Loading...
PL 04/23/1975 - 31184�� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION P�EETING APRIL 23, 1975 • PAGE 1 CAL.L TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 8:05 P.M. RQLL CALL: Members Present: Meissner, Lindblad, Harris, Drigans � Members Absent: Peterson Others Present: James Langenfeld, Ex-officio Member Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: APRIL 9, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, :�zat the Planning Commission approve their minutes of the Apri1 9, 1975 meeting as written. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. ' RECEIVE BUILDZNG STANDARDS-DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES::APRIL 10, 1975: Mr. Lindblad said there had been several changes in the proposal by W. R. Stephens for a new and used car dealership, but �e thought these should be taken up at the time of the consideration of the Speci�l Use Permit. ,-,�1 MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Drigans, ihat the P2anning Commission receive the minutes of the Building 5tandards-Design Control Subcommittee meeting of Apri1 10, 1975. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE BOARD OF APPEALS SUBCOMMITTEE MINUTES:_.APRIL 15, 1975 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive ihe minutes of the Board of Appeals Subcommittee meeting of Apri1 15, 1975. Mr. Drigans said that on page 8 of these minutes, there uaas a motion asking an interpretation of the code. He said he had received this interpreta�tip� and it was that a variance could not be granted to allow a use that was�specifically excluded in a certain zoning. UPON A VOICE VOTE, a1.Z voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING RE UEST, ZOA #75-02, BY WYMAN SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR RICHARD POVLITZKI AND THC FRIDLEY FRONTIER CLUB: To rezone f rom C-1 local business areas to C-2 general business areas , Lot 1, Block 1, Walnut Addition, to bring the existing use of the property into a uses permitted category of the City Zoning Code, the same being 7365 Central Avenue N.E. Public Hearing open, Mr. Richard Povlitzki and his attorney, Mark Haggerty were present. -�'"`'� Mr. Haggerty said that what he had said at the April 9, 1975 Planning Commission meeting was still the same, but he would like to add some addi�ional comments. He said it had been brought to his attention that one of the primary concerns on this property was the parking. He said that on the plan drawn up by the City staff, there 0 Planning Commission Meeting April 23, 1975 Page 2 ��� were approximately 64 parking stalls. Unde� the present City Code, they need a ratio of 4 to 1 which was one stall for each 4 occupants. He said that Mr. Povlitzki in his remodeling plans, has proposed a seating capacity of 287. He said the 64 stalls would only allow a seating capacity of 256. He said they proposed at this time, in order to obtain the rezoning and trying to get a liquor license, that they would purchase or rent property within 500 feet of the Frontier Club, possibly even just south of this property, so the ratio would be brought up to a three to one ratio. Another alternative would be to reduce the seating capacity. He said that either way would comply with the liquor ordinance that was being proposed by the City Council. Mr. Haggert� said he was asking 'the Planning.Commission to recommend approval of the rezoning request so this long established business could comply with the zoning code. ` ' MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the rezoning request, ZOA #75-02, by Wyman Smith, attar•,ey for Richard Povlitzki and the Frontier Club at 8:15 P.M. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting i aye, the motion carried unanimously. � � Mr. Drigans said he had looked at this facility and had taken into consideration • the problems they have had. He said-he was concerned about the parking, and the problems they have had outside the building. He said that the two complaints we have had, had nothing to do with the operation of this business on the inside of the Frontier Club. He continued, that this was an established business and had been there for �,,.� many, many years, and although the ownership has changed many times, the business h�s � stayed basically the same. He said the present owner has been there many years. He ; felt that if this was a new facility, he would not recommend that this area be rezoned for this.use. He said this property was already in a commercial zone, and the zoning , change would still be a commercial zone and that whether this was classi�°ied as a local business area or a general business area, that wouldn't change the clientele coming to this establishment. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Cormni.ssion recommend to the Council, approval of the rezoninq request, ZOA #75-02, by Wyman Smith, Attorney for Richard Povlitzki and the Fridley Frontier C1ub, to rezone from C-1 (Iocal business areas).to C-2 (general business areas),Lot 1, B1ock 1, Walnut Addition, to bring the existing use of the property into a uses permitted category of the City Zoning Code, the same being 7365 Central Avenue N.E., with the stipvlations that adequate parking be provided and the landscaping and lighting plan be reviewed by the Building Standards- Design Control Subcommittee. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Z. CONiINUED• PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-02, gY WYMAN SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR W. R. STEPHENS, JR: To permit the sale of new and used cars, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, (3, B) and (3, G) in a C-2S zone (general shopping areas) to be located on Lot•1, Block 1, Pe�rson's Second Addition, the same being 7701 East River Road N.E. Public Hearing open. '"�� Mark Haggerty, Attorney, and W. R. Stephens, and Roland Benjamin were present. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Environmental Quality Commission.meeting of Apri1 15, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975� Page 3 _ Mr. Haggerty said they had been making changes on their proposal right up � to the beginning of this meeting, so he would like to confer with his client bef,ore �e made his presenta�ion. He said he thought Mr. Clark could explain some of the � revisions in the plan. � Mr. Clark said that this had been before both the Environmental Quality Commission and the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee since the Planning Commission had seen this proposal. lie said that Building Standards made several revisions to the proposal, including revising the plan for the front of the building and the parking areas. He said that some of the City staff and representatives of W. R. Stephens had met that morning, and afterwards they both went back and drew up a plan on what had been discussed. He said that both plans had been brought to this meeting and were basically the same with a display area in the front of the building. The main difference in the two plans was that the City was proposing a free standing pylon sign, which might be difficult to install because of the overhead wires. Mr. Clark presented the design for pylon signs as drawn by the City staff. He continued tha+. there had been a couple of inquiries from the petitioner in regard to the stipulations of Bui1ding Standards. One of the stipulations was that the existi;ng concrete slab in front of the building be cut in a wedge shape. The petitioner said that because of the thickness of this slab, he would rather not cut it, and would rather limit the number of cars that could be-parked on the slab and use redwood planters two feet high, in this area to add to the landscapi.ng. He said the other question the petitioner had was on the stipulation by the Environmental Quality CommisA sion t�at there be no access to East River Road f rom this property. Mr. Clark said that in the discussion two weeks ago, it was brought out that when this property was platted, there was one access given to the two C-2S lots, the one the petitioner wanted to use and the lot to the North. The plan shown has the driveway centered on the property line so there would be one access for the two lots. Mr. Clark said they also discussed many types of lighting plans and the various types of fixtures that were available. He said that all