The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 01/05/1977 - 6601CITY OF FRIDLEY � AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 5, 1977 � �� CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINIlTES: DECEMBER 22, 1976 7:30 P.M. PAGES 1 - 14 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, 15 - 19 � 3. 4. 5. SP #76-15, BY PAKO PHOTO, INC., To permit a film processing drop-off oot , per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lots 1- 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 153, Skywood Mall Shopping Center, tBe same being 5267 Central Avenue N.E. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE.CODE Separate (at meeting) CONTINUED: HUMAN DEYELOPMENT GOALS & OBJECTIVES (at meeting) RECEIVE APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 28, 1976 20 -24 RECEIVE ENVIRONMEN7AL QUALITY COMMISSION MINUTES (at meeti.ng) 6. OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURNMENT: ■ � �� CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECEMBER 22, 1976 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDEft: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL- Members Present: Narris� Bergman� Langen£eld, Peterson, Schnabel} Shea Members Absent: Others Present; None Darrel Glark, Community Development Administrator APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION 14INUTES: DECFT�BER 8� 1976 A�rs. Schnabel noted that on page 18� the last sentence in the second para- graph should read �'He added that most of the applications were pretty cut and dried". Mr. Langenfeld stated that on page 19� the second sentence in the second paragraph should read °he didn�t think the Fhvironmental Commission should drop the ball..."; and the last sentence should read "environment'� instead o£ "Ehvironmental". MOTION by Shea� seconded by Bergman� that the Planning Commission minutes of December 8� 1976 be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 1. USE PER.*�IT. SP OU'1'll00H Allv�;H'1'151NG WP7rANY: '1'o a11ow the construction oi a lu� x c billboard� per Fridley City Code� Section 21lt.0l�2� to be located on Lot 5, Revised Auditor's Subdivision //77� the same being 151 Oshorne Road N.E. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing on the request £or a Special Use Permit, SP #76-1l� by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:37• Mr. Ronald L. Mielke, representing Naegele Outdoor Advertising was present. Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 2 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT Sign Location: 151 Osborne Road N.E. Sign Company: Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company SIGN INFORMATION 1. Height (25') 25� (greater than 10� above ground) 2 Area (300 Sq. Ft.) 2S0 square £eet 3. Distance Between Signs (500'} greater than 500� It. Setback From Street Right-of-way Lines (30�) �reater than 60� � 5. Distance From Street 7ntersection (500') greater than 500' 6. Distance from R-1 [Ises (500�) �reater than 500� 7. Condition Status (All Metal) Metal 8. Zoning (C-2S, M-1� M-2) M-2 �, Conforms to existing sign ordinance; no variances needed. Mr. Clark stated that this did meet all the criteria as far as advertising signs or billboards. He explained that this would be located on Osborne Road about midway between the tracks and Main Street on the North side� and North of the St. Paul Water ldorks. Mr. Clark passed out to the Commission copies of Planning Commission minutes from 1975 which discussed several requests concerning existing billboards, and explained that those stipulations went to the City Council and the Council approved the Special Use Permits changing one o£ the stipulations and omitting one other (item 2). He pointed out that item 5 stated that the permit would run concurrent with the lease, and the Cpuncil added it would not exceed five years before it should be reviewed again. Mr. Clark informed the Commission that all the signs would be reviewed in November of 1980. Mr. Langenfeld asked what this sign was going to display� and Mr. Mielke said it would be changing every month. He added there was a lease restriction s�yiag there would be no tobacco or liquor advertised� but it was strictly commercial. � Mrs. Schnabel asked if there were any other billboards along Osborne Road between East River Road and University� and Mr. Clark replied there were none on Osborne at all in the City of Fridley. Mr. Mielke added that it was written in the lease that upon sale or development of the property the sign would be taken down. � � Planning Commission Meeting - Decem6er 22, 1976 Page 3 � Chairperson Harris asked if this was a double-faced sign, end Mr. Mielke replied that was correct. He said it would be back-to-back� advertising in both directions. Mr. Harris asked what the distance was from the sign to • � the railroad right-of-way, and Mr. Clark said it was approximately 1�00'. Mr. Harris asked how far it was from the sign to the entrance on Main Street, and Mr, Mielke said he just lmew it was greate�r than 500'. He added there was a sign on the property at the present time which said ��For Sale". Mr. Harris asked who owned this property, and Mr. Mielke replied Earl Patch, Afx'. Harris commented there was no way of telling how large a chunk he had. Mr. Clark noted that 1t36�� was the frontage along Osborne from the railroad right-of-way to his East line� and the sign would be sitting in there. Mr. Mielke stated the sign would be,located 70' £rom his West property line, so Chairperson Harris figured it would be 366' £rom the rlght-o£-way of the railroad. Chairperson Harris asked about the height o£ the billboard, and Mr. Mielke replied it was 25' to the top o£ the board and was 15� off the ground. He said the size would be 10 x 25', and it would be all steel. He showed the Commission photographs of what it would look like. Chairperson Harris asked about the mansard shown in one o£ the photographs� and Mr. Mielke replied it had been removed at the city�s request and at the advertising company�s expense, Mxs. Schnabel asked if there would be lights, and Mr. Mielke replied there would be no illumination as it would be too expensive. Mrs. Schnabel asked what was going to happen to the "For Sale" sign on the property� and Mr. . � Mielke answered that as £ar as he knew� it rrould stay there. Mr. rlielke pointed out that there was a 60' easement by the St, Paul Water Works, and over 60' setback off the highway, so they were over double what the required setback was. MOTION by Schnabel, seconded by Langenfeld, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Special Use Permit ftequest SP #76-11� by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. Mrs. Shea stated that she would like it in the record that Human Resources was opposed to any non-conforming billboard in the City. She said it rras bad enough to give a Special Use Permit to one that was in� but even worse to put a new one in where there wasn't one. She added she was mandated by her Commission� and she had to oppose this billboard. Mr. Bergman said he would like to recognize, first o£ all, that the requested billboard did con£orm in each item to present Fridley code; they had reviews in the past where it almost seemed like a rarity. However� he continued� he wanted to remind the Planning Commission that there was a Project Committee assigned to reviewing the sign ordinance £or the City of Fridley and that committee had been working diligently in review of a fairly detailed� lengthy and cumbersare ordinance, He pointed out they had been doing this for about ten months and were nearing completion so that this Planning � Commission mighL possibly be reviewing a recommended•ordinance change as Planning Cormnission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page � early as March or April. Mr. Bergman said he would feel quite awkward if the Planning Conunission at this time was to approve construction of another billboard in the City� possib2y in conflict with the effort that has been going on. For that reason, he said, his view was toward suggesting a moratorium on new billboard construction until they received the ordinance review� or at least in this particular case deferring this request £or a new billboard until the results were received from the Project Commi.ttee. Mr. Langen£eld stated he saw what Mr. Bergman was trying to say, but wondered if they didn�t have to make their judgement on the existing ordinance. � Chairperson Harris said that wasn't exactly true. He explained he had attended a meeting in Coon Rapids last week and this particular item had come up in discussion c�rith the peop2e frora Metro Conncil� and there was a provision in the law that allowed for setting up an interim ordinance or a moratorium while the present ordinances were being re-evaluated. He said that whether or not this would apply to billboards or signs, he did not lmow. He added they hadn�t specifically discussed it in that character� but there was a vehicle for which there could be a moratorium. Mr. Peterson stated he thought they were stretching the point in terms of coming up with a new ordinance since the Project Committee was doing a study to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission which in turn made a recottunendation to the governing bocly. He said the Project Committee was a study committee created by a member Commission, and when they were talking about revising a code they were talking about City Council action as only the City Council had the authority to make the change. Chairperson � Harris pointed out that the Planning Commission could recommend a moratorium� and the Council could decide to place a moratorium on all signs. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she would like to concur with Mr. Bergman's thoughts on this ]mowing that the Project Committee had been working very long and hard on this and has had representatives £rom advertising companies and representatives from the comm�uiity on that study committee. She stated she would Feel inclined to ask the petitioner to either agree to a tabling of the request until such time that the report is ready from the Project Committee� or if that was unacceptable� request the City Council to declare a moratorium on construction until such time that they had a chance to review whatever changes were recommended by the Project Committee. Chairperson Aarris stated that he saw one basic problem with this parLicular application that hadn't been discussed. He stated he felt there was a deficiency in the present signing ordinance because it spoke to distance from intersections, distance £rom center line of right-of-way, distance from R-1, parks� schools and public lands� but it did not speak to distance from railroad crossings. He said he thought if the ordinance was to be looked at from the standpoint of 500� £rom an intersection (and he assumed that was put in because of safety), then certainly a railroad crossing should be in there. Ae said he thought it was just an oversight, and added he was wondering why 500' was used as distance £rom an intersection. � Planni.ng Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 5 # Mr. Clark stated it was probably chosen because of safety, or spacing could � be another reason. Mr. Mielke said he could see no problem vith safety whatsoever and again pointed out it would be 15' off th� ground. Mr. Clark stated the safety concern was not the obstruction of view but distraction, and Mr. Harris pointed out that Amtrak came through that intersection at 70 mph. Mr. Mielke stated he would like to return to Mrs. Shea�s comment for a moment, and said he agreed about non-conforming signs. Ne said that in the past the City had passed ordinances and he had to go according to what those ordinances said, and this sign was conforming. Mrs. Shea said she realized the sign was con£orming, but didn't agree xith the Gity Ordinance and couldn't back any new billboards in the City. Mr. Langenfeld said that he felt if a moratorium was declared, Naegele should have the existing fee carry over to the point when this was discussed again. Mr. Clark agreed. MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Schnabel� that the Planning Commission� recognizing there is a Sign Ordinance Project Committee and that Committee has been reviewing the present ordinance for approximately 10 months and is indicating that this body might be reviewing the results of proposed sign ordinance changes within the March to April time frame, table the request for a Special Use Permit, SP //'T6-llt by Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company, subject to the receipt and review of the Project Committee input. � Chairperson Harris stated that a tabling motion was a non-debatable motion, and Mr. Bergman said perhaps he should have used the word "deYer". Mr. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION to change "table" to "defer". Agreeable to Mrs, Schnabel. Mr. Mielke stated that he had gone in accordance with what the ordinance said now. He said that the compl:tion date for the sign was on or be£ore December 31, and if this was deferred to riarch or Ppril his contract would , not be any good. He noted that the Project Committee had been working on this for ten months already, and said at could possibly be longer than March or April before the study was completed--possibly even a year� and they did have the ordinance as it stood right now. Mr. Langen£eld stated that he personally thought the moratorium would not hold with this particular type of subject. Mr. Bergman pointed out his motion was not for a moratorium, but deferring action. Chairperson Harris said he thought that deferring action for three to four months was not a reasonable length of time, in all de£erence to the Project Committee. He stated he would be prepared to act on this tonight. Mr, Peterson stated that he spoke against the motion. He said it was fine � for people on various commissions to be against billboards, and he was sure that in every action that was taken in this City there would be people who were against that particular action. However, he said, there were things Plsnning Co:rm�ission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 6 going on in the City all the time� and there was always a compromise in � terms of wishes no matter what hapgened in any level of government. He said ihere was an ordinance on their books as far as the City.,was concerned- which was to be a guideline in terms of operating. He stated that now they were saying they did not like the way the City� operated so there£ore they were going to defer taking action on something in hopes that it would be changed to something they liked better, and from that standpoint he could not support the motion. Mr, Peterson stated they should either deny the petitioner's request and he could take other action, or they should�ant it. He added that they could beg the question on any ordinance they had. Mr. Langenfeld said thai the petitioner approached them in good faith on the basis of the existing ordinance, and now they were in e£fect saying . "sorry� Buster, you are out of the picture until somebody makes a decision". Mrs. Schnabel stated she took exception to that remark because the motion was a recommendation to the City Council, it was not final action on this. She said what they were recoimnending in the motion was simply that the City Council itseli' declare a moratorium on any flirther billboard construc- tion until such time the ordinance has been reviewed. She said they were not saying "sorry, Buster't, but were saying this was the recommendation and the City Counail could either agree or disagree. Mrs. Shea stated that the petitioner was correct in that this ordinance would not be finalized until a year from now as it would take that long for it to go through channels, have aIl ihe Commissions review it� etc. She stated she would still vote against it, but they did have an ordinr�nce � now that she thought they had ta make a decision on. Mr. Bergman said that he had mixed emotions on this as the petitioner did come in good faith and was conforming to the ordinance. He said he would like to talk a bit about the approach to the sign ordinance, and he thought there were at least two approaches. He stated he didn't really Imow if there �aere members on the Commission who were flat3.y agai.nst signs, bui he thought the Commission looked at this in a couple of different views. Mr. Bergman stated that one line of thought said that signs were important for local businessmen to advertise their business, as being different from a billboard which was not benefiting a local businessman directly. He said that Naegele and other similar companies were in the business of making income from putting up billboards, as opposed to a small local husinessmen putting up a sign to attract business to his shop, so there was some distinction. He stated that again the �rord +�moratorium" had come up, and explained that the motion did not provide £or a moratorium, He said if they wanted to consider that as a second motion, that would be more proper. Mr. Mielke said that their signs were requested by the people in Fridley, such as Kennedy Transmission, McDonalds, Northtown, etc. He said the people emphasize that they do need the coverage in Fridley. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Bergman, Schnabel and Shea voting �ye, Harris and Peterson voiing nay and I,angenfeld abstaining� the motion carried 3- 2. Mr. Langenfeld said he xbstained because he would rather see the Commission .. vote directly toward the petition that was before them, and also because Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 7 � he didn�t feel they couZd really do this in accordance with the e�cisting sign ordinance. Mr. Clark suggested that there might be a time li.mitation on how long the Commission could de£er action, as there was on rezoning (b0 days). He thought Special Use might have the same length of time, and he thought it was unreasonable to de£er action for a year. Mrs. Shea said she had the feeling this would force City Council to make a decision. rir. Clark read to the Commission fxcm the City Ordinance which said they Hould have to , approve or deny the request within sixty days, Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the point was this may not be the only request that came before them within the next few months. MOTION by Bergman, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that a moratorium be placed on all new billboard construction within the City of Fridley until such time that the present sign ordinance fias been adequately "i�eviewed. Mr, Langenfeld stated he was still wondering if they could actually do that. Chairperson Harris said they could make the recommendation and Council would then have to research the situation with their legal staff and they had the final say on it. He added that there was a vehicle within the law whe>eby they could declare a moratorium. , Mr. Mielke questioned the moratorium, and stated they did have the ordinance at present and he was proposing a conforming sigi. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to make a statement that had to do with the City Attorney's memorandum on Special Use Permits. He said he realized they were not talking about Special Use Permits directly in this motion, but it did center around the whole discussion. He read from page 2"The Planning Commission must draft £indings and report the same to the Council indicating its recommendation as to approval or denial and specifying what� if any, conditions are necessary regarding features of the proposed use of the building". Mr. Bergman said he would like to reFerence back to Mr. Clark�s statement that the Council must take action within sixty days. He said he didn't think that was quite as clean as the implication, because deferring� in a legal sense� may be considered taking action on the item. He added that no where in the ordinance did he see discussions on under what conditions deferments could be made� and he Imew that was a common alternative, P•9r. Bergman said he was not an attorney either, but when somebody said "take action�'� he would question whether or not a deferment wouldn�t qualify as taking action. Chairperson Harris.said he didn't think so. He said he thought the intent of the ordinance was either to approve it or deny it. Mrs. Schnabel said that she would like to suggest that one of the alternatives � that the City Council had in addition to approving or denying was to table it. She said that she thought they were begging the question by jumping to Plenning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 8 �egal opinion on exact� x�at.the City Attorney would recommend in this case. She said she would guess that this was not the first time this has come up � in the City of Fridley and probably not the last, and she thought the City Attorney xould have some opinion on it. Mr. Bergman said he thought the second motion did give the City Council the third alternative--that of moratarium. UPON A VOICE VOTE, Harris, Bergman, Schnabel and Shea voting aye, Langenfeld and Peterson voting nay, the motion carried 4- 2: ` 2. CONTINUED: PROPOSED MAINTENANCE CODE: Continue until January 5, 1977. Mrs. Shea said she would like to recommend to Staf£ that they look in Column One of tonight� newspaper. She informed the Commission that Spring Lake Park�s City Council would be looking at cockroaches, etc.� as the result of a complaint from an apartment dweller, 3• CONTINUID: HUMAN DEVEI,OPMENT GOAIS AND OBJECTIVES. Continue until January $, 7.977. !t. RECEIVE iiUMAN RESOURCES CON,�IISSION MINUTES: DECEMBER 2 1976 � MOTION by Shea� seconded by Langen£eld, that ihe Planning Commission receive the Human Resources Commission minutes of December 2� 1976. Mrs. Shea said she would like to bring to the Commission�s attention the motion in the second to last paragraph on page 28. She stated the Red Cross requested the City of Fridley to buy one ��baby�� £or the C.P.R. Program� and explained that C.P.R. stood for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Mrs. Shea said they were hoping to buy ten "babies+� and 10 '�Annies"� and explai.ned that these were dolls with electronic'parts so the students could practice resuscitating a heart. The "babies" were in£ant dolls and the "Annies" were the large ones. She said that the courses they offer would be £ree, and the people who have gone to this say it is vital to people o£ the Commission�s age group on up. The ��babies" cost $160 and the '�Annies° $320. Mr. Clark asked how long the class Nas� and Mrs. Shea replied 8- 12 hours. Mrs. Schnabel asked if the resuscitation was diff'erent from.the type o£ resuscitation given to a person who has shock� and Mrs, Shea replied that the heart stimulation was more important in this one, She explained this was more for a heart attack patient, and this wasn't the Red Cross li£e saving course. Mrs. Schnabel said she thought the costs were quite high for the dumrnies� and Mrs, Shea explained these were different from the ones used in the ].ife savirig course. She said these had electronic heart beats thaC • must be stimulated by the students to pass the course. Mrs. Shea stated that the idea of the Red Cross was to reach everybody in Fridley with this course, and they wanted to get at least ten each of the ��p�ies" and ��babies". Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 . Page 9 , Mr, Clark commented that he felt this was a great program; the only question he had xas whether the City would be better off buying these for the Fire . Department so that they would be right here for our own Police and Fire - Departments. Mrs. Shea said that £rom what she understood� it was very difficult to get enough "dummies" together at one time toteach enough people. 5he explained that Spring Lake Park had two but would not let them out o£ their schools� and Columbia Heights had two but wouldn�t let them out of their Fire Department. Mr. Clark said the Fir� Department operated the same course through the Red Cross, and explained they already had an"Annie" and it was all over the City constantly. He said they were a.11 stretching £or the same thing--to teach the people how to do this. Chai.rperson Harris asked i£ the City donated $160 to buy a"baby"� where it would go. Mrs. Shea said it would go into Anoka County as part of Anoka County and they would pool their resources and travel about the county teach- ing this course. She explained their goal was to blanket the county with these.courses so everyone would end up going to one within the next year. Chairperson Sarris commented that this was the one time he could remember that he felt $160 wasn't enough for a program. Mr. Clark said he wasn't speaking against the program--he thought it was great and everybody should take it. His only question to Council would be that they research the resources they have locally and see if it could be better used here or there. In having it here, he said, our own Police and Fire Departments would have better access to it; whereas in a County program it might only come here � once every three months or six months. Chairperson Harris said that perhaps they should buy two babies; one for here and donate one to the Connty. That way� he said� Fridley would have a big one and a little one for its own use. Mrs. Shea asked what shape the Annie was in, and Mr. Clark replied that it was almost xorn out. He explained they had two--one was practically uorn out and the other was relatively new but didn't record. HIr. Clark said he thought that Staff could pull together a better recommendation for the City Council. He thought by the time it got to the Council Mr. Hughes xould have a better report prepared. Chai.rperson Harris noted that this would come out of Human Resource�s budget, and Mrs. Shea said she was aware of that. UPQN A VOICE VOTE� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Shea� seconded by Langenfeld� that the Planning Commission recormnend to the City Council donating a$160 "baby" to the Anoka County Red Cross and purchasing for the City a"baby" and an ��Annie" for the C.P.R. Program. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mrs. Shea pointed out that the Anoka County Community Action Advocate Program would be on their agenda next month, and invited anybody who would like to listen or comment to attend. Also, she said, there aas a letter to the editor tonight in the paper regardi.ng this. � Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 10 5• RECEIVE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION NlINUTES: DECEMBER 13, 1996 MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Schnabel, that the Planning Commission � receive the Parks & Recreation Commission minutes of December 13, 1976, Mr. $ergman asked why night flooding was better than day flooding, and Mr. Peterson replied because there was usually no wind at night and because of � lower temperatures the freezing time was usually quicker. Also, he said, when the rinks were flooded during the day there was the added problern of kids coming home from school and walicing across the rink before it had set. Mr. Langenfeld stated that or. page 6, under New Business and the Request by Lion's Club, he happened to be that person referred to who made the verbal request concerning Moore Lake. Mrs. Shea said that as long as they were on the subject of Moore Lake� she was wondering why that was one of the few parks in Fridley where the gates where kept locked. Mr. Peterson stated he couldn't answer that other than the fact it was for safety as it was a hazardous area. Chairperson Harris asked if the who2e Moore Lake situation wasn't a losing battl.e, and Mr. Peterson said that the Parks and Recreation Commission was going to have to make a decision on that in February. He said they would have to decide if they were going to have.a swimming program this year and if it was worth the ef£ort because of Swimmer"s Itch, low water level� etc. He added that they had asked Staff for a recommendation� and Mr. LangenfeZd commented that even i£ the lake was closed for swimming, people would still swim there anyway. Mr. Peterson stated he would hesitate to close down the lake�because'he £elt anyone who lived in the State of � Minnesota should know how to swim, and there was a large number o£ kids in F'ridley who had learned to swim in Moore Lake. He added that here they were learning to swim in lake conditions, and if that was closed down there was no place to take them. Mr. Langenfeld said ihat the problem of Swimmer's Itch woulct relate indirectly to the Water Quality ManagemenL Planning Workshop which would be conducted by Metro Council as they would be discussi.ng swimming and fishing. Chair- person Harris said he realized Moore Lake was all they had, but perhaps they should look at it for what it really was. He stated it really wasn+t ` a lake� but a drainage retention pond.. Mr. Peterson agreed� and said that when the nomenclaLure of a lake was maintained then there were these conflicts. He added that it could be treated with chemicals that would be safe to the people and to the ducks. Mr. Langenfeld said he agreed that it really wasn't a lake, but in terms of area that the water enveloped it Was considered a lake. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 6. RECEIVE COMhiUNITY DEVELOPMENT COP'Q�IISSION MTNllTES: DECEMBER lh 1976 MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Commission receive the Community Dev.elopment minutes of December 11�, 1976, � Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 11 Mr. Bergman asked the Commission to note on the last page of the minutes � that Community Development received and accepted Mr. Schneider's letter of resignation from the Community Development Commission and from Chairmanship of the Sign Project Committee, and they also approved Mrs. Pat Gabel as the replacement Chairperson £or £he Sign Project Committee. Mr, Bergman stated he would like to discuss a rather controversial item� that being the recommendation on maximum sizes pf accessory buildings. Ite said that for the record� there �as an error halfway down the fourth para- graph on page 2. It read "After the second one� he can build up to 2k0 sq. ft, with no problem", but should read "A.fter the first one...". Mz'. Bergman said that in response to the last paragraph on page 3� they had been asked six months ago to review the ordinance with regard to second accessory buildings, and now they had been asked to review all accessory buildings. His Commission found that there were controls over the size� and a number where they applied. He stated one was lot line setback� one xas the 25� lot coverage control, one was the control of a Special Use Permit, and another one was finances. Mr. Bergman said he was expecting.Mr. Boardman to be at this meeting as he was going to ask him to repeat another control that was not brought to anyone's attention at the previous Special Use requests which Mr. Boardman had found sonewhere in the back section of the ordinance. He stated it was an ordinance in which any buildings in a back yard had to conform to some percentage in relationship of back yard total depth� and possible total width. Witnout concluding on this� he said� he got the impression that the Planning Commission had approved at least one second accessory building which was of such a size that it was in . violation of the code. Mr. Clark said he would try to find what Mr. Bergr�an was referring to. Mr. Bergman said they had talked about putting a limit on 9n the ordinance of so many square feet. He said that would take it out of the Special Use Permit category and put it ir. the ordinance as a control. However� he continued� the same person that came before the Planning Commission and justi£ied a Special Use Permit with a hardship case (i.e.� keeping his truck� storing antique cars, eLc.) could go before the Board of Appeals with the same hardship case requesting a variance. He stated that they concluded that there wasn't much difference. Chairperson Harris stated that there Was a definite di£1'erence� and a variance was an entirely different ball game than a Special Use Permit. He said that the burden of proof for denial of a Special Use Permit lied with the City� xhereas the burden of proof for the need for a variance lied with the petitioner. Mr. Bergman stated Community Development felt they had to consider the magni- tude of the problems and they concluded that there were very £ew, and could logically be treated on an individual basis such as they did. He said he was also reminded that this body voted to approve the two Special Use Permits in consideration of reasops given by requestors� and he didn't think i£ they had gone before the Board o£ Appeals they wonld have taken a diSferent course. � Mrs. Schnabel said she had found the item that Mr. Bergman had referred to, and read to the Commission: "Accessory buildings in the aggregate occupy not more than 35� of the area of a required rear yard", Mr. Clark stated the trick was to find the area required� and to do this you had to go back to the rear yard requirements xhich said the depth of it had to be 25� o£ Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 Page 12 of the lot depth, not less than 25 feet and not more than �0 feet. He said � that therefore a lot of 80� x 120' would have a 30' rear yard requirement, which would be 840 square feet maximum for an accessory building. Mr. Bergman commented that he thought one Special Use Permit they had grantnd exceeded that� and Chairperson Harris agreed. Mr. Peterson said he thought that � particular petitioner had a larger lot, so the ratio would go up. Mr. Harris recalled this man had a siding truck he wished to keep in the accessory building. Mr. Bergman said that they were not aware of any real problem with the size of the First accessory building� so they got back to the old question of the second accessory building which they had covered before� and that is what prompted Ptr. Oquist�s comment, He repeated that Community Developmerit felt there were some controls, and the requests should be judged on their merits. Chairperson Harris said he would 7ike to pose this problem: Suppose a man , came in and said he wanted to build a second accessory building and wasn't quite sure what he wanted to do with it but did want it for storage and to put some cars in� eic.