Loading...
PL 09/10/1975 - 30427CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1975 � PA�E 1 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris, Scott, Bergman, Langenfeld Members Absent: Drigans, Peterson . Others Present: Virginia Wahlb�rg, Vice Chairperson of Appeals Commission � Darrel Clark, Community Development Administrator Steven Olson, Environmental Officer APPROVE PLANNTNG COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 20, 1975 Mr. Scott s�'d the Qrdinance number on page 19 of the minutes should �� No. 584 insiead of 594 and on page 21 of the minutes the da�e in �he first paragraph should read January 1, 1969 instead of January 1, 1960. He said rhese were just typoyraphical ei°rors. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Scott, that the Plannin� Commission minutes of August 20, 1975 be approved as corrected. 'Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mation carried unanimously. ^ RECEIVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MTNUTES: �AUGUST 21, 1975 � �rs. Wahlberg said she took exception to the statement in these minutes that no other subcorrenission had addressed themselves to the problem of the billboards. She • said as she was representing Mr. Drigans at this meeting, she thought she should siate that the Appeals Commission had spent a lot of time discussing the billboards. Mr. Scott said he hadn't seen any of this discussion reflected in any of the minutes since the reorganization of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Wahlberg said their discussions were mostly b�fore that time, but Mr. Drigans had discussed this with the Appeals Cor��ission after the adjournment of one of their meetings. She said their regular secretary had been on leave of absence, and they had had a series of temporary secretaries so their minutes hadn't always reflected the discussions they had had. Mr. Scott said the point he was making was that the Commissioners were not voting the consensus o� the other members of their Commissions. He said this was based on ti�hat was in the minutes of these Commissions which was all t�e had to go by. He said there would be�some corrections to these minutes, but they would be included in their next minutes. MOTION by 5cott, seconded b� Bergman, that the P2anning Commission receive the minutes of the Numan Resources Commission meeting of August 21, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: AUGUST 25, 1975 �� MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission receive _ the minut'es of the Parks & R�cre�tion Commission meeting of August 25, 1975. �pon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page 2 Mr. Clark said there were two items in these minutes that originally required ac�ion on. a. TR #75-02, by Arnold L. Aune, 6321 Jackson Street N.E. for permission to remove a tree from the boulevard. Mr. Clark said Mr. Aune had called him about this tree the day of the Parks & Recreation meeting. Because they anly meet once a month, he advised Mr. Aune �o attend this meeting with his request so that if he needed the approval of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and the Planning Commission and Council, in order to comply with the tree ordinance, the process would have been started. Mr. Clark said that since that time he had received a legal opinion from Virgil Herrick on this request. He said that in a memorandum to Richard Sobiech from Virgil Herrick dated September 5, 1975, Mr. Herr'ick had stated that he was in the opinion that the trees on street boulevards were on private property, inasmuch as the adjoining landowner owns the fee title to the property. The Caty merely has an easement for street purposes. He did not feel that this situation fell within the scope of the City,ordinance prohibiting the City from cutting trees on publicly owned property. Mr. Clark said Mr. Aune had been so advised. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the P�anning Commission receive the memorandum from Virgil Nerrick �o Richard Sobiech dated SEptember 5, I975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. b. Hockey Association of Fridley reqi hav�ng ice_maintenance do��e at ni� t to appear before Council to discuss and other aspects o� the Hockey program. Mr. Clark said this second item was more a budgetary item between the Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council. Mr. Scott said he just wanted to voice his concern on how the money was spent in the recreational program. He said he was not concerning himsel�f with established budgets, or trying to slow�anything down, but he said that in considering a new budget, it should be watched .so+it did not�violate the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Mr. Harris asked if there was anyone present from the Hockey Association. There was no response. RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSTON MINUTES: AUGUST 26, 1975 MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Appeals Commission meeting of August 25, I975. Upon a voice vot�, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MINUTES: AUGUST 27, 1975 MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive the minutes of the Community Development Carrm�ission meeting of August 27, I975. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . Mr. Bergman said there was an item in these minutes which he would liKe to pass on �to the Planning Corr�nission and this was in regard to City Code :violal:ions. 'We had ' � a discussion from a Community Development base on housekeeping violations,.:nuisance - violations, etc.; the thrust being that the City depends. too much upon privat' ci�izens to call in complaints � without which nothing happens.., an idea was agreed to t�iat it Planning Commission Meeting - Sepember 10, 1975 Paqe 3 would be a benefit �if City administrative people, wha normally during regular business � hours, spend some time drivin.g here or there, throughout the City, rather than just passing by, be advised that they have a responsiblity when they see obm�c�s violat�ons to the code as regards housekeeping and nuisance violations, to report these to the proper people so that action could be taken without having to wait until some neighbor ge ts alil! upset before he calls City Hall in a.very irritated fashion, before :�some��.action was taken. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Scott, that the PZanning Commission reguest of Council that members of the City administration be asked to be attentive to the housekeeping and other nuisance type violations during their normal business travels and that these people be advised that they have a responsibility to report these violations to the responsible people at City Ha11 so that some action may be taken. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Bergman if he was suggesting that this be a'drive-by' inspection? Mr. Bergman said he would have to know Mr. Langenfeld's definition of � a drive-by inspection. Mr. Langenfeld said that if they were driving the n�rmal speed limit, he didn't think they would see the violations. He said he won�ered if Mr. Bergman was trying to make the staff inembers a patrolling unit. Mr. Bergman said his answer would be in the affirmative, but in a secondary vein. This would not be their primary job. He said that this was the intent of the motion. Mr. Harris said he thought Mr. Bergman should define staff. Did he mean all City employees or just staff people. Mr. Bergman said the intent of the motion was to include all employees. Mr. Clark said that if an.employee saw�a dog running loose ,� and it wasn't bothering anyone, or saw garbage cans on a curb, they probably �0�1.dn't report that, but if they saw a tree down in the boulevard, or a blind intersection, �" or something of th�t nature, they do report it to the proper people now. He said that what had happened in the past, when we have gone out knocking at doors and asking people to comply with the ordinances, we got accused of harassment. He said he thougat there were just as many code violations in Fridley as there were trees, and it had taken several people just to enforce the tree ordinance. Mr. Scott said the Council has already addressed itself to this problem. He said this was in the Newsletter. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Bergman what prompted this �.:.tion by the Community Development Commission? Mr. Bergman said one of the Go�.;:, of this Commission was to make Fridley an inviting residential area. From that ba�., one of the members brought up eye-sores, nuisances and trash piles, etc. and when he asked why something wasn't done about this, he was told that apparently no one had called up and complained. This member said that what�.he was referring to was a flagrant violation, and he thought that City employees who drove through this area, couldn't help but see it, and he thought they should report it, rather than a neighbar, and possibly start a neighborhood feud. They didn't think that an obvious eyesore should have to wait until a neighbor got so agitated that he called City Hall in a huff. Mrs. Wahlberg said it was her opinion that this was already a staff policy and all it would need to be was a restatement that this should be done. She thought this should be a reaffirmation rather than a watch dog or a police state. Mr. Langenfeld said he understood the intent of the motion, but he persona]ly'felt this was the worst sort � of public relations we could have, and he could not vote for this motion. Mr. Olson said that he handled most of the complaints they were talking about in this motione He said he relied on the police and the inspection department and other P�anning Commission Meetin - September 10, 1975 Paqe 4 departments to alert him to problem areas in Fridley. He also relies on citizen input. He said he tried to be very reasonable in taking care of these problems �"'� and tried no� to upset the neighborhood balance. because the first thing he was asked when he responded to a complaint was "who complained", even when he noted the violation on his own. Mr. Bergman said he didn't want to get into an argument on what the City does and does not do, but the sense of the motion was that they rely too much on citizen complaints. • � Mr. Scott said he was glad he had seconded the motion so they could have this discussion, but he would rat�er have it a reminder to the.City staff that they should be aware that code violations should be brought to the attention of the prop�r,staff person. Mr. Harris said he thought they might�be opening a can of worms, because he. didn't think there was any building in Fridley that wouldn`t violate the Code in some instance. Mrs..Wahlberg said she would go one step further and say that there was not one citizen that knew a11 the ordinances in the Code either. Mr. Clark said he knew that the City employees didn't. Mr. H,rris said we may run into a situation where we have 33,000 people with 33,000 violat�ons. He said he felt the low key approach of Mr. Olson was the best way to handle these vio1ations. � Mr. Bergman said we aren't asking for nit-picking ar witch hunting. We are talking about flagrant violations of the City Code. The motion was reviewed and Mr. Bergman said he would withdraw his motian and make a new motion with the concurrence of Mr. Scott. � THE ORIGINAL ��MOTION by Mr. Bergman, seconded by Scott, WAS WITHDRAWN. ^ 0 � MOTION bz� �2�mc3n, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commiss.ion recommend to Council that members of fhe City staff.while in fhe course of their normal work, rrzho may notice flagrant violations in housekeeping and nuisance vioZations, be requested to report same to the proper:City officials, and fhat these City Administrafive pe�ple be al�rted to an awareness of this responsibiiity: Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. . RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6500 University Avenue N.E. Phillips Petroleum Company General Description: � This permit is for the remodeling of the existing Phillips Service � Sta�ion at 6500 University Avenue N.E.. The remodeling cal�s for the elimina- tion of the existing prajecting canopies, the construction of a new ranch � style gabled roof.siorie facing on all four sides.of the building, and the installation of decorative lighting fixtures. It wi�ll also provide for additional landscaping on the property and the pouring of concrete curbing. � � Engineering: . . . . = � We don'� anticipate any engineering problems� with this prope�rty. � � " Tra�Ffic flow wili remain pretty much like it is and will continue to flow . relatively smoothly. . . . � Planning Commission Meetinq - September 10, 1975 '�� �. '� '�Paqe 5 Environmental: We feel that the proposed project will improve the quality of the surrounding area, and will be an asset to the areas, as well as provide the impetus for more area beautification projects. Building Permit Stipulations: 1. All curbing and landscaping'shall be complete one year from the date of the issua�ce of the building permit. 2. Landscaping Plan.must be improved by the Planning Department before the landscaping work begins. Mr. Clark said this was the Phillips Service Station in the Holly Shopping Center. He said that the canopy that now goes over the pump island will be removed. Mr. Clark said the plan he was presenting was a plan they had brought in about a month ago, and since then it had been revised. He saad the brick shown on the front of the building underneath the windows will be continued around the sides and the back to the entire building will be brick facia, instead of stone. The gabled or pitch roofs are not going to be placed on it. It will remain a flat roof, but they are going to,put a mansord around the structure. The staff felt that this wou1d be a b�9 improvemen� to the area. � � Mr. Bill Martin, representing Phillips Petroleum Company, asked if live landscaping meant that they had to have plantings along with the sod.• Mr. C1ark said the landscape plan would have to be worked out with Mr. Boardman. Mr, Martin said it was hard to �`1 maintain plantingsin an oil station area because of. the piling of snow in the winter. = Mr. Clark said there were other treatments that could be used. He said they could probably use large boulders with posts and rock, or plants that only require maintena:nce .� 2 or three times a year. �r. Clark said •the area behind the station would be sodded. Mr. Martin said they wanted ta reduce the sodding behind the station so they could have three more parking stal�ls back there, and they would reduce the parking in front of the station by three stalls. Mr. Clark said he thought that could be worked out. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive ��d approve the administrative report for the remodeling of the Phillips Petroleum Station at 6500 University Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 7421 Central Avenue N.E. - Proposed Office building with storage area By: A.J.L.S. Investment Company General Description: This permii: is for the construction of a new two stary office buil�Siny with accessory storage facilities a�t 7�21 Centi°al Avenue N.E. The building will have approximately 10,000 square feet oY office spac^ wi�;h 9,5G�0 square feet of storage facilities which are accessroy to the ofifice us?. 'The propert,y is presently zoned C-1S and meets all of �;he rec;uirements of tl�� district. The build�ing wi11 be a block buildi��y �,�ith design variati�ns in different decorative block. They will be providing a t�ota7 parking capacity for 44 stalls. (44 requiredj, The landscap�r�g is approved according to the a�proved site plan. . --.,�.,�-.,�. Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 ��Page 6 Engineering: There doesn't appear to be any major engineering problems. Drainage on the South parking lot will have to be studied further by the Engineering Department for appropriate recommendations to the builder. � Environmental: We don't foresee any detrimental environmental effects with the construction of this project. Building Permit Stipulations: l. Work with the Engineering Department in order to facilitate appropriate drainage off the South parking lot. Mr. Clark said this plan went through the Appeals Commission, Planning R�ommission and Council, because there were variances needed, and now it was coming through�wi�th the final architectural plans for the building. He said the Planning Commission may ' have recalled that when this got to the Council there was some concern over the storage area behind and East of the office portion of the building. He said this building would be used by electricians, plumbers, and other such trades, where they would need a storage area �or their vehicles and products. He said we have read the ordinance and explained it to the petitioner. He said the storage area was an accessory use to the office building and meets the code. � -.