Loading...
PL 09/24/1975 - 31190Pl�nning Cor�nission Meeting - September 24, 1975 Page 2 RECEIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MI�UTES: SEPTEMBER 17, 1975 . � MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission receive the Community Development Commission minutes of the 5eptember Z7, 1975 meeting. Upon � a voice vote, aZ1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 17, 1975 Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the members of the Planning Commission to pay �articular attention to the discussion on the billboards in these minutes. They wouid then be able to see what his position was. He said that through the years billboards have been discussed at all levels, from the Subcommittees to the Planning Commission and Council and back down again, so when the b�illboards were before the Planning Commission and he thought it was imperative at the time, to make his vote the way he did. He said he was reprimanded because this was not brought back to his Commission's level. Perhaps it was true tha� it should have been. He said it would be brought up a'c �he Enrironmenta1 Commission meetiny on Octoher 16, 1975. . Mr. Langenfeld said he dislil<ed internal conflicts between Comroissions or members within Commissions. He would hope that we couid a11 jointly accomplish ►�hat we were trying to do. He said he agreed fully that if a Commission memb�er wanted to he hea�d, they should be heard fully9 but he thought the.manner in which this .was done at this Env7ronmental Commission meeting of September 17, 1975 uaas very forceful and dramatical. He said he would also like to questian a� this time exactly how the referral method was going to be handled. �. �� , He said he had with him the resignaticn of Bob' Erickson from the Enviro�mental Commission. He asked Chairman Narr�is if he should read it. Mr. Harris said this . should be given to the City Council. - Chairman Harris said that he thought �he referral question was a good one, He thought there were two ways an item eould�be referred to a lower Commission. One ��ay would be at the request of tf�e Chairman of a certain Commission, or if it was directed to a Commission by a member of the administrative staff. Mr. Pe�erson felt this was a m�t�er �hat needed clarification. He said this mat�er of referral was something that had bothered the Parks & Recreation Comm�ssion for some time. They felt that people who appeared at this Commission should be heard by Counc�l, and there was some question on how this got on �he Council agenda. Mr. Bergman said he got the impression that some of us on the Planning Cammissiun would answer �hat question differently. He said ihat he specifically disagreed ��a.th �he sta�ement that had been made which implied that a Planning Commission member was oniy the representing voice of his Commission, and would have no reason to speak if his Commission hadn't advised him on how to speak. He said he took exception to th�t. He didn't seen how any system could work under that context. He said he could see si�uations arising where administration sent something to the Planning Commission, and , the Planning Commission decided to send it down to another Commission, for whatever reason. He said he couldn't fully digest a position of criticism because a Planning Commission.member was not represen�ing his Commission's position, in this particular � case. While he has that responsibility, he was part of a working body. -- � � Mr. Peierson said hi�s question was not on that framework, because he agreed wit.h , Mr. Bergman. He said his question was on the new procedure under the reorganiza�ion. He said when the Parks & Recreation Commission took unanimous action on an item that should go before Council, he�wanted to know h,ow this got on the Council agenda. Planning Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 Page 3 ^ Mr. Harris said that the Planning Commission had�noted the items from the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes that should go on the Council agenda, and this had been done. Mr. Harris said that anytime the Parks and�Recreati�on felt an � item from their minutes should have time on the Council agenda,�this should be so noted in_their.minutes and then these items would•be passed an to the Council�. Mrs. Wahlberg said $he wanted to apologize for not bringing it to the Plan�ing Commissio�'s attention that in the Appeals Commission minutes they had had a discussion an alternate method for processing variance applications on residential property.S�e said �heir request was that this segmcn� be put on the Council'agenda. She said this started an page 9 of.`the Appeals Cor�nission minutes and continued to page 11. Chairman. Harris said it shou.ld be so noted in the minutes that the Appea7s Commission war�tad this discussion to be on the Cauncil agenda. � Mrs. Wahlberg asked if it was the concensus of opinion that there was a proper proced�re for getting i�ems from the �ommissions an the Council agenda. Mr..Harris said he thought they were all in agreem�nt, but the Planning Commission had just beer� somewhat remiss in seeing that these particular items were noted �.n the Pla�ning Cor��mis- sion minu�es so that they were called to the attention of the Council. He said tha� when a particular Commissio� had something in their minutes that they wanted on the Council agenda this should be pointed out at the time the minutes were received.by the Planning Commission. � � Mrs. Wahlberg said she thought the question.of re�erral wasn't only how to get ,.-� items on the Co�ncil agenda, but how items would go from the Planning Commission level to the Commission level. Mr. Harris said he thought there tvere t�o ways this could 'ue '` done. It could be sent to a lower Commission at the Planning Commiss;on's request, or by recommendation of the staff. He said that if there was any argument on this procedure, he was certainly open to suggestions. � Mr. Peterson said that in the manner of operation, he personally felt he would be more conforiable i�f something was being sent from �he Planning Cammission to a. lower Commission than if it was a staff decision. He �aid siaff �hould be carrving out the ac�ions of the Commissions, �nd he �elt th� §�aff shouldn'� be making�decisions on which Co�mission a�� item should be referred to. Mr. Narris said he was tr.inking of the start of a procedure. Mr. Peterson said that was already an accepted practice. Mr. Peterson said he would have no objection of the staff s�arting something a� a lower Commission if it was something the Planning Commission had not acted upon. - Mr. Langenfeld said there wasn'ti always time to r�fer sernething back to the Commissions, and they would have to rely on the Chairman's decisiono Mr. Bergland said he agreed with that comment. He said his inter�retation of ref�rrals was that they relied heavily on Ci.ty administratUOn. He said we have t�e oppor�unity to ' refer this back to another Commission if we deem�d it r��c�ssary, and he �vas comfortable with that. Mr• Peterson said he thought:�Mr. Harri� had his concensus. Mr. Langenfeld said that due to the unusual:nature of the biliboard �ituation it �a . it difficul.t for any Chairman to make a proper decision on 4iust what to da, but he would � have to c�mmend Mr. Scott because he urged that it dvas the,proper time to refer this . matter �o the various Comrnissions, and he thought Mr. Sco�t aras cornect and he had /'� appreciated his comments. � � Mr. Olson said there would be a couple of chang�s necessary in these�m�nutes. Hz said there should have been a new heading after the first two paragra�phs on page 6 of these minutes on the Moore Lake Study. He said he wouid wor� with the secretary on Planninq Con�mission Meeting - September 24, 1975 Page 4 some other changes. � ,� MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission receive the EnvirormrentaZ Corrmlission minutes of the September 17, 1975 meeting. Upon a vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 7741 BEECii STREET N.E. For a speculative warehouse by Paco Masonry ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT General Descrip�ion: This permit is for an industrjal specula�ive building to be used for warehousing. Ii �,�il] be 102' x 99.5' , 10,1��9 square ft., concrete block bui 1 di ng. The desi gn of the bui 1 di ng ��i 11 be a combi nati on af breal<-o r�F block and smooth jointless block to create an interesting design pa�terr�. The building will meet code requirements except for the Nor�h side yard , setback. This E�ariance has beei� recorl�nended by the Appeals Commissioi� on the condition -that an agreement for building on 0' lot.line is obtained by the abuttin� pi°operty. T�e Administrative S�taf-F woul.d recornmend �{�at the building be moved 20' to tf�e South and deve1op a joint parking facility between this cot�struction and Action Pattern. This would not only el7mina�ce the 0' lot line variance on the North, but cou1d provide for a solution � to a potential parking problem in the future. .