheyywouldChaveeto d�scontinuetparkingLdamagedhanddpartiallySdisf
mantled cars in their parking lot, which was supposed to be for customer parking, and
� using property across the street, which they don't own, for parking. Their business
would have to be confined to their own property, with a screening fence.
Mr. Clark said the staff had prepared a list of stipulations for the Planning
Commission to consider in making their recommendation on the Special Use Permit. The
firSt one was that there must definitely be a screening fence. The second was, that
especially along the portion �rat abuts the trailer park, there should be at least a
10 foot pl�ant'ing strip, like an evergreen hedge.� outside and adjacent to other zoned
property, to be completed by July 1, 1975. The third stipulation was that all storage,
unloading and loading of inoperative vehicles be confined within the screening fence.
(4) That parking of trucks, loaded or empty, be restricted to the area inside the
fenced lot, (5) That all dismantling or parts salvage be done inside the existing
building, (b) No vehicle parking be allowed in the street or on any other land that
is not authorized by the City Council ar the City. The last stipulation, number 7,
was that this permit be for a period of time, to expire on July 31, 1976, and not be
renewed unless all of the above stipulations were complied wfith. Mr. Clark said the
reason the staff felt this should have a yearly review was because this hasn't worked
out the way we thought when the original Special Use Permit was granted. There are
three ways the petitioner can go with this operation. Either reduce his operation or
move out, or acquire more land for this operation.
Mr. Clark said that Central Auto Parts owned Lots 10-15, Block 1, in Central
View Manor. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that was why they were requesting the rezoning of
� the Westerly 60 feet of Lot 2 then, so it would he the same zoning. Mr. Clark said
that Lot 2 was in line with Lots 1Q-16, but Lot 16 belongs to another salvage yard.
Mr. Clark said there were a couple of other comments he would like to make.
Planning Commission Meeting January 22, 1975 Page � I
He said the stipulation by the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee on the �
�1 original request for a Special Use Permit was for a wood fence. The fence they have
is not a wooden one. It was an 8 foo� high screening fence. It was right on the property
v line, and we would like to see this fence moved back so there would be more room for
some�plan�ings. Mr. Harris said it didn't look as if there was much right-of-way in
this area. Mr. Clark said there was a 60 foot right-of-wa�, but we weren't used to
seeing an eight foot structure right on the property line, and that's what made it look
so close. Mr. Fitzpatrick asked if there was a fence on the property East of Central
Auto Parts? Mr. Clark said there was. Mr. Drigans asked who owned Lots 16 - 18. Mr.
Doty said this belonged to Fridley Auto Parts and that thei�r fence was right in the
property line also.
Mr. Clark said he would have to say that there has.been an improvement in the
opertaion of Central Auto Parts in the last year and a half under the new ownership.
He said Fridley Auto Body has cleaned up its operation also.
Chairman Fitz���trick said he thought they should consider the preliminary plat
first, and be aware that Lot 2 in this plat did not have street access.
Mr. Harris said the reason for the stipulation that there be a private covenant
on Lot 2 was because we didn't want, at a future date, �o have this lot change owner-
ship to someone who didn't already have street access because the City could be placed
in a position of having to condemn street-right-of-way for this property.
Mr. Drigans asked why the property now owned 6y Central Auto Parts couldn't
be included in the replatting? Mr. Doty said there were legal complications because
/� of mortgages, etc., which would make this extremely difficult. Mr. Doty said he didn't
know if the type of private covenant they were stipulating for this lot was legal or
not, but it would have a limit of 22 years. He said he wasn't an attorney, but once
this Lot 2 was a part of�Central Auto Parts, he couldn't see that it would be considered
as a separate property again. It wouldn't go tax forfeit unless all the property owned
by Central Auto Parts went forfeit. Mr. Doty said the only reason they were platting
this property was to facilitate the sale of Lot 2 to Central Auto Parts.
Mr. Clark said that if the City was put in a position where it would have to
go through condemnation proceedings to give street access to Lot 2, this would all
be assessed back to Lot 2.