the lights would be totally directional. Mr. Harris asked that if �'che pylon sign couldn't go under the overhead electrical wires, where could it go? Mr. Clark said that a pylon sign could p�obably be used, but not at the height shown. He said the proposed sign was limited to 25 feet by the City Code. Mr. Lindblad said that he remembered from previous discussion thai no light or sign could be over 20 feet in height, because of these overhead wires. Mr. Clark . said the petitioner would like to have a wa11 sign and were told that 'this would. - have to be located on the warehouse portion of the building instead of the snow room, and the �etters could only be 2 1/2 to 3 fee� in height. • Mr. H�ggerty said he thought Mr. Clark had answered some of the questions that were asked at the April 9th meeting on the appearance, lighting and landscaping for this proposal. He said he would like Mr. Herb Bacon of Bacon's Electric to explain how the lighting has been worked out for this proposal. He said the lights would be 25 feet in height instead of 20 feet as mentianed at the last meeting, but they were reducing the candle power. � Mr. Bacon explained where the lights would be located and said they would be directional and adjustable so there would be no lights shining into the traffic on East River Road or into the residences across the street. Mr. Bacon had a brochure showing the type of lights that would be used. � �. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to read the stipulations recommended by the Environmental Quality Commission on this request. They were: G Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975. Paqe 4 ' 1. Noise levels must meet the�standards set down in Zoning Ordinance No. 205.112. �� � 2. Light levels on a residential property after 9:00 P.M. shall not exceed that . proposed by�a standard 250 watt mercury vapor lamp, located 100 feet from such a residential property. 3. No entranceway or exit shall be established or used on the property along East River Road. 4. We urge that the developers consider the recommendations of the affected� residents. 5. The developer consider eliminating the proposed pole sign for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Langenfeld said that some of these stipulations had already been discussed at this meeting. . Mr. Drigans asked how the Environmental Quality Commission came up with the specifications for the second stipulation? Mr. Langenfeld said those were the requirements for street lights in resident�al areas. Mr. Haggerty asked Mr. Bacon if he could relate candle�power to 250 watt mercury . vapor lamps. Mr. Bacon said the security lights were only 175 watts and were only on the building, so those were well below the standards set. Mr. Haggerty said it had been stated before that this establishment would be open four nights, Monday through ,� Thursday, until 9:00, Friday and Saturday they would close at 6:00, and Sunday they would be closed, so that with daylight saving time, the main lights wouldn't be on that much. Mr. Haggerty continued that as far as the noise levels, he thought the �� traffic on East River Road would generate enough noise so that you wouldn't hear any noise from this establishment. Mr. Haggerty said they would only use as many security lights as they would . need for police protection and for security purposes. � Mr. Clark said he thought it should be mentioned that the two Committees who reviewed this plan didn't agree on the sign. One committee said they didn't like the wall sign, put it on a pole,.and the other comrnittee said they didn't like the pole sign, put it on the wall. Mr. Haggerty said the recommendation from Mr. Clark's office was to have the pylon sign. Mr. Haggerty said there were power poles on this property and also a very deep drainage ditch along East River Road and they would have to stay away from these areas with a pylon sign. He said a pylon sigh such as was proposed would cost approximately $10,000. and that Mr. Stephens was already investing around $100,000 in this property and did not want to spend this much for a pylon sign. He said that also, in their franchise for a Datsun dealership, it states that they have to have a •- particular sign, and a pylon sign would not meet the franchise requirements. They say that each one of the letters has to be six by six, and the anly way they could meet that requirement was to have a wall sign on the building. He said there was a smal•1 sign in existance along 77th Way in the southwest corner of the lot. They would like to keep that sign. There was another small sign on the driveway area of '1 this property on East River Road, and that sign will be removed. Mr. Haggerty said there would be 90 parking stalls on this piece of property. � Planning Commission Meetinq - April 23, 1975 � Page 5 He said he didn't think they would need that many.parking stalls to begin with, and �'i if they got too many cars on the lot they would use auxilliary parking in some other are�;. We will not congest this area with too many automobiles. The ninety stalls do not include tre parking space inside the building. He said that Building Standards had requested that they have slats all along the back fence. He said that at the present time there was a fence that went along the.property line for Barry Blower, and for security reasons, we wish to leave this fence as an open chain link fence. He said there was also a proposal to put in another fence that would run parallel with East River Road, and this fence be a solid decorative fence. He said this would cause security problems also, because someone could go behind this solid fence and strip a car in a matter of minutes. Mr. Stephens presented a material, a treated metal panel, that they proposed to put in this fence in a sort of checkerboard pattern, that would alternate open spaces with this material. It would give the appearance of a solid fence, but it would be open enough to satisfy security. Mr. Stephens said a solid fence could create security problems for Barry Blower also. Mr. Haggerty said he thought'.ihis answere� the questions that were raised at,the last meeting, and he would be glad to answer any additional questions. Mr. Lindblad, Chairman of Building Standards, said he was satisfied that there be some decorative treatment to the fence that ran parallel to East River Road, and he didn't remember that they asked the chain link fence on the property line to be slatted. He said he wasn't personally in favor of slatting, becaus� it only looked good for such a short time. He would be willing to agree that this fenc� be a plain chain link fence. Mr. Haggerty said the main concern was security. !�j Mr. Stephens said that a Datsun deale'rship was required to have a standard sign. He.said this sign would be placed on the building, which would put it about 150 feet to 175 feet from East River Road and it would be completely illuminated from behind .the sign. It would not be a neon sign. The light from this sign would not extend beyond the show room area. pon Leivermann, 7847 Alden Way, said he thought it was poor planning to have a retail operation at this location. He thought it would increase traffic and would be better located some place else in Fridley. Paul Burkholder, 7860 Alden Way N.E., said he still felt this was totally incon- sistant with the make up of the area. He said�that East River Road was not a commercial strip. He continued that for the last couple of weeks he made a note of where other car dealerships were located in other communities. He.said they were all clustered around major arterial highways. Some examples were Brooklyn Center, Roseville, Golden Valley and White Bear Lake, etc. Mr. Burkholder said he thought this property was zoned wrong in the first place. He said he would like to know what the original developer intended for this property when it was zoned C-2S. He said that Mr. Clark had pointed out the alternate uses this property could have, but no one has come forward asking to use this property for any of those alternate uses. He said he thought the reason car dealerships required a Special Use Permit was because people got emotion- ally involved when such a proposal came for their neighborhood. He said he personally had a rea1 estate investment of $150,000 within 40 feet of this property, and his . personal home was five blocks