� Mr. Clark said this wauld be a 2-story office building and there would be a 6' high fence between this office building and the residential area behind it. He said the reason they needed a variance was because this building was surrounded by streets on three sides. He said the petitioner would not be using berming, and they'� were trying something different, in that there would be hedges instead. He said the driveways would be on Onondaga and Fireside, with no direct access to Central �venue. He said this building should not generate high volume traffic. Mrs. Wahlberg said there had been discussion at the Appeals Commission level about someone doing light industrial work in this storage area. Mr. Clark said he could give no guarantee that this storage area would never be used for that, but there was a need for this type of commercial building, and if it was used for that, it could be stopped. Mr. Scott said he thought this was an improvement to this general area. MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive and approve the administrative staff report for a commercial bu�lding to be Zocated at 7421 Central Avenue N.E. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the moti,an carried unanimous.Zy. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-23, BY PETER_J. LONG: Per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, , to allow the construction of a second � accessory building, a 13' x 22' garage, on Lot 11, Baock 4, Rice Creek Terrace � Plat 6, the same being 6721 Madison Street N.E. �''� Mr. Long was not present. MOTION by Scott, seconded by Bergrnan, that the Planning Commission open the Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page 7 �.., Public Nearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-23, by Peter Long. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris decZared the Public Hearing open at 8:40 P.M. Mr. Clark said this would be the second accessory building on this property in excess of 240 square feet. He said that when Mr. Long came in for a building permit, he was informed that a special use permit was required first. Mr. Clark said the notices were mailed out dn the 26th of August, and on the 27th of August a neighbor called in and asked that if he wanted to object to this request, what good it would do, when the structure was already up. Mr. Clark said he went to the property on that day, and found the garage almost completed. He then red tagged it until the Special Use Permit had been approved by the Planning Commissi�on and Council, � and a building permit could be issued. He said that he_did note�chat this garage met all the req�oirements of the State Building Code. He said that when Mr. Long was in � ihe office, he made the statement that this second accessory building would be used to store a boat and he didn't intend to have a driveway, because he would only be moving this boat�two or three times a year. . Mr. Edward Hamernik, 6740 Monroe Street N.E., said he was a neighbor, and he had no objection to this garage being built. Mrs. Chris Bakeberg, 6730 Monroe Street N.E. said she had no objection to this request�either. Mr. Harris asked if they wanted to table this i:tem because the petitioner wasn't present. Mrs. Wahlberg said it was the policy of the Appeals Commission to table an item when the petitioner did not appear. Mr. Clark said he agreed with that, but it n was getting late in the year for construction, so perhaps they could make a recommendation that the pe�titioner must appear before the Council to answer any questions they might v have, before the Special Use Permit was approved. . Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to have it in the record that the Planning Commission did not approve of the situation where someone had already commenced construction without going through the proper procedures, and then because it was getting late in the season, rush, rush, rush. . Mr. Clark said he had made that statement, but if the Planning Commision wanted to table this item until the petitioner did appear, that was fine also. MOTION by Langenfeld, scconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission �Iose the Ptzblic Hearing on the'request for a Special Use Permit, 5P�#75-23, by Peter Long. Upon a voice vote, a1.Z voting aye, Chairman Narris decZared the Public Hearing closed at 8:50 P.M. . Motion by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-23, by Peter J. Long, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.051, 2, A, to a11ow the construction of a second accessory building, a 13 ft. by 22 ft. garage, on Lot .il, Block 4, Rice Creek Terrace Plat 6, the same being 6721 Madison Street N.E. with the stipulation that this bnilding wouZd not in any manner be used for a home occupation. . MOTION by Scott, seconded by Wahlberg, to amend the motion requesting the petitioner to appear before the City Council before approval of the Special Use Permit, and a ,� bui.Iding permi t was issued . . Upon a voice vote on the amendment, aIl voting age, the amendment carried unanimousZy. Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page 8 Upon a voice vote on the amended motion, all voting aye, the amended motion passed unanimously. ^ 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-13, BY NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing � billboard on Parcel 3000, in the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter, except the North 16.6 acres, of Section 2; T-240, R-24, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 8410 University Avenue N.E. i '� � Public hearing open. STAFF REPORT Location: 8410 lJniversity Avenue N.E. Date of Sign Permit: 1/9/69 Owner: Naegele Comments: Lease runs to 5/1/84 0 *1. Height (25') 10' Base / 25' Top - 30' from University Center line 2. Area (300) 12' x 25' 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') Meets Code -- � 500` 4. Setback from Street R/W Lines (30') Meets Code ---� 30' 5: Distance from Street Intersection (500') Meets Code --�►500' _ 6. Distance from Residential Uses (500') Meets Code --- � 500' 7. Condition Status (all metal) Steel and Fluorescent **8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) C-2 *Non-conforming to existing ordinance **Non-conforming to zoning requirements Chairman Harris reviewed the staff report. Mr. Jim Shaw, Director of Community Relations for Naegele in the Twin Cities, was present to represent the petitioner. ' Mr. Shaw said this sign was just immediately North of the Fridley Golf Range. �te said they had advertising space for rent on the South side, and the City of Fridley had the North side. Mr. Shaw said that Naegele found themselves in a very difficult position at the present time. As to the size of the billboards, they were all legal at the time they were constructed. The ordinance was passed after these signs were in existence. The predicament we find ourselups in was because cities, from time to time, do change their laws, but they don't usually penalize those who had lived up to the previous laws in good faith. This was what was happening to the sign companies. We constructed these signs in good faith, and now we were being penalized. He said he had a retorical question. If a house or commercial enterprise was already constructed, and Fridley chang.ed their code as to setback, height and area coverage, he would assume that Fridley wouldn't require these existing structures be torn down because they had changed their code. They would allow these structures to remain unless they desired to rebuild or relocate. He said the City was using a different set of rules for the bil]boards. P1anning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Pa�e 9 They are asking the sign companies to live up to the new code with old structures. n Chairman Harris said the ordinance we are trying to enforce was passed in 1969. It stated that all.free standing signs would have to be removed on or before September 15, 1974 unless they had a Special Use Permit. Mr. Shaw said he knew that Naegele had been negligent in not trying to resolve this problem long before this . time. � Mr. Clark said that when this sign was constructed, this�area was zoned M-1, but the zoning was changed about three years ago. He said the land was vacant and was developable. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, thaf the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75�13, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:Z2 P.M. MOTION b� Bergman,:seconded b� Langenfeld, that the Planning Corr¢nissio:. reco�nend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-13, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, to a1Zow the cont.inuation of an existing billboard on Parcel 3000, in the NW Quarter of the NW Quarter, except the North 16.6 acres, of Section 2, T-30, R-24, per Fridley City Code, Section 2Z4.042, the same being 8410 University Avenue N.E. with the following stipulations: 1. When this property was developed, the advertising sign Zocated upon it wiZl have to be removed. 2. When this advertising sign was destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, fhis sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and wi11 have to be removed. 3. This S�ecie.l Use Permit subject to annual review. 4. This billboard be mainiained in good qua.Iity condition. 5. This billboard be removed on or before the termination of the lease dated May .Z, �984. . Mr. Scott said he would vote against this motion because he wished to recognize the role which planning and zoning play in our municipal 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 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; and to quote from the Environmental Commission goals and objectives of their August 13, 1975 meeting, "to encourage productive harmony between man and his environment and assure for all people in the City of Fridley, a safe, .healthfu,l,productiv aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrounding". Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Scott as Chairman of the Human Resource Commission how � he felt about the statement he had just made as to violating the freedom of expression and the use of this media for advertising. Mrs. Wahlberg said that part of this statement was to ensure a more pleasant and economical environment and she had a question that if a resident and businessman o�::the City of Fridley used these billboards for advertising, wouldn't this statement be denying him a more economical environment by denying him the opportunity to advertise on a billboard in the City of Fridley. Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page 10 Was it not infringing on his economic environment by denying him this use? Mr. Scott said that any business you enter into has certain risks. He said that in putting up a power station, which might be a pollutant, so it might be economically unsound to the people in the area if this was allowed. He said he believed in freedom of expression, but this did not give you the freedom to be offensive. Mrs. Wahlberg said she thought Mr. Scott was equating health environment with visual pollution. Mr. Scott said that was just an off the cuff statement to show how something could be;uneconomica1 as far as environment. He said that if the Planning Commission wanted to get into economics, he would be willing to discuss that. Ne said his Cor�nission and the Chamber of Commerce had only gone into a generalizatjo� of economics, but not on any particular sign. Mr. Scott said the problem he had been having with these billboards was in saying yes to some of them and no to some of them, was because he felt certain tha� if the Planning Commission didn't say yes to enough of them, we would prob�bl.y end up in court. He said that what he was trying to do was to take a position that could be ' defended in court, if we have to go. He felt this was their responsibility. He didn't think the Ci�y should be put in the position where they have to say yes to any given amount of billboards. He said he wasn't against billboards, and although some billboard� weren't as objectionable as others, he felt there wasn't enough difference in them to say yes on some and no on some, and defend that position in court. He said his statement had been accepted by the courts in three states, and maybe it could hold � up in the Minnesota courts also, although no one knew that at this time. Mr. Langenfeld said he wanted it noted that in the Human Resources meeting of August 21, on page 4, there was a statement that the Commission felt very strongly . against billboards. Mr. Scott said they had gone through the same discussion that �e have had here, but that t�ese were not verbatim minutes. He said there were members of his Commission who didn't find billboards too offensive, but they felt the City was in a trap. He said he �asn;tdenying Naegele the righ� to challenge us in court, they have that right, but he was trying to take a stand that would be defendable in cour�. Mr. Bergman said his view was that we were not here to decide whether or not "Fridl�y will or will not have billboards. Ne said the City Code does allow for bill- boards, it just happens that the existing billboards are in violation of the City Codes. He �aid he thought the Planning Commission was trying to differenciate between the weightiness of the violations in each case. He said this particular billboard was only 5 feet over the hight requiPement and was built in the proper zoning at the time it was constructed. This particular billboard was in lesser violation than some of the others we have considered. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR APPROVAL, Harris, Wahlberg, Bergman, Langenfeld voting aye, Scott nay, the motion carried. 3e CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-14, BY � NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing � billboard on Lot 18, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 77, per Fridley City Code, � Section 214.0�2, the same being 7357 East River Road N.E. Public hearing open. Planning Commission Meetinq - September 10, 1975 Page 11 ^ Mr. Shaw said that at no time was Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company threatening• anybody with anything. W� are trying to resolve a situation, both the sign companies . and the Planning Commission. He said he was opposed to two of the stipulations. One was that the sign be removed when the property was developed, and the other that the � sign be removed at the termination of the lease date. He said he knew the zoning had been changed in a number of areas. He said he didn't think anyone in this community, either here now, or ta come, could afford to come in and make an investm�nt, and looking at the whims (he used this word_ loosely) of changes in zoning, would want to be faced with having to tear down their commercial enterprise. He said that was what had . happened to the sign at 8410 University Avenue. This was built in the proper zoning, and now that the zoning had been changed, we are supposed to tear down this sign. Mr. Scott said there were risks in any business, and this was not a whim. The � sign ordinance was enacted in 1969, which was six years ago, to allow for amortizaiion, � which your comp�ay does not recognize. He said that having a commercial building rezoned to a different use was less risky than having the land where a bill'�oard was located being rezoned. He felt that the citizens have the right to change their minds. Mr. Bergman said he was trying to take inio consideration the point made by Mr. Shaw, He said this sign was constructed in 1969 and the lease ends in 1984, so this was 15 years. Mr. Shaw said he still felt that you couldn't do business if you were subject to the whims of rezoning. He said he felt the ordinances were passed to protect the ,r� health, sa�ety and welfare of the community and not to cause a risk for any business. � STAFF REPORT Locaiion: 7357 East River Road Sign Permit Date: 10/19/60 Owner: Naegele � Cor�nents: Lease runs from year to year, expires this year 10-22-75 1. Height (25') 10' Base /22' Top 2. Area (300� 12' x 25' Single Face *3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') 70' from sign that will be removed 4. Setback from Street R/W Lines (30') Meets Code --�•30' *5. Distance from Street Intersection (500') 340' to Glen Creek Road and E. R. Road *6. Distance from Residential Uses (500'), Residential across E.R.R. and to South 100' to R-1 district 7. Condition Status (All Metal) Steel & Fluorescent **8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) C-1S . *Non-conforming to existing ordinances **Non-conforming to zoning requirements � ,� .�Chairman Harris reviewed the staff report, noting that this sign did not meet . 