The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 08/20/1975 - 31189�, ^ ' PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CALL TO ORDER: CITY OF FRIDLEY AUGUST 20, 1975 Chairman Harris call.ed the meeting to order at 7:38 P.M. ROLL CALL: PAGE 1 � Members Present: Scott, Bergman, Harris, Drigans, Langenfeld Members Absent: Peterson � Others Present: Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator � Steven Olson, Environmental.Officer Hubert Lindblad, Vice Chairman, Community Development Commission Mr.: Clark asked the Chairman to announce that i�f there were people in the • audien�ce who were here in regard to the.advertised Public Hearing for a Spe�ial � Use Permit, SP�#75-22, by Steven Hendel, for mobile home sales, that this request had been withdrawn�by the petitioner. . • APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: AIJGUST 6, 1975 � Mr. Clark said he had a comment, not a correction. He said he was �he one who stated that the Council nersons and the�representatives from the sign companies at a study session, had made the decisio�nthat they would not have to have rezoning �or variances on the billboards. He said he would like to correct that, because he , . had been told by Dick Sobiech that there was no decision made at this meeting. This was worked out by administration, through legal counsel, with the sign companies, as directed by Council at the�study session. Mr. Clark said it was.d.iscussion between Mr. Sobiech and the City Attorney when it was determined that the billboards were legal non=conforming use. He said this did not�'change this determination, but he said he had misundersiood that this was done at the.workshop session. � ' � Chairman Harris said that on tlie last motion before adjournment on page 30 of the minutes, it gave his name as making the motion. Me said tha� as a Chairman couldn't make a motion, this motion had to have been made by D.avid Harris. This should be changed. � � MOTION by 5cott, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission•minutes of August 6, .Z975 be approved as.corrected. Upon a voice vote, a.I1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE HUMAN�RESOURCES COM��IISSIDN MINUTES: AUGUST 7, 1975 MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning Commission re�eive the Numan Resources Commission minutes of August 7, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 12, 1975 ' � MOTION by Drigans, seconded ,by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive � the Appeals Cummission m.inutes of August 12, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, . the motion carried unanimously. - Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975� •" � Page 2 RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 13, 1975 �' ' Mr. Clark said he wished to mention that in the content of .these minutes there were two ordinances which were referred to the Planning Commission. � One � � was a Junk Vehicle Ordinance, and an amended Swimming Pool Ordinance. He said these would be put on the Planning Comrnission agenda for their next meeting. MOTION by LangenfeZd, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission receive the Environmental Corrmiission minutes of August 13, 1975. ' Mr. Scott said �e would like to commend the Environmental Commission on objective N under the second goal which s�ated to foster cooperation among Commissions and levels of government in establishing mechanism that ensure consideration of all public and private rights and interests affected by land use decisions. He said he thought this was a very nice statement from the Human Resources point of view. � UPON a•voice vote, aZl voting aye, the mo.ion carried unanimously. RECETVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMIS�ION�MINUTES: AUGUST 13, 1975 � MOTION by Bergland, seconded by 5cott, that the �Ianning Commission receive the Community Development Comrrassion minutes of August 13, 1975. � �- Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to suggest, that s�ince these were presented at this meeting, that they do.be reviewed thoroughly because some of the things r � were important in the minutes o� the last two Cor�nissions °' UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motiQn carried unanzmously. �ECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVf STAFF REPORT ON A BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST BY MINCO PRODUCTS FOR A PLANT ADDITION AT 7300 CO�MERCE LANE N.E., BY KARL SCHURR - ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This permit is for a 120' plant addition which would add 28,125 square feet to an existing manufacturing plat located at 7300 �ommerce Lane. The expansion will take place to the west of the existing building and will be constructed to match the � decorative block pattern that is carried on the existing building. The addition would also include additional parking facilities to the west of the addition which would allow for a total of 160 stalls. (155 required by Code). The addition to the facility will meet present codes and upgrade existing conditions. (See stipulations on concrete curbing). . � ENGINEERING: We don't foresee any engineering problems. ENVIRONM��T: We don't foresee any major environmental effects on the surroundings with the �'� construction �of this addition. � Planning Commission Meetin - Auqust�20, 1975� �� ' � � � '�Paqe 3 � BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: � • 1. That Minco Products, Inc. dedicate an easement for a bicycle-pedestrian trail over the 60 foot portion of property along the west property line. 2. (a) That concrete curbing be placed along that portion of the parking � lot and driveway along 73rd Avenue N.E. Also along the south side of the proposed addition, allowing for service entrances in order to provide a � five foot planting area along the building. (b) That temporary blacktop curbing be placed 5 feet off of the west wall of the proposed addition with a rock fill between the �curb and the building in order.to allow for further expansion of the facilities to the west at some future time. (c) That Minco Products will complete concrete curbing on the�parking . facility at�that time when they reach full potential use of their property. Mr. Clark said that Minco Products had an office•building and part of this � buil'ding was .the manufacturing portion of the building. Across the street from this complex, they also occupy the old Takkenin Machine buildinge� They now �ish to . add on to the manufacturing portion of the bui�lding, which would be west of the existing structure. Mr. Clark reviewed the building permit stipulations. Ne said they met all the setback requirements and parking �requirements of the Zoning::Code.. Mr.� Clark said that through the years this business has been well kept, well n � maintained, and Minco was a-good t�nant. � Mr. Harris asked who was going to marntain the 60 foot easement? Mr. Clark said this was already an easement for North Surburban Sewer District and Northern States Power Company. Mr. Karl Schurr said that they mow it and maintain it. MOTION by Scott,.seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Cormnission receive the administrative staff report for a plant addition to Minco Products, Inc., at 7300 ,. Commerce Lane N.E. and recorr¢nend approval of thi�s building permit. Mr. Scott said that Minco was a good neighbor and it was a pleasure to have such a company in Fridley. He would certainly like to see their expansion go forward. UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried.unanimovsly. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST BY BERGSTEDT REALTY, FOR AN OFFICE BU,ILDING TO BE LOCATED AT 1040 52ND AVENUE N.E. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT GENERAL DESCRIPTION: This permit is for the construction of a new two story, 98' x 37', office building � at 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. The building will be constructed of raked pre-cast concrete panels wiih the entra�cefacing east along the east side of the pnoperty. They will n be sharing.the driveway to the west of the apartment complex to gain access to the property and will be providing 46 parking stalls which will be shared by the apartment complex. Landscaping is approved according to approved�site plan. Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 4 The �building meets all code requirements with the exception of the side yard . �� setback from 15 feet to 5 feet and the front yard'setback from 80 feet to 35 feet, both�of which�have been recommended for approval by the Appeals Commissaon. ENGTNEERING: There doesn't appear to be any engineering problems. Drainage off the site coul�d be handled either by draining to 52nd Av�nue N.E. or by hooking to Columbia Heights Storm Sewer to the back of their property. ENVIRONMENTAL: There will be no detrimental envi.ronmental effect with the construction of this facility. The construction of the parking facility will provide needed additional parking �or the apartment complex at night and on�the weekends. The apartment complex is presently short about 40 parking stalls. This construction will provide an additional 46 stalls. BUILDING PERMIT STIPULATIONS: 1. Draw up agreements for joint usage of parking and driveway facilitieso 2. Submit copies of drainage and grading to the Engineering Department for approval and appropriate direction. � 3. That curbing be placed on the East side of the entrance driveway and along the north line of the aparf�nent parking facility to a point adjacent to the � east property line of the office building property. (as shown on approved . plan). . Mr. Clark reviewed the staff repor� and the bu�ilding permit stipulations. He said thi� ��«�d �ome up in the agenda agai.n beca�se it required a lot split. Mr. Scott said the agreement for joint usage of parking and driveway facilities should include snow removal and�maintenance.• Mr. C1ark said he thought that was a good point. �� Mr. Drigans said that he hoped this agreement made it evident to the apa��ment residents that this parking�lot was for overnight parking, and was not.to be used for excess parking of recreational vehicles. Mr. Clark said it would have,to be restricted to motor vehicles that have .every day use. � MOfiION by Scott, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the administrative staff report for a building permit request by Bergstedt Realty, for an office building to be located at 1040.52nd Avenue N.E. and recommend approval except that snow removal and maintenance.be included in the agreement for joint , usage of parkinq and driveway faciliti�s. Upon a voice vote, a12 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1.. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L S #75-06, BY BERGSTEDT-A�DERSON REALTY COMPANY: Split off • Parcel 540 from Lot 7, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, to allow the construction of a commercial building, with joint parking for the adjacent apartment complex. The same being 1040 52nd Avenue N.E. ' Mr. Drigans said he thought this had been covered pretty thoroughly in both the Appeals Commission minutes and the adminis.trative staff report. Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 5 MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Langenfeld, that the �lanning Commission recommend �_ to Council approvaZ of the request.for a Lot Sp1it, L.S. #75-06, by Bergstedt-Anderson Realty Company, to split off P.arcel 540�from Lot 7, Auditor's Sub'division No. 153, to a1low construction of an office building at 1040 52nd Avenue N.E., with �hared parking , �for the adjacent apartment complex.� . Mr. Harris asked the zoning on this property. Mr. Clark said it was zoned commer.cial. He said the apartment complex vaas zoned commercial also and was built in 1964 before the zoning code was recodified and you could build apartment buildings in any zoning. � UPON a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the moiion carried unanimously. 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-08, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing bill oar on Lot 7, Block I, Riverview Heights, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 8150 East River Road N.E. Public Hearing closed. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded b� Scott, thai the Planning Commission receive the memorandum from Virgil Herrick, City Attorney on Special Use Permit Applications for Billboards dated August 20, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 yoting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � ' ' Chairman Harris said the Public Hearings were all closed on Naegele's requests � for a Special Use Permit, He thought they could all be opened at once. � MOTIDN by Scott, seconded b� Drigans, that the Planning Commission reopen the � Public Hearings on requests for 5pecial Use Permits by Naegele'Outdoor Advertising Company, SP #75-OS, SP #75-09, 5P #75-30, 5P #75-11, SP #75-12, SP #75-13, SP.#75-Z4, 5P #75-15, SP #75-16. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, �hairman Harris declared the Public Hearings reopened at 8:15 P.M. Mr. Virgil Herrick;City Attorney,�was present and said he would try to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have in considering the Special Use Permits for billboards. Mr. Kraig Lofquist representing Naeg�le, said the company thought they had done a good job for the community and would like to continue to do so.� Mr. Scott.said that in the memor.a�ndum from Mr. Herrick (on page 2), it stated that he believed that �indings should be made in regard to each individual application- . and ihat i� the Commission recommended denial of the applica�ion, it was imperative that this denial be based upon testimony or evidence received at the hearing and that findings be drawn accordingly. He asked Mr. Herrick if that meant a citizen would have to appear at the hearing to give such testimony or evidence? Mr. Herrick said no, he has assumed that there would be minutes �aken at the Public Hearing and � he was�aware that staff had made certain information available to the Planning Commission as to the.statistics on the various billboards in the City. He said that any information given to the Planning Commission by the administrative staff or the sign companies would become a matter of record in the minutes, and this would.be �"`� cons�idered testimony or evidence. He said the Planning Commission should base their findings on this evidence or testimony. , Mr..�Scott said there was a tone of consistancy in this memorandum in that the're Planning Cor�nission Meeting - August 20, 1975 � Page 6 �...1 ' shouldn't be arbritrary decisions made. He said he was asking for a legal opinion . in that it could be that one billboard was more acceptable than another. He said � there may be only four feet of difference in a billboard they would recommend approval . on and one that they may recommend denial. He wasasking if the 4 fee� could be constituted as arbitrary and what position would�th�;� put the Planning Commissionin, ' and would this negate the consistancey aspect? Mr. Scott continued, that there may be one billboard that was less offensive than another, or there may be more of an investment in one than another, and as these are supposed to�be.considered on an individual basis, and as we know that none of them meet all the requirements of �the.code, would we be jeopardizing the consistancy factor by approving one and not the � other. . �"1 Mr. Harris said that if you approved one and not the other where the statistics were basically the same, he thought they wauld have ��o state their reasons and findings for approving one and not the other. � Mr. Drigans said that after the Planning Commission made their recommendation to the City Council, he wondered if there was a good possibility that the Guuncil would set public hearings on these billboards? Mr. Herrick thought there was a good possibility that they would. ' Mr.