away, so he felt he had a substantial investment that was being jeopardized by this operation coming:into this area. He said he thought the � real estate values� would go down if this request was granted. He said all the talk about the need for security was beginning to bother him al�o, as he hadn't thought of that before. If this car lot drew the type that stripped cars, then how about his tenants cars who live in the four plexes directly across the street. These cars would be vandalized also. He said he would have to assume that Mr. Stephens would be Planning Commission Meetinq - April 23, 1975� Paqe 6 n successful in this business and it was his personal feeling that this business would be expanding to the lot north of the present site, and the two lots would be one big . car lot. Mr. Burkholder said he had no personal vendetta against Mr. Stephens, and as a businessman and a real estate broker, he could see that this was a good invest- ment. He said they had made the statement at the last meeting that they would do all that had been requested to get this business at this location. Now they are hedging on the sign and the fences. He said he didn't feel that the lights could be confined just to this property, unless he didn't know his physics. He said he would like a signed statement from Mr. Stephens that he would never expand this business. Elaine Hartmann, 119 Craig Way N.E., asked what assurances we would have that Mr. Stephens would �o what he had prom.ised. Chairman Harris said there were certain tools that the City had at their disposal in issuing a Special Use Permit. There would be stipulations made that would be binding on the petitioner. Another tool would be a time limii on the Special Use Permit, so that G�:ter a set period of time, it would be up for renewal. All the stipulations would be reviewed at th� time of renewal to see that they_ were being met. Mr. Clark said that another requirement for a car lot was that there was a yearly license required. - Mr. Haggerty said that the residents of this area had uoiced concern about the traffic problem caused by a. new car dealership. He said he would like to read into the record some statements made in a le�ter he had received from Mr. Stang who has ' A-1 Motor Sports at this same location. He said Mr. Stang had reviewed his sales ,,� slips from December l, 1974 to February.28, 1975, a three month period, and they numbered 668 actual purchases. There were 77 shopping days during this period which made the average sales per day 86.7. He said Saiurday's were slow, so this would � average over 90 sales a day during the week. Even during a slow time of the year, Mr. Stang�said he had about 15 people a day who did not purchase anything, and that in addition, as they carried so many different lines, they had about 4 peddlers a day call at this operation. Mr. Stang continued in his letter, that they had training . classes for children, 5 sessions, 4 days a week, each week, on snowmobiles, 2 sessions for 10 days on motorcycles. He said each class had between 50 to" 75 children who � were delivered and picked up by their parents. Mr. Haggerty said the point he was trying to make was that the c�r dealership expected about 50 contacts a day for � service and sales, which would be much less than the cantacts that came to A-1 Motor �Sports, so you can't say that this use will increase the traffic, it could in fact reduce the traffic. ' Mr. Burkho1der said he would have to see those figures for A-1 Motor Sports certified before he would believe them. He said this site was on 1 i/2 acres. He thought Mr. Clark should check the size of most other car dealerships, because he didn't feel there was enough room on one lot for such a business. He still felt this request should be categorically denied for this location. - Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Burkholder if he had made the statement that real estate values would go down if a car dealership went in at this location? Mr. Burkholder said he had. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Burkholder if he had any proof of this and asked how the real estate values would change if this continued as a snow�nobile and motorcycle dealership, or if it went to a car dealership? Mr. Burkholder said that �� from his experience as a real estate broker, he believed that a car dealership would lower the real estate values, not right away, but over a period of time, say 5 years. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark if this area had been zoned C-2S since the Zoning .�� Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 . Page 7 Ordinance went into effect in 1956. Mr. Clark said this whole area was zoned C-2S � until the apartments were.put in and that portion was rezoned since January 1956. Mr. Haggerty said he would like a motion made approving this Special Use Permit, and �if that motion was made, he would like the drawing presented at this meeting by the petitioner to be marked "Exhibit 1". He thaught this would facilitate making the motion. � Mr. Jonak,,133 Craig Way N.E., asked who would police this operation to see that thesti�pulations of the Special Use Permit were being followed. Mr. Harris said the C.ity staff polices it, and if we put a time schedule on the Special Use Permit, the stipulations would be checked for compliance at the time of renewal. Mr. Jonak said the problem with something like this, once the business was established, it would be hard to get it removed because nobody wanted to rock the boat. The attitude seems to be so they have a little trouble now and again, so what? He said he would like to have Mr. Stephens make a statement that he would be agreeable or amenable to any legitimate complaint �he neighbors might have on this operation, and would make an effort within a reasonable time, say a month, to make corrections or alteration, to eliminate the complaint. He said he wouldn'i want to wait one or two years until this Special Use Permit came up for renewal before any complaints were rectified. Mr. Haggerty said that Mr. Stephens was always open to suggestions, but whether we could commit ourselves to changes we are unaware of at this �ime, would be some thing else, but he would ask Mr. Stephens to answer that question. � Mr. Stephens said he was aware of the problems that had been discussed at �his �, and the previous meeting and he could assure�the people that he tvould work closel� � with the City and the City staff to get the job done righ� the first time. He said they were very interested in getting along wi�h the people in the area, and if they have any'objections when this business was in operiaion, he would like to know about t�hem. He said they wanted to join the communi�y and be part of it. He said that as this was not a specific problem, it was hard to know how to answer, but they wanted to be a good neighbor and they would do their best to take care of any complaints on the operation. Mr. Janak said that no one knew what was going to happen. He. ��ust wanted Mr. Stephens assurance that he would try to make changes on any reasona�le request, within a months time. Mr. Stephens said there was no question but that they would try to comply within any reasonable request. Mr. Drigans asked how long the Datsun sign would be'illuminated? Mr. Stephens said they would turn that off when they turned off the display lights, so the latest would be 9:00. Mr. Clark said there was one other thing that hadn't been discussed at all and that was a paging system, which can cause all kinds of problems. Mr. Stephens said they have used a paging system, but they could try one out on this property, and see if it was objectionable. He said they wouldn't put a speaker facing East River Road. Mr. Clark said that as to the noise level standards, you could make a lot of noise if it was just for a short period of time, without violating any codes. If we could � get some agreement about these sounds not crossing the property line, this could eliminate this problem. Mr. Stephens said they would agree to that. Mr. Harris said '�� this could be one of the stipulations. Mary Martin asked the petitioner to come and check the paging system and lights ��rom her front yard after they were in operation. Then they would knaw what was � Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 � Page 8 objectionable or not. This would be a more realistic assessment she thought. Mr. Burkholder said that if this Special Use Permit was granted, that the test driving of cars would not be confined to East River Road and they would be going down the side streets, such as Alden Way, and other streets where people live on that were present at this meeting. He felt this would be an additional hazard to residents of the area. Mr. Meissner asked Mr. Stephens if he had considered using a pocket system of paging rather than a speaker system. Mr. Stephens said they would check into other alternatives. He said he didn't think they were using a paging system where they were now, and didn't know if they would have any paging system outside the building for this opera�ion. Mr. Harris said that maybe one solution to the problem that Mr. Burkholder mentioned of test driving of the cars on residential streets, would be to encourage the road testing in the industrial ai°ea across ';he tracts, and then they wouldn't• have to cross East River Road. Mr. Stephens said this would be the most logical area. . Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Stephens if he had any objection to the Special Use Permi� being granted to him and be non-transferable? Mr. Stephens said he thought this was a dif�icult situation. He said not from his standpoint, but how long did any of us know how long we were going to be here. When you have a company, that was a corporation, if someihing happened to him, we wouldn't have this permit. He said that when the City has a license law that came up yearly, and a two year renewal on the Special Use Permit, he thaught they would have a17 the teeth you would want on �'1 this property. t Mr. Burkholder asked Mr. Stephens why he had decided to locate� on this particular lot." Mr. Stephens said it was the size of the building, the size of the lo�t, it was a pretty well traveled street, the land was adequate for �heir operation, besides the building was already there, and it would cost a lot more to start with a vacant lot. He said this property fit their needs right to a"T". - Mr. Haggerty said he would like to go through tFie changes that have been made and go through some of the things they thought should be stipulations: Mr. Harris said they could take that as a suggestion. Mr. Drigans said he was afraid the neople in the audience would think Mr. Haggerty was putting words' in their mouths. Mr. Haggerty said that if one of the members of the Planning Commission would like to make the motion with the stipulations, he would like ta reserve the right to comment on the stipulations before the motion was voted upon, if this was permissible. Mr. Meissner said he thought it mi�ht be worthwhile to have Mr. Haggerty summarize the things that Win Stephens had agreed to or the majar pointsthat `they say they were going to do, as part of the Public He�ring. Mr. Haggerty asked if they could have five minutes to go through these items, to make sure they had them all. RECESS: �,� Chairman Harris declared a five minute recess at 9:45 P.M. y RECONVENED: Chairman Harris reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 10:00 P.M. �� Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 � Page 9 Mr. Haggerty said that in summary af Win Stephens position in reference to � this Special Use Permit, he would like the plan they presented at this meeting marked as Exhibit 1. He would suggest that the layout and the lighting plan be made part of the motion. The specific lights which we have already shown you, will be � 1000 watt mercury lights, which will be approximately 25 feet in height. The second item was the fence. At the present time there was a fence around the entire area. We would recommend that the fence on East River Road be moved back to the front part of the warehouse section, as shown on Exhibit 1., and that this fence have a checkerboa,rd effect, and would run parallel to East River Road. Also, the present fence that was on the back property line.be left as an open chain link fence. Any external sounds that may be objectionable to the people in the community will be removed, and this would apply to a period of time. As far as the display signs, we - recommend that we be able to place a Win Stephens global sign with the Datsun sign on the face portion of the warehouse building, and that an.y sign would meet the , requirements of the sign ordinance, plus we woulcl be a7.lowe� to..remoye the sign firom the northwest corner of the premises, and the sign on the corner of tast .River Road and 77th Way be allowed to remain. We also request that stipulations 1 and 2 of the Environmental Quality Commission meeting of April 15th remain as stipulatioi�s. This � was in reference to noise and light leve]s. He said that in regard to drainage, lighting, building standards, or any thi�ng like that, they were willing to meet all the code requirements. He said this summarizes their position and his recommendation was tha� a motion be made for approval. Mr. Meissner said that on this Exhibit 1, you intenda to use this layout for your landscaping an improvements as shown on the plan. Mr. Haggerty said they did. ��, Mr. Clark said that when they were discussing the Datsun sign they said the letters would be six feet high. Mr. Stephens said he thought this size was too large to mee�t the code requirements, and they would con�'orm to the sign ordinance, regardless of what si�e those requirements were. ' Mary Martin said she would like to have it stipulated that there be no parki.ng or road testing on residential streets, and also, the people in the area would like to be notified when the Special Use Permit came up for renewal. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindblad, that the Planning Commission e2ose the. Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-02, by Wyman Smith, Attorney for W. R. Stephens, Jr. Upon a voice vote,ca.Z1 voting aye, Chairman Harris closed the Public Hearing at 10:25 P.1�1. ' Nfr. Langenfeld said he just wanted to make reference to the April 9th minutes and this would be based on the very essense of a Special Use Permit, and that was that the City should deem a requisite of considering the effect of such a Special Use Permit on the general welfare, public health and safety. He said he was sure these would be taken into consideration along with the stipulations. Mr. Meissner said we have three stipulations from.the Building Standards Sub- � committee. Two of them were on landscaping and one was on the lights. He asked if those had been adequately handled in the stipulations by the developer, or do you �want additional stipulations? Mr. Lindblad said he thought all the questions had been answered in a satifactory manner. He said that this had been discussed quite �,� extensively at the Building Standards meeting with the petitioner, and that Exhibit 1 was basically what they had suggested. He said it was left open for Planning Commission � approval and he thought most of the members approved of the presentation. Mr. Lindblad Said the 4th stipulation was only a recommendation because this was governed by the � Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975� Pa e 10 n sign ordinance. He said we had suggested a pylon sign, but he had no objection to the placement of the sign as presented at this meeting. Mr. Drigans said he thought there were enough pylon signs in the City already. Mr. Lindblad said that on the fence that ran parallel to East River Road, he had expected a different pattern than what was presented, but he had no objection to the checkerboard effect that Mr. Stephens had described. Mr. Haggerty said the material they would be using on this face was very durable and for security reasons, he thought this was the best treatment for this fence. Mr. Harris said he was familiar with this material and it was very durable. Mr. Drigans asked about the slatting of the chain link fence. Mr. Lindblad said he personally t�asn't in favor of slatting a fence. They look nice when it was first done, but in a short time they got to be a maintenance prob�lem. He said he would rather see a chain li�k fence that was kept in good repair and weed �ree. Mr. Drigans said thei� was a problem in cut�ing the concrete slab. and he asked the reason why the Building Standards Subcommittee wanted this done. Mr. Lindblad said there had been a lot of discussion