� Engineerir��g: � There doesn't appear to be any apparen�t engineering problems. D�ainage. wi 11�• be di rec�ted to Beech Street. . Environment: There will be no detrimental environmental effect by the construction of this property. � . Building Permi� Stipulations: l. That the `bui1ding be moved South,�0', and joint parking be provided betwen Action Pattern anc� this building. voice 2. Design of building and landscape�plan be approved by P7anning Department be•�ore permi�t is issued. Mr. Jerry Paschke of Paco Masonry was present. Mtr. Olson said there were no plans available. This building was previously . designed for a deeper position on the lot until it was discovered that when the street was vacated, the City had retained an easement over the entire 50'. Therefore the plans for the building have been altered. It will still meet the �0% lot coverage �� requirement, and Mr. Paschke has agreed to move the building 20' firom the lot line, .- so there wi11 be no variances needed. . _ _ .. __ ___ _ Mr. Paschke said he did have an agreeme�t with Denise Smith for the 0' l.ot iine, P�anning Commission Meeiing �.September 24, 1975 Page 5 � and if by moving this building 20' to the�East, he was stepping on her toes, and � he got into a legal conflict with her because of this,�he would want to go back to the 0' setback. He said that other than tha;t, he was in agreemen� with the staff report. � . ����,d�� Mrs. Wahlberg said Mr. Paschke had been granted a easemen for the 0' lot line subject to a written agreement with the adjacent pr owner,'which he has indicated he has done. � � � �� ' Mr. Harris Mr. Olson said he this for parking, asked why the entire 50' vacat�d street ha d an easement on it. couldn't answer that question. Mr. Harris said he could still u�e and he could drive on it. Mr. Pas�chke said he didn't know unti1 he went to the Council meeting on September 22nd that there was a 50' easement on this property. He said the original building was to have been 120' x 85', but because of this easement the building will now be 102' by 99.5'. He said that because he only found this out two �ays ago, there was no way tl�at new plans could be drawn up that fast anci that was why he had no-�l.ans �iq present at this meeting. Mrs. Ulahlberg said she was much happier with this new proposal, which met all: the codes and would not need a variance. She saTd the Appeals Commission was> reluctant to approve �1�1 the variances that were needed�on.the or�ginal proposal. Mr.. Peterson asked how �hey could grant approval on something there were no plans for. . Mr. Paschke said he did have plans for his original proposal. He said that until three hours before the Council meeting he didn't know, or the staff didn't know, that there was a 50' easement. He said he hadn't had an abstract search done on the property yet. He knew there was a vacated street and had assumed that had gone back to �he owner of the property so tha� 25' of it was on this property. So from that time until now, he had �o revise his plan, and as he stated be�fore, they just couldn't be drawn up in two days. He said there wasn't anything different in these plans from what he had been building for the last three years. Mrs. Wahlberg said the Appeals Commission had seen the original pians for the building a�; �heir meeting. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Paschke if the design of the building . Wds the same except for the size. Mr. Paschke said it was. Mr. Bergman said he thought the 50' easement should be reduced to just the amount needed for an easement, and this error shouldn't be carried on. Mr. Paschke said there ►vere already two buildings in this block now, and it was felt tha� for the sake of uniformity, this building should be constructed so the setback was the same on ihe t�ack and front o�' t�he building. He said he may come in later for a vacation of part of the Easement, but he didn't want to hold up the construction of this bu�i7ding 4�ith such a reCUest at this time. ' MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission rPCeive and approve the adminisfrative staff report for a speculative warehouse to be located at 7741 Beech Street N.E., b� Paco Masonry. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. _ _ . _ . . T.,�,�,�- Planning'Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 Page 6 � RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT: 5280 MAIN STREET N.E.: By Kurt Manufacturing for an addition to the office and manufacturing plant.` ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT General Description: This permit is for the construction of a 14,220 square foot addition to the manufacturing plant and a 4,600 square foot addition of the office facility. The design and construction of the additions will match the existing design of the building. The office addi�tion will be extended across the entire front of the structure and will �atch the existing brick. The additions meet all City Codes excepi 40% lot coverage, which they have received initial variance recommendation from the Appeals Commission to allow the 47.1% coverage needed. With this addition, the f�ont parking facilities and driveways will be completely curbed and landscaped as per the ap�roved plar. The number of parking stalls have been reduced to serve the present parking needs more appr.opria�ely and to allow for more green area in front of the building. This area could be developed for additional parking, if the need arises. Engineering: . � It doesn't appear that there will be any engineering problems with these additions. The drainage will be directed toward Main Stree� as i� p�°esently � existso � � Environmental: ���There will be no detrimental environmental ef.fects with the constr�ction of these add�i ti ons . � � B�ilding Permit Stipulations: 1. The property owner may reduce the number of off s�reet parking spaces in order �o more accurately serve their needs, provided that space be ' provided�for an increase in parking facilities if the City deems it necessary. . � ' � 2. Final landscaping p1an is to be approved by �he Planning Department before its� installation. � Mr. Jef Holle, contractor for this addition, was present. Mr. Olson said this addition will raise the lot coverage to 47.1% which had been approved by the Appeals Commission. He said th� staff didn't see any problems with this request, and recommended approval. ' Mrs. Wahlberg said it was a concern of the Appeals Commission that with this addition a great deal of the green area in front would be lost, because part of this ,� would �be needed for the required parking spaces. �She said they had 100 parking spaces in the back of the building, but because of this addition, more parking spac�s would be required.. She said that in their motion they had agreed to the lot coverage, but . asked that something be worked out so they could preserve more of �he green area, and �- Planning Commission Meetinq - September 24, 1975 Paqe 7: � evidently they have tried to do th�s, according to their drawings. . n Mr. Jef Holle, general contractor for this addition, said he had met with Jerrold Boardman and Howard Mattson of the Planning Department prior to this meeting, � and they had come up with a plan for more green area. He said there would be pl�antings � along the 178' west wall of the bui�ding, and there would be a row of parking 25' back from that wall.' ' � Mr. Harris said the setback on this building was 100 feet because it abutted a residential area. Mrs. Wahlberg said the back yards of the residential area face this building, so this business was quite far from the homes themselves. She said there was a high hedge than ran along this section of Main Street. Mr. Holle explained the plantings and where the �green area would be maintained. • Mr. Langenfeld said that on the environmental statement on these administrative reports, he though� it should�be stated why this would not have a detrimental effect on the area. He would like to knov� what criteria was used in maki.ng this d��ermination. Mr. Olson said this addition would be built in an area that was blacktop now, so they wouldn't be losing any green area there. Mr. Peterson said he would like clarification of green area: He would assume this meant sodded areas, and when they were losing green areas, �his didn't mean that trees were going to be cut dow�. Mr. Holle said they d-idn't intend to cut do�n trees. Mr. Olson said it wa�n't a practice to put trees in an area that was being held for future expansion, so this green area ,� was generally just a sodded area. '` ' Mr. Harris asked Mr. Olson if when the staff was working on the administrative reports if thought was ever given to energy conservation. Mr. Olson said he knew that heat loss statements were required on the•heating plants, bu�� other than that�:;he didn't know what else was done. He thought this was something they were going to have to do. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive and approve the administrative stafi` report for an addition to Kurt Manufacturing Company at 5280 Main Street N.E. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-24, BY VILNIS VILINSKIS: To allow the expansion of a mobile home sales lot, to include all of Lot 3, Block 1, Central View Manor 2nd Additiun , per Fridley City Code, Section 205.102, (3,N), th� same being 7355 Highway #65 NeE. Mr. Ron Chr.istiansen, of Re�lco, and Corky Fischer, both rep�esenting the petitioner, were present. MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-24, by Vilnis Vilinskis. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:45 P.M. � �Mr. Ron Christiansen of Realco said that h1r. Uilinskis wasn't at the meeting but he did have a question on tivhat type of fencing would be required to meet the fencing �� stipulation. Mr. Olson said they preferred a board on_board redwood fence. Mr. Fischer asked �.�. �Plannin� Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 '� � " ' ���������P��e�8 " � . if thev �ould use a slatted chain link fence. Mr. Olson said it had been the experience of the City that these fences are usually hard to maintain, so they � tried to discourage this type of fence. Mr. Harris said a screening fence had to be no higher than 8 feet a�d no lower than 6 feet. . Mr. Christiansen said the petitioner was concerned about putting the entire fence up all�.'at o�G�. HP.wanted to know if he could get permission to just put the fence up where it abuts 'residential property immediately, and complete the fence at a later date. Mr. Olson said this was one of the stipulations of the first special use permit that was applied for on this property. Ne said there was a list of stipulations in the agenda and some were from the original permit and some were stipulations made by Council when Mr. Vilinskis appeared berore Council on August 18, 1975 to have the Special Use Permit trans�erred to his name. . � Mr. Fischer said that for their own security, they would want the entire lo� fenced, but due to the cost factor they would appreci.ate if the fence could be put �p in two stages. He said they were ready to develop this lot immediatelS� but �hey were moving into the slowest part of the season for mobile home sales, so this was why they were asking for the delay. He said that one of the stipulations was that the blacktopping be done by April 1, 1976, and th�y;•had the financing to do �hat immediately, so if ihe completion of the fence could be delayed until Ap�il 1, 1976, this would be very sa�tisfactory. �` Mr. Peterson wondered if �his could be includ�d in the p�rformance bond �or - the blacktopping and landscaping. Mr. Gus Doty said that it was quite difficult to get performance bonds at the present time, so he wouldn't want to see this bond i�creased. � � Mr. Fischer said they intended to have the blacktopping done and the fence put up to separate the lot from the residential area before they moved any mobile homes onto the pl:operty. , Mr. Christiansen said the petitioner wasn't ]easing the property, he was buying iche property. Mrs. Wahlberg said that the t�rm of the Special U�e Permit should probably have the termination of the lease taken out of s�tipulation�number 13, and issue this spccial use permi� for three years, at which time it would have to be reviewed. - • ' ' � . � . a - Mr. Har►�is said there was a letter in �the agenda from Ron Christiansen to the City of Fridley dated August 15, 1975 in which ii: states that there would have to be i'ill on this property. He asked how this property could be ready to be develop�d if fill was needed. Mr. Uoty said it needed to be filled at the time this letter was written, b�t it was all done now.� Mr. Langenfeld asked what type of fill was used. Mr. �oty said it r�as street sand, gr�ound up concrete and blacktop from a street project. Mr. Langenfeld asked if tf�ey . were aware that toxic gases could form from some iypes of �ill. Mr. Olson said there was only that problem with organic fill, but this was all inorganic fill. Mr. Harris � said he was familiar with this type of fill, and i� was excellent fill. Mr. Peterson said it was no� his intention to put any obstacles in the path of this prdposed venture, so he would be willing to allow the petitioner�to complete the �� e Planning Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 Page 9 �, fencing by April 1, 1976, as long as he met the code requirements with the first stage af ihe fence. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-24, by' Vilnis Vilinskis. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 9:07 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75=24, by Vilnis Vilinskis, to a.Z1ow the expansion of a mobile home sales l�o� to include all of Lot 3, B1ock 1, Central View Manor 2nd Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.102, (3,N), � the same being 7355 Highwa� #65 N.E. with fhe following s�i.pulations: �� 1. A SpeciaZ Use Permit to operate a mobile home sales lot is given only to Vilnis Vilinskis as an individua.Z and he will be the operator of fhe business. If the business changes hands or he n� Ionger is fhe majority owner and operator of the business, the permit wi11 be nu11 and void, arld, would have . to be reviewed by the City Counci.I before transfer. 2. The office traiZer will be blocked on concrete blocks and the base will be skirted with aluminum.. The office will be connected to ut.ilities, such as water, sewer, qas and electricit�. , � 3. Z`wo restrooms wi11 be ins�a.ZZed in the office for the publac`s use. 4. The office trai.Zer to be taxed as a perma.�ent structure. -' 5. There wi.Z1 be no permaneni r�sidents in the mob.ile homes and no repairing �a or storage of damaged trai.Zers. 6. �'here wi11 .be a miniTUUm of 10 feet of space between the tra.zlers. 7. The public and employee parking 1ot will be blacktopped by April I, 1976. 8. Provide screening fence aZong the North property .Zine immediately that a.buts residential property. Precast cux� wi11 be put along the entrance and along the parking area for customers. • � � 9. The land wi.Z.Z be kept c.Zean and itee of debris, junk and unsight2y materials, and all 9'xeenareas wi11 be kept free of weeds, cut, and we1.Z groomed. ZD. There will be no washouts on the property due to surface drainage and if ' there are any, these wi11 be filled and taken care of immediate.Zy. 11. .Lighting, landscaping, and plot plan be approved by the Planning Corr¢n.ission. 12. A11 signs will comply with the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 13. This Special Use Permit be issued for three years, at which time it must � be reviewed. � . 14. That a perforrrtance bond in the amownt of $1,SQ0 be provided fQr the blac;ttoppin and landscaping. Planning Commission Meetin'g - Septem6er 24, 1975 �� ���Page'10 ' l5. The operator wiZZ be allowed untfl Apri1 1, 1976 to complete th� fencing n for fhis property subject to a written agreement being obt��ned by� . City. . . Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mation carried unanimously. 2. PUBLIC HEARING• REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #75-25, BY WIN STEPHENS � DATSUN NORTH: To allow the expansion of the sale of new and used cars to include the North 100 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, (3,B) and (3,G�, in a C-2 zone (general business areas), the same being 7810 University Avenue N.E. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on a request for a Special Use Permit; SP #75-25, by Win Stephens . Datsun North. Upon a voice vote, a1I voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 9:13 P.M. �r. Olson sa��d this was just a natural acquisitio� of land that would be used for parking.