4�of the eight criteria. He said it would meet the distance between signs when the other sign was removed. He asked Mr. Clark what that meant. Mr. Clark said there were two Naegele signs in this area, and they have agreed to remove one sign and have Plannin� Cor�nission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Pa e 12 not applied for a Special Use Permit for that sign. Mrs. Wahlberg asked i�f there was a date set for the removal of the other sign. Mr. Shaw said the limbo situation that they have been operating in made it difficult to make any decisions until we know what was going to happen to these Special Use Permit reque�ts. Mr. Scott said that what Mr. Shaw was saying was that if this sign was allowed to remain, they would remove the other one. Mr. Langenfeld said it was his feeling that by putting a termination date on all these billboards, that what they were doing was kicking the billboard comRanies out of Fridley. Mr. Bergman said he didn't feel that way at all. He said he felt that what they were saying was� that the Fridley City Code allows for billboard construction, and they can built billboards or retail billboards wi�hin the provisions of the code. Mr. Langenfeld said the lease on this billboard expires on October 22, 1975. What are we going io do with this one? Mrs. Wahlberg said this was a year to year lr��se. Mr. Clark said that what Mr. Langenfeld was alluding to was that if the longest lease date, was say 1990, and they all had the same stipulation on the lease date, then by the year 1990 billboards would cease to exist. Mr. Bergman said that would only be those who were a-.non-conforming use. Mr. Shaw said they could construct billboards according to the present code and zoning, and in five years these could be non-conforming due to code changes, and they would be back in the same situation. ��"� Mr. Shaw said he noted that this sign was too close to a residential area, but the -- A& W sta�d and the Big Wheel al�n were within 100 feet of a residential area. He said the reason there were two signsso close together was because, at one time, these signs were owned by two different companies, and Naegele had ownership of both now through acquisition of another company. ' MOTION b� Scott, seconded by Bergraan, that fhe PZanning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-14, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:59 P.M. MOTION by LanqenfeZd, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission recominend to Council denial of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-14, by Naegele Dutdoor Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of an existing bi�lboard on Lot 18, Revised_.Auditor'.s Subdivision No. 77, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 7357 East River Road because this billboard violates 4 out of the 8 criteria, and these were such that there wouZd be no benefit in continuing this particular sign. Mr. Scott said he was in favor�of this motion because we wish to recognize the roll which planning and zoning play in our municipal 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 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 g�neral welfare and to quote frorri the Environmental Commission goals and objectives of their �. August 13, 1975 meeting ,"to encourage productive harmony between man and his �� environment and assure for all people in the City of Fridley a safe, healthful, productive aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrounding". Mr. Bergman said that he was generally in tune with the motion,�however he felt Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page 13 r"'� it was abrupt, and we would benefit from some consideration from a business view, and he would be more amenable to the motion if it expressed some reasonable time _for reaction from the peti�tioner. He said he felt that the Planning Commis�ion and � .the City Administration were somewhat tardy in addressing these, and the lease did expire on this sign in 12 days, and he thought the petitioner should have more time. Mr. Scott said he didn't feel this was an abrupt decision when the petitioner has already had six years since the sign ordinance was passed. Mrs. Wahlberg said this sign was construeted in 1952 and rebuilt in 1960, and she did concur that they have had six years notice that this sign might have to be removed. Mr. Harris said that he felt these two signs did nothing to enhance this area. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR DENIAL, Scott, Harris, Wahlberg, I�angenfeld voting aye, Bergman nay, the motion carried. C.hairman Harris declared a recess at 10:10 P.M, and reconvened the mee:ing at 10:33 P..M. 4. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-15, NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lots 1-3, Block 9, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042; the same being 5452 7th Street N.E. Public hearing open. r^� .� STAFF REPORT Location: 5452 7th St. N.E. Date of Sign Permit: 2/6/67- Rebuilt in 1971 Owner: Naegele Comments: Lease expires 6/30/79 *1. Height (25') 25' Base / 37' Top -' 25' Above center line of I.694 *2. Area (300') 14' x 49' 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') Meets Code --� 500' 4. Distance from Street R/W Lines (30') Meets Code --- } 30' � *5. Distance From Street Intersection (500') Z00' *6. Distance from Residential Uses (500') 65' N. of R-3 Parking lot, 190' to R-1 District, 180 ' W. to R-3 parking 7. Condition Status (all metal) Steel and Florescent **8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) ___C-2 *Non-conforming to existing ordinance **Non-conforming to zoning requiremet n, Chairman Harris review the staff report and said this was a V shaped sign. Mr. Shaw said that Naegele only had two size signs, a 12' x 25' and 14' x 49', and that all their signs were magna face bulletin, and were.aotated every 60 days. Planning Commission Meetinq - September 10, 1975 Page 14 � Mr. Harris said this sign was construced in 1967 and rebuilt in 1971. He asked n how they got a buil�ding permit to rebuild this to a 1�4' x 49' when our new ordinance was already in existence stating that the area couldn't be over 300 square feet? Mr. , Clark said he didn't think a permit was issued to rebuild this sign. Mr. Shaw said � �that this sign was not actually rebuilt. It was a 12' x 45' sign and it was modified to take their 14' x 49' bulletin, but the sign structure was not altered. Mr. Harris said he thought the sign companies had played_pretty fast and loose with the City of Fridley. Mr, Scott said the point should be made that Naegele knew our ordinance was in existence when they acquired this sign from Meyer's and made the investment to modify the sign to take their panels. Mr. Bergman said this sign did not meet the criteria in five of the 8. The area was really out of line, in that it was 686 square feet per side, and our ordinance requirement was 300 feet, so this was more than double the maximum size of the ordinance. MOTTON by 5cott, seconded by Langenfeld, that the P�anning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request�for a Special Use Permit, SP�#75-Z5, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:59 P.M. MQTION by Scott, seconded by Langenfeld for discussion, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council denial of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-15, by � Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, to a11ow the continuation of an existing billboard � on Lots 1-3, B1ock 9, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5452 7th Street N.E, because we wish to recognize the role which planning and zoning play in our municipal effort to guide future development of land so as to ensure a pleasan�er and more economical environment in which our ' residents may live and work, and base this exclusive2� on aesfhetics on the ground that the pleasant appearant of our community has a direct and beneficial effect on propert� values and on the we11-being of our residents, and this inevitably promotes � the general welfare.