� and then ended up in the body shop business, p]r. Bergman commented that Mr. Lindblad�s approach would be to grant the building because it would be better to have him do that in the garage than out in the yard, Mr, Harris said that his argument to that would be it was a commercial enterprise in an R-1 district and should not be allovred. Mr. Bergman said he would be in violation of the code� and Mr. Clark said he would be conducting a home occupation outside the main dwelling. There followed a lengthy discussion on home occupations, and Mr. Clark read the definition of home � occupation and said he thought it was a little unclear. Mr. Bergman said he thought they were talking about a couple of di£ferent points here. He said they were addressing if an accessory building of any 5ize should be allowed or should it not, and really they couldn�t even handle that problem. He stated that all it boiled down to was that if the ordinance was changed, it would run through the Board of Appeals instead o£ the Planning Commission� so Community Development felt they should Ieave it the way it was, Mrs. Schnabel stated that they had an ordinance right now which established the line oF procedure for Special Use Permits, and to run it through the Board of Appeals xould require a change in the zoning ordinance. She said she hadn't been present at the meeting when the requests came through the Planning Commission for the permits that had been discussed, but she was not sure that z•m�ning it through the Board of Appeals was necessarily the xay to go on that. Pirs. Schnabel said that when something went through the Board of Appeals it more or less passed this Corunission� and she thought the Planreing Commission had a little more authority to get into the business use of that type o£ dwelling than the Board of Appeals did. She stated that for that reason, she thought it should keep going through the Planning Commission. IfPON A UOICE VOTE, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. � Planning Commission Meeting - December 22, 1976 � Eage 13 Chairperson Harris asked if the Planning Conunission was in concurrence with � Community.Development, MOTION by Peterson� seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission concur xith the Co�mnunity Development Cocmnission that the ordinance on maximum size oY accessory buildings remain the same xith no change. Mrs. Schnabel stated that she thought they shou�l.d extend their appreciation to Corrununity Development for looking at this again, and Chairperson Harris said he would also like to extend his appreciation but intended to vote against the motion. He commented that he did believe they had to tighten up on the R-1 areas. Mr, Clark suggested that it might be better to look at the hoireoccupation definition and better clarii'y that and tighten it up. Chairperson Harris said he would like to treat everyone equally, and he couldn�t see why they should allow one particular line of endeavor to operate in home occupations and not ahother particular line. He said he was certainly not pushing for back-yard body shops and £elt they should leave the commercial enterprises to the commerciel areas as that �ras why they had zoning. Mr. Clark said the other problem wss some of these may not be home occupation people; they could be painters working for someone else and storing paint and tarps in the garage. Chairperson Harris said the problem was, that type o:f..hing tends to overflow; the ma� with the siding could start out that way, but pretty soon it wasn't big enough. He said that soon things started to � be stored outside, which didn�t do the integrity of the R-1 neighborhoods any good. i�fr. Harris said the question was how to limit this. He said he didn�t have much bad feeling about the person who bro.ught home one car and fixed it inside the garage as that wouldn�t disturb the neighbors� but pretty soon there was one parked outside and soon another one, and the neighborhood deteriorated. Mr. Bergman commented that he had mixed £eelings on this, as about 1�8� agreed with Mr. Harris and the other 52� leaned toward the other side. [SPON A V�ICE VOTE, Bergman� Langenfeld, Peterson, Schnabel and Shea voting aye, Harris voting nay, the motion passed 5- 1. OTHER BUSINFSS: Mr. Clark passed out to the Commission copies of a document concerning the 208 Management Planning Symposium. Mr. Langenfeld explained that 14s. Larson from the League o£ Women Voters had asked the F.livironmental Quality Commission if they would mind sponsoring this symposium. He said that the Co�mr�ission took this up and was in favor of it and in favor of sponsoring this type of ihing. However� he stated, it came to their attention that they might be erroneously sponsoring a private organization and they were wondering if it was permissable £or a Commission to sponsor a private group. NSr. Langenfeld � said that personally he felt they could sponsor this because it was an environmental teaching and educational process, and said he was merely Planning Commission Meeting - December 22� 1976 Page 1� bringing this before the Planning Commission for comments concerning sponsor- � ship and insight as to if they could sponsor this organization. He added that i£ they did sponsor it, all they asked the IIivironmental Commission to do was to help with the publicity if possible. Mr. Clark asked if the program involved cesspools and septic tanks, and Mr. Langenfeld said it concerned water management. Mr. Clark said that if all it entailed was cesspools and septic tanks, it really didn't involve Fridley. He said that he thought it was probably good that Commissions want to sponsor something, but he believed that before they did they should bring it to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council. Chairperson Harris asked if this 208 was a document, and Mr. Langenfeld explained that was the title that had been assigned to the prograzn. He said that xhenever they talked about water quality� they might just refer io it as 208. Mrs, Schnabel suggested that there may be a lot oP residents in Fridley who had lake cabins and would be interested in this program. MOTION by Langeni'eld, seconded by Bergman, that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Fridley Fhvironmental Quality Commission sponsor the Water Quality Management Planning Workshop. Ugon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unatiimously. • Mrs. Schnabel brought up the subject of the Union 76 station, and asked if one of their stipulations didn�t have something to do with the physical building itselF. She said the reason she asked was because none of that came up in the minutes of the City Council meeting� and added that they did approve it with their own stipulation--a fence. She said that there was nothing about direction arrows. Mr. Peterson pointed out that the City Council had the right to either accept or reject the Planning Commission's stipulations. Chairperson Harris commented that doors on restrooms should be required in the building code. ADJOURNMENT- MOTION by Shea� seconded by Langanfeld� that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� Chairperson Harris declared the Planning Commission meeting of December 22, 1976 adjourned at 10:11 P.M. Respeetfully subrnitted, �iinrci� �%��e�� Sh rri 0'Donnell Recording Secretar,v ' I •' ' .� OfFICIAL NOTICE CI7Y Of FRIDLEY PUBLLG HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNIPJG COtdMISSION TO WHOM TT MAY CONCERN: kotice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Frid]ey wil7 have a Pub7ic Hearing in the City Hall at 6437 University Avenue Northeast in the Council Chamber on Wednesday, January 5, 1977 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of: . A request for a Special Use Permit> SP #76-15> by Pako Photo, Incorporated, to permit a film processing drop-off booth, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3(I), to be located on Lots 1- 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. T53, a11 located in the North Half of Section 25, T-30, R-24, City of Fridley, County of Anoka, Minnesota. " Generally located in the Skywood Mall Shopping � Center, the same being 5267 Central Avenue N::E. Aqyone desiring to be heard on the above matter may be heard at this m�eting. ' Publish: December 22, 1976 December 29, 1976 � RICHARD H. HARRIS CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION � H .�J CITY OF FRIDLCY MINNGSOTA PIJINNING AND ZONING FORM NUM6ER !� 6-/� •'. � APPLICANT'S SIGNATURG P�a photo Address 9-West 14th. Street, Mpls. MN. � � Telephone Numbe� 611 /t , PROPERTY OWNER'S SIG�I�T�.- , ' Address 2289 85�h. Ave. �i.E. Telephone Number 786-8020 . MN. Street Location of Property 526q Centra.l Ave. N.E. Legal Description of Property Lots i- Present Zoning Classification Acrsage o£ Property Subdivision 1 �� TYPE OF RGQUCST Rezoning _�Special Use Permit Approval of Premin- inary & Final Plat Streets or Alley �— Vacations Other Fee �v��Receipt No. �� C onrauni ty Existing Use of Property Shopping Center Describe briefly the proposed zoning classificatio: or type of use and improvement proposed Has the present applicant previously sought to rezone, plat, obtain a lot �plit or variance or special use permit on the subject site or part of it? yes V no. What was requested and when? The undersigned understands that: (a) a list o£ all residents and owners of property within 300 feet (350 feet for rezoning) must be attached to this application. (b) This application must be signed by all owners of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. (c) Responsibility for any defect in the Qroceedings resulting fram thc failvrc to list the names and addresses of all residents and property owners of property in question, belongs to the undersigned. A sketch of proposed property and structure must be drawn and attached, showing the following: 1. North Direction. 2. Location of proposed structure on the lot. 3. Dimensions of property, proposed structure, and front and side setbacks. -4. Street Names. S, Location and use of adjacent existing buildings (within 300 feet� The undersigned hereby declares that all the facts and representations stated in this application are true and correct. DATE /� � %G SICNATURG �iCdn� •� I •'=�'+- �� (APPLIC '} Date Filed Date of Near Planning Conuaission Approved (dates) Denied City Council Ap�iroved (dates) Denicd • Planning Cormnission 12-27-76 MAILING L1ST + . SP #76-15 PAKO PHOTO Pako Photo 9 West 14th Street Minneapolis Mci Attn: H. Randolph Toth Gil-More Inc. 2289 85th Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, Mn 55432 Central Speedy Car Wash 5201 Central Avenue N.E. Frid7ey, Mn 55421 Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Assn Attention: Manager 5205 Central Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Robert Hall of Fridley 333 West 34th Street New York, New York 10001 � Berttard R. Julkowski P.O. Box 32085 Fridley, Mn 55432 McGlynn-6armaker Company Twin City Federal #67367 801 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, Mn T�F9 .�S �-Z Chet M. Herringer 4121 Stinson Blvd. Minneapolis, Mn 55421 Gulf Oil Company P.O.Box 1589 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue N.E. Columbia Heiqhts, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. James Bone 5250 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley 55421 � Mr. $ Mrs, George Hale 5234. Taylor 5treet N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. J.T. Downey 1280 52nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. James Vant 1260 52nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. William Leavey 1240 52nd Avenue N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Howard Agie 5201 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Harvey Peterson Development Co. Smith, Juster, Feikema 1050 Builders Exchange Minneapolis, Mn 55402 Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Dion 5251 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley> Mn 55432 Mr. � Mrs. M. H. Webster �ly�b�b Fillmore Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Dale Hadtrath 5285 Taylor Street NE Fridley, Mn 5542T Mr. & Mrs. Vernon Wi11 5299 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 5542'�. Registre, Inc. 5284 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421. Mr. & Mrs. William Keuther 5268 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Aaron Engelbretson 5216 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley. Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Steve Kantorowicz 5200 Taylor Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 ��y 1' ! m �.� Mailing List Page 2 SP #76-13 Pako Photo Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Parizek 5258 Fillmore Street N.E. � Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Peter Molinaro 5234 Fillmore Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 � Mr. & Mrs. Norris Armentrout 5222 Fillmore Street N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Yun H. Lee 1268 Skywood Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. & Mrs. Car1 Heggestad 1258 Skywood Lane N.E. Fridley, Mn 55421 Mr. James H. Matthews 1259 Skywood Lane NE. Fridiey, Mn 55421 � F � � ,. _ . \ ....... '.T�"T.�,��._...._ . ��.-�— , - - .,.,.,,.� . o�.. ��----- • - —s�.sva r-aals s�,� .ar� __ _" ��•N�d�b a��z5 o ,�� _ � . MSrl� L'r) �� _ , � �. 4 V y�j I a� I � 1�� . .ttii � ? o� 1 � s _ � . �ti� � � ` M a . � va � � 4 . y � � � I ' �b— -w . . l ___" _.ai . ' ' p:Op . O•M.°A~a oI � . . '" _ _ _ � �� . O _- _ : ` • ., a a�' i 0 .. � . .� . z � _?,-�� o ,� . � �^ > o f. 4 u; I � �- � -- , t � � 1�. ; • �� -,'i � _—'�;� �..r—',ss[ . . ,o-,srs �� O`ka a"Gti O N� �c'�J O I W ��0\ 4 ti� [�it � r �v-�v t 1�:.'W\�t � W �'•°'�F.; v v��-�Zy � O �sJi�i� �-�O�o2`�� . '� �� W0.� � � � 4tiY �lQ ti '�2„I�u%Oti � M ( ` �' ' � ' 1 r6 • �' � pc' i_ /� o _—. �i f� ,i � c _ _ ....,< ^ �� 4 D .• p S. �� i}'" "' _ .... 0 Q Q i � y a � S . i .. . ♦' O i� �. � . :�N � . ` �- � ~ O t -4 . . '�' : E , . � I i �� ti � v = : w i ; 'I � i -,-! �.. a i` 'o i � h �- � � Z 5 �i ( Y �C \'1. � . .._+ �. �' F i C ..� < �� f II�i � � II I �I � i� I� � � ��1 � a � I�r i� � � �' �+�5 • _.•! _ o: � �_'_, , .o.. �� .o � « 0 , `.w.l�I Ns..'o� y�. —`7��•.39i, . . �_ _�----_ '3 %A"3�Y OdfiS � �; � �J � in � 2 � � � I �i� � � O I< v � J � � ., r �y l��ti�i. � {1� �! { UI I � t U� v �� 1 �1 � Q� � Q'. t �� i N� �i V� I V.: 2 i , ., � � -� �' 2 �.yi , ��O � �, i QI'� Q4�. � 2 r i QI' i�'.p;. � K 2 i��,�'�.�'Z 1 �i�,hiat v )��,�� v y � �� V` �� Vt IJ ` i!y t P f �, f �o I 4 � .ti .1 , JI � � . . � ;'' l '�• / ., A . ' _�,!//! i • ; � j I � . _= .. ; � ; , . /� - ' � / � � � i� ;� . � � ._ � � / /. �� • �' ---� i '/.•- _ �� ' '. • '/ �l' ~. t� � - I4IY !� i•Sy��1/i 1� � /" CoI �( r.:�r.^: y 1v : d�:� d'DA07.7' _ � --•.f.. . ' . . � , . . . �_ ._ . _ . _... - - --"� —' -- 1 � n I � � i :1 ( ; I ' :� � . I � � i , � r ` �� 1 i � , ;. �; � I I I ! i I I I � . �_ V �0 ` FRIDLEY APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 28, 1976 MN?iBERS PRFSENT: Schnabel, Barna, Gabel, Kemper, Plemel MII�IBERS ABSENT: None OTHII2S PRESENT: Ron Holden� Building Inspection Of£icer The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Schnabel at 7;31� P.M. APPROVE APPEALS COMhffSSION MINUTFS: .NOVEhffiER 22, 1976 MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna� that the Appeals Commission minutes of November 22, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF SECTION 205.053� l�B, FRIDLEY CITY CODE, TO REDUCE TAE SIDE YARD ADJOINING LIVING AREAS FROM THE REQUIRED SETBACK � OF 10 FEET TO 8.2 FEET TO ALIAW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE AND GARAGE TO BE IACATID ON LOT �, BIACK 2, HARRIS LAKE rSTATES, THE SAi•tE BEING 1550 MISSISSIPPI STREET N.E.� FRIDLEY, MINNFSOTA. (Request by Erco Builders, 3231 Central Avenue N.E.� Pfinneapolis� Minnesota 551�18). MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, to open the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. STAFF REPORT A. PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVID BY REQUIRII+IENT: Section 205.053, 1t, (b-1) requiring a 10 £oot side yard setback to living area in an R-1 zone. Public purpose served by this section of the code is to maintain a minimum of 20 feet between living areas in adjoining structures and 15 £eet between garages and living areas in adjoining structures, to reduce exposure to conflagration of £ire between structures. Also to allow for aesthetically pleasing open areas around residential structures. B. STATED HARDSHIP: The difficulty in moving the £oundation wall to the West. (I£ left � as is� there would still be over 15 £eet between the structures). �� Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - December 28� 1976 Page 2 C. ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIE4J: Apparently the builder measured roughly from the adjacent garage to set his footings rather than expose the lot corners under the snow, The rough check at the time of footing inspection showed over 15 feet between structures. The adjacent structure is a garage. Mr. Oliver R. Erickson of Erco� Inc., and Mr. Lawrence Main� Cement Contractor� were present. � Mr. Erickson stated that they had inadvertently ended up with a£oundation that was 8.2 £eet £rom the East lot line� but there was still over 15' between the two buildings. He explained that there was an existing house on the East lot and that garage was on the West side. He stated that because of the time of year they were asking for a variance because he felt it would be ridiculous to try to move the Poundation. He added that it was a corner lot and since there was still 15' between the two structures� they didn't feel the variance would do any harm. � Chairperson Schnabel asked if the 15' had been verified as she had been out to the lot and it seemed more like 13'. Mr. Ifolden said it had been actually measured to be jusi over 15�. Mrs. Schnabel noted that on the survey� it showed 37.8+ feet £rom the foundation to the street} and Mr. Erickson explained that was actually from the foundation to the lot line. He added that they had agreed to move the garage entrance on the house to the rear rather than toward Mississippi Street. Mrs. Schnabel asked if Mr. Holden � lmew the setback from Squire Drive to the house� and he replied that it xas between 19 and 20 feet, and only 17� was need. Mrs. Schnabel said she was curious in terms of the lot behind this one as she believed that sat back a little further than this house, and Ms. Erickson said that could be. He added that garage came out on Squire Drive. Chairperson Schnabel noted that the letter received from David Harris was simply because he was the developer of the property, and asked if the house next door at 1560 Mississippi was privately owned. Mr. F�ickson said that he owned it� and the people residing there had no objection to the request. MOTION by Barna� seconded by Kemper, to close the Public Hearing. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Gabel, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission recieve the letter to the Board of Appeals from David Harris dated December 9, 1976� and the letter from Oliver R. Erickson to t'�;e Board of Appeals (undated). Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, that the Appeals Commission approve the request for variance at 1550 Mississippi Street N.E. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. Chairperson Schnabel explained to Mr. Erickson that since there was no • dissenting vote, the action of the Appeals Commission was final. Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - December 28� 1976 Page 3�a2 . r. 2. RECEIVE 1�MORANDUM FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON GRANTING A SPECIAL USE � PERhffT� A VARIANCE, OR A REZONING CHANGE. Mrs. $chnabel informed the Commission that this item was brought to their attention at the special meeting held with the City Council on November 22nd. She said it had been asked if each of them had a copy of this memo, and she hadn�t seen it before. Mrs. Schnabel said she had now read it several times and felt that the information was valuable, but also thought the Appeals Comcnission had been in line with the suggestions made in the memo. She added that she felt it was good to have this information to refresh their memories as to what the procedure should be. MOTION by Barna, seconded by Plemel, to receive the memorandum from the City Attorney. Upon a voice vote� all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously, Mr. Barna read the following portion of paragraph B on page !t to the Commission: "The Board of Appeals must make a recommendation of the action to be taken on the request for a variance to the City Council which shall decide on the £inal action to be taken at its next regular meeting after receiving the recormnendation", He said that sounded to him that all the Board of Appeals was supposed to be doing cras making recommenda- tions and not taking any final action. Mrs. Gabel said that the memorandum had originally been written be£ore the rules were changed giving the Appeals Commission the right to make final decisions in R-1 cases. Chairperson Schnabel f'urther explained that it was originally dated November of 1975, � and it only came to light in November of 1976 that it had been written, and it had not been updated. Mr..Barna read the latter part of the same paragraph to the Commission: "In recommending a variance� the Board, and the Council on approval, may impose conditions to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties°. He said he interpreted that to mean they could put stipula- tions on these requests. Chairperson Schnabel said she thought that would probably fall under consideration of healih� sa£ety and welfare� and they were allowed to put stipulations on if they feared any of those three things were being encroached upon. Mr. Holden asked if the memorandum made monetary considerations a little less important, and Chairperson Schnabel stated that the opinion had come down that ecottomic hardship was not a valid reason to grant a variance request. Chairperson Schnabel read aloud a portion o£ the second paragraph on page 3 concerning Special Use Permits: "If the standards regulating the issuance o£ a special use permit have been complied with, the fact that adjoining property owners are of the opinion that their property may be devalued if the permit were granted is of no legal signi£icance". Mrs. Schnabel stated she thought that was very interesting as adjacent property owners then evidently had no recourse, or at least couldn't nlaim they would have � a devaluation o£ property. She said she was wondering if this would also be true in regard to variances, and was thinking specifically of the ,� � Fridley Appeals Commission Meeting - December 28� 1976 Fage !a ,� swimming pool case as the adjacent property owner there thought that his property might be devalued. Mr. Barna said he was also thinking o£ the case of M& I. Mrs. Schnabel sai.d she would check this out to see if that would be applicable to variances as well as Special Use Permits. Mr, Holden said that concerning the economic hardship consideration� he xas thinking of it in terms of an applicant filling out the application and dissuading that applicant from saying it would cost him too much'to meet the code. Mrs, Gabel said that however� when it came right down to it� a lot of these requests for variances were for monetary reasons. She stated it was cheaper to add a family room on to a house than to move, and she felt that was an honest hardship with a growing family. Mr. Barna pointed out that the previous variance request had been because they didn�t want to move the foundation because it would cost at least $500. rSr. Kemper commented that he felt every variance they discussed was a matter of economic hardship� it was just a matter of how it was defined. Mr. Barna read to the Commission a portion of the first paragraph on page 5: "Although the statute requires �circumstances unique to the individual property under question� the Minnesota Supreme Court has interpreted 'property� broadly to include not only the building site and buildings� but also the property owner� surrounding neighborhood, economic feasibility and like elements��, He said that got right back tp saying that economic feasibility was one of the reasons for granting a variance. Mr. Kemper commented that the economic hardship opinion was offered by the City Attorney, and he (the City Attorney) £elt quite � strongly about it. Mr. Barna suggested that economic feasibility might be different than economic hardship. Chairperson Schnabel said she thought they had been acting pretty much within the guidelines that had been established. Mr. Kemper asked if anything had been said about the Administrative Staf£ Reports with regard to their conclusions, and Pir. Holden said the reports would not give an opinon from now on. Chairperson Schnabel said she thought this was brought about because the public saw the reports and were made aware of StafF�s conclusions, and at times they tended to overshadow the Board�s decisions. Mr. Holden stated that o£ten times things were brought to light at the Public Hearing that Staf£ had not been previously aerare of. Mrs. Schnabel said that she still thought Staff had the responsibility to say if they were definitely opposed to something, and they could still ask if there was any special Staff opinion on a request. Mr. Plemel asked if there was much difSerence if a member of the City Staf£ put a recommendation in writing or said it verbally� and Mrs. Schnabel replied that exceptions were taken by the public in some cases and she thought Sta£f might have the opportunity to reassess things during the Public Aearing. Mrs. Gabel stated that sometimes she thought the public would form an opinion oP the way things would go based on the Staff Report� and sometimes they didn�t go that way. She added that things cane out during the meetings that perhaps StafF didn�t ]rnow ahead of time that could change the whole thing around, Mr, Hemper commented that he kind of had the feeling on some � Fridley Appeals �omm�ssion _ Meeting - December 28, 1976 Page 5 ,`i occasions that StafP was coming up with opinions that were leading the petitioner� to think a conclusion had already been reached before the meet- ing was held, Chairperson Schnabel said that another thing was, if some- � body was to sit down and read a11 the Staff Reports and find that 90� of the time the Board concurred, they might think the Appeyls Commission Wes just a "yes �' Board. �� J � 1'u'S. Gabel commented that the meeting with Council on November 22nd had been a good meeting, and pir�ally a consensus nf opinion had been reached on l�0� lots. Chairperson Schnabel in£ormed the Commission that they would probably be hearing from the Wall Corporation again as they needed another extension, and they probably would have to do some redrafting of their plans. She said that evidently they were going to provide apartments that would qualify for Section 8 funding, Mr. Holden stated that the next Board of Appeals meeting should be very interesting as they would be discussing the critical areas o£ the Mississi River, He e�cplained that anyone building 100� inland from the normal river�s edge would re uire PP1 case on at the q a variance, and they would be taking such a also a Special Use Permitn n the�SHolden said that apparently there was necessary to submit copies of the pplication toathe1rlinnesotaSF�.rlr nmental Quality Commission and wait for thirty days for them to make a recommendation, He said that with the variance procedure� the City had to make the decision a bas s�of £ive criteriaethat�wouldhbe sentdout�toHe added that there rras be£ore the next meeting, and rather than act u the Commission members decision as in most R-1 cases this would POn this request as a final commented that he would like to see a complete founda ionulayout of the requestor�s house. M�'• Baz'na ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Kemper, seconded by Barna, at 8:21 P,M. Upon a voice vote, all Respectflilly suhmitted, S1�11�2rCil %�%.(V/�� /% Sherri 0'Donnell`-' Recording Secretary that the Appeals Commission adjourn voting aye� the motion carried unanimously. 7� -. �, �; � CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION ME&TING - JANUARY 5, 1977 PAGE 1 CALL TO ORDFR: Chairperson Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Harris� Hergmsn� Langen£eld, Peterson, Schnabel (arrived 6:00), Shea Members Absent: None Others Present: Jerrold Boardman, City Planner APPROVE PI.ANNING COMltIS5I0N MINUTES: DI3Cfl�lBFlt 22, 1976 MOTI017 by LangenYeld, seconded by Shea, that the Planning Commission minutes oY December 22, 1976 be approved as written. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: A SPECIAL USfi � Ci�aaavi� u�v.� iu ycanu� a tilm Fli'V(:tl�.5'lil� QI'OF7—OiS 000Ln, per rrialey Section 205.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lots 1- 5, Auditor's Subdivision No. 1$3� Skyvood Mall Shopping Center, the same being 5267 Central Avenue N.E. HOTION by Shea� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Corrnnission open the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP �/76-15, by Pako Photo� Inc. Upon a voice vote� all voting sye� Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing open at 7:1�0. Mr. H. Randolph Toth xas present representing Pako Photo. He explained he �rished to receive approval to construct a drive-in/rralk-up photo finishing drop at Skyxood Mall, and said that the Commission was probably familiar xith what they had at Iiplly Shopping Center. He shoued the Commission photographs and building plans� and stated it was a state-approved �ilding. Mr. Toth said that this drop-off booth xould have more aesthetic value nrith shrubbery and so forth� and vould give a better traffic flov. He added that Mr. Boardman had requested that they put in some landscaping and road pattern dePinition, and they had agreed to do that. He explained that this was a last-mi.nute change and was not on the pictures. He stated that after Planning Commission Meeting - January 5� 1977 Page 2 resesrching the situation they were proposing a spot that should not cause a traffic problem. He explained it was150' from Lee Wards and 80� Yrom the back of the parking lot, Mrs. Shea asked i£ the City intended to put the curbing in, and Mr. Boardman replied no. He said that the reason they xanted some definition of roadwqys was because oP the immense traf£fc prob2em they had in there, and to date the City hadn't had too much luck in changing traf£ic problems with the shopping center owner, Mr. Sheldon Mortenson. Mr. Boardman passed out a sketch of what the City would like to be done there, and showed xhere the concrete curbing would be, Mr. $oardman said there were several alternatives for this request. He stated that in order to get more cooperation for improvements rrithi.n the property� vhich did tend to be hazardous, perhaps no more permits trithin the groperty should be issued until some kind of scheme was developed to upgrade the property and solve some of the traffic problems. He said the other alternative would be to issue this permit and try to get the improve- ments with major building permits. Chairperson Harris asked 3£ that shopping center vas built according to the plans and specifications submitted at the tirrte of construction� snd Mr. Boardman replied it was. He eaplained that at the time of construction there weren't many rules and regulations, end norr the traffic generated by the shopping center was a problem. Mr. Peterson said he thought there was more of a problem on the West side of Central than there was on the Eecst side of Central, and Mr. Boardman said there was a street improvement project that would handle that. He explained there was also a street improvement project for a four-lane road going in and out of the shopping center up to that point that is public property, but beyond that it xas private property. Chairperson Harris asked if Menards xas actually part of that property, and Mr. Boardman replied that Menards was sub-leasing from Spartan Atlantic, but Mr. Mortenson osmed the property itself. Mr. Ber�an ssid he was pretty familiar with this whole area, and the traffic prohlem in and out of Target xas a different type of problem than the shopping center. He stated that the problem with Target was because of volume, but �tu6h Slq�way it was because of lack of controlled traffic. He said there rrere no curbs or anything� attd a lack of organizat�on. Mr. Peterson suggested this was an intra-parki.ng lot problem and was not an inter-street traffic problem. He said he didn't think it xas the city�s function to tell the owner how to handle the traf£ic in his parking lot, vhich is What they were trying to tell him to do if it xas an �ntra-parki.ng lot problem. Mr. Boardman pointed out that the public used it, and the inter- section xas a public intersection. Mr. Peterson said that the problem he saw had nothing to do xith the traffic in the parking lot, but the traffic Planning CoAeaission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 3 in the street. He said that i£ they were talking about traffic that vas on the Fridley streets that xas one thing, butiif they were talking about traffic thst saas on the man�s own personal property� that xas his own business. He stated he got a little upset vith the government telling people hov to run everything� and be£ore they started to blaclanail the business he would like to hear the problem defined. Mr. Hoardman stated that the problem xas the access to that i.ntersection was wide open without control. He said it was just like an access onto a highw�y or road if the whole frontage lot was a driveway, and asked if the mhole thing vas open, hov could access onto a roadWqy be controlled? He added that there had been a lot o£ problems in that intersection, Mr. BBr� said he trould like to ilxlly support Mr. Boardman�s sketch as being a good idea and certainly not overdone in terms of something ta control direction of traffic there. He said he would like to suggest that the users of this general area were F4�idley citizenry and ppublic, and they xere talking about a safety hazard problem, He s�Ated that certainly they were i.n a position to set minicrtum standards in a commercial area when the concern was £or the using public. He added that he had been to the shopping center frequently, and vhen a person rras driving through he had to look in all directions. Mr. Peterson said that then they vould have to go in every parking lot in the City and tell them to put in traffic barriers as the City of Fridley felt it should be done. He said he understood xhat Mr. Bergman was trying to say� but he got tired of the governmeni trying to tell the people everything they had to do. He stated they xere talking about blaclanai.ling the gqy into doing that; they xere denying him the building permit until he did xhat they xanted him to do. Mr. Bergman said just to expand on the general area, there was a problem across the street on the West� also, and during large volume (such as Christmas) there was a mess with the entrance to the gas station, the entrence to gnbers� and the traffic lined up. Mr. Boardman said that the xhole interaection area frora the entrance to Target to 53rd would be channelized and directed. Mr. Langenfeld suggested that the erection oP this building might tend to help direct traffic £low just by its ea�istence, and Mr, Boardman said that was possible. Mr. Langenfeld said he assumed this particular building Would be there for some time since it was going to be placed on a concrete foundation, and Hr. Toth stated they had a five-year lease with a five-year option, He added they would be open 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P,M. Monday through Frid�y� and from �:00 A,M. to 5:30 on Saturdqy� but would have 21�-hour drop-of£ service. Mr. Langenfeld asked if there Taere any nandalism problems in the area, and Mr. Boardman replied he didn�t lmow. Chairperson Harris asked if this proposed building and aurroUnding curbs Pit in with the proposed trafYic pattern the City had Yor the intersection. Mr. Boardman replied yes� the one they had now. He referred to his sketch and said this would be the City�s recommendation as far as solving the problem for the parking area� and explained the proposed drivewqv system. Planning Cormnission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 1� Chairperson Harris asked if there were aqy utilities to this building, and Mr. Toth replied it xould be serviced underground xith electricity. Mr. Toth said he would like to add that because of the uay the lease was worked out, if they followed the plan that Mr. Boardman xas proposing they would be out; Mr, Mortenson wouldn't let them in. He ezplained that Mr. Boardmen's plan put the building right in the middle oF the drivewap+ Mr. Mortenson did have, and showed the Co�nission tirhere he proposed to put the structure. Mr. Boardman said that his proposal had the best flow pattern for the parking lot, and exglained the differences on the sketches. Mr. Boardman said his plan did not £it in xith the eaisting parking as it was laid out. Mr. Boardman said he thought the real problem Kas if a Special Use Permit was approved on the Pako, concrete curbing would be put in and then there would be a problem vith changing the traffic flo�r at a later date. He said they xere trying to improve the looks of the property as well as trying to eliminate some oF the traffic `hazards coming out of the property. Mr. Peterson asked xhere that direction came fxrom, and who decided what looked better. Mr. Boardman replied that the direction came from City Administration and also from the zon3ng codes. He said they Kere attempting to upgrade the City through beauti£ication programs, and were working with all o£ the major shopping centers, such as Shorexood, He added that the City Council approved the landscape plan £or Shoresrood. He said there vas direction, it was not a hit and miss type of operation. Mr. Boardman added thst they had also talked to Target and they xould be putting in parking lot improvements� Holiday had done improvements and �b Warehouse would be doing improvements. Mr, Bergman said that from a Coimnunity Development point of vie�, they supported what xas being described, rrithin reason, and he didn�t imox who would be doing this if not City Administration. Mr. 7.angenfeld said he could see 3taff's stendpoint as far as sesthetics Kere concerned, but he felt there already existed an unfavorable situation and it would be placing a hardship on this petitioner to try to correct this nnfavorable situation. Mr, Boardmen said that all they xere s�ying was that if they approved the Special Use Permit on this property, they should be careful not to eaiablish a pattern that they might not want to see esLablished. Chairperson Harris said that as far as parking lots and establishi.ng patterns vent, he felt the City Council had already established a pattern on extra curricular uses of parking lmts (i.