� He said the reason for this request was to expand the use on property already covered by a special use permit. � � � Mr. Peterson asked if �his would still fit into the street.plan for t�is property? Mr. Harris said it was his recollection that it would. � Mr.s. Wahlberg said �hat Mr. Drigans wanted her to check if the lot split had been handled that was a stipulation of the first special use permit. Mr. Harris said ,,-� it had and that they had a request for a lot split on the property covered by this special use permit. � � . MOTION b� Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on a request for a Specia� Use Permit, 5P #75-25, by Win S�ephens Datsun North. Upon a vaice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Publxc Hearing closed at 9:20 P.M. ' - MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recoimnend to Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #75-25, by Win Stephens Da�sun North, to a11ow the expansion of the sale of new and used cars to include the North 100 feet of the East 200 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addi�ion, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, (3.B) and (3,G), in a C-2 zone (general business areas), the same being 7810 University Avenue Northeast. Upon a voice vote, al� voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. LOT SPLIT REQUEST, L.S. #75-07, BY WIN STEPHENS DATSUN NORTH: To split off the North 100'fee� of the Eas� 200 ieet of Lot 2, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to allow for the expansion of a new and used car lot at 7810 Univers�ty . .�venue N.E. . � Mr. Olson said this was a natural conclusion for the expansion of the new and used car lot. � MOTIDN by Bergman, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commiss�on recommen8 to Council approval of a lot split, L.S. #75-07, by.Win 5tephens Datsun North, to f� split�off the North 100 feet of the East 200 feet af Lot 2, Block 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition, to a11ow for the expansion of a new and used car lot at 7810 University Avenue N.E. ' ' � _„"�,°'r�° .. .. . .... ... .... .. . .. . .. . .. . . �1 ann i nq � Corrm�i ss i on Meeti ng - September 24, 1975 � '� '" "� Page 11 "' . Mr.'Harris said there had been a st'ipulation on the first lot split, L.S. #75-04, for a road easement�on �ots 3 and 4, but not �or Lot 2, because this was an L shaped � lot. With this acquistion by Win Stephens, Lot 2 will no longer be L shaped, so maybe ' they should have a stipulation for a road easement on Lot 2 also. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the motion be amended to include the stipulation that a 30 foat road easement be obtained for Lot 2, if necessary, to line up with the 30 foat easement on Lots 3 and 4, B1ock 2, East Ranch Estates 2nd Additzon. Upon a voice vote on the amendment, a11 votiny aye, the antendment carried unanimously. � Upon a voice vot� on the amended motion, a11 uoting aye,-the motion carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONIPlG REQUEST, ZOA #75-04, BY HOLIDAY VTCLAGE NORTN: Rezone from M-1 light industirial areas and N-2 heavy industria areas to C-2 (general business areas) to C-2S (general shopping areas), so that the zoning will con�rom to the present use of th� property, on that pa�°t af Lot 13, Auditor's Subdivi:�;on No. 155. thai's l�ca�ed between I.694 and 57th Avenue N.E. and Main Stree� and University Ave., the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. . MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Wahlberg, that the Planning Commission open the Publi� Hearing on a rezoning request, ZOA #75-04, by Holiday Village North. Upon a voice vote, a21 voiing aye� Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing at 9:28 P.N1. Mr. Bradley Ste�nman was present to repr.esent Holiday. '� Mr. Olson said there was some question on whe�her �his should be rezoned to �- C-2 or C-2S. Ne said they were at�cempting to upgrade some of the landscaping and were as ki rtig Hol i d�y �o agr• ee to thi �.. •� � Mrs. Wahlberg asked i� this proper�y was zoned bo�h M-1 and M-2. Mr. Olson. said there was a small corner in the Northeast section of this property tha�t was zoned M-1,.the balance was zoned M-2. � � Mr. Bradley Steinman said they started working on a landscaping plan and �rom that they had learned tl�at tneir business was a legal non=conforming us�, and because of the implications of that, they decided to rezone this to the proper zoni�ig. He said the landscaping plan that was being presented was something they had been working on for about 1 1/2 years, but they had had a serious meeting with Jerrold Boardman. Mr. Steinman and the manager of the Holiday North store had both met with Mr. -Qoardman, and the plan that had been worked out, although it s'till had to be approved by managernent, looked like the plan that would be followed. Holiday would be willing to post a bond tha�c �his �andscaping would be completed by October 31, 1976. The reason for this was because they wanted to complete the landscaping in two stages�, some in the spring and the balance in the fall. Mr. Harris asked how they were going to handle the garden sales area? Mr. Steinman said they were in the process of dismantling this and it ��rould be moved further down on the lot. He said they did have boat sales out in this same area, and that was being e.liminated. He said the nursery'. area would be smaller than it was before, after it was moved. '�� Mr. Ste�nman said they had also made a request to the City that they get after the . �tate to clean up �he h;ghway area outside of their fence. He said this area looks very bad, but the Stat� has said they didn't have funds to maintain this area. He said � �_� � I � !�- = � �- �,. �Planning Commission �eeting - September 24, 1975 '" Paqe 12' � this area was all weeds. �N uarr�,� �a;d thPrP were �wo_�lternatives__as far as the reznning of this . � -�- - �.�Y _ . �. _ CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING SEPTEMBER 24, 1975 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:45 P,M. RQLL CALL: PAGE 1 Members Present: Narris,�Bergman, Peterson, Langenfeid Members Absent: Drigans, Scott Others Present: Barbara Shea, Vice Chairperson of the Human Resources Commission 1lirginia t�lahlberg, Vice Chairperson of the Appeals Commissior, Steven Olson, Environme�tal Officer. APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSI�N MIivUTE5: SEPTEMf3ER 10, 1975 Mrs. Shea said Mr. Scott wante� some char.;;es in the minutes. On r�age one, he wanted the statement, "He said that there would be sum� corrections to these minutes, but they would be included in their next minutes-" be a new par�graph because ne was referring to the Human Resources miniates.and not other commiss�on m;nutes,, and o�� Page 10, in the middle of the 4th para�rapn it re�,� that Mr. Scott sa.i.d..he wasn'�L against billboards ...... and ti�is should rPad th�t he wasn't against all 6illboard�..,. Mr. Bergman said tliat on the stipulat�i�ns on the bi7luoar�s, he wanted them i:o say when �he property is de�re1oped..... instead of was, and on tne second stipuiat�on he wanted that to sa,y tvhen rhis advertisiny sign is des�ro.yed...., instead of was and this shou.ld be correcred on all the stipulations of. the b�illboards, and on the fifth line on page 13, it sho;aid say that the iease did expire on ihis sign in nne month and 12 days, ir�stead o�' 12 �ayss and on page 1�S the nex� to t{�e lasi paragraph, h� wart�d and �dded sa the end of s�r�t�nce would read ar�d to avoid ar�y pun�tive actio7. � h1r. Langenfeld said he wanted it. in the record that when }�ie votFd cr� ihese billboards that it was his personal dote and he was-not votinq with the concensus of his Commission, and this statement should be added �to the: m.�i���ces. 1KOTIDN b�' Bergman, seconc�ed by Langenfeld, that t_h� P-.