�Drigans said he had some strong reservations on some of the billboards, not all.the billboards. The billboards he was most concerned with were the billboards along Interstate 694. He said there was one billboard that you had-to look throught some light standards of Surlington Northern�to read, and he felt they were a traffic �hazard, but he didn't know if�that could be upheld in Court. Mr. Clark said he didn't disagree with Mr. Drigans, but at the time of Menard's sign, some expert • � testified that there were no facts whi�ch could be substantiated that any sign caused a traffic hazard. . � • ' Mr. Olson said the billboards tfiat Mr. Dri.gans was referring to were billboards that would eventually be coming down if the Planning Commission recommended approval with the stipula�ion that �hey be removed when the�property was developed. He said the only billboards that would not be a�fected by development were a couple of bill- boards ori Mrs. Cooney's property over by Menard's. Mr. Olson said this was a small strip of land, and Mrs. Cooney was quite concerned about the billboards remaining on her property, because this was the only income she could expect from this property because of the nature of it. Mr. Langenfeld from the other side, data to prove vi.sual said he agreed with Mr. Drigans'�:comments, bu.t looking at this he thought�a court of law would say that you needed statistical distraction. Mr. Lofquist said this poi�� has been brought up in a court of law, and it was found that there was no correlation between traffic accidents and signs, so this has been �ested in court. � � • � ��Ir. Bergman said he had been unable to establish ar�y sort o-F criteria, with any meat in it, which would make it possible to make individual assessments of these billboards. Mr. Langenfeld said the information the Planning Commission had on these b711boards was not sufficient to base a denial on; in his opinion. � � Mr. Harris said he didn't see how they could justify denial, especially a blanket . denial. He thought their best hope was to recommend approyal with the stipulations recoirrnended by staff which were, tha� the billboard be removed when the property was � �� 't Planning Commission Meeting = August 20, 19�5 �� Page 7 developed, and put a pErcentage figure on the amount of damage a billboard could have before it could not be rebuilt. , Mr. Lindblad, Vice Chairman of the Community Development Commi'ssion,�was in the audience, and he said that the process of �aving a Special Use Permit Public Hearing before both Planning Commission and Council was followed on the request � by Stephens Datsun, on East River Road. One of the reasons for this being denied, was because the people didn't want it there.(Note: There was no action taken for denial; petitioner withdrew his request). He said it was up to the City to approve or.deny a,Special Use Permit. He said he thought if .the records were searched, other instances wou�d be found where a Speci�l Use Permit was denied, the mai�n reason being that there was just too.much objection from the people. He said he cou1dn't see any reason just because Naegele was threatening to go to court and Win Stephens didn't, that the City had to follow a different set of rules. He said he felt the City had been� trying to get rid of billboards for over 5 years, and he couldn't understand why the Special Use Permit clause had been written into the sign ordinance. . . Mr. Herrick said the.Minnesota Supreme C��rt had, on a number o� occasions, s�ate� the criteria that should be used.for Special Use Permits. On� of the recent findings states that a Special Use Permit was for a use that was allowed within a certain typ� of zoning, and the purpose of having it was that while the City recog- nizes that it was an acceptable use ati most locations, it may not be acceptable at all locations, for special reasons. The burden of establishing tha� there was a� •problem with a particular use at a particular location which would create a hardship or a burden had to be shown by some evidence or iestimony before the Planning Commis- sion or the City Council. • � Mr. Bergman said there had been previous discussion that the Sign Ordinance had given the sign companies five years to recover their investment, called amortiza�ion. Mr. Lofquist said his company did not accept amortization as just compensation and both Federal and State laws talk about cash compensation. Mr. Bergman asked about the recover of cost term? Mr. Lofquist said for purposes of an example, let us say that a board costs $15Q0. to install, and each month this board creates income. He said he couldn't give the exact formula used for cash compensation, but it was based on these two figures. Mr. Bergman said then an amortization approach was meaningless. � Mr. Herrick said at the time the sign ord.inance was adopted, the feeling was that in order to require a company to remove a billboard, a certain minimun time would have to be allowed �o allow the sign companies to recover their inves�ment. He said the minimum time given was 5 years, and then a Special Use Permit would be required. He said it Was never indicated that all billboards would be down in five years. He did not think that was the in.tent of the ordinance. Mr. Scott said the Mi��nesota Supreme Court had ruled on the Minnetonka Ordinance �that three years was a 1ong enough time for amor�ization. Mr. Herrick said the City Council was aware of this and that was why they had made their's a 5 year period, just to be on the safe side. , , Mr. Drigans said they had been discussing amortization on the structure only, but the Naegele Company said they would also be having a loss of income. He said �hat if a billboard was s.till producing income, then it�was still valuable. Mr. Herrick said tha.t if we s.hould end up in litigation in court, he was sure that the sign companies wbuld use that argument. Mr. Herrick said the City would have the right to condemn a billboard, the same way they�have the right to condemn any structure for public reasons. He said one of the questions would be if the amortization'theory was valid Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 � � Page 8 and perhaps even more important than that was the question of the variances of these individual signs to the City's stated requirements be suffi;cient enough for n � denial of a Special Use Permit. He said that as previously sta�ed, none of these bil�lboards meet all the requirements of. the City Code. � . Mr. Bergman said that if the Special Use Permit was denied because the bi1lboard did not meet the City requirements, then he thought the recovery of costs through amortization would be sufficient. He didn't think they could sue for loss of income on a non-coniorming sign. Mr. Herrick asked if it was known when each billboard was constructed? Mr. Clark said this was on the original.sign permit application. . Mr. Clark said he had a question. If a building permit had been issued for any�hing, and after it was constructed, the City changed the Code so that building � no longer met the Code. Would there be any basis to deny that building permit at � a later date? � Mr. Herrick said �his would be a little bit difficult to answer., but he would . say that generally, no, unless the quality of the s�ructure jeopardized the health, safety and wel�are. Two examples that he used were, that if a structure was built before a community had an electrical code, and then they adopted one, and it was discovered that the electrical system was a fire hazard, then the City could insist that �his be brought up to Code; but, if a house was built prior to adopting the'Code, with only 700 square fee� of living area and our Code now says that it has to have 1,020 square feet, we couldn't force that person to add on to his house.ta r� bring it up to Code. Mr.,Clark said you couldn't require that the house be moved on the lot either if it didn't.meet the 35 ft. front yard setback. `� � Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Herrick if where the ramp was located for the freeway and it was a bottleneck because of the.heavy �raffic, could it be defendable i.n court that billboards in this area could be an additional tr.affic hazard, and were detrimental to the heal.th safety and general welfare of the public? Mr. Herrick said that an t�e studi�s he has seen, that it had been stated that there was no evidence that signs created a traffic problem. Mr. Drigans wondered where you would get such an expert who could give�input on this problem. Mr. Clark said he did�'t think that if you studied the reasons for traffic accidents in any certain area�, tha� �ou woul� find too many people who would admit or.state publicly that they caused an accident because they were looking a"t a billboard. Mr. Drigans said that even if they couldn't get expert opinion on this, he still felt there�was a potential safety hazard. Mr. Langenfeld said he would :lik� to quote a couple of statements from Mr. Herricks' .memorandum to the City Council, and then he thought the Planning Commissibn could proceed to the indiv�dual reques�s for Special Use Permits. He read, "Where a . special�use permit is issued subject to conditions, the conditions must conform to the following standards: ".... tb protect the public health, safety, convenience and � welfare, or to avoid traffic congestion or hazard, or other dangers, or to promote conformity of a posposed use with the character of the adjoining property and uses, � and the district as a whole, or to protect such charac�er." Section 205.106. If ' evidence is presented at the hearing that the requested use is compatible with the basic.use authorized within the particular zone and does not endanger the