&., Holida,y trailer sales). He asked if there vas an agreement with Mr. Mortenson or the Lee Wards Company £or toilet facilities, end Mr, Toth replied that there xere public restroom facilities within the shoppittg center, Hr. Harris asked how £ar avay they were from the Pako establishment, and Mr. Toth answered that the structure vas 150� £rom the building and the £acilities were justddovn the hall. Mr. Harris said that OSHA required the facilities to be xithin 200�, and Mr. Toth replied they were not 5rithin that and added they would then have to go to outside sources (such as the Ground Round) to pick up the facilities. Mrs. Schnabel asked hox this particular spot was determined, and Mr. Toth ssid he had requested an area close to that because it was one of the areas where there was least amount of parking but with good visability of the building. Mrs. Schnabel asked if Mr. Toth xould object to leasing property Planning Coirmission Meeting - January 5� 1977 Page 5 on the South end oP the parking lot area toxards the miniature golf and the bank� and he replied that they operated off exposure, He explained that they needed 1t0 - 60 cars a day to be successful; 20 - 30 to drop off film and 20 - 30 to pick up film� and if they were on the far end he didn't think they could pick that up. Mrs. Schnabel asked if he had tried to lease any area from Mendards, and Mr. Toth explained that property was also os+nedbby Mr. Mortenson, but he hadn�t asked for anything there. Mrs. Schnabel stated that her greatest concern Was the traffic Plox coming out o£ Menards, which didn't stop for the stop sign. She said she felt it would be unfair to this petitioner to necessarily base his approval on the City's attempt to clean up that egress out o£ that area. Chairperson Harris asked Hr. Boardman i£ they xould still be able to vork out some sort of a driving arrangement similar to xhat he had suggested if theq went ahead tirith the original proposal since it xould just mesn there xould be parking stalls to the West of the photo building. 24r. Boaxdman said yes� it rras just his attempt to try to start a direction in the traffic pattern Plow. Mr. Toth said that the curbing suggested by the City along xith the land- scaping and trees xould be an additional expense to Pako Photo of at least $��000. He said that may not be a lot of money to some people, but it xas to Pako as they were just starting out in this business. Mr. Langen£eld asked xhat rorould happen to the cement slab if the tra£Yic flow was such that the business vas no longer prosperous and they pulled out� and Mr. Toth replied that if for some reason they couldn�t make it, they would remove everything and put it back in the original condition. Mr. Peterson said that if they were truly tirorking to make an impaoveraent in the traffic pattern, which m�y or m�y not come� why not allox the petitioner to put in the type of bu3lding that he originally proposed without the curb and other things and then if they wanted him to move it in three years he could. Mr. Toth said that once the building ras down, it vould be permanent, but he felt it mqy act as a traf£ic control. Mr. Bergman stated that as he vietired the txo plans, i£ the 8ity�s proposal vas adjusted to alloa nose-in parking� then the two plans became the same. Afr. Boardman said that was correct, t�rith the exception of the wi.der driving aisle. Hra. Schnabel asked if Mr. Boardman could recall the traffic count figures for that corner, and he replied he thought it was something like 19,�0 on 53rd� the tra£fic on Central was around 27,000 and about 50,000 on the inter- state. Mrs. Schnabel said that was a lot oP traffic at that intersection. Chairperaon Harris conunented that he thoaght the City had some easements in there� and Mr, Boardman said there vere no road easements� only pipeline. He said the road easements were only to the service drive, and the rest was private property. Mr. Harris said they vere not going to get Mr. Mortenson to do anything as the center sras built fi£teen years ago and nothing had been done yet. He stated that the City might as xell sit down and design an intersection that was needed and condemn the land and take it and assess Plenning Coaanis�ion Meeting - Jenuary 5, 1977 Page 6 it back to the appropriate property owners. Atr, Peterson said he had a real problem with holding a hemmer over somebody�s head when they vere tryi.ng to do business in the community, but the xay Mr. Harris had just described would be going throngh legsl procedures the way government should hsndle it. Mr. Langenfeld stated he had been 2ooking at the plans and noted they mere goi.ng to use concrete for the base� and asked if this would be a concrete slab. Mr, Toth said it was a form that went down. He explained they had three slab proposals depending on the land, and the least expensive xas the floating slab, but they went with whatever the engineers said they had to use. He said it was a permanent slab poured on site. Mr. Langenfeld asked if the hardship xould be an additioasl $1,�00 on top of this, and Mr. Toth said that xas correct--well over $1�000, MOTION by Bergman� seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on Special Use Permit Request SP #76-15, by Pako Phota, Ine. Upon a vo3ce vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Harris declared the Public Hearing closed at B:l�3 P.M. Mr, Bergman said he appreciated the view City Admin3stration took with the parking problems, and so forth. Ne said that secondly, he thoughi they were probably overburdening the petitioner with general area prob�ems, and thirdZy, he thought that in really getting dos�rn to it the only conFlict between the ' City�s traffic pattern viex and the requestor's proposal was if there was parki.ng against the curb, He stai.d that with those considerations in mind, he would 2ike to make a motion. MOTTON by Bergman, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commi.ssion recormnend to the City Council approval of the request for a Special Use Permit, SP ;�76-15, by Pako Photo, Inc., to permit a film processing drop-off booth, per Fridley City Code, Section 205.101, 3, (I), to be located on Lots 1- 5, Auditor�s Subdivision No 153' Skywood Mall Shopping Center, the same being 5267 Central Avenue N.E., re£erencing the prints and related doczunents receiaed in this meeting (marked es "F�hibit A"), Mr. Peterson sai.d that he wonld like to c2arify to the petitioner LhaL the motion vas to give him the location that he su}unitted, not the City's proposed location, but he xas to put in the curbing and shrubbery per tke City�s requeat. Chairperson Harris asked Mr, Toth if he rrould take care of the business coneerming the reatrooms� and he replied he wauld get signed documents. Mr. Boardman commented that Was a requirement before the building permit was issued. Mr. Bergman AMENDED the MOTION to include the Fol2owd�ng stipulations: 1. Gtzrb and landscape as agreed to and proposed by administr�tion. 2. Adequate arrangements for washroom faciZities to meet code. Agreeable to seconder. Plazming Cormnission Meeting - Jaauary 5, 1977 Page 8 what a17. of the concerned codes were, and he didn�t think he was alone in that. He said there vere many codes addreasing themselves to utilities� and only one was be3ng referenced--HUD. Hr, Boardman stated that most of them were based on the Uniform Building Code which had been adopted by the State. Mr. Bergman said that concerned itself with nerr construction onZy and not maintenance, and Mr. Boardman said thai was why they had pulled out the HUD minimum property standards� the fire code and OSHA--because they dealt with maintenance of those items. pfter some further discussion, Mr. Bergman asked if Mr. Boardman vas suggesting that this thome had been researched and xith regard to straight maintenance HUD was the only applicable code and the others he had mentfoned xere not, and Mr. Boardman said that was basically correct, Mr. Bergman said it Was pertinent and very notable that, as proposed, the Fridley code xas less stringent in some cases and in some cases more stri.ngent, and he would assume there were some logical reasons for this. Mr, Boardman sai.d he would have to do more research on it. Mr. Langgai6eld said he felt the handout was to be used as a comparison to see which code was tougher. Chairperson Harris commented that he xould like to take it home and study it, MOTION by Shea, seconded by Langenfeld, to continue the proposed ?Saintenance Code unti2 the next meet3ng. Upon a voice vote, all voting sye, the motion carried unanimously. 3. CONTINUF�: IIUMAN D&VSLOPMSNT GOALS & OBJECTIVES: MOTION by Langenfeld� seconded by Peterson� that the Planning Coimnission receive GoalsStatements Dli00� D50�� S100� S200, 5300 and S400. Upon a voice vote� all voting �ve, the motion carried unanimously. Mr, Langenfeld asked if this xould be put into booklet form when it was completed, and Mr. Boardman said they vould be receiving a booklet. Mr. Boardman explai,ned that in the Human Develojxnent Goals and Objectives, D1�00 dealt mainly with provi.di.ng essential human serrices to the co�nunity such as day care, information and referral services� and that type of thing. He said that D500 dealt mainly �rith effective human understandi.ng of youth� elderly, minorities and lifestyle dif£erences. Mr. Boardman said that as far as the Security Goa1 areas xere concgened, he had broken them down into four areas: justice, personal health� environmental health (all phases of environment)� and fire and other disasters. Mr. Langenfeld stated he would like time to study and revieW this. N�TION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission continue the Human Development Goals and Objectives until the next meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting �ye, the motion carried unanimously. Planning Comonission Meeting - January 5, 1977 Page 9 11. R.ECEIVE APPEALS COI�ffsSION MINUTFS: DECIIHHSR 28, 1976 t�TION by Schnabel, seconded by 7,angenfeld, that the Planning Cocmnission receive the Appeals Coimaission minutes of December 28, 1976. Mr. Larzgenfeld noted that t,he Appeals Co�mnission reslly got going on financial hardship. Mrs. Schnabel said that she had talked to the City Attorney and he was going to give her txo opinions; one on the question of xhether or not the claim of devaluation o£ an adjacent property is a valid claim in variances� and the other xas a definition of economic feasibility and if there xas a relationship between economic £easibility and economic haxdship. Mr. Langenfeld asked if it xasn't economic hardship Khich started all this� and Mrs. Schnabel said there was an opinion at one time that economic hardship was not a valid excuse for approval of a variance. She stated that in the memorandum issued by the City Attorney� he did talk about economic feasibility and it ca� under a Minnesota Supreme Court decision� and the Appeals Commission xanted to lmow wh�t the interpretation of economic feasibility was. She added that she could see that £easibility could be a totally different ball game than hardship. , UPDA` A VOICfi YOTE� all voting sye� the motion esrried unanimously. 5, RECEIVE ENpIl?OPII�fENTAL QU6LITY COM2�fISSION MINUTES: DECII�fBER 21, 1976 MOTION by Langenfeld, seconded by Peterson, that the Planning Commission receive the Fhvironmental Quality Coimnission minutes oY December 21, 1976. Mr. Langenfeld stated that the City Council approved sponsorship of the Fridley Ehvironmental Quality Commission in regard to the 208 Water Manage- ment Program. He said that Metro Council xould be conducting this meeting, and it yrould take place at 7:30 P.M, on January 18 in the City Hall Community Eoom. He said the general topics vould be Water and Water Treatment, Management and Financing of Water Waste Programs, and discussions on Pollution. Pfr. Langenfeld said he woul.d like to indicate that the topics xere regional and the entire metro area could be affected� so therefore they couldn't refer specifically to Moore Lake or Rice Creek� but they Would be indirectly affected. Ae urged all the members of the Commission to attend if possible� and added that the League of Women Voters would take care o£ the publicity. l�fr. Langenfeld brought the Co�nissioners' attention to the second paragraph on page j of their minutes, and noted that their involnement �as very £orth- coming in regard to the Land Planning Act. He said this rrould inwlve a lot of changes r+ith regard to state planning of parks and open spaces, etc. Chairperson Harris commented that he had attended that meeting concerning the Land Planning Act, and it xas a real can of srorms, Chairperson Harris asked i£ there xould be a recommendation coming forth on the Mineral FSctraction Ordinence, and Mr. Langenfeld said there would be. He said he thought this Co�mnission would find the ordinance Trould prove to be more enforceable than the presen�t one. � �. � Planning Commission Meeting - January 5� 197? Page 10 Mr, Bergman noted that the Hhvizronmental Commission xas still getting concern regarding the East River Road Project. He said his recollection Was that this body never did make a recoimnendation to City Council� but sent the proposal to Community Development� Human Resources and Parks & Recreation for review and response. He said the subcommi.ssions responded� but he didn�t recall xhat became of it after that. Mr. Boardman said the Planning Co�nission sent it on to City Council without a recommendation on the moratorium and suggested that a transportation plan be made for that portion of East River Road. He said he would research this to see what happened to it and put together a status report on it. UPON A VOICE VOTE� all voting sye� the motion carried unanimously. 6, OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Langenfeld said that he had attended the City Council meeting last Mond�y night and got the impression that they didn�t read the Planning Commiseion minutes. He read from the City Couneil minutes concerning the Human Resources Commission's request regarding °babies" and "Annies" for the C.P.R. Program� and said that xhen the City Council took this up they appeared unsure as to xhat the Planning Coimnission recoimnended, Mrs. Shea wondered i£ Council ignored the Pact that the Fire Department had an "Annie" and a"baby" of their own. Chairperson Harris said he didn�t think they should let the ball drop on this� and asked Mr. Boardmen to request the Fire Department to give them a report on this. Mr. I.angenfeld said they were talking in terms of proper education in saving lives and rere not vasteilil7,y spending ta�cpayer�s money. Mrs. Shea said it had been brought up at the the last Planning Co�nission meeting that this xould come out of Human Resource�s budget. Mr. Langenfeld said he would like to indicate that perhaps the Planning Comnission should be more specific in what their intentions were. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Peterson, seconded by Langenfeld, that the meeting be adjourned. Upon a voice vote� a21 voting aye, Chai.rperson Harris declared the Planning Con¢ni.ssion meeting of Jenuary 5, 1977 adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Respectitilly submitted, �//�nrii /l Y�r//f-i�� Sherri 0'Donnell Recording Secretary � R �° � S � . FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1976 MEMBERS PRESENT: James Langenfeld, Bruce Peterson, Brother Thomas Sullivan, Mike Paripovich MEMBERS ABSENT: Lee Ann Sporre OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Leek, Planning Aide CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Langenfeld called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. d APPROVE NOVEMSER 16, 1976, FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL CONAfISSION MEETING MINi1TE5: Mr. Langenfe2d indicated that the following corrections should be made: Page 7, paragraph 1, third sentence, the word "statement" should be omitted. Page 7, paragraph 6, the last sentence should read, "Mr. Langenfeld said we have a Scenic River Corridor, and now we want a Scenic road." Page 9, paragraph 1, the last sentence should read, "Mr. Langenfeld said he has always felt that environment and industry can work harmoniously.'! MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Brother Sullivan, that the November 16, 1976, Fridley Environmental Commission meeting minutes be approved as corrected. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTINUED: LANA ALTERATION ORDINANCE; Mr. Langenfeld read part of the Planning Commission minutes of December 8, 1976, which taiks about the Land Alteration Ordinance. Mr. Leek stated that what Staff did was to sit down with Fridley`s current ordinance, as the Co�ission had directed them, and the model ordinance. Originally, the Commission had directed Staff to incorporate Section VI of the model ordinance into Fridley's own code; but they found it was easier, and perhaps more beneficial, to essentially adopt the model ordinance with a few changes. He indicated these changes are on Page 53 under VII "Standards" of the model ordinance. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSION MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1976 YAGE 2 Mr. Leek said their primary rationale for going mostly with the model ordinance was because there are some areas in which Fridle;�'s ordinance is lacking. One is the area.,of definitions. Secondly, it is laid out very poorly. Thirdly, the "Standards" are very difficult to read and not as extensive as could be desired. In addiCion to this, they found that another section of the model ordinance, the "Rehabilitation Standards", were very helpful. These are almost totally lacking in the Fridley ordinance. Mr. Peterson asked if ehe "Application for Land AlterationJ Mining Permit" would be changed. Mr. Leek stated that, as he foresees it, the "Application" will have to be changed and that it will have Co be more extensive. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Leek if they were going to increase the fees. Mr. Leek said they didn't taYk about it, but the Commission might want to make a sugge$tion regarding the fees. Mr. Lang�nfeld stated the fee should be reasonable and not discriminatory. Mr. Langenfeld stated that, as far as he is concexned, what Mr. Leek has presented to the Commission is exactly what the Commission asked for, referring to page 3 of the p're_�iaus meeting's minutes. Mr. Peterson stated that the Commission should see this model ordinance again after it .is in a typed form as there wi11 be other changes in language, etc. Mr. Langen�eld stated the Commission might want to consider changing the title from "Miner�l Extraction Ordinance" to "Mining Ordinance". MOTiON by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to send the rough draft of the model ordinance back to Staff for final rewrite with no changes recoaunended other than adjusting the fee upwards to cover administrative costs and the possible changing'of Che title to "Mining Ordinance". The Commission feels it is important thaC they review the final draft of both the ordinance and the "Application for Fermit" before the ordinance goes to the Planning Commission. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. CONTLNUED: DISCUSSION ON EIdVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROGRAM: Mr. Langenfeld stated that Dr. Dan Auff could not make it to this meeting and hopes to be able to attend Yhe next Co�ission meeting. MOTION by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Brother Sullivan, to receive the "Wood Lake Nature Center" material. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER Z1 1976 PAGE 3 Mr. Paripovich stated he finds it interesting to see what other cities in the same metropoLitan area are doing about an environmental education program and then to think about what Fridley is doing. There are a Eew people who are trying desperately tn really.get going on it and he thinks these people can do a good job, but there are some real definite inhibiting factors in the City and in some of the City's sub- coimnissions. He said he was impressed to see that in the Parks & Recreation Commission's minutes, Ms. Jan Seeger had recommended that an expert be brought in to enlighten the Parks & Recreation Commission about the development oY parkways, the advantages and disadvantages of having parkways, what a parkway can do for businesses, what it does, for neighborhoods, and what it does for the community, She did her homework; she called people and really researched it, but her suggestion fell flat. Mr. Paripovich stated he is critical of the treatment that is'being given an important environmental feature of the city and that is our park system. He stated that since this is going to be an agenda i[em at the next meeting, he thinks it is important that the Commission members, if they find the time, do a 1ittle investigating as to what the Parks & Recreation Commission has done in terms o£ their allocation of energy and money toward athletics versus the park system. Mr. Leek stated that there is a Land Planning Act that was passed this year. Essentially, what it says is that every community in a region has to abide by the development guide- lines of their region; in Fridley's case, Metro-Council. Metro-Council is going to be issuing some system statements regarding, in addition to other things, "Parks and Open 3pace", the emphasis being on the "And" rather than just "Parks" or just "Open Space" It has to be in combination, He s�id he has been working on a"Parks and Open Space Plac�'for the past few months. The work has been halted now because they have to wait until they get information from the State Planning Agency and Metro-Council regarding what constitutes conformance to their development guidelines, But, that plan is going to be conducted at the saue ti�r�e and in cooperation with the Critical Areas Plan for the City of Fridley; so that policy plan and the implementation that comes out of it is of necessity going to have more of an environmental orientation than it ever would haue in the past. It is a way of saying that the Parks & Recreation Commission is no longer going to be able to work as an athletic co�ission. It also means that every city or every unit of government that prepares a plan has to exchange that plan with adjacent units of government which means that, not only wi11 the City be doing nicer things both environmentally and recreationally, but it is going to have to do those things in accordance with its neighbors so the system is complete. Mr. Paripovich stated that was very interesting and very encouraging news. MOTION by Brother Sullivan, seconded by Mike Paripovich, that the discussion on Environmental Education Program be tabled until the next meeting. tJpon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. EAST RIVER ROAD PRQIECT COI�ffTTEE REPORT: Mr. Paripovich stated that right now the East River Road Project Committee has presented their Uest ideas to the County. Now, they want the County to come back to them with the County's ideas. To date, they have heard nothing back from the County. Mr. Paripovich stated that, as the Commission knows, the City Council passed a resolution asking the County to go atter a speed.limit study. Mr. Paripovich 9 � FRiDLEY ENVIRONMCNTAL COMMISSION MEETING DECEMBER 21, 1976 PAGE 4 said he has been in touch with the Minnesota Department of Transporeation and they have noe yet been contacted hg the County. However, they know a request will be coming. Mr. Paripovich stated he is aware that Mr. Dick Sobiech wrote a letter to the County for Nasim Qureshi dated November 17, 1976, and he received a reply from A1 Kordiak on behalf of the County Board. Mr. Paripovich read this letter to the Comrnission. Mr. Kordiak stated in his letter that relative to the proposed improvement project on East River Road, he has been following very closely the developments of this ,project, Mr. Kordiak said, as he understands Che coriditions outlined by the Fridley City Council for proceeding with the project, the reduction o£ the present severe noise problem must be accomplished. Mr. Kordiak said, in discussing this matter with the County Highway Department, they raise serious questions as to whether this is possible. Further, with the very limited right-of-way available, the Anoka County Highway Department has not incorporated into their plan the extensive type of land- scaping that he knows the residents would like to have and that the City Council has requested. Mr. Kordiak said he asked the County Highway Departrnent to look into it and 'gave assurance that a solution is possible. He says the Highway Department has doubts, but they will be reporting back to Mr. Sobiech and the citizen`s committee. (Mr. Paripovich stated he has not heard from them yet.) Mr. Kordiak stated he recognizes the numerous problems related to East River Road traffic, a11 of which have been pretty well identified by City Council and City Staff. Mr. Kordiak said he has indicated to a number of people that he undoubtedly would not support the improve�nent project unless it was first recommended by the Fridle;= City Council. Mr. Kordiak said, unless the problems that were properiy identified in your Engineer's letter can be solved, l�e presumes you will withhold your support for any further work and he caould concur with that action. He said that the letter is still just in development form and there are no firm plans yeC, but he will keep us posted. At the last East River Road Project Coa�ittee meeting, Mr. Paripovich stated there was a resolution passed unanimously that the City Staff be asked to reconsider . designing part of the bikeway on East River Road to hook up with Coon Rapids in the North and to run to Georgetown in the South. Someone found out that Coon Rapids does not have the same fears as Fridley and they don't find it so impossible for a bikeway system. They are optimistic and they look at East River Road as a valuable asset, and they are doing what they can to make it part of the E�st River Road environment. They are putting Uike paths on Bast River Road. Mr. Paripovich stated he doesn't have the specific drawings of the Coon Ragids' system; but he has been in touch with Mr. A1 Hamel, a Coon Rapids'Planner. Mr. Hame7 stated that they were going to run their bike path down to Fridley's and hook up, then Fridley took theirs off. Mr. Hamel said Coon Rapids would be very interested in hooking up with Fridley, Mr. Paripovich stated he would write a letter to Mr. Qureshi explaining the Project Co�ittee's motion. Mr, Paripovich stated the Project Coa�ittee is doing some research on the number oE accidents children have been involved in in the last few years. FRIDLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETZNG DECEMBER 21, 1976 PAGE 5 Mr. Paripovich stated he thinks there is a lack of good understanding of the data the Project Committee has presented. He said, though, that he was very impressed by the Community Development Commission minutes regarding the East River Road project and the homework that Mr. Bergman had done. He thinks everyone is too concerned about the two lanes; that seems to be the primary bone of contention. He said he was extremely disappointed by the Parks & Recreation Conanission's minutes regarding the �ast River Road project. Mr. Langenfeld asked Mr. Leek to locate the "Goals and Objectives" regarding the East River Road project. Mr. Langenf2ld said he would.like these goals and objectives re-entered and sent out to all the commissions for their reviewal with the project. Mr. Langenfeld stated it is not the intention of this Commission to go into open warfare with another commission; it is just a total lack of understanding. When commissions make recommendations, such as was done for the East River Road project, Mr. Langenfeld said he would like the commissions to give their reasons. Mr. Paripovich stated that right now the ProjecC Co�ittee is concentrating on doing'some educating of the rest of the people in Fridley so they can better undez- stand the project. MOTION by Brother Sullivan, seconded by Bruce Peterson, to receive the East River Road Project Committee report. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. .. ,� OTHER BUSINESS: . . Mr. Langenfeld stated he has been asked by Ms. Nicki Larson of the League of Women Voters if the Fridley Environmental Commission would like.to sponsor the January 18, 1977, �'208 Water Quality Management Planning" session. The Commission members would only attend; they would have nothing to do as far as discussion. He felt it was very important Eor the Commission to do this. He asked Mr. Leek to find out if the Commission is restricted from sponsoring such a thing under the ordinance. He said Ms. Larson had also asked that if there was anyone in the Commission who would be interested in helping with the publicity to let her know. MOTION by Mike Paripovich, seconded by Bruce Peterson, that the Fridley Environmental Co�ission sponsor the public discussion on "208 Water Quality Management Planning" with the League of Women'Voters on January 18, 1977, provided the Coumiission is not enjoined from doing so by the ordinance cahich set it up. Mr. Leek is requested to check into this and get back to Mr. Langenfeld within a day or so. Upon a voice vote, al1 voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr, Langenfeld stated that if the Commission is not able to sponsor the session, he felt it was important that the Co�ission members a[tend. Since January 18th is the Co�nission's next meeting date, January 25, 1977, was set as an alternate meeting date. ADJOURNMENT: MOTIOR by Bruce Peterson, seconded by Mike Paripovich, to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m: Upoii a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Respectfully sub�tted, C Lyni Saba Recording Secretary � � . 1 r ORDINANCE NO�. au9 CHAPIEN 212 AN ORDItVANCE ADOPTIMf, f,HF.DTER 212 �NTITIED MINING, AND REP:'ti'tNG PR[OR CNAPTER 212 ENTI7LED MINING SAt+O �.taG GRA�CL The City Council of the Gity of Fridley does ordain as fol;r,.;;: SECTION 21Z.U1 FINDItiG Al1D FURPDSE The Ciiy of Pridley reco�nizes that surface mining exists ' that this mining can ba an aid to the prep�ration of development sites. Th �ty further finds that it is not practicable to mine minerais required by so.?-�y witho�t dis- turbing the surface of tne earth and producing waste mater , The danger exists that noncompatibie land uses could unnecessarily de :� che benefit Of these materials to society in the future. It is further f i that the char- acter of mining may create undesirable land and water con_�.ions which can be detrimental to the heaTth, safety and welfare and property :hts of the ci*_i- zens of the Ctty of Frid;ey. However> tif properly re9u]at.- and if r2clamation of serface mined lands is required, mining can take place -�in the City in such a manner that undesirable side effects of the operati :� iay be restricted to an acceptab7e leve). The purposa of this ordinance are: To provide for the eco-osical availability of sand, gravel, rock, soil and other materials. To estabiish uniform and reasonable limitations, safeguard= e:id controls in the City, for the future mining of said materials. To control the effect of the mining operation upon adjacen�. ;;roperty and other areas of the City. To provide for the restoration of the mining operation and r,;+,ing area during and after termination of the removal operation. 7o controt and minimize pollution caused 6y erosion or sed-:-�ntation, all in furtherance of the health, safety and general welfare of t-_itizens of Fridley, Minnesota. SECTION 212.02 RELATIONSNIP TO ZONING ORDINANCE This ordinance shall apply to areas within the City of Fric:'._r in which the removal of minerals including sand and gravel is a permitt �r special use. The standards and requirements set by this ordinance shall �,vern the issuance, renewal-and tervnination of the mining permit• SECTION Z12.03 DEFINITIONS l. Dust - Air-borne inorganic particulate matter other th��;, �moke. 2. Mining Permit - The permit reyuired by this ordinance. 3. Minerals - Nonmetallic material found in the earth inc'��ing, but not ]imited to sand, gravel, rock and soil, which may be covered by over- burden. 4. Mining - The removal or extraction and processing of m�ee�als. 5. Overburden - Those materials which lie between the sur'ace of the earth and"the mineral deposit to be mined. 6.; Reha6ilitation - To renew land to a self-sustaining, lc�,g term use which is compatible with contiguous land uses in accordance t;itn the standards set forth in this ordinance. 