�a.n�ang CQrrnnission approve their minutes o.f September 10, 1975 as amended an�' corrected. Unon a vaice vote, aI1 voting aye, the mation carried vnanimously. • • RECEIVE HUNiAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MTNUTES: SEPTEM�ER 4, 1975 MO1'ION by Shea, seconded by Peterson,. that the Pldnning Commissioii receive the Atinutes of the HUman Resources C�narris_sion meeting of September 4, 1975. Mr. Bergman sa�d that when he read �hese minutes he noted that this Commission has a lot of ac�tivity goiny on and he thougf�t �t�ey should b� commer�ded on this. Mr. Harris said he agreed tivith Mr, Bergman. Upon a voice vote, a.I1 voting aye, the motion carr9.sr3 unanimously, RECEIVE APPEALS COMi�iISSION MInUTES: SEPTEMDfR 1�', 1975 MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Bergrean, that tl-.e Planning �ommission receive ttze Appeals Commission minutes nf the Scptember 16, Z975 meeting. Upos� a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the mo�ion carried unanimously. . Planning Commission Meetin - September 24, 1975 Pa e 13 between I. 694 and 57th Avenue N.E., and Main Street and University Avenue N.E., the same being 250 57th Avenue N.E. with the following stipuZatiori: 1. A'.performance bond be posted for completion of the Zandscaping by October 31, 1976, per the approved landscaping p1an. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERAT�ON OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, LAKESIDE 2ND ADDIT�LON, BY RUDY BAYER: �eing a replat as measured along the North and South lines of Lots 4, Lake Park Lakeside Addition, generally located between on the East side of McKinley Street. Mr. Rudy Bayer was present. P.S. #75-03, BAYER'S of the West 162.24 feet 5 and 6, Block 1, Spring 75th and 76th Avenue N.E. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Peierson, that the PZanning Commission open the Public Hearing on rezoning request, ZOA #75-0.', Bayer's Lakeside 2nd Addition, by Rudy Bayer. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris opened the Pub3ic Hearing at 9:48 P.M. • Mr•. Olson said that although these lvts were being platted at 72 feet and our minimum requirement was 75 feet, this seemed a reasonable. request because if tb�y were p7atted into four lots, they would be 90'. He said the depth of the lots after the street dedication would be 137 feet so these lots would be 9,864 squar� fee�,. which still exceeded our minimum lot requirement of 9,000 square feet. � �--�, Mr. Harris asked where the.utilities were located. Mr. Bayer said they were _� already on the back lot line. There was a 5 foot easement on ihe adjacent lots, so the�e should be a 5 foot easement on the back of these fi��� lots also. �` 'Mr. Bayer said that �he three lots�South of this plat were 80' lots, and� if he owned all�this property, there could be 8 75' lots on this block, so that even if his lots were 72', you would have the same number of hauses on the block. Ne said the property across the street was platted the same. There were ��hree 80 foot lots and 5 72' lots, on this side of the street also. Mr. Harris asked about the drainage. Mr. Bayer said he thought these lots would drain towards McKinley Street. � . Mr. Robert� Henderson, 7600 S�inson Blvd., said that Stinson couldn't handle the drainage. He said there was a problem with one�lot in this area, �ath.waier.�: standing in their front yard. He said he didn't know who was doing it, but someone was, but they were lifting the �an hole cover fromthe sanitary sewer on Stinson, so the water could go down. He said the house that had drainage �r�blems was at 7528. �tinson Blvd. Mr. Harris said he would like a report on this pro�lem. The City has to pay for the gallonage that goes i� the sanitary sewer, and we eouldn't afford to have storm water go into them. Mr, Bayer said he had provided a 10' easement on the South side of one lot on liis other plat and he would be willing to provide a 10' easement on the South side of Lo� 5 on this plat, to �acilitate the water draining to r�cKinley. Mr. Bayer sai.d he believed all this pro��erty drained to the South. Mr. Bayer said when the building permi�-was taken out for 7541 McKinley, they could�probab]y conform to this drainage easement. This lot was just South of his proposed plat. :;�::� ,.:..;, . Planning Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 � 'Page�14 � Mrs. Wahlberg asked the size of the lots across the street from this proposed � plat. Mr. Bayer said they were 72' wide. Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Bayer if he was able to construct homes on these lots according to the City Code and if he needed any variances. Mr, Bayer said he had no problems building homes on these lots. He had just sold two homes from that plat for $42,500 each. , � MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, t�at the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on consideration of � proposed p1at, P.5. #75-03, Bayer's Lakeside 2nd Addition, by Rudy Bayer. Upon a voice vote, a11 voting aye, Chairman Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 10:05 P.M. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approvaZ of the preZiminary p1a�, P.S. #75-.03, Bayer's Lakeside 2nd Addition, by Rudy Bayer, being a replat of the West 162.24 feet as measured along the North and South lines of Lots 4, 5 and 6,.Block Z, Spring Lake Park Lakeside Addition, generall� Zocated between 75th and.76th Ave�ue N.Ea on the East side of McKinley Street, with the following stipulations: . I. Provide a 5` drainage and utility easement on the East boundary of the North-South property line of Lots 1-5. 2. Provide a 10' drainage easement on the South property 1in,e of Lot 5. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried un.animousl�. 6. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205_.053, 4A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE � THE RE UIRED FRONT YARD SE.TBACK FROM 35 FEET TO Z8.� � OF A DWELLING AND GARAGE FOUNDATION IN ONLY LOCATED LAKE ESTATES4 TNE SAME BEING 163] CAMELOT LANE N.E., �' BY MR. ELMER ISRAELSON JR., 8957 PIERCE STREET N.E. ,� Mr. Elmer Israelson, Sr. was preseni. � Mr. Isrealson said they were anxious to get the red tag off of th9s house so they could continue to work on it. ION Mrs. Wahlberg said the problem with this particular request was that Mr. Israelson bought a house in�Harris Lake Estates and when he� came into City Hall.to apply for a � permit, he submitted plans that showed that the house would be placed 35' from the front property line, which is code. He was given a building per°mit, and .approval to • construct the house. Before he put the footings. in, he read his contract on this lot, and there was a protecti.ve covenant which stated that you could build 25' back from the lot line. What this covenant said was that if you wanted to build closer to the lot line than 25 feet and even if a variance was granted for less than 25',. this 'would be illegal, and 25' was the minimum setback that would be allow�d. Mr. Israelson misinterpreted this, and so he decided he would be generous and instead of building 25' back, he would build 28 feet back. When the building inspector made the footing inspection, he did�not catch that this house was only 28 feet fro�n the front property line. 'Mr. Israelson thought he was acting in good faith, and he �vent ahead with the construction of this house. When he turned the verification survey into the Inspection Department, it was noted what the actual setback was, and the house was red-tagger] until �; a variance was approved. She said that at this time, the entire exterior of the house was completed, and Mr. Israelson was working on the interior of the house. She said Mr. Israelson would like to move into this h�use by IVovember lst. � Planning Commission Mee�ing - September 24, 1975 Page 15 Mrs. Wahlberg asked Mr. Israelson if his son had appeared before the City � Council with this request on September 22, 1975. Mro Israel�son said his son was at this meeting, but he didn't speak at this meeting. ,�1 Mrs. Wahlberg said it was the Appeals Commission recommendation tha� to s�peed up the process, that the petitioner appear before Council during the visitor section of the meeting, and then come to this Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Israelson said that one of the reasons they had moved the house forward on this lot was because they were advised to do so, because the deeper they went on the lot, the more fill there was, so it was bet�er to construct the house closer to the streetq as this was higher ground. Mrs. Wahlberg said it was the Appea1s Commissions position that the City was negligent when the footing inspection was made, and should have caught the error on the setback of this house when the footing inspecion was made. She said that in defence of thF. City staff, she was told that.when foatings were made i�t was a judgemental�decision, and this was the first house on this block, so there was no basis for comparison. . � � Mr. Olson said that in de�ence of the inspection department, he said.that a construction site usually has mounds of dirt on the site, the inspector 1��as��there alone, so there was no way he could stretch.a�tape and make an actual measurement. Fle thought the person who �ook out the permit had some r�sponsiblity to place the s�ructure on the lot as it had 6een approved by the inspection department. He said the City required a verification survey as soon as the foundation was in, but they hadn't received th� verifica�ion survey for �his property until the house was almost completed. Mrs. Wahlberg said that Mr. Israelson had stated at the Appeals Commission meeting that he had talked ta Mr. Harris, �he developer of this property, about this problem. He said that Mr.