public . health,.safety or general welfare of the area affected or the com�nunity as a whole � � �� Planning Cammission Meeting - August 20, .1975 Page 9 and complies with such other standards'as specified in Section 205.101, .196, the �_ special use permit should be granted and a denial will be deemed arbitrary, unlawful, and in violation of the appli�ants' constitutional rights." � � � Mr. Scott said that at the Planning Commission meeting of August 6, 1975, he � had stated that he had been to a Chamber of Commerce meeting and had found no support � for billboards in Fridley. He said that since that time, the Chamber had received some calls because of this statement. He said he was also a member of the Advertising Club of Minnesota, so that if anyone wanted to contact him personally, they could contact him through that agency also. The Planning Commission started their discussion on the individual Special Use Permits requests. . STAFF REPORT Location: 8150 �ast River Road Comments Lease runs to 10=19-79 Sign Information Date of sign permit 10/19/67 Owner Naegele *1. Height (25') 24' Base / 36' Top 2. Area (300) 12' x 25' Double Face �� 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500'} Meets Code -� 500' *4. Setback From Street R/W Lines (30') 24' to Fairmont.R/W *5. Distance From Street Intersection (500')�60' from intersection of Fairmont � • � & East River Road *6. Distance From��Residentia7 Uses (500') 100' to R-1 District � 7. Condition Status (a11 Meta1) Steel and Fluorescent **8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) C-1 * Non-conforming to existing ordinances ** Non-conforming to zoning requirements Chairman Narris.read through the staff report, noting where this sign did not meet the code requirements. Mr. Clark said this billboard was located on developed land. He said one of the stipulations recommended in Dick Sobiech's memo was that a billboar.d should be removed when the property was developed. Mr. Bergman said there were eight criteria listed for each sign. This particula� sign did not meet the sign ordinance and zoning ordinance in 5 of those criteria. � Mr. Drigans questioned whether either of the stipulations mentioned in the � staff inemo would hold up in court. One was on the development of property, and the other was that damaged signs could not be rebuilt. Mr. Clark said that if an agreement was reached between the City and the sign companies, and this agreement was Planninq Commission Meetinq - Auqust 20, 1975� � Page 10 signed,�then it should hold up in court. n ' Mr. Langenfeld said he thought they would have to permits, because there wasn't enough evidence available . He thought the Plann.ing Commission should use.the three • the memo from Dick Sobiech. �1 � approve these special use on which to base a denial. stipulations suggested in . Mr. Herrick said he agreed with Mr. Clark that if the petitioner agreed to these �stipulations, this could be upheld in court. He said there was a g�neral rule that any non-conforming use that was over 50% damaged could not be rebuilt. He couldn't say that the court would uphold this, but it was a practice of the City on all non-conforming uses. . � � Mr. Bergman said that in order to have adequate justification for denial of a Special Use Permit, it had to be based on.�he health, safety and general welfare of the community. He felt that all the codes of the City were based on that general statement. Mr. Herrick said this was correct> Mr. Bergman said then he �elt that this billboard 4�as in conflict with the hea1�h, sa�e'cy and general welfare o�.the City, in �hat it didn't conform to our codes in regard to 5 of the 8 requirements of�the code. Mr. Herrick said this situation was somewhat unique in that usually when someone reques.ts a Special Use Permit, it was for a proposed use, but these billboards are in existence, and have been in e.xistence since befare our present sign ordinance was'written. He said the question was whe�her we were going to allow them.to continue to exist, and that there were two things to considera One was were the . standards reasonable ihat govern billboards, and two, does �he failure to meet those standards�have an adverse ariect upon the surrounding property owners or anyone in the community. � ' Mr. Bergman said he thought it wo�ld be reasonable to allow the billboard to exist for the length of its lease rather than to arbitrarily set a year when they had to be removed. �� MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Sco�tt, that the Planning Commission c.Zose the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-08, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:28 P.M. ' ' . MOTION by 5cott, sec�aaded by Bergman for discussion purposes, that the Plarzning Commission recommend to Council denial of the request for a Special Use Pe'rmit, 5P #75-OS, by Naegele Outdoor Advertisin.g'Company, to allow the continutaion of an exist- ing billboard on Lot'7, B1ock I, Riverview Heights Addition, per Fridley City Code, - Section 2.I4.042, the same being S.I50 East River Road N.E., because we wish to recognize the role which planning and zoning play in our municipal efforts to guide future development of Zand so as to ensure a pleasanter and inore economical environraent in which our residents may live and work, and base this exclusively on ae�thetics on � the ground that the pleasant appearance of our community has a direct and beneficial effect �on property values and on the we11-being of our residents, and this inevitably promotes the general•welfare; and to quote from the Environmental Corranission goals' and objectives of their Avgust 13, 1975 meeting, "to encourage productive�harmony between man and his environment and assure for aIl people in the City of Fridley a saf.e, healthful, productive, aesthetically and culturally pleas.ing surrounding. Mr. Langenfeld said that the goals and objectives Mr. Scott quoted in his motion was a good statement, but he should keep in mind that these were things we r� Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 �"� Page 11 � wanted to attain, but they were just pa-rt of a plan, with no official adoption yet. n � Chairman Narris asked Mr. Scott if�there were any other factor he was basing his�denial on. Mr. Scott said the fact that this billboard was non-conforming in , five of the eight cr.iteria for a bi�lboard was taken into consideration, but he was •. basing his denial exclusively on aesthetics as he stated in his motion. He said . that this statement had held up in the Hawaii, New York and Oregon courtse He said he didn't know if it would hold up in the Minnesota Supreme Court, but nobody in this room knew that. Mr. Drigans said that getting back to Mr. Ber�man's statement that all the ordinances of the City were concerned with the heal�h, safe�y and general welfare of the community, he said this particular sign violates the ordinances in five o� the eight criteria. Mr. Scott said he would accept that as part of the motion. Mr. Herrick said that any motion for,denial should state how the sign violates the ordinances so that this would be part of the evidence that would be needed. � Mr. Langenfeld said another reason for denial would be that the overall inten� - of our ordinances was to protect the health, safety, conven9ence and general welfare of our comrounity, and as this billboard violates these ordinances in the heighty,the setback from street right of way lines, the distance from a street intersection, the distance from residential areas, and was located in an improper':zoned district, . therefore, each one of the i�ems so indicated, are reasons for denial, not only because �his sign was non-conforming to.many requirements, but the intent of a special use permit as_ well. . nMr. Bergman said there.was a general atmosphere for denial based on this sign being non-conforming in 5 of the 8 criteria, and aesthe�ics, but putting himself in � the position of the peti�ioner, because ihe administration and�Planning Commission was a little tardy in get�ing at this question, and fr�m their view and the other side of the coin, we.all agree tha� we ought to encourage business, which was health�, and try to relate with, and�compliment business and commercial activity. He said that . in his opinion, a flat recommendation for de�ial now, from their view, he would consider to be fairly abrup�. He said he could say that, knowing that they could find his name on the first document back in 1964, which was a document concerned . with the need to have a sign ordinance. He said the Planning Commission had been involved with this, since that time. Mr. Bergman"continued �hat when the ordi�ance was passed, with the five y�ar limit before Special Use Permits were needed, in his opinion �he sign companies paid little heed to the implication that the continuation of .billboards had some negative flavor to it. He said that to get back to the action on �hese billboards, and to avoid misunderstanding, and to allow for some empathy, he.felt a.flat denial was too abrupt. Mr. Harris said he agreed with Mr. Bergman, and he also agreed with�the rest of the Planning Commission in that he would like to see this particular billboard go, he thought the pet'a�iQner''s9 for lack of a better word, constitutional rights, have to be recognized, and he thought a bet'ter way of handling this would be to approve � the continuation of theR billboard., with stipulations., One of the stipulations being that this billboard be a,llowed to continue until the end of the present lease which was 10-19-79. He thought this particular.billboard should go because 'it was located in a developed area. He sa.id that if the sign company would agree to that stipulation, n then-he could vote for such a motion, and if they would not, then he would have to go along with the denial. UPO� A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR DENIAL, Scof� and Drigans voting aye, Bergman and P1anning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 �� Page 12 Harris voting nay, and Langenf�ld abstaining, the MOTTON FAILED.because of a tie vote. n • . Mr. Bergman said that he thought their action should recognize long term or eventual gain rather than arbritray and immediate intentions. ' � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP �75-08, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, to allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 7, B1ock I, Riverview Heights Addition, per Fridley City Gode, Section 21�.042, the same being 8150 East River Road N.E., with the following stipul�tions: � . . � 1. Whenever this advertising sign is destro�ed or damaged by an aci of nature, vandalism or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and wi11 have to be removed. . 2. This Special Use Permit to be reviewed annually. 3. This billboard be maintained in� good quality condition. 4. This bil�board be removed on or before October 19,.1979, the e.xpiration � ' date of the current lease. . . ' Mr. Scott asked if there was going to be a percentage figure on the damage a ' billboard should have before it had �o be removed? Mr. Clark said this stipulation reads that if there was any damage at all, the billboard would have to come down. n � Mr. Olson said he felt the inten� of this stipulation was the same as other non- _ conforming uses, meaning over 50f damaged. Mr. Harris said this should be 50% per � face. Mr. Clark said he felt this was meant to•cover the structure, not the panels � themselves. ' Mr. Drigans said the first stipulation suggested by staff wouldn't apply to �his sign because the property was already developed. Mr. Lofquist said the Planning Commission's interpretation of this stipula�ion was different from the agreement that had been worked out with the Naegele Company. He said they agreed tha� none of their billboards would stand in the way of any future development, but when �he property was.developed, if that billboard was still far enough away from any buildings and was not an obs�ru�tion, it could remain. .He sa�id now it was starting to sound as if it was a method of getting rid of the bill- boards. � Mr. Harris said the way he read the stipulation, was that if a piece of property was developed,�the billboard goes. This stipulations says that whenever a lot is developed, and an advertising sign is loca�ed �pon it, that sign will be removed. Mr. Lofquist said he knew that was the way it was.written, but that was not their verbal agreement. � Mr. Lofquist said that if Naegele did not agree to the sti�pulations for this . billboard, he understood that what the P1anning Commission was saying, then tfie Special Use Permit would not be approved. Mr. Harris said that on this particular bi�lboard, if Naegele didn't agree to these stipulations, �hen he would favor a �� denial of the special use permit. • Mr. Herrick said that if the s�gn company did no�t agree to the stipulations, then the Planning Commission wouldn't have disposed of the matter. �He said the Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 13 Planning Commission was only making a recommendation to ttie Council, but at some � n point in time, the sign companies were going to �ave to agree to some stipulations either made by the City Counci:l of by the Planning Commission before the problem was solved. � Mr. Drigans said he was going to vote against the motion because he felt that the recommendation for approval should either have stipulations that Naegele agreed to; and the motion that had been made for approval, had stipulations that he thought every one in the room felt that Naegele would not agree to. He said that if he was in their shoes, as a prudent businessman, he wouldn't agree to a stipulation that would terminate his business within. a given period of time. He didn't thin.k the Planning Commission was disposing of these requests in a very prudent and judicious way. . Mr. Olson said that Naegele does business all over the Metropolitan area. He said if some of the Specia1 Use Permits were approved and some were denied, they " would have to evaluate their loss of business, and also th� precedent that might . be set that coulu affect their business in other communities. He said that if one � Special Use Permit was denied, such as this one at 8150 East River Road, and the � rest were approved, they might go along with that, but if 8 out of 9 were denied, he didn't think they would ever agree to that. . � Mr. Bergman said he had quickly checked the criteria on the other requests for Special Use Permits, and out of the 14 requests, this was the second worst sign in Fridley. n - UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR APPROVAL, Scott and Drigans voting nay, Bergman, Harris � and Langen�eld voting aye, the MOTION CARRIED. Chairman Harris called a recess at 10:15 P.Mo and reconvened the meeting at 10:35 P..M. • Mr. Lofquist said �he Naegele Sign Company did not believe in amortization, - but he would have to agree with Mr. Olson that the loss of one sign was not of primary importance, it was what would happen•on the balance of the requests. Chairman Harris said he understood that Mr. Lofquist would want to see what happened to the entire package, and then make his comment at tha� �ime. 3. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP.#75-09, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an,existing � billboard on the Westerly 500 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89,.per Fridley City Code, Section 214.0�2, the same being 7201 Highway #65 N.E. Public Hearing open. STAFF REPORT Location: 7201 Highway #65 N.E. Date of sign permit:.1962-Rebuilt 1968 Owner:: Naegele Eomments: Lease runs until 8-1=84 Sign Information: � • 1. Height (25') 10' Base / 22 ' Top 2, �Area (3Q0) 12' x 25' Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 �Page 14 , Staff�report (continu�d) ' . � � � • 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') Meets Code --) 500' 4. Setback From Street R/W Lines (30') 2�00' from R/W line *5. Distance From Street Intersection (500') 165' f.rom intersection of 72nd & Highway #65 6. Distance from Residential uses (500') Meets Code -� 500' 7. Condition Status (All Metal) Meets Code -- Steel & Fluorescent 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) M-1 * Non-conforming to existing ordinances ** Non-conforming to zoning requirements Chairman Harris read through the staff .report and noted that this met all tFie criteria for a billboard except the distance from the street intersection. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Drigans, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-09, by NaegeZe , Outdoor Advertising Compan�. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing c3osed at 10:45 P.M. Mr. Drigans said he had no complaints on this billboard. Mr. Clark said it �"'1 � was located on vacant propertya , Chairman Harris said he had a question about the ordinance. Where di� they get the stipulation that a sign had to be 500 feet away from a street intersection? Mr. Clark said he didn't know, but he was assuming that they wanted them far enough back so they wouldn't conflict with traffic. �Ir. Drigans said a normal city block .was 660 feet, so there was no way any billboard could meet this requirement. ' MOTZON by Langenfeld, seconded by Drigans.for discussion, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, 5P #75-09, by Naegele Outdaor Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of an existing bil.Zboard on the Wester.ly 500 feet of Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision No. 89, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 7201 Highway #65 N.E. with the following stipulations: , . • 1. When ihis property was developed, the adve.�tis.ing sign located upon it, wi1l have to be removed. 2. When this adverfising sign was destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt.and will have to be r�moveda � 3. This Special Use Permit subject to annual review. .� Mr. Drigans asked if they were going to use the percentage figure of 50% damage as for other legal non-conforming uses. Mr. Clark said he thought this would be �� hard io ascertain. He said that when there was damage to any other type of structure, he could get figures from any number-of places, to determine if 50% or more of the � �value had been damaged, but he didn't know who could determine if a billboard structure was over 50% damaged except the sign companies themselves�, which would make this Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975' '� Page 15 difficult to administer. �'1 , they could come up with couldn't be repaired or n �`�1 He said he would like the Planning Commission to see if a different alternative to deterYnine what amount of damage rebuilt. � . Mr. Harris said that i� could be 50% of the struc�ure ins�ead of the valuation. He thought this could be determined visually, and if should be 501 of the structure per face. ' � MOTION by Bergraan, seconded by Langenfeld, to amend the mafion to include a 4th stipulation: 4. This billboard be maintained in good quality condition. ' Upon a voice vote, Bergman, Harris, Drigans, Langenfeld aye, Scott nay, the amended motion carried.' Mr. Scott said.he was going to vote against the original motion because we wish to recognize the role which planning and zoninq play in our municipal efforts to guide future development of land so as to ensure a F�easanter and more economical environment in which our residents may ]ive and work and base �his ex�lusively on aesthetics on the ground that the pleasant appearance of our community has a direct and beneficial effect on property.values, and on the well-being of our �residents, and �this inevitably promotes the general welfare. Mr. Scott took exception with the Chairman of the Environmental Com��ssion that �his was not against the welfa're �of the community, and it appeared to him that this was against the proposed goals and objectives o� his own Commission; and he said he was distressed that the Environmental Commission didrr't see fit to address this problem, and didn't take a position on what was environmentally sound and what was visually pollutant. They haven't discussed this in their minutes since the problem came up. He said that he thought ihis was �the purpose of the reorganization and as far as he could�tell from the minutes, the Human Resourc�s Commissi'on was the only one who had addressed this problem. •. , Mr. Langenfeld said he respected Mr. Scott's opinion, but he had taken the necessary steps several months ago to try and get input from his Commission on the billboards. They took no interest in the billboards and the issue faded away. He sai� his Commission had made a mistake in not pursuing the billboard si�tuation further. Mr. Drigans said this was done prior to the Planning Commission reorganization. Mr. Bergman said he fel� liable also because he had�no input from his CQmmission, but he said he wasn't really complaining because there was so much background ma�erial now, he didn't th:ink anything could be gained by sending this to a lower Commission. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL, Bergman, Narris, Drigans, Langenfeld voting aye, Scott nay, the MOTION CARRISD. 4. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARIN�: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-10, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an exis�ing billboard between Lots 20 and 21, Block 4, Hyde Park Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 6029 University Avenue N.E. Public Hearing open. � MOTION by 17rigans, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive the Ietter from Mel Jacobson, owner ot.the praperty at 6029 University Avenue N.E. stating his support of the Special Ilse Permit request; dated August 14, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11� voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZy. � . e `'.1 i� Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 16 Chairman Harris verified with Mr. Steven Olson that they now had the signatures of all the property owners for the Special Use Permit requests., STAFF REPORT Locati�on: 6029 University Avenue N.E. Sign Permit Date:•2/4/65 Owner.: Naegele Comments: Lease runs to 4/1/78 Sign Information *1. Height (25') 18: Base / 30' Top 2. Area (300) 12' x 25' 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') over 500' -` 4. Setback From Street R/W Lines (30') over 50' . �*5. Dis�tance from Street Intersection (500') 200' from.60i:h Avenue. Service Drive *6. Distance from Residential Uses 100' West of R-1 District 7. Condition Status (All Metal) Steel and Flueorescent **g.- Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) C-2 *Non-conforming to existing ordinance �**Non-conforming to zoning requiremerits Chairman Harris read through the sta�'f report and noted tha� it did no� mee� 4 of the 8 criteria for billboards. � . Mr. Clark said this billboard was located in a developed area. M07'ION by Langenfeld, seconded.by Scott; that �he�''lanning Commission cZose�the P.ublic Hearing on a request for a Special Use Perm.it, SP #75-10, by Naege.Ze Outdoor Advertis.ing Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,•Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:16 P.M. MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Sco�t,.that the Planning Commission recommend to Council denial of a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-10, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, to a.I1ow the continuat.zon of an existing bil.Zboard between Lots 20 and 21, B1ock 4, Hyde Park Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 2.Z4.042, �he same being 6029 University Avenue N.E., because we wish to recognize the role which planning and zoning play in our municipaZ efforts to guide future development of land so as to ensure a pleasanter and more economical environment in which our residents may live and work, and base this exclusively on aesthetics on the ground that the pleasant appearant of our commun�ty has a direct and beneficial effect on property values and on the we1.Z-being of ovr resid�nts, and this inevitabl� promotes the. general welfare, and because the generaZ intend of a1I the codes of the City were to prot�ct the hea.tth safety, and genera.Z weZfare of the public and that this bsllboard violates that code in 4 out of the 8 ifems as noted in the staff report. ' Mr. Scott said that this billboard did not meet the code requirements in height, ' Planning Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 17 the distance from the street intersection, �he distance from residential areas, and n • was improperly zoned. He said that what bothered him the most was the distance from a residential area. � • UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR•DENIAL, Scott and Drigans voting aye, Bergman, Harris• , and Langenfeld voting �, the motion FAILED.. . •MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the PZanning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-10, by Naegele Ou�door Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of an existing billboard between Lots 20 and 21, BZock 4, Hyde Park Addition, per Fridle� City Eode, Seetion 214.�42, the same being 6029 University Avenue N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. When this advertising sign is destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and w111 have to be removed. .� 2. This Special Use Permit is subject to yearly review. 