7. Tapsoil - That portion of the overburden which lies cl��st to the earth's surface and supDOrts the growth of vegetation. SEC710N 212.04 MININ6 PERMIT Except as hereinafter provided in this ordinance, it shall b: unlawful for any operator to engage in mining without having first a written E;ermit from the Gity of fridley authorizing the same. SECTION 212.05 67(CEPTIONS The permit requirements established by this ordinance shall ��t apply to: 1. Emergency work necessary to preserve hmnan life or pro;-:r",y. Emergency work performed under this section shall be reported to t;��r City of Fridley ORDIN{4NCE N0. 649 Page Two � at the earliest practical opportunity. An operator comnencing emergency �+ work shall iaithin 10 �a�, toll�wrrig the co�umence�aent of that activity, apply for the issuance of a mininy permit and on the issuance therof may be required to perfurm such work as determined to be reasonabiy nec- essary to correct any e,nvieonmental impairmen: occasioned by such work. 2. Mining done in conjunction with a building perrnit or other permit required by tne City. 3. Operators not conducting operations governed by this ordinance and for which this ordinance reauires a permit, shall be notified withio 15 days of the adoption of tbis oi�dinance that tbey are required to make applica- tion for a permit. Upor. notification, operators shall have 60 days in which to complete permit applications. Failure to apply for a permit within 60 days shail be a violation of this ordinance. SfCTION 212.06 FPPLICATIOh! FOR AfrD PROCESSiNG �F PERMIT 1. An application for a mining permit shail contain: (a) The nar,ie and address of the operator and owner of the land. (b) The correct legal description of the property where the extraction is proposed to occur. (c) Specifications of the following using appropriate maps, photo9raphs and surveys: i. the physical relationship of the proposed mining area to the community and existing cormnunity development. ii. 5ite topography and natural features including location of water courses and water bodies within the planned mining area. iii. the quality and quantity af minerals to be excavated. iv. the depth of water tables throughout the planned mining area. v. the average thickness of overburden in the area. (d) The purpose pf the operation. (e) The estimated time required to complete the operation. (f) The plan of operation, including processing (any operation other than direct mining a�d removal), nature of the processing and equipment, location of the plant, source of water, disposal of water, and reuse of water. (g) Travel routes to and from the site. (h) The plans fior drainage, wind and water erosion control, sedi- mentation and dust control. 2. Referral to Plannin9 Commission (a) The Pianning Con�rission sha]1 hold a public hearing on the application within sixty (60) days and shall provide pu67ished notice of said hearing at least 10 days hefore the hearing together with mailed notice to all property owners within 200 feet of the property affected. Failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bonafide attenipt to comply with the mailed notice requirea�ent has been made. � . ° �, ' ORDINANCE N0. 5'�`� Page Three (6j The appiicant and/or his renresentatiw hall appear before the Planning Commission in order to answer ::o stions concerning the minin9 permit a?plication. The Plannir "ommission shali report its findings to the Council indicating _< recomnendatinn as to approval or denial and specifyino what, ir any, conditions a�e necessary regarding the mining permit. 3. Council Action (a) Upon receiving the recommendations of �...: Planning Coranission the City Council must take action within s' .:� (60) days and may affirm or deny the application by a simple ma; ty vo�e. 4. Issuance (a) The issuance of any F?ining Permit is dr;-,:�dent on the fact that the activities permitted will not be danger-,�s or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the v inity thereof, or to the public welfare, and wi11 not impair th� r. e, enjoyment, or value of any praperty. (b) The issuance of any Mining Permit may aisn be subject to cenditions in order to protect the public health, >�.:ety, convenience and wel- fare, or to avoid traffic congestion, cr hazard, or other dangers, or to promote conformity of a proposed u�^ with the character of the adjoining property and uses, and the dic,rict as a whole, or to pro- tect such character. SECTION 272.07 STA�IDARDS 1. Operation shall be conducted within the cor-`nes of the prooerty. 2. Operation shall not be conducted within: (a) Five feet of the right-of-way of an exic±?ng public utility. (b) Fifty feet of the boundary of any zone �-�r�ere such operations are not permitted. (c) Thirty feet of the boundary of an adjo�.eing property not in mining use. 3. Fencing - During operations, access to any araa where collections of water are one and one-half feet in depth or more ur where excavation slopes are steeper than one foot vertical to one and or,e-half feet horizontal and any other areas where obvious danger to the puhlic exists shall be controlled by a four foot tall fence. Set standard for fencing with support posts spaced every 70'. 4. Appearance and Screening: (a) Machinery shall be kept operational. (b) Abandoned machinery and rubbish shall be removed from the site regularly. (cJ All structures that have not been used T^�• a period of one year shall be removed from the site. (d) All equipment and temnorarY siructures _�17 be removed and dismantled not tater thatt six «+onths after termination of mining operatian or expiration of this permit. (e) Where practical, stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used to screen the mining site. (f) llhere practical, the perimeter of the ;ising site shall be planted or otherwise screened. (g) Existing tree and ground cover shall b. � eserved to the extent feasible, maintained and supplemented hy selecti ^:utting, transplantin4 and re- ._ nTantinn nf trnac_ chr�uh<_ and nthn� n-'��d COYPP d�n110 d�� SPiE!2Ci' lYPdS : oR�trtFricE roo. � �� 5. Operating Standards: Page Four (a} tloise--the snaximum noise level at the ner >:ter of the srte shall 6e within the limits set by the M�r,,.; ,ota Pollution Control Agency and the Environmental Pro_a�`ion Agency of the United States. (b) Hours--all mining operations shall be co .::.:ted bet�Meen 7 a.r+. and 7 p.m. �onday through Saturday only. (c) Explosives--the use and handling of expl es shall be co- ordinated with the pulice department. B ing shall occur only at hours specified in the permit an, z:* no other time. (d) Dust--operators shall utilize a71 practi:::l means to reduce the amount of dust caused by the operatic:. In no case shall the amount of dust or other particulate i.+.+_er exceed the standards established by the Minnesota P,;i!-tion Control Agency. (e} Water Pollution--operators shall comply i�:'; all applica6le Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regui.: '.:ns and Federal and Environmental Protection Agency regu;:..'ons for the protection of water quality. No waste p: r::cts or process residue, including untreated wash water, a,;:17 be deposited in any lake> stream or natural drainage >::,em, except those lakes or ponds wholly contained within tl..: :xtraction site may be so utilized. (f} Topsorl Preservatio�--a11 toosoil shall !,: etained at the site until complete refiabilitation of th� ite has taken place according to the rehabilitation plr.�.. 6. Rehabilitation Standards: (a) Rehabilitation shall be continuing opera `--: occurring as quickly as possible after the mining oper ;.on has moved sufficiently into another part of the ex*_ ::ction site. (6} Slopes--aYl banks and slopes shall be le�'. 'n accordance with the rehabilitation plan submitted w`.h the permit application. :lo rehabilitated slopes 5h< i be steeper than four feet horizontal to one foot verticai, except that steeper slopes may 6e perrnitted in accordance wi'�,� .he rehabilitation plan when said slopes are planned for slc„e related usages, for example, ski hills and sliding hills. (c) Cover and Planting--slopes, nrated, and t::cl,filled areas shall be surfaced with at least three inches o_„osoil and planted with ground cover sufficient to hold the s„,1. Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until �e is self-sustained. (d) Slopes to Water Bodies--no slope descendi,;; to a water body shall exceed one foot vertical to four fect horizontal. (e} Water bodies--all water areas resulting t; excavation shall be rehabilitated as follo�^<s: i. all standing water bodies, except thos� approved for storm water retention, �iill be fillec'. �=lth acceptable fill materiel by the end of each const�uction season. ii. any water body to be used for storm a�at^r retention must be approved by the Engineering Lc.t:<<rtment. (f) Final Elevation--no part of the rehabilit<�tcd area which is olanned for utilizatian for uses otf�er than open .e or agriculture shall 6e at an elevation lmaer than the minimuc.�._.�uired for gravity con- nection to sanitary and storm sewer. ., � � � � ORDINANCE N0, e+�g Page Five SECT10^I 212.08 FEES 5 [i�!1D 1. The annual permit Fao and expiration date shr''. be as provided by Chapter 17 of this Code. 2. Post a surety bond acceptable to the City or : certified check in an equivalent ar.rount for the sum of 31,�DD c acre or fraction thereof for the land to be subjected to the �;ng operation run- ning to Fridley to secure satisfactory perfe _nce of the require- ments set forth in this ordinance. SECTIO�Y 272.99 VALIDITY ihe valid9ty of any Mmrd, section, clause, paragrap�. �entence, part or provision of this ordinance shall not effect the validity of ..; other part of this or- dinance which can be given affect without such inva �: part or parts. SECTIOPI 212.10 EFFECTIYE DATE ihis ordinance shall take affect upon adoption by t�.= City Council of Fridley, :linnesota. SECTION 212.11 REPEAL Chapter 212 of the Fridley City Code as it existed .:^:or to the adoption of this Ordinance is here6y repealed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY �i:S 16th DAY OF ATTEST: 1977. BRUNSFLL - CITY CLERK �ading: wa� a. in» aading: nfay 1�, 1577 ,.... Idav 25. 1977 WILLIAM J. NE` MAYOR CRDINIINCF P70. b50 AN ORDINANCE TQ AMEfdD CHFPTER 11 OF THE CITY CQDE OF TNE CITY OP FRIDLEY : ' � SEC7IDN 17,7(�r� The City Council of the City of fridley does ordain as follows: The Council of the City of Fridley hereby amends Chapter 11 of the City Code of the City of Fridley, Anoka County, Minnesota by chan,ing, deleting and adding certain license fees. Section 11.70 Fees_ License and permit fees shall be as follows: ' Code N Subject Fee 302 Dogs Non-�leltered; Non-Spayed S5.n0/Year ($1.00 dupiicate) 52.50 minimum* Neutered or Spayed 52.0�/Year (g1.06 duplicate) $1.00 minimum* 302 Dogs (Section 302.15 KENNELS) $25.00 607 Entertainment $60.Q0 *Pro-rated PASSED AND HDOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS 67H DAY OF JUNE, 1977 ATTEST: CITY CL RK - MARV N C. B UN ELL First Reading: May 16, 7977 Second Reading: dune 6, 1977 Publish.......: June 15, 1977 MA OR - ILLI J. NEE � Chapter 214. SIGNS 274.01 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the general weifare, health, safety and order within the City of Fridley through the establishnent of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations and procedures governing the erection, use and/or display of devices, signs or symbols serving as a visual communicative media to persons situated within � or upon public right of ways or properties. The provisions of this chapter are intended to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice. an opportunity for effect comnunication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing, displaying ar otherwise utilizing needed communicative media of the types regutated by this chaper; while at the same time, assuring that the public health and welfare is not endangered. (Ref. 438) 204.02. DEFINITIONS The,following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and application of this chapter and the following words and terms wherever the.y occur in this oha�ter are defined as follows: 1. ABANDONED SIGN: A sign which no longer correctly directs or exhorts any person, advertises a bona fide business, lessor, owner, product or activity conducted or product available on the premises where such sign is displayed. 2. ACCESSORY USE: A use which is subordinate to the principle use being made of a parcel of land. Exampies: Identification sign, off-street loading, telephone booth, etc. 3. ADYERTISING SIGN: A sign which is used to advertise products, 9oods, or services. 4. ADORESS SIGN: A sign with identification numbers only, whether written or in numerical form. � F 5. ALTERATION: Refers to any major change. to a sign, exclu�ing routine maintenance, painting or change of copy of an existing sign. 6. AREA INDENTIfICATION SIGN: A sign which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivisio�, a multiple residential complex,• or a business area. 7. BANNERS AND PENNANTS: Attention getting devices of paper, cloth, or plastic like consistency and which are of a temporary nature (including small plastic flags, grand opening signs, or special announcements). 8. BENCH SI�N 9. BILLBOARD A sign which is affixed to a bench, such as at a bus stop. An advertising sign which directs attent�on to a business, commodity, service, or entertainment not related to the premises at which the sign is located, or to a business, commodity, service or entertainment which is conducted, sold, or offered eisewhere than on the premises of which the sign is located, 10: CANOPY: A roof-like structure projecting over any entrance of a store, building or place of assembly. 11. CNANGEABLE COPY SI6N (MANUAL): A sign on which copy is changed manually in a field, i.e., reader boards with changeabie letters or changeab]e pictorial panels. T2. CHANGEABLE COPY SIGN (AUTOMA7IC): A sign such as an electronically or electrically controlled public service time, temperature and date sign message c.enter or reader board, where different copy changes are shown on the sart� lamp bank. 13. CONSTRUCTION SIGN; A sign placed at a construction site, identifying the project or the name of the architect, engineer, contractor� financeer or other invoTved parties. 14. DIRECTIONAL SIGN: A sign erected on public or private property which bears the address and/or name of a business, institution, church, or other use or activity plus directional arrows or information on location. � :� � 15. DISTRICT: Refers to a specific zoning district as defined in the Fridley Zonin9 Ordinance. 16. FLASHING SI6N: An il]uminated sign which contains intermittent lights or exhibits noticeable changes in color or light intensity. 17. FREE STANDING SIGN: A sign which is securely attached to the ground and not affixed to any part of any other structure. 18. GOVERNMENTAL SIGN: A sign whfch is erected by a governmental unit for the purpose of directing or guiding traffic or other public information. 19. INDENTIFICATION SIGN: A sign which states the name or address or both of the occupant or occupants of the lot or building where the sign is placed. � 20. ILLUMINA7ED SIGN: A sign which is illuminated by an artificial light source. 27. INFORMATION SIGN: A sign giving information to employees, visitors, or delivery vehicles, but containing no advertising or identification. 22, INSTITUTIQNAL SIGN: A sign or bulletin board which identified the name and other characteristics of a public or private institution on site where the sign is located. 23. MOTION SIGN: A sign which revolves, rotates� has moving parts, or gives the illusion of motion. 24. NON-CONFORMING SIGN: A sign which lawfully existed prior to the adoption of this ordinance but does not conform to the newly enacted requirements of this ordinance. 25. PERMENENT SIGN: A sign which is intended to 6e used for an indefinite period of time. 26. PORTABLE SI6N: A sign so designed as to be movable from one location to another and which is not permenently athached to the ground, sales display device, or structure. 27, PORTA-PANEL: A]0 foot by 20 foot, back to back, �bile advertising device, mounted on wheels and used for commercia] as well as civic promoti ons . ' 28. PROJECTING SIGN: A sign, other than a wall si9n, which is attached to any projects from a build�ng structure. 29. READER BOARD: Denotes a changeable copy sign. 30. ROOF SIGN: A sign which is erected. constructed, or attached wholly or i.n part above the roof of a building, except where the roof is an extended facade. 31. RUt�P1AGE/GARAGE SALE SIGN: A temporary sign which advertises or directs the public to an infrequent sale of generally used merchandise sold from a private residence. 32. SIGN: A lettered•board, or other display, and its support structure used to advertise, direct, identify, inform, or convey a message to one who views it. 33. SIGN AREA: The surface which bears the advertisement, or in the case of inessages, figures. or symbols attached directed to any part of the build9ng, that area which is included in the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe the message, figure, or symbol displayed thereon. The stipulated maximum sign area for a free standing sign r@fers to a single facing. 34. SIGN STRUCTURE: Any structure which supports, or is capab]e of supporting any sign. Said definition shall not include a building to which the sign is attached. 35. SF�PPING CENTER/MULTIPLE USE BUILDING: A building planned and developed for multiple occupancy use as cortunercial or industrial enterprise. 36. TEMPORARY SIGN: Any sign, banner, pennant, valance, or advertising disp]ay constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, or.cardboard wallboard, or other light materiais with or without frames; intended to be displayed for a limited period of time only. _„�.e . 37, WALL SI6N: A sign which is affixed to a wall of any building. 38.. WALL 6RAPHICS: A graphic design or decorative mural not intended for identification or advertising purposes, which is painted directly on an exterior wall surface. 