� and to quote from the Environmental Comzns.ssion goals and objectives of their August 13, 1975 meeting, "to encourage productive harmon� between man and his environment and to assure for a11 people in the City of Fridle�, a safe, healthful, productive, aesthetica2ly and culturally pleasing surrounding", noting that this sign violates 5 out of 8 criteria of the staff report. P1r. Langenfeld asked Mr. Scott if it was his intention to let this billboard continue until the end of the lease which was 6/30/79. Mr. Scott said that when Naegele acquired this billboard in 1971, they already knew about the new sign ordinance in existence and that this billboard violated �hat ordinance. He said they were asking for a Special Use Permit and his motion was for denial. He said the rest was up to the City Council. Mr. Langenfeld said they were analyzing these billboards with the present ordinance in mind; If we wern't going to try and get these ordinances enforced, he thought they were all wasting their time. Mr. Bergman said this sign was in violation in many areas, of some magnitude, but � , he felt the burden on the Planning Corrmiission was to act with reasonableness, rather than with arbitrary and immediate abruptness, to avoid any punitive reaction. Mr. Scott said that in 1969 when this ordinance-was passed, the billboard Planning Commission Meeting - gep��mber° 10, 1975 � Pa e 15 companies were given five years, so he didn't consider this abrupt:: n Mr. Bergman said he felt.there was a fair amount of room for interpretation over whai was said and done and.what the intent of the ordinance was in 1969, and while Mr. Scott may have felt it was clear., he felt it was less clear than that. He thought some of the guidance we have recivec� indicated that it was less clear than that. He , said that the requirement that somecne get a special use permit, to h.im, did not get as specific as he thought they were trying to be at this time. Mrs. Wahlberg said that at the last Planning Commissi.on meeting when they took action on two other billboards in about the same v�cinity, I.694, they had given them some time, one until 1976 and the other until 1977, and she thought they should be consistent in their recommendations. Mr. Scott said those were motions for approval, and this was a motion for denial. Mr. Langenfeld said the expiration date of this lease was June 30, 1979, and he wondered if the Planning Commission would be in agreement of having the billt•�ard removed rn� or before Jun e 30, 1976, to allow them a little time. Mrs. Wahlberg said this would be more consist�nt with previous action. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR DENIAL, Scott voting a�e, Harris abstaining, Bergman, Wahlber 9, Langenfeld voting.nay, the MOTION FAILED. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the ,Planning Commission recommend to ^ Council approval of a request for a 5pecial Use Perrr�it, SP #75-.Z5, by Naegele Outdoor � Advertisinq Company, to a11ow the continuation o.f an existing billboard on Lots Z- 3, BZock 9, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Frid.Zey City Code, Section 2I4.042, the same being 5452 7th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: .Z. When this lot was developed, the advertising sign located on it wi11 be removed. 2. 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 wi11 have to be removed. 3. This billboard be maintained in good quality condition. 4. This billboard be removed on or before June 30, .I976. . Mr. Scott asked Mr. Shaw if the stipulation that this billboard be removed on or � before June 30, 1976 was tantamount to denial? Mr. Shaw said he felt that it was. Mr. Harris said he wanted to mentian that the City could be held liable for the f.or,_.the amount of rerit that would be paid from June 30, 1976 and June 30, 1979. Mr. Bergman said he was aware of the lease expiration date at the time of making the motion, but he was concerned that this particular sign was in sizable violation of the Code, and felt a four year extension of this sign was incongruous. �� Mrs. Wahlberg said she had some problem with the date mentioned in the motion. She wondered what would happen if Naegele had a contract for this billboard dated after the June 30, 1976 date. Mr. Harris said an attorney would have to answer that. n, ^ Planning Commission Meetin - September 10, 1975 Paqe 16 Mr. Scott said what he thought was important was that the sign comp�n� be given ample notice that this sign had to be terminated. Mr. Langenfeld said they were considering the individual merits of each sign, and were not concerning themselves with contractural obligations. � UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR APPROVAL, Scott voting nay, Harris abstaining, Bergrnan, Wahlberg, Langenfeld voting aye,�the.motion carried. 5. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: RE UEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75 16, BY �NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPANY: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, per Fridley City Code, Section � 214.042, the same being 5501 7th Street N.E. Public hearing open. STAFF REPQRT Location: 5501 7th Street N.E. Sign Permit Date: 8/15/67 Owner: Naegele Comment�: Expiration date of lease 10-1-77 *1. Height (25;) *2. Area (300) __ 20' Base/32' top --- 25' from center of I 694 14' x 49' 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') _ Meets Code --- > 500' 4. Setback from Street R/W Lines.(30') Meets Code ----� 30' *5. Distance from Str.eet Intersection (500') 145' from intersection of 56th & 7th St. *6. Distance from Residential uses (500') _ 200' from R-3 District 7. Condition Status (aTl metal) Steel & Fluorescent 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) C-2S *Non-conforming to existing ordinance ***�nn-conforming to zoning requirements Chairman Harris reviewed.the staff report. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a SpeciaZ Use Permit, SP #75-16, by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 11:25 P.M. �.'�� Mr. Bergman said there were sizable violations in three of the~8 criteria the height requirement. He said this sign was 686 square feet also, which was more than double the code maximum o� 300 feet. �� MOTION b Ber y gman, seconded by Wahlberg, that�the Planning Commission recor�nend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-16, by Naegele Outd�r Advertising Company, to a1Zow the continuation of an existinq billboard on Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 155, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same P�'anning Commission Meeting - September 10, 19�5 Paqe 17 being 5501 7th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: � 1. When this 1ot was developed, the advertising sign Zocated on it wi11 be removed. 2. When this advertising sign was destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuilt and � wiZ1 have to be removed. 3. This billboard subject to annual review. 4. This billboard be maintained in good qualit� condit.ion. 5. This billboard be removed on or before February Z, 1977, Mr. Scott said he would vote against this motion because he wished to recognize the role which planning and zoning play in our municipal efforts to guide future development of land so as to ensure a pleasante�• and more economical environment in which our residents may live and work, and base this exclusively on aesthetics on iche 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; and to quote from the Environmental Commission goals �and objectives of their August. 13, 1975 meeting, "to encourage productive harmony between man and his enviroriment and assure for all people in the City of Fridley, a safe healthful, productive, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrounding", n Mr. Scott said the Planning Commission was making motions for approval, but � what they were doing in reality r�as denying the continuation of the .billboards.. He didn't think they were performing a service for the sign companies or for the City. Mr. Bergman said he thought it was important to provide a reasonable time for termination of these signs so there wouldn't be abruptness, and that was what' these motions were providing. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Berman, Harris, Langenfeld, Wahlberg voting aye, Scott nay, the motion carried. Chairman Harris said they would handle the new two requests together. 6. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-17, BY BREDE, INC.: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5401 Central Avenue N.E. 7. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-18, BY BREDE, INC.: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5403 Central Avenue N.E. - The Public Hearing was open on both these requests. �"'1 _ � Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page 18 STAFF REPORT: �, Location: 5401 Central Avenue N.E. Sign Permit Date: 8/2/65 Owner: Brede, Inc. Comments: Lease runs to 10/1/82 *1. Height (25;) 16 ft. to top / 6 ft. to Base *2. Area (300) 10' x 40' (variance granted September 20, 1965) *3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') 150' to 5403 Central___ _ *4. Setback From Street R/W Lines (30') 9' to R/W 31' to Service Drive 5. Distance from Street Intersection (500') Meets Code ---�'500' 6. Distrance from Residential Uses (500') Meets Code ------ 500' 7. Condition Status (all metal) Steel and Fluorescent 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) C-2S *Nan-conforming to existing ordiance STAFF REPORT: �"� Location: 5403 Central Avenue N.E. Sign Permit Date: 8/2I65 Owner' Brede Comments: Lease runs to 10-1-82 *1. Height (25') 16 ft.�.to top / 6 ft. to Base *2. Area (300) 10' x 40' (variance granted September 20, 1965) *3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') 150' to 5401 Central � *4. Setback From S�reet R/W Lines (30`) 18' to R/W 57' to Service Drive 5. Distance from Street Intersection (500') Meets Code ----� 500' 6. Distance from R-1 Uses (500') Meets Code ---- � 500' 7. Condition Status �all Metal) Steel and Fluorescent &. Zoning (C=2S, M-1, I�-2) C-2S *Non-conforming to existing ordinance Chairman Harris reviewed the staff rep.ort. ' Chairman Harris said there was a letter from the property owner, Mrs. Mary � Cooney, dated July 28, 1975, stating this was not�a buildable lot, and the rent from these signs was the only income she could obtain from this property. MOTION by Wahlquist, seconded by Scott, that the Planning Commission rec�ive , the Zetter from Mrs. Mary Conney, dated Ju.Iy 28, 1975, in favor of these SpeciaZ Use Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Page �� Permits�being granted. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimousZ� �...` Mr. Clark said this lot was only about 5,000 square feet, and the requirements ' �for this zoning said a buildable lot had to be 16,000 square feet. This was an 180' by 50' triangle that was left after the freeway right of way was acquired. Mr. Bratland, representative of Brede, Inc., said that:their billboards were all hand painted units and the copy was very seldom changed. They had all local tenants and some of these signs had borders and some had not. He said they have long term signage leases on their signs, u'sually 5 or 10 years. Mr. Bratland said they had been given approval for these signs on September 20, 1965. They had gone through the Board of Appeals, Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Clark said the reason that these signs did not meet the height requirement was because they were only 6' from�the ground, and the requirement was 10'. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Langenfeld,=-thai the Planning Commission cZose the Publ'ic Hearing on the request for a Specia:- Use Permit, SP #75-Z7, by Brede, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the PubZic Hearing closed at 11:40 P.M, � M.rs. Wahlberg asked if Mrs. Conney would have been informed of the Public Hearings held on the new sign ordinance in 1969. Mr. Clark said he didn't think so. Their were notices sent to civic organizations, and it was given publicity in the p.aper, but he didn't think any individuals received notices. ;� Mr. Clark said this property was not buildable by itself, but it could be � purchased�by the adjacent property owner, but Mrs. Cooney felt she couldn't find a willing buyer for this property. Mrs. Wahlberg said the reason she had brought this up was because she could understand M�s. Cooney'sh�rdship in wanting to derive some income from this property. She was wondering if Mrs. Cooney was aware that she could ��0�e, the income from these si:gns because they were non-conforming. • MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-I8,'by Brede, Inc. Upon a voice vofe, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at Z1:47 P.M. .. Mr. Langenfeld said that both these signs were non-conforming in 4 out of the eight criteria. � Mr. Bratland said they had signage leases on these two billboards. He wasn't sure just what the time was for each particular sign, but he thought one sign still had three years left of their lease and the other sign had five years left. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission, taking note that these two signs were non-conforming in 4 of the 8 criteria, and taking note of the letter from the pr4perty owner, Mrs. Mary Cooney, regarding her concerns, recommends to City Council approval of the requests for Special Use Permits, SP #75-17 and SP #75-18, by Brede, Inc., to allow the continuation of two existing bilZboards on part of Lot 8, Auditor's Subdivision No. 94, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5401 and 5403 Central Avenue N.E.,�with the following stipulations: �� • . 1. When�this Iot was developed, the advertising signs located on it wi1Z have have to be removed. � � Planning Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 Pa e 20 2. When these advertising signs are destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, they cannot be repaired or rebuilt and wi1l have to be rernoved . 3. These Specia.Z Use Permits subject to yearly review. 4. These billboards be maintained in good quality repair. 5. The expiration date of these billboards be co-terminous with the signage leases, with a five year maximum. Mr. Scott asked if there had been any agr�ement worked out between administration and Brede about the pos�siblility of remaving one of these signs. Mr, Bratland said he had discussed this with Steve Olson, but the rental from one sign would not be enough income for Mrs. Cooney to pay the sewer assessments�on this property. He said he had discussed with Mr. Olson their willingness to probably drop the sign on the Knights of Columbus property, because that was an old sign. Mr. Bergman said that any negotiations on these two signs could take place before these signs went to Council. � Mr. Scott said he wouldn't have too much of an objection if one of these signs remained because he thought that if the sign was raised 4 feet, the code violations wouldn't be too serious, but he�couldn't find a good reason to deny one sign .and approve the other one. If Brede, Inc., wasn't going to take use to court, then we wouldn't have to worry about that. Mrs.�Wahlber�. said they hadn't taken into consideration any other prope�ty owner's p�oblems in dealing with the billboards, although she was sympathetic to Mrs. Cooney's hardship. . . Mr. C1ark said that most of the other property owners could put their property to some othe.r use. Mr. Scott said he could not vote in favor of this motion because of the stipulations and because it supports both signs. He could agree to one sign remaining on this property, without an expiration date, but he thought one sign should be removed. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Bergnran, Langenfeld, Wa1l�berg.voting aye,•Scott and Harris voting nay, the motion carried. � � 8. CONTINUATION: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-19, BY BREDE, INC.: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lot 1, Block 1, Narstad Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 6801 Highway #65 N.E. Public hearing open. STAFF REPORT Location: 6801 Highway #65 N.E. � Sign Permit Date: December, 1959 Owner: Brede, Inc. /`1 Comm�nts: Lease runs to April of 1976, 10 year term signage lease November 1976 *1. Height (25') 18' to top ' 7' to Base Planning Commission Meeting - November 10, 1975 � Pa e 21 . *2. Area (300) 10' x 40' ^ 3. Distance Bet. Signs.(500') Meets Code ---- 500' .. *4. Setback from Street R/W Lines (30') 13' from street *5, Distance from Street Intersection (500') 25' from intersection *6. Distance from residential uses (500`) too close to R-3 *7. Condition Status (All Metal) Wood construction **8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) R-3 *Non-conforming to existing ordinance **Non-conforming to zoning requirement Chairman Harris review the staff report, noting that this sign violate' 7 out of the 8 criteria. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission close the PubZic Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-19, by Brede, Inc. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing cZosed at 12:29 A.M. � Mr. Clark said this sign was located on developed land. � _ MOTION b� Bergman, seconded by Wahlbert, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-19, by Brede, Inc., to a11ow the continuation of an existing bilZboard on Lot 1, BZock 1, Harstad Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 680I Hiqhway #65 N.E. with the� following stipulations: 1. When this advertising 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 removed. 2. Th.is Special Use Permit suliject to yearZy review. ' 3. This billboard be maintained .in good quality condition. 4. This billboard wiZ.Z be removed on or before Novembex I976, the end of the signage Iease. Mr. Scott said he would like to speak against the motion because he wished to recognize the roll which planning and zoning play in our municipal 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 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; and to quote from the EnvirQnmental Commission goals � and objectives of their August 13, 1975 meeting, "to encourage productive harmony ,� between man and his environment and assure for all people in the City of Fridley, a safe, healthful, productive, aesthetically and culturally pleasing surrounding", and . he had a special concern because this was R-3 zoning. � Pl�anninq Commission Meeting - Septemb,er.10, 19Z5 Page 22 UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR APPROVAL, Berman, Harris, Wahlberg, Langenfeld voting aye, Scott voting nay, the motio�i carried. 9. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #7g-20, BY � BREDE, INC.: To allow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lots 29 and 30, Block 11, Hamilton's Addition to Mechanicsville, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 5457 4th Street N.E. Public hearing open. STAFF REPORT Location: 5457 4th Street N.E. Sign Permit Date: 1/12/66 Comments: Expiration daie of lease 9/77 Owner: Brede, Inc. *1. Height (25') 24' to Base / 34' to Top 10' below I.694 *2. Areas (300) 10' x 40' (variance granted Oct 3, 7967) 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') Meets Code --- 500' *4. Setback from Street R/W Lines (30') 25.5' to service drive 5. Distance from Street Interse�tion (500') Meets Code ---- 500' � *6. Distance from Residential Uses (500') Standing in R-3, 30' from R-1 7. Condition Status (all metal) Steel and Fluorescent **8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) R-3 (variance granted October 9, 1966 *Non-conforming to existing ordinance **Non-conforming to zoning requirement Chairman Harris reviewed the staff report. MOTIO� by Scott, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission close the Public Nearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP, #75-20, by Brede, Inc. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 12:35 A.M. • Mr. Bratland presented letters to the Planning Commission verifying when the variances had been granted for this sign. Mr. Bergland said this sign violated 5 out of the 8 criteria, although variances had been granted for two of the viol.ations. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Langenfeld, that the PZanninq Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a 5pecial Use Permit, SP #75-20, by Brede, Inc. to a11ow the continuation of an existing billboard on Lots 29 and 30, B1ock 1Z, Hamilton's Addition.to Mechanicsville, per Fridley City Code, Section 214.042, the same � being�5457 4th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: � n ,�� Planning Commission Meetinq - September 10, 1975 ' Qad �� Z. When this l�t was develvped, the advertising sign located an it wiZ1 be removed. 2. When this advertising sign was destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuiZ-tand wi11 have to be removed. 3. This SpeciaZ Use Permit subject to yearly review '` 4. This biZlboard be maintained in good quality condition. 5. This billbaard be removed on or before 9/77 Mr. Scott asked Mr. Bratland if he realized that this moiion would eliminate this billboard. Mr. Bergman said he objected to this statement, as this was not the intent of his motion. The effect was to have billboards conform to the City Code. Chairman Harris said these motions tell the sign companies our intent, and they can come back and appeal these stipulations before the expiration date. UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Berman, Harris, Wahlberg, LangenfeZd voting aye, Scott nay, the motion carried. 10. 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. Pub7ic hearing open. STAFF REEORT Location: 7568 Highway #65 N.E. Sign Permit Date: 9/6/68 Co�nents: Lease runs to May of 1977 0 Owner: Brede, Inc. 1. Height (25') Meets Code 25' to Top / 15' to Base *2. Area (300) 10' x 40' and 10' x 30' (variance granted May 20, 1968) 3. Distance Bet. Signs (500') Meets Code ----� 500' 4. Setback from Street RJW Lines (30') Meets Code ---- � 30' ;5. Distance from Street Intersection (500') Meets Code -- � 500' *6. Distance From Residential Uses (500') 10' to R-4 7. Condition Status (all metal) 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1, M-2) *Non-conforming to existing ordinance Steel and Fluorescent M-1 Chairman Harris revi�ewe� the staff report. Mr. Bratland verified the variance approval. � Planninq Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 ' Page 24 � MOTION by L�ngenfel�� seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission cZose the PubZic Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, Sp #75-21, by Brede, Inc. J Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye,.Chairman Harris declared the Pu�1ic Nearing�closed � a�• T: 01 A.M. MOTION b� Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission reco�end 'to Cvuncil approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-21, by Brede, Inc., to a11ow the continuation of an existing biZlboard on Parcel 3620, Section 12, per Fridl�y City Code, Section 214.042, the same being 7568 Highway #65 N.E., with the foll�wing stipulations: 1. When this 1ot was developed, the advertising sign Iocated on it wi11 be removed. ' 2. When this advertising sign was destroyed or damaged by an act of nature, vandalism, or other means, this sign cannot be repaired or rebuiZt and wi11 have to be removed. 3. This Special Use Permit, subject to yearly review. 4.� This billboard be maintained in good quality condition. 5. This bilZboard be removed on or before May, 1977. Mr. Scott said he would vote against this motion because he wished to recognize the role which planning and zoning play in our municipal effort.to guide future development of land so as to ensure a pleasanter and more economical environment in n which our residents may live and work, and base this exclusively on aesthetics 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 Commission goals and objectives of their August 13, 1975 meeing. "to encourage productive harmony between man and . his environment and assure for all people in the City of Fridley a safe, healthful, productive, aestheticallyand culturally pleasing surrounding", and also because this billboard was too close to R-4 zoning. Mr. Clark said this propeV:�y was zoned industrial at the time this sign was constructed, but they created a separ�te residential area for trailer parks, which also required a special use permit. . UPON A ROLL CALL VOTE, Bergman, Harris, Wahlberg, LangenfeZd voting aye, Scott voting nay, the motion carried. . �11. REVIEW NEW�.JUNK 9IEHICLE ORDINANCE: SECTION l22 MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the review of the New Junk Vehiale Ordinance, Section 122, be continued until September 24, 1975. Upon a voice vote, aI1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 12. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN SECTION 115: SWIMMING POOLS MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Bergman, that the review of the proposed ahanges .in Section 115, Swimming Poo1s, be continued until September 24, 1975. Upon � a voice vote, a11 voting eye, the motion carried unanimously. �� =�:� �lanning�Commission Meeting - September 10, 1975 �� � Page 25 ADJOURNMENT: ` MOTIDN by Bergrnan, seconded by LangenfeZd, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote, a�1 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1975 adjourned at 1:15 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Dorothy Even n, Secretary �