3. This billboard be znaintained in good quality condition. �' 4. This billboard be removed on or before �he expiration of the current lease which is Apri1 1, 1978. Mr. Bergman asked for a point of discussion. He said that to his knowledge this n Special.Use Permit would be reviewed each year, in spi�e of what we were saying here. _ " Mr. Clark said the reviewal. process would be a stafi report to the Council once a . year, so they could review �he Special Use Permi�. Mr. Bergman said his point vaas . that it didn't seem consistent to put in.a termination date as a stipulation three years hence. Mr. Clark said it was doing one thing in that it was pu�ting both the . Council and the Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company on no�ice on how the Planning - Commission felt about how long this billboard should continue to exist. He said that without this stipulation, you would be back to being too abrupt. Mr. Harris said it showed the intent of �he Planning.Commission. Mr. Scott said he would vote against the motion because he felt this billboard was against our code and ordinances. � . UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR APPROVAL, Bergman, Harris, Drigans, Langenfeld voting aye, Scott nay, the motion carried. 5. CONTINUED: PUBLIC� HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-11, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard'on Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision No. 78, per Fridley City Code, Section , 214.042, the same being 51 Intersta�e 694. � Public Hearing open. STAFF REPORT Location: 51 Interstate 694 Sign Permit Date .1/26/66 Owner:�Naegele � Comments: Lease runs year to year Planning Commission Meeting - Auqust 20, 1975 Page_18 _ � Sign Informat9on ' .*1. He�ght (25') 12' Base / 25' Top - 25' from center line of d..694 , 2. Area (300') 12' x 25' *3. Distance Bet. Signs �(500') 460 feet to 93 Interstate 694 . *4. Setback From Street R/W Lines (30') 22' from R/W 5. Distance From Street Inter.section (500') Meets Code -� 500' 6. Distance From Residential Uses (500') Meets Code -� 500' � 7. Condition Status (All Metal) Steel &�Fluorescent 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-Z) M-2 *Non-conforming to existing ordinance *�Non-conforming to zoning ordinance Chairman Harris reviewed the staff report and said this sign did not meet the criteria in heigi��s the distance between signs, and the setback from street right of way 19nes. Mr. Clark said �here were �hree signs�in this area, and this billboard was closest to Main Street and was on vacant land. � Mr. 01son read �ram the sign ordinanc� to point out why this sign did not meet ' the heigh� requirement. "Maximum Height: Tw�nty five (25) feet above lot grade, unless the sign is intended to be viewed from the highway, then the 25 foot maximum he.ight will be computed from the centerline of the traveled highway, but in no case, sha11 the vertical disiance betw�en the bottom o� the sign and the ground be reduced to less than ten (10) �eet." . Chairman Harris sa.id then it was the �grade change on the highway that made this sign non-conforming as far as the height was concerned. Mr. Lofquis� said there was no way a billboard could be constructed to mee� this requirement and his contention was that it was.not the intent of the ordinance to be interpreted as it was wri�ten for this requirement. He said mos.t ordinances were written eitherior. Mr. Clark said he agreed. , Mr. Drigans said these were �he 'billboards ihat he was most concerned about, both this one and the n�xt one on �he agenda. He gave his reasons for this concern. � One, the close proximity o� the signs at 51 and 93 Interstate 694, two, the proximity of the East River Road intersection, three, there was.a certain amount of interference from the lighting standard of the railroad, and four, this was very close to the , underpass. Mr. Drigans said he thought there were a lot of problems with these two billboards. Mr. Clark said the administration had been co�tacted by an Illinois firm about construction of � motel on this property, and while it would not be owned by the � railroad, it would be occupied 50% to 60% by railroad employees who have to s�ay over in the metro area. He said they had not had a formal request as yet, but there were tentative plans for the development of this property. He said he thought the Planning Correnission should be aware of this. . � Planning Commission Meeting August 20, 1975 Paqe 19 !'1 • Mr. B�rgman said the three instances where this sign did not meet the code were not of major magnitude, and the fact that it did not meet the hei,ght requirement . � was of questionable validity, and he would also like to note Mr. Drigans comments on the special hazards. . n � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-1I, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris decl�red the Public Hearing closed at 11:42 P.M- MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Plannirig Commission recommend to Council approval. of the request for a Specia.Z.Use Permit, 5P #75-11, b� Naegele Dutdoor Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 2, Auditor`s Subdivision Noe 78, per Fridle� City Code, 5ection 214.042, the same being 51 Interstate 694., with the following stipu.Zations: .,I. When this 1at was.developed, the adver%_ising sign Iocated on it wi11 " be removed. � • 2. 3. � When�this advertising sign is destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, v�anda.Zism, or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and wi11 have to be removed. � ' Thi.s Special Use Permit subject to yearly review. This billboard be maintained in good quality condi�ion. 5. This biZl.board be removed on or before �he expiration of the lease on December I6, 1976. � Mr. Clark �sked if the reason they were asking to have this billboard removed by December 15, 1976 was because they fel� it was a tr.a�-fic hazard? Mr. Bergman said it was. � � Mr. Scott said he would like to speak against the motion for the reasons he had previously stated on the other requests, and because he felt the other members of the Planning Commission were voting on this issue w7thout the consensus of the other members of their Commissions. He felt this was in •violation of �he spirit of Ordinance No. 594. Chairman Harris said he thought the respec�cive Commissione'rs would have to answer to their respective Commissions. UPON a roll ca11 vote, Bergman. Harris, Langenfeld voting aye, 5cott and Drigans voting nay, the'motion carried. 6. CONTINU�D• PUQLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-12, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of�an existing billboard on Lot 2, Auditor's Subdivision Noe 78, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 93 Tnterstate 694. " Public Hearing open. STAFF�REPORT� Location:'. 93 Interstate 694. Sign Permit Date: 1/26/66, Rebuilt 8/7/68 P1anning-Commission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 20 Owner: Naegele Comments: Lease runs�from year to year �, Sign Information *1. Height (25') 15' Base / 25' T'op ? 25' from Center Line of I.694 *2. Area (300) _ .14'_x _49' *3. Distance Eet. Signs (500') 460' to 51 Interstate 694 4. Setback From Street R/lrJ Lines (30') Nleets Code = 30' 5.. Distrance Fr�om Street Intersection (5Q0') Meets Code -� 500' 6. Distance from residentia1 uses (500'� Meets Code -� 500' 7. Condition Status (All Metal.) Steel & Fluorescent . 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-Z) � M-2 ' *Non-confop�ming to exis�ing ordinance .