39. WINDOW SIGN: A sign installed inside a window for purposes of , viewing from outside the premises. This term does not include , merchandise located in a window. 40. UNLAWFUL SIGN: A sign which is in conflict with this Code or which the administrator may declare as unlawful if it becomes dangerous to the pnblic safety by reason of dilapidation or abandonment of a sign for which a.permit required under a previous Code was not obtained. '� •214.03 6eneral Provisions For All Districts 214.031 Signs Prohibited In All Districts **notes items with exception 1. Permanent signs ather than Governmenta7 signs erected or temporarily :"uced within any street right-of-way or upon any public easement. 2. Signs or wall graphics that contain words or pictures of obscene, pornographic or imnoral character,.or that contain untruthful advertising. 3. Signs painted directly on buildings. **4. �rtable signs ( except for those provided for under "Uses Permitted in all Zoning.") 5. Signs which resembles an official traffic sign or signal or bears the words "stop, go, slow" or similar words used for traffic control (except for directional signs on private property. 6. Signs which by reason of size, iocation, movement, content, coloring, or manner of illumination may be confused with a traffic control sign, signal or device, or the light of an emergency or road equipment vehicle, or which hide from view any traffic, street sign, signal or device. 7. Projecting Signs � 8. Motion Signs **9. Illuminated sign which changes in either color or in intensity of light ar is animated, or has flashing or intermittent lights (inctuding traveling electronic r�ssage centers or Electronic message centers which change more than once every 15 minutes except one giving time, temperature, or nther public information. 10. Advertising signs, (except window s�gns aliowed only in C1, C2, CR1, CR2, C1S and CES Zoning district or franchise trade maks pertinent to the business) 11. Signs located within corner setback requirements (ordinance A) 205.154 3) 12. Roof Signs 13. Revolving beacons, zip flashers, and similar devices, including any sources of light which change in intensity,, 14. Porta-panels 15. Reader Boards (Nithout a Special Use Permit) 214.043 SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS 1. Address Signs: Each dwelling. business, or buildin9 must have a minimum of one address sign, minimum of 3 1/2"'hight, maximum of 18" high, illuminated or reflective, attached to the dwelling and visiable from public right-of-way. If the attached address sign cannot be visable from the public right-of-way, the address must be either on the curb or on the mailbox. 2: Bench Signs: To be permitted only at bus stops; cannot be any larger than, or extend, beyond any portion of the bench, 3. U.S. Flag: Follow Title 36, Section 173-378 of the U.S. Code, State Flag, Corporate Flag. 4. Directional Signs: (public and private) (a) Maximum four (4) square feet per facing; (b) Minimum ten (10) feet from street right-of-way; (c) Except that a sign directing the public to a hospital may be a maximum of twenty-four (24} square feet in area. 5. Institutional Signs: (a) Maxi�m twenty-four (24} square feet; (b) Minimum ten (10) feet from street right-of-way; (c} Except a hospital emergency sign which is located on the premises may by �ne hundreA (100) square feet in area.) 6. Area Identification Signs: (see individual district regulations). 7. Standard Safeiy Identification Signage as used by public atilities> highway departments, etc. 8. Temporary Signs: (a) Construction 1. Developments: Temporary construction signs may be erected for the • purpose of promoting a project of ten (10) or more residential dwelling � units ten (10j or more +rabile horr�s, three (3) or more multiple dwe7lings, or a business. (a) Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area; (b) One (1} sign per street frontage; (c) Sign shall be removed when project is completed; (d) Sign sha11 not be located closer than one hundred (100) feet � to an existing building structure outside of the development. 2. Individual Lots or Buildings: (a) Sign shail not exceed six (6) square feet in area; (b) One (1) s�gn per street frontage; (c) Sign will be rerraved upon completion. {B) Real Estate Signs 1. Developments: Temporary real estate signs may be erected for the purpose of selling or promoting a project of Ten (10) or more residential dwelling units, ten (10) or more mobile homes, three (3) or more multiple dwellings, or a business. (a) Sign shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet in area: (b) One (1) sign per street frontage; (cj Sign shall be removed when project is ninety-five (95) percent compTeted, sold or leased; (d) Sign shal] not be ]ocated closer than one hundred (]00) feet to an exis�ar�g building structure outside of the development. 2. Individual Lots or Buildings (a) Sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet in area; (b) One (1) sign per street frontage; (c) Extra "open house" signs to be allowed only during day of open house; (d) Sign will be removed within five (5) days following sale or lease. (C) Political Signs � 1. Maximum size shall not exceed 32 square feet; 2. Signs shall not be erected before closing of filing date. 3. Signs shall be removed within five (5) days following the election; 4. A fifteen dollar ($15.00) deposit wi11 be depasited with the city prior to the erection of signs and retained until the signs are removed. If signs are not removed, the deposit wili be used to defray the cost of removal. Any additional' cost will be billed to the party posting the original deposit. 5. Any political sign larger than 3 sq. feet must be placed 3 ft. from public right-of-way. (D) Garage or Rummage Sale Signs. 1. Maximum size three (3) square feet; 2. Must be removed within three (3) days following end of sale; 3. If not removed, removal costs will be levied against the occupant at the address of the advertised sale. (E1 Banners or pensants comnemorating a special event not connected with a business (such as Fridley 49'er Days). Banner or pennants for businessess will be allowed for grand openings of business only for a ten day maximum period. 214.04 District Requirements 214.041 Sizes, Set6acks and other Requirements for R1, R2, and R2A (a) Area Ideniification Sign 1. One (i) per major development; 2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet; 3. Minimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-way. 214.042 Sizes, Setback and other Requirements .for R3 and R3A (a) Area Identification signs i. One (1) per development; 2. Maxirr�m size twenty-four (24) square feet; 3. Minimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-way. (b) ya.cancy Signs 1. Maximum three (3) square feet in area ��a Z. Minimuro ten �10� feet from public right-of-way. 214.043 Sizes, setbacks and other Requirertients for R4 (a) Area Identification Sign 1. One (1) per development 2. Maximum size twenty-four (24) square feet; 3. Minimum ten (10) feet from public right-of-way. 214.044 Sizes, setbacks and other requirements for C1, C2, CR1, CR2 (a) allow area Identification Sign 1. One per development (b) Free Standing Signs 1. One (i) per street frontage � 2. Maximum eighty (80) square feet per deve9opment 3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet above lot grade 4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished ground level; 5. Minimum ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway; (C) Windrn,r Signage: Forty (40) percent of windaw area, exc7uding merchandise. (D) Wall Signs: Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root of the wall area on which the sign is to be placed (E) Gas Stations: gas price signs are allowed only as an inte9ral part of the identification sign or pump island. 23d.045 Sizes, Setbacks and other requirements for C7S ar+d C2S {a) Area Identification Sign: One (i) area identification sign allowed per development (b) Free Standing Signs 1. One per street frontage 2. Eigfity (8U) square feet per development 3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet above grade 4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished ground level. 5. Miniroum ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. (C) Wjndow Signage: Forty (40) percent of window area, excluding merchandise. [D� Wall Signs: Wall Signs area sha11 not exceed 1.5 times the square root of the wall area on which the sign is to be placed. 214.046 Sizes, Setbacks, and other Requirements for M1, M2 (a) free-standing Sign. 1. One (1) free-standing sign per building or multiple use building. 2. Maximum eighty (80) square feet per development 3. Maximum height twenty-five (25) feet from grade; 4. Minimum height ten (10) feet from bottom of sign to finished ground level; 5. Minimum ten (10) feet from a property line or driveway; (b) Wall Signs. � 1. Maximum two (2) wall signs per business allowed on different walls; 2. Wall sign area shall not exceed 1.5 times the square root of the wall area �n which the sign is to be placed; 214.047 P and PD Districts Si9n requirements in P and PD areas would be controlled by the city council when the development is planned. 214.048 (a) Within sixty days (60) of the adoption of tfiis code, all owners of shopping centers and multiple use buildings of three Qr more businesses, must submit a comprehensive sign pian for their center' or building to the Ldn�ing Administrator for approval. (b) A1] future permits within the shopping center and multiple use 6uilding areas shall conform to the conditions of the sign ptan and may be subject to conditions other than those in the district regutations 9n order to prcmote a uniform combination af signs. �.�.r�i 214.05 6ENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. PermiLs {a) Before a sign may be displayed in the City of Fridley, the owner or leasee of the premises on which the sign is located shall file application with the City Zoning Administrator for permission to display such sign. Permits are required for all existing, new, relocated, modified or redesigned signs except those specifically exempt under Section 214.07-214.071, inclusive. (b) The issuance of a permit may also be subject to additional conditions in order to promote a more reasonable combination of signs and to promote conformity with the character and uses of adjoining property. The conditions will be subject to the discretion of the zoning administrator of the zoning administrator. (c) Temporary signs erected by a non-profil organization are not exempt from obtaining a permit for signs, but the City does waive the fee requirement. (d} No permit is required under this Section for tbe following signs; i. A window sign. 2. Signs erected by a governmental unit or public school district. 3. Memorial signs ar tablets containing the name of the building, its use and date of erection when cut or built into the walls of the building and constructed of bronze, brass, stone or marble. 4. Signs which are completely within a building and are not visible from the outside of said building. 5. Temporary signs (as required in Section 213.032 (8) of this Code). � � 2. App]ication (a�) Rpplication for permits shal] be mede to the Zoning Administrator, (b) If a sign authorized by permit has not been installed within ninety (90) days after the date of issuance of said permit, the permit shall become null and void unless an extension is granted ' by the Building Inspection Department. (c) The Zoning Administrator may require other information concerning safety. 3. fees The annual permit fee and expiration date shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. 4. License, Fees, Bond No person, firm or corporation shal] engage in the business of erecting signs under this chaper. unless licensed to do so by the City Council. Such license may be granted by the City Council after written application to the City Clerk. The annual license fee and expiration date shatl be as provided in Chapter 11 of this Code. No license shall take effect until the licensees sha71 file with the City Clerk a corporate surety bond in the sum of $1,000.Q0, conditioned that the ]icensees shall conform to all of the provisions of this chapter and inderonify and hold the City, its officers and gents, harmless from and damage or ciaim resulting fran or related to the erection or maintenance of any sign in the City by the licensee. A license and bond shall not be required of an applicant, who is not engaged in the business of erecting signs, and who chooses to construct and erect his own sign on his property. 5. Exemptions The exemptions permitted by Section 2U4.05 shall apply onty to the requirement of a permit and/or fee, and shall not be construded as relieving the installer of the si9n, or the owner of the property upon ' which the sign is located, from conforming with the other provisions of this chapter. 6. Maintenance (a) Every sign shall be maintained in a safe, presentable, good structural material condition at all times. (b) It shall be deemed a violation of this chapter when a sign becomes twenty-five (25) percent in need . of repair. Yf.l . ' 4-' (c) The Zoning ADministrator or �agents , shall be responsible for the enforcement of this chapter. 7. Existing Signs (a) Signs Eligible for "Legal Non-conforming" Status: Ariy sign located within the City limits on the date of adoption of this ordinance, which does not conform with the provisions of this ordinance, is eligible as a"legal non-conforming" sign and is permitted provided it also meets the following requirements: 1. The sign was covered by a sign permit or variance on the date of the adoption of this ordinance, if one was required under applicable law; or 2. If no sign permit was required under applicable law for the sign in question, the sign was in all respects in compliance with applicab7e law on the date of adoption of this ordinance. (bJ Loss or Legal Non-conforming Status A legal non-conforming sign shall immediately lose its legal non- conforming designation if: 1, The sign is altered in any way in structure or copy (except for changeable copy and normal maintenance) which tends to or makes the si9n less in compliance with the requir�nents of this ordinance than it was before the alternations; or w .. .. .. . �.._. .... . . ��I�'�e 0 2. The sign is reiocated to a position making it less in canpliance with the requirments of this ordinance; or 3. the sign is replaced; or 4. When there is a change in owner, tenant or lessee, the legal non- conforming sign will become illegal and said sign must be brought into compliance with the ordinanceo 5. When signage becames fifty (50) percent dilapidated or fifty (50) percent in compliance, the remainder of the signage 9s :to be brought into compliance also. C. Abandoned Signs: Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, any sign which ' identifies a 6usiness that has stopped operation for a period of three months or �re, or any sign which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Permanent signs appiicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change of ownership, or management of such business, shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of three months or more. An abandoned sign is prohibited and shall be removed by the owner of the sign or the owner of the premises. 214.06 ENFORCEMENT 1. Violations of Code (a} Any sign that does not comply with the provisions of this ordinance. (b} A sign that is a hazard to the safety and welfare of the public (sucfi as exposed wires. broken glass, weak support structure, broken pieces of inetal, etc.) 2: Notification of Violation of Code (a) If the Zoning Administrator or agents sha11 find that any sign K3 regulated by this chapter is unsafe, insecure, or is a menace to the public; or has been constructed or erected without a permit first being granted to the owner of the property upon which said sign has been erected, or is in violation of any other provisions of this � chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner � or permitee thereof. If the owner fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this chapter, within ten (10) calendar days following receipt of said notice, such signs may be removed by the City. The cost of this removal, including City expenses, shall be as a special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located. (b) The Zoning Administrator or his agent may cause any sign or other advertising structure which is a. public hazard surtpnarily and without notice. to be removed (c) When the City sends the notice of violation, they wi11 send a copy to both the permit holder a�d the 7andowner, if they are different. Penalty for Violation of Code Any violation of this chapter is a misaemeanor and is subject to all penalties provided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of the Fridley City Code. Each day the violation continues in existence shall be deemed a separate viotation. A11 signs are subject to such penalty for violation of the requirements of the district within which they are located even though they may not be required by this chaper to pay a fee or acquire a permit. 4. Appeals To provide for a reasonsble interpretation of the provisions of this chapter, a permit applicant who wishes to appeal an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator or agents, , may file a notice of appeals ,... with the City and request a hearing 6efore the Appeals Commission. The Cortmission sha11 hear the appeal and make their recommendation to the City Council who has final action: � _,��- � `�� _ _ __ � � - �� . �; �y � 7 _ _ ,��/ i of� �! � �� - 4 � ��-� � �/� � � _ %�� '�o�-� G�5-� � �� S t /U� _. _ _ . __ __ _ -- � - _