of this at their meeting also. I� was left open that if they could come up with a plan that wouldn't necessitate tearing up al�l the concrete, that would be decorative, the Subcommittee would go along with that. He said he thought the redwood planters would break up this area and he though� that was also a satifactory solution. He said you really could��'t expect them to tear out all that concrete just so it could have a certain design. ,-� Mr. Drigans said that on the fourth stipulation by the Environmental Quality � Commission on denying access to East River Road, he thought that as the lot to �he North has to share access with this lot, he saw no reason to deny this property access to East River Road. He asked Mr. Lang�nfeld about the 5th stipulation about eliminating the pole sign. He asked if they were talking about a pylon sign��or the two ex�sting signs? Mr. Langenfeld said th�ey had assumed �he pole sign would be erec�ed, and this they did not want. . Mr. Drigans said he was in favor of granting this Special Use Permit with certain stipulations. Mr. Langenfeld said that.he was sure that with all the citizen input and the businessmen involved, that the people were aware that some decisions could be pretty difficult. He said he was just as concerned as the citizens, but he would like to point out that if this Special Use Permit was denied, and even if we went so far as to even think about rezoning this property, we would then enter into what he would call a'down zoning situation' which would be very costly to the citizens as well as to the individual who owns this property. He feels the citizens would have more inconveniences than what now presently exist. Mr. Meissner said that if this Special Use Permit was recommended for approval - by the City Council, there had been concern as to how the stipulations would be enforced. Ne said 'the responsibility for•the enforcements of these stipulations woul�d rest largely with the peopie who are affected by this request. He said the City Council would be putting on the stipulations, and the City staff would be enforcing them as far as supervising the construction and seeing that the stipulations �� were carried out during construction. At the time that the special use is review�d, � in a year or t►vo, or at the time of the yearly license renewal, that was the time for the citizens to come in and state the problems they have had with this business. You would have a very valid point at that time, if the stipulations aren't carried out. Planninq Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 Page 11 He told the people not to lose their perspective as to how they could take care �'"1 of some of the problems. He said he was sure that Mr. Stephens was a man of integrity and honor and would live up to what he says about trying to take care of citizen complaints. He said he wasn't trying to imply anything else, but the people would � still have power in seeing that the stipulations were being carried out. Mr. Drigans said this property was zoned properl:y. The Specia� Use Permit required was just a tool the City uses to control certain uses within this zone. Mr. Meissner said a Special Use Permit would be required in any zone of the City for this use. Mr. Jonak asked if it could be a stipulatio.n that all the test driving be done in an industrial area. He felt this could be done if a salesman was with the person trying out the car. Mr. Stephens said it was their palicy to usually have a sal.esman accompany a prospecti�ve buyer. . Mr. Meissner said that once someone was out on a public street, no one �an really force you to go any place except down a public street. The salesman can ask them to go a certain way, but if the driver of the car says he wants to go a different way, there wouldn't be anything anyone could do. You can't k�ep people off the public streets. He said he didn't thini< they could enforce the provision that�all road testing be done in industrial areas: We could ask that it be encouraged. Mr. Harris said we could ask Mr. Stephens to encourage his salesman to use the industrial area. There are differen� degrees of encouragement. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Drigans, that�the Planning Commission recommend ~"1 ta Council approval of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #75-02, by Ayman Smith, Attorney for W. R. Stephens, Jr., to permit the sale of new and used cars, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, B, and 3, G, in a C-2S zone (general shopping areas1 to be Iocated on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's Second Addition, the same being 7701 East River Road, subject to the following stipulations: 1. That Exhibit 1 be incZuded as part of the record. 2. That the lighting would consist primarily of bulbs having 1000 watts . on poles 25�feet high as shoran on the plan, and that said Iighting to be reduced to not exceed that produce,d by a standard 250 watt mercury vapor"Iamp, located 100 feet from such a residential property after 9:00 P.M. 3. Fences be in accordance with Exhibit 1. 4. Noise levels must meet the standards set down in zoning ordinance 205.112, and further, that there not be any sounds that are objectionable to the , community. 5. The Datsun sign be mounted on the face of the warehouse portion of the building and not be mounted on a po1e. � 6. That the s�gn on the south side of the building be retained and the sign on the north side of the building be removed. • �� 7. That the entrances remain as shown on Exhibit 1. 8. That this Special Use Permit be renewable in-two years. . - �'� Planninq Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 Page 12 9. That this Special Use Permit be non-tr�nsferable and not �ransfe�red to �ii another owner without another application being made for a Special Use Permit and another Public Hearing being held. I0. No Parking be allowed on residential streets in the immediate neighborhood for business purposes. 11. The test driving be encouraged by W. R. Stephens salesmen to be done in the industrial area and nat in the residential area. 12. A11 City Code requirements be met. 13. That the nuraber of stalls on this property be limited to 90 parking stalls. Mr. Clark said they had discussed the public address system, and this was probably'covered in the 4th stipulation on no objectionable noise. Mr. Meissner said he hesitated in specifically setting public address standards, and sai' that personally he would like to see them use a pocket paging system or some non=loud speaker type system. Mr. Clark said the other point brought out at the meeting was that this business not be expanded. Chairman Harris said the Publi� Hearing was closed, but he would bend the rules a little because there were people who wanted to be heard, now that the stipulations had been made. ^ Mary Mar�in asked if the people in the area could be notified when this came up for renewal. Mr. Drigans said that this was not done, because the City didn't have the staff to �otify everyone of these renewals. He said there were many Special Use Permits.that were subject to renewal, and theY':all came up at dif�erent times.. Mr.. Clark said this was usually done by the City Council, and th�re would not be a hearing by the Council or the Planning Commission. Mr. Meissner said that speaking realisticall after this has come up for renewal a couple of times, how many problems can be left. ;�`1 ti Mr. Clark said the first renewal date would be two years, and maybe the second renewal date would be five years after the first one, you never know, because this was up to the Council. Mary Martin said that Mr. Meissner had mentioned that the people in the area had policing power and she wondered if the City would help them in this. Mr. Meissner said the way to do this was to write a letter to the City, and this would be put in the Special Use file, and then this would be �rought up to the City Council when this permit came up for renewal. Mary Mar.tin said that if there was a written agreement between Mr. Stephens and the City on this Special Use Permit, would the citizens in the area be able to get a copy of this agreement. Mr. Harris said they could as this would be a public document. � ' � Mr. Stephens askedvhen this Special Use Permit would be renewable, bearing in mind that it would be 90 days or more before they would be