� **Non-conforming to zoning requiremer�ts Chairman Harris reviewed the staf� report and noted where the size did not meet i;he exiSting codee He said the height requirern�nt was impossible to meet according ico the way the code was wri�ten as nated on the previous requesf:. �1 � � _., i�r. Clark said this billboard was also locate� on vacant property9 the same property as the previous sign. He did�''c know if the part`y who may be occupying this parcel would be developing it as close to the tracks as this sign was'located. � iNr. Harr�s said t{�is was the large V sign��that had jus� been repairedo Mr. Drigans said this was the sign that had all the visual problems. - � MOTION by Bergman, seconded b� Langenfeld, that the Planning Gommission close t1�e Public Hearinq on thc request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-.Z1, by Naege.Ze Outdoor Advertising Companye Upori a voice vote, a11 voting a�e, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:50 P.l•1e . Mre Bergman said he would li{<e to point out tha-t this sign was approximately 700 square feet as opposed to the 300 square �eet allawed in �che�sign ordinance. Mr. Ha�ris asked if this were per face? Mr. Olson said it was. Mr. Olsoh said that when one part ai the V w�s �amaged, it was discussed at that time Nahether this should be considered tcwo signs, with two Special Use Permits, o'r if it was one sign. He said that Naegele's argumer�t was �hat it was one sign, and as only one half o�' the V had to.be repaired, they had repaired it legally because it was less �han 50% damaged as to a legal non-conforming use. They said a double ' face sign, to be considet°e� one sign, had to be attached back to back. Mr. Olson said Naeyele wants this consiciered as one sign because they were attached with bracing. Mre Cla7�k said the Planning Gommission should consider this as one sign, although it w�s V shaped. . � � � . . � Mr. Olson said that prior i�a ihe adoption of the sign ordinance in 1969, the � ordinance that was in effect in 1966 said that the4°e were no restrictions on the size and height of a billboard in M-1 and M-2 zoning. � Planning Commiss�ion Meetinq - August 20, 197b � Page 21 Mr. Drigans said that in Sec�ion 56.09 of the 19G8 City Code, �hich'was in n effect when these signs were constructed, s�ates that a17 signs located within � _ the City of Fridley prior to January 1,.1966 may continue to exist as to size, illumination and presen� locations until January 1, 1960, provid�d the sign does . not violate any provisions of the Fridley City Code up to the date this chapter � was passed and adopted. A permi�t is required�for each existing sign but �he permit �• applicaiion fee for each sign coming within this section shall be waived ur�til � January 1, 1969. . Mr. Drigans said �here was no purpose of Mr. Scott or himself to make a n�otion for denial. � Mr. Langenfeld said that on the map these signs looked too close toge�her. Mr. Harris said they just misse� the.requirem�nt because the sign at �1 TnLersta�e 694 and the one at 93 Inters�a'ce 694 were 460 feet apart. Mr. Langen�eld said that since the sign located a� 51 Tn�erstate 694 w�s like�y to be remaved wa,��n the property was deve7oped, h� wo�id like to make a motion a� this timee MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded .by Bergman, tha� the Planning Commission recorrunend to Council approval of the Special Use Permit, SP #.'5-12, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 2, Auditor`_s 5ubdivisian No. 78, per Tridley City Code,.Section 2I4.042, the same being 93 .Intersta�e 694, with the folZow.ing stipulations: n Z. Wtzen this lo� was developed, the advartising sign located on it wi11 be re.noved . 2o ivl�en this advertising s.ign is destro�ed or damaged by, an act of natur��, vandalism, or other means, �his sign cannot be rep.�ired or rel�uil� and wi11 have to be removed. •� • 3. This Specia.Z i7se Permii su�iject to .yearl.� reviewe � 5. This billboard be maintained in good quality candition. This bilZVo�rd be remoipe.a' on or .before the expir�tion ,of the lease on December .Z6, 1977 • 6. Tf �his sign was d�termined to be a traffic hazard o� a visual a�struciion it must be remavedp prior ta that da��e. Mr. Scot�t sai ei he wan��ed tr�� Counci 1 to kr!o�,� �ha� �;hey weren' � getti ng the � npu� thes� tihouyni. they wer� going �i,o get fro�n th� vuriaus Canmissic�ns, and ��h�y may ��ani: to send �h::se reques-I;s back to geL input fr�r� the various Commissions. Mr. Langenfeld said he thoughi Mr. Scott's po�int about the other�• Commissions participation on 'chesE requests vaas some�:hing that should be .made kn��A�r: to �che Counci'I and o�her Commissions. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Berqman, Harris, Langenfeld voting aye, Scott and Drigans voting nay, the rnotior� e�rried e ' � 7. CONTINUEU: PUQLIC HEARING: REQUEST fOR A SPECII�L �NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADU�RTISING COMPAfVY: To allow the billboard on Par�cel 300�, in the NW Q�aarter of �he 1606 acres, of Sec�:ion 2, T-309 R-24, per Fridley USE PERMIT, SP #75-13; BY continuati�n of an exisiing N�J Quarter, except the North City Code, 5ection 214.042,� �� Planning Com�nission Meeting - August 20, 1975 Page 22 : �he same being 8410 Universi�y Avenue N.E. � Public Hearing open. . 8. CONTINUED: PU6LIC NEARTNG: REQUEST FOR A�PECTAL USE PERMIT, SP #75=14, 6Y NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPRNY: To allow the con�inuation of an existing ' billboard on Lot 18, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 7357 East River Road N.Eo Public Hearing open 9. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP�#75-15, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISTNG COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existi�g billboard on.Lots 1-3, Block 9, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, th� same being 5452 7th Street N.Eo Public Hearing open 0 10. CONT�NUED: PUBLIC HEARIhG: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-i6, BY NAEGELE OUTDQOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow 'che,continuation of an exisi'cing • billboard on Lot 4, Audi�or's Subdivision No. 155, per Fridley City Code, Sec�ion 214.042, the same being 5501 7�h Street N.E. Pub7ic Hearing open MOTION by Bergman, seconded b� Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission continue � antil September I0, 1975 the �equests for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-13, 5P #75-14, � e SP #75-15, SP �75-16, b� Naegele Outdoor Advertising Compaiz�m Upon a voice vote, a1� voting aye, tl�e motzon carried unanimously. 11. CONTTNUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A.SPECIAL USE PERMTT9 SP #75 17, BY. ' BREQE, INC.: To allow the continua��on o�.an existing billboard on parc of Lo� 8, Auditor's Subdivision �o. 94, per Fridley Ci��y Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5401 Centrai Avenue N.E. � , � • Publ�ic Hearing open 12. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERP�IT, SP #75-18, 8Y BREDE, INC. e To allow the continuation.of an exis�ting'bi116o�'r.d-orf part �o� i�ot 8,.Auditor�s Subdivision �!o. 94, per Fr�diey Ci�y Code, Section 21.4.Q42, the same being 54�3 Central Avenue N.E. � � � ' Public Nearang open 13. CONTiNUED: PUBLIC HEAf2iNG: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMITS 5P #75-19, BY � BREDE, INC.: To allow ihe continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 1, Block 1, Ha�rstad Addition, per Fridley. City Code, Section 214.042, the same being� . 6801 Highway #b5 N.E. Public Hearing open 1�. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-20, BY ,'`'� B.REDE, INC.: To allow �he continuation of an existing billboard on Lots 29 an�d �30, Block 11, Hamilton's Addition i:o Mechanicsvi1le, per Fridley City Code, � � Section 214.042, the same being 5457 4th Street N.E. . ' Public Hearing open • .. ... .. . .. ... ... .. . Plannin,cLCommission Meeting -�August 20, 1975 �'� � Page'23 15. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL'USE PERMIT, SP #75-21, BY _ ' BREDE, INC.: To allow the continuation of,an existing billboard on Parcel . 3620, Section 12, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being � 7568 Highway #65 N.E. Public Hearing open MOTION by Berqman, seconded by Langenfeld, thaf the Planning Cammission CQntinue until 5epteml�er 10, 1975 the requests for 5pecial Us� Permits, SP�#75-17, SP #75-18, SP #75-19, SP #75-20, 5P.#75-21, by Brede, Inc. Upon a vaice vote, aZl voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 16. Pl1BLiC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-22, BV STEVEN NENDEL: Per Fridley Ci-�y Code, Section 205.101, 3,N. for 'che location of mobile hom� sales on approximately the Sou�;h 100 feet o� Parcel 2550 and approximately t6ie North 210 feet of Parcel 26009 in Section 12, generally lac�ied between 7625 and 7699 Highway #65 N.E. � . • No Action Needed - t+Jithdrawn by the Petitioner 8/19/75 ADJOURNMENT: MOT20N by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that tlae meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice.vote, a11 voting ar�e, Chairman Harris declared the PZanning Commission rneeting of August 20, 1975 adjourned at 12r13 A.M. �� . Respectfully submitted9 ` �9 F ; ,�� :�� Dorothy Even��fn, Secretary �� / / ` ' �� _' ____" .._._. y� . - _ ' 7J- . !/ _'__ " . . . _ . . ._.__._.�-._"._. --- ----------- - _____ � f-- 1_1 _Z -S- -- --- _ _ _ _-- _ _-- - , _ _--- ------- -- �� , �- -- _ - ____ . - - _ _ — __----- ------�-_�-�- �_ . � %� ------------- ---------�5=1 � ---�-�--- _ ----------_--_____---------�//� �� s� yr. �: � �g� _ , ------ - ----------__-----_ ----- _�._s_r_ , -- - ------ �--------___- - - - _ __ �_ _��_ �� -- � , -��_.�% �_ ,�� _ ------ _ _. ------=�-�___---__ ___ ��__�- �;� �� -� ��E;, � ----� ��1� -�'� _ _ --- i