Mr� Doty said he was sure that Central Auto Parts would be agreeable to tying_
Lot 2 to their property and maybe they could provide a private easement over the
East half of Lot 15, so that if this lot did go tax forfeit, there would be street
access. Mr. John Buzick, Central Auto Parts, said he wouldn't want to agree to this
until he had talked to his partner and-his attorney, as he didn't know what repercussions�
. there could be from this. Mr. Clark said that as long as Central Auto Parts still owned
Lot 2, there would be no problem even if this easement was given, because it wouldn't
be used for an access to Lot 2. This would just be a solution if Central Auto Parts
had to sell this property. Mr. Harris said this would be a private driveway easement.
Mr. Buzick said he had no objection to most of the stipulations m�ntioned by
Mr. Clark, but when it came to moving the fence in on the front of the property,
he said there was so much sand that he couldn't see anything growing there except weeds.
Mr. Boardman said there was sand all over the City, and there would have to be some
� topsoil put in under the sod. He said nothing grows if its just put on top of the sand.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 8
Mr. Buzick said that if they had to move the fence in, they would be losing
area again, and he thought they needed all the area they could get. He said the reason
n they didn't put in the wood fence was because it was against State regulations to have
� a wooden fence for this type of operation.
Mr. Doty said that as long as the fence for Fridley Auto was on the property
line also, he thought it was a little premature to expect Central Auto Parts to move
their fence at this time. He felt that as long as this Special Use Permit was going.
to be subject to yearly review, this could be taken care of at a later time, Mr. Harris
said they could wait for the natural screering between the C-2S zoning and the M-1 zoning
until the C-2S property was developed. He said the screening fence should be brought
in from the property line in this area also so the plantings could be put in at a later
time, without moving the fence. He said the natural screening (plantings) should be
started along the R-4 zoning during this years growing season.
MOTION by Narr�s, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Coromission close the
Public Hearing on the proposed p1at, P.S. #75-01, Central View Manor 2nd Addition,
by W. Gustave Doty. Upon a vo2ce vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION.by Drigans, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commision recommend
to Council approvaZ of the proposed plat, P.S. #75-01, Central View Manor 2nd Addition,
by W. Gustave Doty, being a repZat of Parcel 4780, Section 12, City of Fridley, County
of Anoka, Minnesota, generally Iocated between Central Avenue and Highway #65 N.E.,
North of 73 I/2 Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
Z. Provide a IS foot drainage and utility easement alonq the Northerly portion
� of Lot 2, and on the North-South Iine between Lots 2 and 3, and along i-he
n South portion of Lot 2. •
Z. ApprovaZ of this pZat is subjectto the rezoning reqc�est, ZOA #75-OZ, and
the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-01, both requests by Centra.i
Auto Parts, being•approved. -
3. Subject to a 30 foot private easement being granted from 73 1/2 Avenue N.E,
to Lot Z, so this 1ot wou3d have street access if ever needed.
iIPON a voice vote, alI voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Blair, tliat the Planning Corranission cZose the
Public Nearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #75-01, by Central Auto Parts. Upon a
aoice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously.
1�70TIDN by Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission recommend to
Council approval of the rezoning request, ZOA #75-OI, by Central Auto Parts, to rezone
from C-2S (general shopping areas) to M-1 (.Zight industrial areas), a11 that part of
Parce.Z 4780,'Section 12, City of Fridley, that Zies between the Northerly extension
of the East and West lines of Lot 10, Block 1, Central View Manor, qenerally Iocated
just North of 1201 73 1/2 Avenue N.E., subject to the approval of a Special T1se Permit,.
SP #75-OZ, for Central Auto Parts. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the motion carried
unanimously.
MO1'ION by Blair, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission close the
Pt�blic Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-01, by Central Auto Parts.
� Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimovsly.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 1975 Page 9
Mr. Buzick said he wouldn't want to agree that no dismantling at all would be
n done outside the building. Sometimes someone needs a door or some other part for a
_ rush job, and although they don't like to dismantle outside, in an emergency they do it.
He said that he would agree that no major dismantling be done outside the building.
�
The Planning Commission members agreed to this, on an emergency basis. Mr. Clark
said he would have no objection as long as this didn't cause noise pollution. He said
they could monitor the operation, and check this stipulation at the time of renewal of
this Special Use Permit.
Mr. Clark said he thought the review of this Special Use Permit should be during
the growing season, rather than a year from today. If they should recommend more fencing
or plantings at that time, it would be easier to comply with at that time of the year.
. MOTION �� Drigans, seconded by Blair, that the Planning Commission recommend to
Council approval of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #75-01, by Central Auto
Paxts, per Fridle� City Code, Section 205.131 (� 8), to a11ow junk yards or baling of
junk or rags, in a buiZding enclosed on a11 sides, or when completly enclosed with a
solid fence, to be located on the part of Parcel 4780, Section 12, City of FridZey,
that ?��s_between the Northerly extension of the West line of Lot 10 and the East line
of Lot 16, B1ock 1, Central View ManorR to allow expansion of the boundaries of Central
Auto Parts, 1201 73 1/2 Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations:
1. Provide an 8 foot screening fence, 1� feet from the property 1ine.
2. Provide a IO f�t pZanting strip outside this fence. The planting strip
:•Ctn the North property line a�jacent to the R�� zoning, to be planted in the
1975 growing season. The planting strip adjacent to the C-2S zoned property
along the West side of Lot 2, Central View Manor 2nd Addition, and aZong the
West side of Lot IO, BZock 1, Central View Manor, to be determined at the
time of the review of the Special Use Permit, dependent upon the development
of the C-2S zoned propert�.
3. A11 storage, unloading and loading af inoperable vehicles be confined inside
the screening fence. .
4. Parking of trucks, Zoaded or empty, be restricted to the area inside the
fenced lot.
5. AZ1 major dismantling be done inside the existing building.
6. No vehicle parking in the street or on any other unauthorized area be
allowed. �
7. This Special Use Permit will expire and be up for renewal on Ju1y 31, 1976
and wi11 not be renewed unless a11 of the above stipulations have been::satisfied
UPON a voice vote, alI voting aye, the mbtion carried unanimously.
6. DISCUSSI�N:
Mr. Clark said they would like to keep a light agenda for the Planning Commission
� meeting of February 5, 1975 so this could be used as a workshop meeting. He said that
Jerry Boardman was scheduled for another meeting on that date, and would not be
attending this meeting. �
. . _ . �„�,,.,,R„� _
�"''�
�
Planninq Commission Meetinq - January 22, 1975 Page 10
Mr. Clark said he hadn't been aware of posting Public Hearing notices three
days in advance of the meeting, but he would see that they were posted, so'�they wouldn't
have to be read.
NOTE: Upon checking, the Cit� Charter only says ordinances and resolutions have to be
read. It was the Council's decision to post these three days prior to the meeting
so they cou.Zd waive the reading. There is no requirement to read the Public
Hearinq notice on anything else. Therefore, there shouldn't be a motion to waive
the reading of the Pub.Zic Hearing notice. Instead there should be a mofion to open
the Public Hearing, stating the time, and a motion to close the Public Hearing,
stating the time.
Mr. Harris said he had attended the special Council meeting on Saturday, January
18th. He said members of the Chamber of Commerce were present and voiced some dis-
satisfaction with the City. He said he invited them to send a representative to the
Planning Commission workshop meetings as we were working on the City Code. .ye_as.ked
the secretary to notify Mr. Dunn that the workshop meeting this month would be on
February 5th. �
Mr. Langenfeld sai� he had some comments on the joint meeting with the Bmkeway
Committee. He had some basic concerns, which were:
1.
2.
Safety
If this Committee decides to tax the individual, he thought it would be-
no deal.
3. Public lighting
4. Proper'�.notification to individual residents
5. Check sources of immediate funding to see where we would stand on a
Class I project .
6. He thought they should stick to Phase I and check more thoroughly with
the railroad, because this was a major problem
Mr. Langenfeld said he did learn a lot�at this meeting, and wanted to thank the
Chairman for the invitatian.
Mr. Drigans,asked that copies of the minutes of this meeting be made.available
for the Planning Commission:
Mr. Harris said he agreed with Mr. Langenfeld's concerns and thought that it
came down to how this would be paid for. He said it could be paid for out of property
taxes, or they did have some other alternatives, but whether those alternatives woGld
be available with our present economy, might be in some doubt. Mr. Langenfeld said
that according to the figures given at the meeting, the bikeway would cost $3'Ll,�i80.
It was broken down into five phases and Phase i would cost $62,OOU, so we are talking
about a lot of money.
Mr. Urigans asked if there had been a priority set up as to what would come first,
the bikeways or the walkways. Mr. Clark said Phase I was the bikeways. Mr. Urigans
�� said he felt that more people could use walkways than bikeways. Mr. Blair said that
when you were talking about that much money, he felt the City had need for other things,
such as an activity center.
Planning Commission Meetinq - January 22, 1975 Paqe 11
Mr. Harris mentioned the Civic Center at Brooklyn Center. Most of the members
said someone from their family had used this facility and were familiar wiih it. Mr.
�`larris that this center wasn't anything fancy, but it was a very functional building.
Mr. Harris said the Bikeway Committee started out with a survey. fhey found
there were 28 neighborhoods in Fridley with no cohesive force to pull them together.
We don't have one school district. There is no common denominator in the City of
Fridley. Mr. Langenfeld said he thought that one of the purposes of the bikeway
was to eradicate the natural and man-made barriers. Mr. Harris said that a civic
center, or youth center, or whatever you want to call it, could make a focal point.
Mr. Drigans said the property that the Wall Corporation owns would be a good location
for something like this; because the library was already at that location.
Mr. Harris said the problem was to find funding for this purpose.
' Mr. Fitzpatrick said Fridley had a great need for indoor recreation facilites.
Mr. Drigans said it seemed to him that we could get some of these things, like an
indoor swimming pool and an'activity center, alo�r� with the armory. He felt there
should be a study made on how much it would cost us to have an armory large enough
to have it combined with a youth center, indoor swimming and/or other indoor recreation.
Mr. Blair said he felt this wou]d be the easiest way for Fridley to get these facilities.
He said the indoor armory parade ground could be used for an indoor gymnasium. Mr.
Clark said the Council would be having a Public Hearing on the armory propasal on
Fetiruary lOth. Mr. Drigans said he thought funds should be made available to have an
arhitect come up with some alternate plans for what Fridley might want to incl�de in
an armory. Mr.:� Blair:said there should be plans �rom other armories where they had
combined facilities. Mr. Fitzp�trick said there probably were, but at their meetings
;''�n the armory, they didn't hear of anyplace that had extensive indoor recreation. Mr.
-�lark said the City could have almost anything they wanted in an armory, but they would
have to be willing to pay for it too. Mr. Drigans said that if it was something that
the National Guard could use also, the State would share in this cost, but not the
Federal Government. He said he thought the armory proposal was at the Council level
prematurely, and should probably be r�ferred back to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Clark said it would depend upon how the Council feels about a youth center. If they
� aren't in favor of this, then it goes back to just being an armory proposal. Mr.
Drigans said the armory could be a dual purpose building, and this might make it more
palatable to the commanity.
ADJOURNMENT•
MOTION b� BZair, seconded By Harris, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a
voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Fitzpatrick declared the Planning Commission
meeting of January 22, 1975 adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
�?-2�v , ».c. z'`�'y�r✓
Dorothy Evens , Secretary
1�'
1
,,.. � -�__' %�i �%��� �
� � �i�
_ ; ��, � 97.�
�
1
i _
i � �,�-
i ___ .
,
. .
� y
/� � �n�;������X 9.�v� 7���,,��- �
�� Es CNCZ�s���sow 385'� �qc�a�t 5T, ;
I �
, � � �� � �
; _ _ ' � -
. . ,
� �G� ..1. 0,��� S.,z . z o/o N- y`� s�, ,
� �
�, �
a �r
� ��:.�,.a.r,�-.� �Q , o . �� . � ����
�_ __ _ . : .w • .�1,�, , � `�_ �,-L
� �� � D�.... � �, .,
� _ .
� _
, �� �� � �r ,t r� t,
_.
,
r���. __ _ _ h� 3 �b� f� h�af� ��� !� ,__ _
_ �- _ %
i
- ----- -__ _ � _ � . .-- _ -- _ __
- -- ------ �.----- _ ,
� A� \`
�
_ .. t