in operation. Mr. Clark said they like to have these Special Use Permits come up for renewal during the growing season so that the landscaping and maintenance could be checked at that time. He said that usually an actual date was set, but it usualJydidn't coincide with approva' by the Planning Commission or Council, because this could lead to confusion as to the actual date it needed to be renewed. Planning Commission Meetinq - April 23, 1975� Page 13 ^ Mr. Burkholder said that in the discussion at the last meeting, Mr. Clark stated that Mr. Stephens could use the lot to the north for employee and customer � parking without obtaining a Special Use Permit, because this was an allowed use in a C-2S zone. Mr. Harris said he could not store or sell new or used cars on this lot � without ano�her application for a Special Use Permit for this lot. Mr. Harris said he didn't know the asking price for Lot 2, but he would think it would be a ti:ttle too expensive to use it for an employee and customer parking lot. It would be a matter of economics. Mr. 6urkholder said if he went strictly by the code though, Mr. Stephens could lease this property for that use. Mr. Harris said it would have to go to Building Standards and ultimately to the Council if he was going to use the north lot as a parking l�ot as stated. Mr. Burkholder asked if there would be notification of this request. Mr. Clark said that if it didn't require a Special Use Permit or rezoning there wouTdn't be any notification. Mr. Meissner� asked if this wouldn't be regarded as an expansion of an existing business and be required to have a Special Use Permit? Mr. Clar.k said he couldn't answer that. He said that he didn'i know if it would be enforceable, but if you want to add a stipulation that �his busine"ss couldn't be expanded without additional Public Hearings so that at least the City Council would be aware of it, and if they wanted to put it in the agreement with Mr. Stephens, that would be their decision. MOTION by Meissner, seconded by Lindblad, to amend the motion with the folZowing additionaZ stipulation: n 14. To require that additional Public Hearings be held should any attempt be . made to expand this business by the purchase of additional property or in some other manner. UPON a voice vote on the�amendment to the motion, Meissner, Dr�gans, Lindhlad, voting aye, Harris abstaining, the motion.carried. Upon a voice vote on the motion, Meissner, Drigans, Lindblad, voting aye, Chairman Harris abstaining, the motion carried. . Mary Martin said she wished to commend the Planning Commission on the very open way this Public Hearing had been conducted, and that everyone wa�s given the opportunity to speak. Mr. Burkholder said he would second that. Chairma��Harris thanked.them on behalf of the Planning Commission for their kind words. 3. CONTINUED: VACATION REQUEST, SAV #75-01, NORTH SUBURBAN HOSPITAL DISTRICT: To vacate all that part of 76th Avenue N.E. located in Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, lying East of the East line of 5th Street N.E., to be used for parking and planning " purposes. Mr. Car1 Gabriel of 401 76th Avenue N.E. was present. Mr. Clark said that 76th Avenue east of 5th street was presently unimproved. The !"`� North Suburban Hospital District owns all the property north ar;d south of this street except the corner lot at5th street and 76th Avenue. At our last meeting it was brought to our attention that although this was not a Public Hearing, the Planning Commission felt that notification should be made to that particular owner, and Mr. Gabriel was Planning Commi'ssion Meetinq - April 23, 1975 Page 14 �, present so perhaps he would have some comments to make both pro and con on this vacation request. � Mr. Clark said that if this street was vacated, it would go back to the present property owners as this street was all dedicated from Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, so it would all revert to the north. He said the City would want to retain all or part of the street right of way for a water and sewer main that goes down about the center line of this unimproved street, for utility purposes. Mr. Clark said there were a couple of other questions that the Planning Commission had and one of �hem was on the 7 year lease for.the park property. He said this was discussed between the Hospital Board and the City Council, and bo�� parties had signed the agreement, so this had to be agreeable to both parties. He said the ownership of the small Outlot next to the park property was one year away from going tax forfeit. He said the assessor's office had been notifi � that they wanted to know when this happened so the City would have a chance to acquire i�. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Gabriel if he had any comments. Mr. Gabriel asked wha� � the additional 50 feet that�would be added to his present lot would do to his taxes? � Mr. Clark said he couldn't really a�swer that question, but he thought the assessing department based most of the value on the structure on a property, and this woul� still be considered as one building site. He said that whether a lot was 80 fooL, 85 foot, or 90 foot, you wouldn't see a great deal of difference in taxes if the value of the structure was the same, but he didn't know what an additional 50 feet ^ would do to the value. He said this would have to be answered by the City Assessor. Mr. Clark said there would be some restrictions on this 50 feet, and that obviously you could no� build a permanent structure on this 50 feet because of the utility . easement that would have to be retained. He said that aside from the yearly tax, if improvements were made io 5th Street, which was assessed by the front footage of a property, that would be when you would appreciate the biggest increase in his taxes. He said that after 76th Avenue was vacated, and the City decided to put a curb across this 50 feet, who would stand the cost of that? He said he thought the Council should answer this question so that Mr. Gabriel knew whether or not he was going to be burdened with this assessment or whether he wa�s not going to be burdened: Mr. Gabriel asked wha� the City was going to do with 76th Avenue? Mr. Clark said that if it was vacated, the City would no longer have jurisdic�ion over it. � Mr. Gabriel asked who would own this property? Mr. Clar��k said that Mr. Gabriel would own the 50 feet adjacent to his lot, and the balance would be owned by the Hospital District. Mr. Gabriel asked if there would ever be a cul-de-sac there. Mr. Clark said that one of the stipulations when the Hospital Board wanted to put in the medical building was that 76th Avenue never be used for an access to this property, so the hospital wouldn't be putting a road in. � Mr. Clark said the Hospital Board has no plans for this property now., They did • make the statement that the medical field was changing so fast, they didn't �kno� what ,� their needs would be in the future. Mr. Gabriel asked that if the Hospital Board pu� a parking lot in this area, how close would it come to �is property? Mr. Clark said they had to be l00 feet away from 5th Street. This was as close as they could come with the stipulations Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 Page 15 _ that were put on the Special Use Permit for the medical building. They would ^ have to stay 20 feet from the south line of 76th Avenue and 150 feet east of the east line of 5th Street. Mr. Clark said that if the Hospital Board did decide to make this area into a parking lot, they could go on the north side of 76th Avenue � also. Mr. Gabriel said the 150 foot restriction could still bring the parking lot right up to his property line. Mr. Gabriel asked what choice he had in accepting this 50 feet. Mr. Clark said the 50 feet would be Mr. Gabriel's to control. He said the:Hospital Board may be interested in buying it, or you could deed it to them if you so desired. Mr. Gabriel said he couldn't understand why this property should come to him. Mr. Clark said this was because the property was originally dedicated from Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, so the property had to go back to that plat. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Clark if you didn't have to have an agreement from all adjacent,property owners before you could vacate a street? Mr. Clark said this was not a code requirement, but in practice we would like to have agreement Mr. Drigans said that it seems that in this instance that there were two parties involved, and one �ants the vacation and the other doesn't. Mr. Clark said that was the purpose of the Public Hearing before the City Council so that everyone who was affected by a vacation request could be heard. . ' Mr. Gabriel said his main concern now was the additional taxes and that this street was undeveloped and had a lot of blown down trees on it. He said there hadn't been a clean up of this property for quite a while. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Gabriel if he used any part of 76th Avenue for access to h.is property. Mr. Gabriel said ^ his house faced 76th Avenue but his garage faced 5th Street so he had access from 5th Street. Ne said he would be in favor of having this area cleaned up and sodded. Mr.� Harris asked Mr. Clark if there was any reason why the City was maintaining the sewer and water service on 76th Avenue. Mr. Clark said it did service the hospital and the medical o�fice building. Mr. Narris said that as long as they�were in use, they would have to retain an easement for this utilities. Mr. Meissner said they had a lot of these same questions on the Plats & Subdivision. Streets & Utili�ies Subcommittee where they had vacated quite a few streets. He • said that generally taxes, per se, were not radically affected, because as Mr. Clark � state�, most o� the value for the property was placed on the structure. He.said any street improvements or storm sewer assessments that are based on front footage of the property was where the impact of higher taxes would come in. He said that Mr. Gabriel o would have to discuss this with the City Assessor. He said the land would not be fixed up or improved in any way by the City when it was handed back to the property owner. When the land was given back after the street was vacated, it then becomes the property owners land to clean up and develop, or whatever they desire to do. � . As for the potential curb across 76th Avenue, the Planning Commission could stipulate that the City pick up this cost, if they so desire. He said Mr. Gabriel's option was to split off that 50 feet and sell it to the Hospital District, or deed it to them, if that was the way to get rid of it. Mr. Clark said he didn't think he would have to get a lot split. He thought if Mr. Gabriel just called the Hospital Board and discussed this with John Haines after he had made up his mind what he wanted to do with the vacated street, and the Hospital Board might be interested in accepting this as part of their property. Mr. Clark said the comment made by Mr. Meissner that the City might �� b� willing to pick up the cost for extending the curbing on 5th Street, he didn't know if the City would want to absorb this cost. He said the Hospital Board was in the process of putting in a new parking lot and curbs, and they might be willing to �dd this curb to their construction in consideration of the vacation request. e Planninq Commission Meeting April 23, 1975� Page 16 Mr. Harris asked Mr. Gabriel if. he was in favor of the vacation or opposed to it. Mr. Gabriel said he wasn't opposed, but he wouid like to check on the tax �'�1 situation. � � Mr. Drigans said he could deed this to the Hospital Board and avoid a tax increase. Mr. Gabriel said he would like to see something done if this street was vacated. He said it was just a pile of sand. Mr. Clark said he didn't think it would be out of line to make it a stipulation for the Hospital Board to add top soil and seed this area. He said that if Mr. Gabriel kept the 50 feet, this would apply to him also. He said that if Mr. Gabriel sold this property to the Hospital Board or deeded it ta them, he could stipulate that they put top soil and seed all of vacated 76th Avenue. Mr. Clark said that Mr. Gabriel should check with';the City tax assessor between this meeting and the Public Hearing by the City Council, so he could come to some decision before that time. • MOTION by Meissner, seconded b� Lindblad, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a vacation, SAV #75-01, by North Suburban Hospital District, to vacate alI that part of 76th Avenue N.E. Iocated in Osborne Manor 2nd Addition, Iying East of the East line of 5th Street N.E. to be used for parking and planning purposes with the following stipulations: 1. The North Suburban Hospital �istrict bear the cost of the completion of the curb along5th Street N.E. Z. The vac�ted.�roadway be improved with top soil and seeded to provide ground cover. �Mr. Clark said that retaining of the utility easement should have been included as a stipulation. MOZ'ION by Meissner, seconded by Drigans, to amend the motion with the additional stipulation that the City retain a��utilityeasement on the entire street right of way. Upon a voice vote, the amendment to the motion carried unanimously. UPON � VOICE VOTE, a1I vo�ing aye, the motion �arried unanimously. 4. CONTINUED: REQUEST FOR A LOT SPLIT, L.S. #71-08s BY CLIFFORD J. THOE: To split off the Westerly 70 feet of the Southerly 123 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, Central View Manor, except that part taken for roadway purposes, to split the residence from the service station.property, the same being 7420 Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Clifford Thoe and Mr. Charles Jordon were present. Mr. Clark said this was discussed back in 1971 and 1972. He said there had been discussion on this by our City Attorney, Plats & Subs., and the Planning Commission, about if this lot was split off, what the disposition would be of the property if it were ever sold. At that time, the Planning Commission wished to have a stipulation placed on the lot split that the lot could never be sold to anyone exce�t the owner of the commercial property from which this lot split was being taken. At that time, Mr. Thoe felt he could not abide by this stipulation because it would only give him one buyer for the property, and if the service station owner only � Planning Commission Meeting - April 23,� 1975� �� " Paqe�17� �. wanted to give him say $2,000 for this property, he couldn't go elsewhere to sell his property so he wouldn't have any bargaining power, so h�;withdrew his request. He said this wa's what Mr. Thoe would like to discuss with the Planning Commisson at this time, to see if they could come up with an alternate solution. Mr. Thoe said that this stipulation left him without any bargai.rii.ng power at all. I�e.said he had been asked to have the property surveyed and this he had done. Mr. Thde"'saidthat he had been to the Board of Appeals for a variance on the setback lines on this property before he had the survey done. Mr. Thoe said that one of the objec�ions to this lot split was that he would need a sewer and water easement on this property. He said he was connected to the sewer on Ceniral Avenue and he got his water through the service•station. He said.he wou1d probably need an easement for the water. Mr. Clark said this water would have to come from 73 1/2 or Central Avenue, because there was no water on 73rd. Mr. Thoe said they had taken 33 feet of his property � for 73rd Avenue, so the residential part of this property was 70 x 90 feet. Mr. Clark said this only made about 6300 square feet, and our minimum residential lot size was 9,000. Mr. C;ark said this house was on commercial property so at �resent it was a legal non-conforming use. He said that what Mr. Thoe was worried about was that if a� some time he wished to sell this property, he couldn'� sell it to anyone except the � service station owner, and the service station owner knows he has �o sell to him, so he would have no bargaining power. He would have to accept less for this house than if it was placed somewhere else. The problem he sees was that he could not go some- . where else and buy this same type house and garage for 'the money he would realize from the sale of this proper�y. If he could offer this house to more than one buyer, he could ge� considerably more for his property. This was why he didn't want to be tied io this stipulation. � � Mr. Lindblad said tha� as this property falls into a legal non-conforming use, � it would be governed by the regulation that if it were more than 50% damaged by fire, wind, etc., it could not be rebuilt. Mr. Clark said it could not be rebuilt as a house. Mr. Clark said that another concern they had when this was first considered was that we would be ct�ea�ing a 6300 square foot parcel in a commercial area. If this . does not meet the code as a residential lot, it certainly wouldn't meet �he cade for a commercial lot. We were trying to look into the future and not have one piece of ' commercial property under two ownerships. He said Mr. Thoe would like �o see that too, but financially he didn't think he could afford it. ' Mr. Harris said this was still one piece of commercial property then, it hasn't been split. Mr. Clark said it hadn't. " Mr. Meissner said he was a member of �he Plats & Sub. Subcommittee when this first came up for discussion. He asked if there was any��hing that had changed since •this was discussed a few years ago? Mr. Clark said no, but that now Mr. Thoe knows � where the sewer service was, and it wasn't on the parcel of ground he wanted to split off. He said the drawing that Mr. Thoe had provided at that time had proved quite � accurate when you compare it to the verification survey he had just obtained. He . said Mr. Thoe had indicated that the garage for the house and the service station were 4 feet apart, and they are actually.4.6 feet apart. � Mr. Meissner asked who owned the property directly to the west. Mr. Thoe said it was John Haluptzok. Mr. Meissner said he had looked at this property, and 6y the n appearance of the fence, it would give theimpress�ion that you own that property also. Mr. Thoe said that Mr. Haluptzok liked the fence Mr. Thoe put up, so he put one up just like it. Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 Page 18 Mr. Harris said that according to the survey,�th� service station would be ''� 2 feet off the property line of the property he wants to split off. He thought this � would be quite close. � �� � Mr. Clark said he could appreciate Mr. Thoe's problem, but he felt that the City had to be protected also in not letting this problem exist for a long period of time and let it coniinually change hands. Mr. Meissner asked that if this property were split off, would the remaining service station meet the code requirements. Mr. Clark said it would, but they had requested the variances for the service station because they wanted to make some changes. He said this was what brought this lot. split back for reconsideration. ... Mr. Harris asked how long the service station had been in existe�ce? Mr. Thoe said th��.�house and service station were built by the same person in 1949. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Clark if �he City staff had any recommendataon on�this request. Mr. Clark said they didn't. The solution to the problem would be if the entire property could be under one ownership. Mr. Jordon said he was not finanei���! able to purchase both the service station and the house. Mr. Thoe said that if he could, he could make arrangements to rent the house. - Mr. Clar.� said that as long as the house was in existence, it did make the cost prohibitive for the service station owner to purchase this part of the property. He said if this were vacant land, the cost would be more in line. Mr. Thoe said the reason this parcel tha� he wanted to split off was so small was because the City took 33 feet of this property for 73rd Avenue. Mr. Meissner said that at the time of the ori�inal request the possib��ity of granting �he lot split with an agreement �hat the only person the petitioner could sell that lot to would be the service station owner was not accep�able to Mr. Thoe. He asked Mr. Thoe if this was still unacceptable to him. Mr. Thoe said it was, and he hoped the Planning Commission could come up with an alternative. Mr. Thoe said he had a letter from the City saying that some other property had been handled that same way; he thought it was Holiday. Mr. Clark said he didn't have a copy of that agreement at this meeting, and wasn't sure what property the agreement covered because Holi'day had property scattered all over. He said he didn't think there were lot splits involved for Holiday. This had been a rezoning request, unless this was covered in the agreement for rezoning. Mr. Harris asked what would happen if this part of the property was split off, and at some future date the house was demolished. Would the City then be in the position of having to issue a building permit for this property for a commercial endeavor? Mr. Meissner said this would be a substandard lot with no previous legal non-conforming use as commercial property, so what cou�d you do with it? Mr. Harris said that there could probably be a covenant with Mr. Thoe that in the eventuality that the house was destroyed that the owner of that property would never request a permit to rebuild a house or a permit for a commercial endeavor unless this property was owned by an adjacent owner of commerical property. He said that this way, he could sell the house to someone else, and they use this house as a residence, but they would be under the same obliga��ion as Mr. Thoe would be. � Planning Commission Meeting - April 23, 1975 Page 19 Mr. Lindblad asked what would happen as far as insurance if this house was damaged more than 50% of its value, but was not a total loss, and it could not be %� rebuilt because it was a legal non-conforming use? Mr. Langenfeld said he would use the figure of a$20,000 home. If it was damaged $12,000, the person would have the option of rebuil�ing or taking the $12,000. If he couldn't rebuild because it was a legal non-conforming use, he would still have the option of taking the 12,000, and the fact that he couldn't rebuild, he wouldn't get any more money from the insurance company. Mr. Meissner said he personally couldn't see any change in this request from what it was three years ago. His position was still the same as it was then. Ne felt than an impossible situation has been created which was just as bad, if not " worse than what we have today. He said he couldn't be in favor of this request being granted, because there wasn't anything different, to make him change his mind. � Mr.�Drigans said he would like to see that agreement that was entered into with Holiday. Mr. Meissner said that if the petitioner would be willing to ente� into an agreement that if he ever wanted to sell, he would sell to one of the adjacent property owners, so that this piece of property would eventually be a legal conforming use again, he would be in favor of that. Mr. Harris said he thought they should �hink abou'c this for a couple of weeks to see if they could come up with some solution. He thought they should do some research on this, so they could make the proper de�ermination of this request. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Lindb3ad, to continue until May 7, 1975 the � request for a Iot split, L.S. #71-OS, by Clifford J. Thoe, to split off the Westerly � 70 feet of the 5outherly 123 feet of Lot 18, Block 2, Central View Manor, except that part taken for highway purposes, to split the residence from the service station property, the same being 7420 Central Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting a�e, the motion carrfed unanimousl�. ADJOURNMENT: �OTtON b� Meissner, seconded by Lindblad, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris adjourned the Planning Comraission meetirig of Apri� 23, 1975 at 12:05 A.M. Respectfully submitted, C� , r Dorothy Evenso , Secretary n �- - � ���� ; � � � � �� ����� , ; � - i, �,� � �; �. , � � -__ � � � -; ___ � � .v �� � . . � _: , - � � x�� , .,v -. �.. ;. x . .-1=��s�.� :. . : !� <- - —, a.. � �. � � , � .� ',j � / ��_��.�.�Q�� �"� '��-_ �'���'�1/ : � � ---- _ �' � ' � :� . _ _- � -��-- , �_�_�_��_:_�- � � ' � , r—, , I iI � � i . ' , � Ij � i . , ,� I ��,� � i i � ; �' ��, + �.'¢s j , . , �' � ; �`�� ---;�- - �� � �. � I j � �, ��__ �� [IL� � , � - . _ � �- � - , � ��y�/s T--- ,/jiil /-� � 5�. . ��9 ��� (.�. ---__.�_ �L/O/_-_�_� ��,--%�---__. �, i r �� h � , , � � �-�� ,�,, ; - _ � - -- � ------ ._----- - -_.._--- ---- � - , _ _ :� - �` ' � � - ; , -_:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---- --- -- - _ _ _ ---------- --�-�..�- �.�: . � L- -- ---- --- ------- , �I --- -- ------- ------ ---- '� ' '�----- - � � -- ----- - i , - , , -- -------�- - _,� � � �-- � i! � � -_ _� �. � - � ' ,�` ` - : :