�Harris had said thai a possible solution to this problem as far as setbacks were concerned, was that the houses on either side of this property could probably be L shaped houses, so that part of the house would �it in with this setback and the res� of the house be 35' so that the other houses could be setback 35' to give some conformity to the entire street. � Chairman Harris said that as a practical matter, there was no way this house could be moved 6 feet. There wouldn't be:�anything to gain by denying this request. Mr. Peterson said he agreed with Mr. Harris, but he was disturbed that these people had been put through this inconvenience through no fault of their own, or any intent to defraud the City. He said he couldn't excuse the City staff in the same way, because they knew �the rules. and regulations, and they t,r�re the one's responsib�e for the inspections. He said '�he Plann�ng Commissian'should do what it could to expidite this matte'r. He said this should serve as a warning to stafit, that these inspections were not automatic, and that things should be checked on the site, because this was what they were supposed to be doing. He said he was upset at the lack of sensitivity shown on this request, and he thought it was a further inditement of City government when someone goes to a City Council meeting.and was afraid to speak up. Mrs. In�ahlberg said the fact that they didn't speak ap, and there had-been no � recommen�ation ;�rom Council, made it difficult f�r the Planning Commissior� to hurry up the process in any way, so the red tag �could be removed and construction could be . continued. . . . . . .... .. . .. . , Planning Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 ��� ��Page�16� Mr. Bergman said he couldn't agree with everything that had been said. He � thought the first error that had been made was when the petitioner did not cons'�ruct � his home according to the plan submitted to the Inspection Department. He said that was a gross error on their part. He said the administration evidently did their part . when they issued the permit on pians 1:hat met the City Code. . Mrs. Wahlberg said that was true, but.they stili felt there was some negligence on the administration's part when the.footing inspection was made. Chairman Harris explained to Mr. Israelson that it would take Council action to remove the red tag. As they didn't ask for Council action on September 22, 1975 the only thing the Planning Commission could do would be to make a recommendation -to the Council. � Mrs. Wahlberg said it was really a moat point, because this would automatically be on the Council agenda for October 6th, so unless the Planning Corr�nission could come up with an alternate, they wouldn't have to do anything. Mr. Israelson said that after Mr. Friday made his presentation to Council, his son said they didn't have to speak because the Council had already told Mr.� FridaY ' to come to this meeting. Mr. Israelson said he didn't agree wi�h this, and he was going.to stand up and speak, and his son pulled him back down,.so he said•tha� any delay now was his son's fault. MOTIDN by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recerrnnend to Council that this variance be granted so the red tag can be removed to allow the n continuation of construction of the home at 1631 Camelot Lane N.E. Upon a voice vo���r a.Z1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. � Mr. Langenfeld said that as the Israelson family ��ould on October 6th, 1975, he would like to direct the Council to them, so they could speak at this meeting. 7. ALTERNATE METHODS FOR PRCCESSING VARIANCE APPLICATIONS be at the Council meeting be sure and ask �For Mr. Bergman said there seemed to be a lot of confusion at the present time.on the handling of varianceso Mrs. 4�ahlberg said she would give some background on this. She said there was a time when the Appeals Commission always had �he final say on variances. It never went on to any other body. The City Council reviewed what the Commission did, bu�t never took action. At some poin�, after the fact, somone objected 1:o that procedure, on the Council, so it was changed. It was then stated that the Appeals Commission minutes should go through ttie Planning Commission and th�n to Council, so the'r.e would be a review board. She said it was the Appeals Commission in�ent to try and alleivate some of that, becau.se we felt there was some i71-will because there was� a six weeks de1ay in certain cases. She said that Mr. Israelson.�nd Mr. Frida�'s ti�equests really weren't relevant to this, but we f�lt in these tw� particular cases, time was an important factor. Mrs. Wahlberg said the A�peals recommendation was that on requests for va�'iances on�residential property only, ihe Appeals Commission be granted the power to grant variances under the foilowing conditions: �. Where there is unanimous agreement of the Appeals Comm�ission. 2. 4Jhere the stafif concurs with the recommendation of the Appeals Commission. �--_.�� Planning Commission Meeting - September 24, 1975 '"'Pa�e�17' �' � 3. Where the general public attending the meeting or responding to �he notice n have no objections. t . 4. Where the petitioner is in agreement with the recommenda�ion. She said anytime there was disagreement, the variance would be hand1ed in � the normal way. She said this Would require an ordinance change. 8. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.063, 1, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE TWO FAMILY DI�lELLING TO BE LO 26, HYDE PARK, THE SAME BEI EST BY MR. DEAPV BRUNKOW, 370 D ON LOT 1, AND.THE NORTH 24 FEET OF LOT 2 740 2 1/2 STREET N.E:, FRIDLEY; MINNESOTAo N.E. � Mr. Qliver Erickson and Mr. Dean Brunkow were presen�. Mr. Erickson said that because they wanted to hurry this request along,��hey _ were appearing at �his mee�cing ana �this item v��uld go before the Appeals Commission on September 30th and could go to Council on October Gth. M��. Brunkow said there was a small house on this praperty now, which would be torn down. This would be replaced with a double bungalow. He said that�all:hough this property was zoned R-3, �che property was not large enough for a triple bungalow. Chairman Harris said that according to the Code you can 6uild:do.uble bungalows in R-3 zoning. � Mr. Erickson said this was a corner lot and it was approximately 72 x 136 feet, ` so it probably didn't meet the R-3 requirements at the �ime i�t was zoned R-3.: He � said the seven years he was on the Planning Commission there were probably errors ` made�in zoning, and probably this Planning Commission could correct �:hem. He said this'property was about 200 square feet short of ineeting the R-3 requirem�nts. Mr. Olson said that in the R-3 section of the code, it states in:Se�tion��' 205.073 that one and two family d�velling units will be subject'�to the provis�orrs in R-1 and R-2 districts respectively, therefore only one variance was necessary to construct this double bungalow. It met all the other req�irements oi' R-2 zoningo Mr. Olson said the reason they were going a�little �ackwards with this requesi; was because the mortgage commttment had a�very limited time value on it. He.said this would be a two story double bungalow.. He said there would b� a 3 car garage built where the existing small structure was now locatEd on ��he survey. He said they were not trying to by-pass the Appeal.s Commission, 6ecause he knew they were the authority on making recommendations on variances. He said they were just goir�g this route to get them to the Council sooner. � 32 Mrs. Walhberg asked what was next door to this property. Mr. Qlson said he thought it was an 8-plex. Mrs. Wahlberg said there would be no way that any additional proper.ty could be obtained then. " . MOT.LON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Appeals Commission approval of the variance to reduce the lot area. from 10,000 �� square.feet to 9,781 square feet, to a11ow th� construction o.f a double bungalow at 5740 Z 1/2 5treet N.E. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, thc motiar carried unanimouslc -� � � Planning Commission Meetiflg - September 24, 1975 Page 18 ' Chairman Harris declared a recess at 11:05 P.M, and reconvened the meeting at 11:30 P.M. � � '�� 9. A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.052, 4A, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE THE , � RE UIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 35 FEET TO 30.65 FEET TO ALLOW THE COMPL�TION OF DWELLING AND GARAGE FOUNDATION IN ONLY LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 6, FRIDLEY PARK ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 6660 HICKORY STREET N.E.s FRIDL-EY, MINNES .. REQUEST� BY MR. WAYNE FRIDAY, 1016 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD, ANOKA, MINNESOTA. Mr. Wayne Friday had been at the meeting, but had left. Chairman Harris said in the "Action Needed" agenda from the Council meeting of September 22, 1975, Council had given approval of this variance request subject to concurrence by the Planning Commission. He said this had been to the Appeals Commission9 then to Council, and now io the Planning Commission. He said this request had gone a litt1e backwards also. Mrs. Wahlbe�•� said �hat the property owner had measured from the curb, in'�.th� absence of a' property stake, and he misjudged the size of the boulevard, so the garage was about 4' too close to the front property line. T�he garage was placed ahead of the house, so the house has the proper front yard setback. , She said Mr. Friday was building this house for someone else who wanted�to move ',, in.the 20th of �ctober, so he was a�xio�s to get the red tag off this property also. ', Because it was only the garage that was in variance, the inspeciion department had �� allowed him �o continue working on the house.. � % r Mrs. Wahlberg said this garage would fit ir��o the code. requirements if the ' door was put on the back of the garage. There was a fire hydrant that would interfere . with this proposal and a large grove af trees tha� would have to be disturbed. Rather � than do this, the Appeals Commission recpmmended approval of the variance. Mr. ���day said he thought there was a 10' boulevard on Hickory, and this was why he had located the garage this way, but the boulevard was 15'. Chairman Harris said there was a 60' right of way on Hickory, so he wondered if the street was off-set. He wondered , what the boulevard was on the other side of the street. Mr. Olson said he would I check the as-builts. Mr. Olson said the as=builts showed this street to be 31' wide. Mrs. Wah1berg showed the Planning Commission the pictures that the Appeals Commission had looked in in making their recommendation. She said that the pl�cement of this garage did not create a.visual hazard. Mr. Bergman said he �vas disturbed that there had been two such variances needed on practically the same situation. He said he wasn't placing the blam� on either. the bu�lder or the�administration, because he felt there was some blame to both. He said that by continuing to approve such variances, he didn't want to be encouraging slip- shod methods of doing things. � Mrs. Wahlberg said if there wasn't a time factor, plus a red tag on part of �he ��, c o n s t r u c t i o n, t h i s v a r i a n c e c o u l d h a v e g o n e t hro u gh the normal channels. She said that if the Council agreed wi�h the Appeals Commission recommendation on residential variances this wouldn't happen again. �i � MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission grant the _' �' variance for 6660 Hickory 5treet, and concur with Council. Upon a voice vote; aI2 i voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. i _ �.� Planning Commission Meeting September 24, 1975 ����.Page 19_ '"� 10. CONTINUED: REVIEW OF NEW JU�K VEHICLE �RDINANCE, SECTION 122 � Chairman Harris said they had in their agenda a memo from Jim Hil.l regarding the proposed ordinance, an exerpt from the Environmental-Commission meeting o� - August 13, 1975, with their recommendations, a copy of the Abandoned Motor Vehicle � section o� the Code, and a copy of the junk vehicle section of the old code that was elimated when the code was recodified. Mr. Olson said at the time of the recodification they replaced the junk vehicle section of the code with the Abandoned Motor Vehicle section, and thought this could do the job �or the City. He said that in dealing with this section of the code, he � felt it didn't deal with abandoned motor vehicles on residential property. He said it allows an abandoned motor vehicle to remain on residential property with the property owner's consent, so if someone has a junk vehicle on their property, it was obvious tha� this consent was present. He said we would still keep this section o�F the code because it did deal with abandoned mo.tor ��hi c1 es on publ i c property and oi} p�i vate property vri thout the o�aner' s consent. He said th� new'c�de would be a heip rvith; complaints about someone a:eep�►�9 an inoperable, unlic�nsed vehi.cle on residential property.because now he didn't"hav�e a tool to take care of these complaints. Mr. Olson said he used to v��ork in Brooklyn P'ark �nd �hey had a junl. vehicle ordinance. He used that ordinance and the old junk vehicle ordinance that had been removed from the current code, and by combining the two was hovr he came up with this particular ordinance. He said the Brooklyn Park ordinance had a set of definitions, � so that was why these were included. �" ' Mr. Bergman.said he thought his neighbor would have a problem with this r�rdinance. He was planning on buying an old Model "A" for his two boys to work on as a hobby. He � said this vehicle would be inoperable, and his neighbor's intent was to give his boys something �o do. He said they were novices, but they were car bur'fs. Mr. Olson said this had been one oi the concer.ns o� the Environmental Corr�nissian a7so, and ��9r. Erickson had made a mo�ion which was part of their recommendation which added the statement to ��c���� �22.02, that th�s ordi�rance shall not apply to a single inoperable vehicle which was in the reasonable �rocess of r�estoration to an operable vehicle, provided such vehicle did not cons�titute a r�uisancee He said that other thai� this change, the Environmeni:al Commission felt this was a good code. Mr. Qlson said the inten�i of �his ordinance was to �ive him. something to work with when he had a reasonable camplaint. Mr. Bergman said he tho�aght this code could result in nit-picking. Mr. Olson said this could be said of almost any code, but you still haa to tiave a workable code. Mr. Harris sai.d he had a problem 4riti� the inpounding sectian o�' this code. He asked who paid for having a jun{: vehicle removed from the property? He said there vrould be towing charges,.inpounding charges, and you can't get anything for a junk car when you sell it. He eaid he didn't think ab�ndoned cars were much ofi a problem in Friciley, but in some areas it was a big prablem. He saic! that in St. Louis County they had over a 1,000 junk cars that they couldn't dispose uf. � Mr.,Olson said the jist of the Abar�doned Motor Vehicle ordinace was a state '� pol�cy instituted by the f�linnesota Pollution Ac7ency, Sol�d Waste Division, to remove and recycle abar�doned motor vehicles throughout the sta�e. There were different ' programs for this. There was a proposal whe�e tne•Sta�e would reimburse counties or Planninq Commission Meeting - Septem6er 24, 1975 ' � �� " '_ � " '�Page'20' � � cities for costs incurred in the removal of'junked vehicles. He said this had never n been instituted in Fridley, because if we wish to have an abandoned vehicle removed from a property, either Shorty's or Fridley Auto Parts will come and do this for no charge because their ability to get the scrap from such a vehicle, pays them for doing - this. . � Mr. Harris said there was no provision in this code for the city recovering the costs of removing junk vehicles, if the.price of scrap went down, or if someone wouldn't remove them on this basis. Mr. Olson said he could review the towing cost factor that the City has with Shorty's Tov��ing. Mr. Olson said this ordinance didn't say we were going to inp�und vehicles, it was just an additional lever. P�r. Harris said he understood that, b�at he just didn't want to see the City becoming involved in the junk car business. Mr. Peterson said there seemed to be enough questions on this code, that should be answered beforP they made a recorrunendation, so he w�uld like to see this continued until there�were �oore answers available. MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Bergman, that the Planriing Commission continue the consideration of a new junk vehicle ordinance, Section 122, until Uctober 6, 1975. Upon a voice vote, a11 votinq aye, the mation carsied unanimously. • • Mr. Olson said he was trying to set up a code that could be used on residential property where a junk vehicle was on the property with the own�r's consent. He said he had been dea�ing with a problem of junk vehicles on Cly Street�since July of 1974. � He had to use the refuse code and the maint�ining of a junk yard iii a residential area. � He said he had already gone the whole route, including fines, and t�je man had spent 25�days in jail.� Mr. Olson said the property had the same mess on it as i� had when he started a year ago July. He said the secretary to the Plann�ng Comr�iission had a � similar situation in her neighborhood. •He said that on the corner of 7th Street and 58t{� Avenue there were several cars and boats in �he yard, and some of them haven't been moved for three or four years. The secretary said she had worked for the City �for four years. She said when they were working under the old junk vehicle ordinance, they had no problem taking care of complaints on junk vehicles, and although it �ook time, a lot of pro�erties were cleaned up. She said that in the last two years, when people have called ir�, we have had �o tell them we had no ordinance we could use to make people get rid of junk cars. She said she was referring to flagrant violations to the ol� junk vehicle ordinance. 0 Mr. Bergman said there seemed to be a rea7 ne�d for a junk v�hicle ordinance, but his impression was that the propased ordinance was overly strict. Mr. Harris said that if af�er every effort had been made to get someone to comply with this code, and still the car had to be impounded, he wondered if something couldn't be written into.the code, that the owner of the property pay these costs, or assess them against the property as they do the weed program. P�9r. Olson said he wou]d � rather take the impounding section of the ordinance out, than go into tha�i type of program. He said money would have to be budgeted for these cos�s, until we could collect it from the taxes. /`_� � . 11. GONTINUED: REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN SECTION 115, SWIMMING POOLS Chairman Harris asked Mr. Olson if they cculd continue tfiis item until their . .. .... .. . ... .... . . . . . Planning Commission Meetin,g - September 24, 1975 • �� �� "�Page�21 next meeting. � Mro Olson said that they could, but he wished they would look it over before - the next meeting. He said all the proposed changes were underlined. He said there was a confusion in the existing code in that some of the requirements pertain to both � public and private swimming pools, a�nd he felt there should be a distir�ction made. ' between the two. Another big part�of this new ordinance was to adopt the state standards on public swimming pools. MOTION by Wahlberg, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the review of the proposed changes in Section .Z15, Swimming Poo1s, until October 6, 1975. Upon a voice vote,_all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 12. REVIEW CALENDAR DATES FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS: Mr. Olson said he needed a consensus of the Planning Commission to see if they wanted to eliminate the first scheduled meeting in July. He said this was the "4th of July" week, ar� b�cause so many people were on vacation or on a holiday at that time of �he year, it would be difficult to hold a Public Hearing for any requests. The Planning Commission members agreed with this, and said that m2eting shou7d be eliminated. • Mrs. Shea said the Numan Resources Commission would like to be scheduled for twice a month instead of once a monthg but they would make a final decision on this at their next meeting. . ,�1 Mr. Olson said there had been discussion on the Environmental Commission about _. changing their meeting night. Mr. Olson said this would have to be worked out so the secretary had time to complete the minutes for the Planning Commission agenda. Chairman Harris said the Commission' could look over the calendar and they could take it up again at their n.ext meeting. . 13. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ACT Mr. Harris said he had received a�letter'from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources addressed to him which he read into the record. "On Augus� 16, 1975, our records show that you attended the Public Hearing on the Proposed Standards and Criteria for the Managemen�t of Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota. You will recall that ihis hearing was held in the auditorium of the St. Paul 1'echnical Vocational Institute, 2�5 Marshall Avenue, St. Paul, Mn. Due to an error, the court reporter was unable to furnish us with a complete transcript of the hearing proceedings. If you wish to make any written corr�nents concerning testimony you made at the hearing or if you have any additional remarks you wish to make in reference to the proposed regulations, you may submit them to the Department of Natural Resources, Municipal Shorelands Hearing Officer, Third Floor, Centennial Building, St. Paul, Mn 55155. Th� record will be kept open �or such statements through October 15, 1975." Mr. Harris said he had spent over half a day at this hearing. They had taken a resolution �rom the Council with them. He said that Jerrold Boardman made a presenta=' tion, and Councilman Fitzpatrick was also at this hearing. He said this group�and all the other groups were just wasting their time by being at this meeting, and he � said if this wasn't a p_rime object lesson on what 1;hey were trying to tell them at this meeting, he didn't know what would be. r� : `� Planninq.Commission Meeting - September 24; 1975 �_'� " Page_22 ` He said he thought what the Planning Commission should do�was to direct � Jerrold Boardman to take this letter, along with the resolution and the material he had for his presentation, and send it to the Nearing Officer before October 15, 1975. He said he should probably sent it to the Governor's office, and make them sign for the material. . Mr. Langenfeld said the reason a presentation was made was because we didn't like the proposal, it couldn't,be enforced, and we didn't want them telling us what to do. � Mr. Bergman said the material was a little bit more specific than that. 14. FUTURE PROJECTS Chairman Harris said �hat after the Commission had completed their goals and objectives, he thought they should start studying the zoning code and the sign ordinance, and be ready to come back with some recommendations after the lst of �he year, Mr. Harris said the Plannning Commission before the reorganization had�already did quite a bit of work on the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Olson saiG that perhaps Mr. Boardman could give the Commissions copies af what had already.been propesed, and they could be going over this at their meetings. " ' Mr. Langenfeld said it took the Planning Commission a long time to propose any changes, and he didn't kn�w if the Commission's could review all �his by th� lst of ^ the year. Mr. Harris said he wan�ed the difrerent Commissions to read through tliese ordinances from their point of view, an� give some�inpu� to the Planning Commission, � Mr. Harris said ihat Mre Boardman had a copy of a sign ordinance that the � City of St. Paul was going to adopt, and perhaps �hat could be s�udied also. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the meeting be adjotarned.. Upon a voice vote, all votir�g aye, Chairman Harris declared the Planning Con�ussion meeti.ng of September 24, 1975 adjourned at �2:47 A.Me � , Respectfully submitted, � � Dorothy Eve�tson . ..�.^P4nM(RaP.,�• , � � . . . . . j�w� '. � , . . . �.. I� . . � .. - � " , . � . . � I. .. .. .. . � � . � .. . . . � . i. ... . .. � _� . . . . ' � . � .. . . . � . I� . . . t► �. . . . _ . . . .. . . . � . � . . � j� .. � . . . . . � . .. . . . . .., . � . . . _ . . . . . . � . . . � A • �-�/� 7� � , � 63/ , J� � 9 � 3 � .� � � �� � ` , 6 s � �-�, , . , � � . �� � Q �, , � 1 .��s � ,� «: Y . . . ,. . � � . - � . . . . � �' . � - ,� � J i � � ' � � `1 `�- � "✓\. � �,� . ' � � ; % �,,�'-�J �.� � - � � � � �, . . _ ; ---_ f , _ � ����: